One for the bottleheads
Eiron
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/01/22/svturnon22.xml
--
Eiron
I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.
Nick Gorham
> In the Sunday Telegraph, an endorsement for Audio Note:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/01/22/svturnon22.xml
>
>
certainly a character, but I suspect that the split from Audio Note
Japan, was not done in a entirly above board and even manner, shall I say.
Also sad to hear of the recent death of Kondo San.
Reading a review of the AN UK's amp called Ongaku, it sounds a bit of a
dog's dinner, especially when compaired to the still in production AN
Japan amp of the same name, that the UK one is hoping people will assume
is the same thing.
--
Nick
Dave Plowman (News)
Eiron <e1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Sunday Telegraph, an endorsement for Audio Note:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/01/22/svturnon22.xml
Love the bit about valve based systems over transistors being that it
sounds like real musicians playing. But of course ignores the fact that
whatever he's listening to will have gone through probably thousands of
transistors before being played at home. It's possible the actual output
stage of his valve power amp is altering things to the sound he prefers -
but this could be cheaply reproduced by some high and low pass filtering
of a transistor amp...
--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Ian Iveson
>> In the Sunday Telegraph, an endorsement for Audio Note:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/01/22/svturnon22.xml
>
> Love the bit about valve based systems over transistors being that
> it
> sounds like real musicians playing. But of course ignores the fact
> that
> whatever he's listening to will have gone through probably
> thousands of
> transistors before being played at home. It's possible the actual
> output
> stage of his valve power amp is altering things to the sound he
> prefers -
> but this could be cheaply reproduced by some high and low pass
> filtering
> of a transistor amp...
There is more to this than has met your eye.
Firstly, SS guitar amps couldn't hit the spot until DSP, and even
now most DSP is shit. That's a whole lot of development time and
cost, so there goes your "cheaply reproduced" hypothesis. Simulating
valve amp behaviour with SS circuits may be easy in your head, but
not in practice.
Secondly, I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The
"sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical
combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
performer, and is optimised for that purpose.
I am told that some SS amps are equally capable, and have no reason
to believe otherwise. But they aren't cheaply modified versions of
circuits previously intended for mere reproduction.
cheers, Ian
Wally
> ... The
> "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> reproduction.
Agreed.
> Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
> previous performance by someone else.
I don't believe anyone said they were.
> Neither is a typical
> combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
> performer, and is optimised for that purpose.
Eh? Real musicians aren't trying to be a perfect clone of a previous
performance by someone else, therefore SET amplifiers aren't reproduction
equipment?? Talk about arguing apples and oranges...
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com
Dave Plowman (News)
Ian Iveson <IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Love the bit about valve based systems over transistors being that it
> > sounds like real musicians playing. But of course ignores the fact
> > that whatever he's listening to will have gone through probably
> > thousands of transistors before being played at home. It's possible
> > the actual output stage of his valve power amp is altering things to
> > the sound he prefers - but this could be cheaply reproduced by some
> > high and low pass filtering of a transistor amp...
> There is more to this than has met your eye.
> Firstly, SS guitar amps couldn't hit the spot until DSP, and even
> now most DSP is shit. That's a whole lot of development time and
> cost, so there goes your "cheaply reproduced" hypothesis. Simulating
> valve amp behaviour with SS circuits may be easy in your head, but
> not in practice.
Err, a valve guitar amp sounds as it does when it is overdriven and
distorting. It's also driving a crap loudspeaker designed for that purpose.
If you don't believe me try feeding the output of a CD into the line input
and see just how bad it sounds on music.
The requirements for a home system are *totally* different.
To enlarge, the amp/speaker combo is part of the actual instrument if an
electric guitar, synthesizer etc. So it's perfectly ok to have that change
the sound from the pickup. But not on a reproducing system - it should be
as neutral to the signal input as possible.
> Secondly, I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The
> "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
> previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical
> combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
> performer, and is optimised for that purpose.
But it's not a performer - that is just rubbish. It's reproducing an
already recorded performance. And although an inaccurate reproducing
system might on occasion improve the sound of a recording in general it
simply will make it worse.
> I am told that some SS amps are equally capable, and have no reason
> to believe otherwise. But they aren't cheaply modified versions of
> circuits previously intended for mere reproduction.
I can see we'll never agree, then. ;-)
--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *
bugbear
> In article <43h5imF...@individual.net>,
> Eiron <e1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the Sunday Telegraph, an endorsement for Audio Note:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/01/22/svturnon22.xml
>
> Love the bit about valve based systems over transistors being that it
> sounds like real musicians playing. But of course ignores the fact that
> whatever he's listening to will have gone through probably thousands of
> transistors before being played at home.
And balanced by an engineer using amplifiers and speakers
that a hi-fi enthusiast wouldn't like much :-)
BugBear
Andy Evans
altering things to the sound he prefers - but this could be cheaply
reproduced by some high and low pass filtering of a transistor amp...
>>
No - that's an old myth.
John Phillips
But if it can't be produced by filtering (i.e. general linear signal
processing) then the valve power amp is producing either:
- nonlinear distortion (harmonics; anharmonic distortion incl. intermod,
jitter, wow, flutter; or compression); or
- noise;
As far as I can see linear modification to the signal (i.e. amplitude and
phase changes that are signal-independent - i.e. filtering) and the list
above are in theory the only possible things you can inflict on a signal.
--
John Phillips
Rob
Thought it might be - turning into the Land of Myths in here ATM :-)
Rob
Keith G
"Rob" <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dr3ace$f9p$2...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Not surprising - we live in the Land Of Bullshinformation.......
My own tendancy is now to *disbelieve* just about anything I see on the
telly or Internet. (I don't read newspapers - I like my bullshit bang up to
date!!)
Latest snippet - just now on the telly (silly slot - Local News) a gurlie
holds a very small quantity of Shreddies (may have even been the sugar
coated type) in a little dish and tells a bunch of morons (whose kid's teeth
are falling out) that they contain the equivalent of 6 sugar cubes. No facts
or figures (as usual) but I suspect the sugar cubes weighed *more* than the
Shreddies, from what I could see...
Serge Auckland
"John Phillips" <news...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndtabbj....@linux.mainly.me.uk...
Valve amplifiers produce significantly higher harmonic distortion and
consequently intermodulation distortion than most SS amps. Furthermore, the
distortion products rise at lower and higher frequencies compared with SS
amps. Furthermore still, distortions rise with increasing output at a faster
rate than SS amps, which tend to maintain low distortion up until clipping,
where the distortion rises dramatically. Valve amps tend to have a much more
gentle increase in distortion with increasing level that it gets difficult
to decide what the maximum level of a valve amp actually is. It used to be
the case that maximum output was specified at a somewhat arbitrary 1% THD
figure.
Noise is not that much of an issue with valve power amps, that easily manage
90-100dB S/N ratios.
Whilst it could be possible to devise a DSP algorithm that replicates the
behaviour of a valve amp, it would be a pretty difficult thing to do, and
given that each valve amp design has it's own unique mix of factors, at
best, each DSP algorithm would mimic one valve amp design.
Considering that a well-designed valve amp can sound identical to a SS amp
operated also within it's design parameters, there seems little point in
trying to make a SS amp sound like a valve amp. Why would one bother except
as an academic exercise in DSP programming?
S.
John Phillips
> "John Phillips" <news...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrndtabbj....@linux.mainly.me.uk...
>> On 2006-01-23, Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's possible the actual output stage of his valve power amp is
>>>> altering things to the sound he prefers - but this could be cheaply
>>>> reproduced by some high and low pass filtering of a transistor amp...
>>>
>>> No - that's an old myth.
>>
>> But if it can't be produced by filtering (i.e. general linear signal
>> processing) then the valve power amp is producing either:
>>
>> - nonlinear distortion (harmonics; anharmonic distortion incl. intermod,
>> jitter, wow, flutter; or compression); or
>>
>> - noise;
>>
>> As far as I can see linear modification to the signal (i.e. amplitude and
>> phase changes that are signal-independent - i.e. filtering) and the list
>> above are in theory the only possible things you can inflict on a signal.
>
> consequently intermodulation distortion than most SS amps. Furthermore, the
> distortion products rise at lower and higher frequencies compared with SS
> amps. Furthermore still, distortions rise with increasing output at a faster
> rate than SS amps, which tend to maintain low distortion up until clipping,
> where the distortion rises dramatically. Valve amps tend to have a much more
> gentle increase in distortion with increasing level that it gets difficult
> to decide what the maximum level of a valve amp actually is. It used to be
> the case that maximum output was specified at a somewhat arbitrary 1% THD
> figure.
OK to all of that.
> Noise is not that much of an issue with valve power amps, that easily manage
> 90-100dB S/N ratios.
I included it only for completeness.
> Whilst it could be possible to devise a DSP algorithm that replicates the
> behaviour of a valve amp, it would be a pretty difficult thing to do, and
> given that each valve amp design has it's own unique mix of factors, at
> best, each DSP algorithm would mimic one valve amp design.
To continue in the devil'a advocate position ( :-) ), I am sure I could
do a good amplitude-phase versus frequency plot (for a particular valve
amplifier) and get a FIR design program to fit it to a certain degree
of accuracy (perhaps with a lot of taps!).
Indeed I am almost sure I could find a lab at my workplace with the kit.
> Considering that a well-designed valve amp can sound identical to a SS amp
> operated also within it's design parameters, there seems little point in
> trying to make a SS amp sound like a valve amp. Why would one bother except
> as an academic exercise in DSP programming?
I agree. Except perhaps if it's a GBP 28,000 pair of Audio Note SETs
I am replicating for a lot less cash ... :-) But perhaps I would then find
the non-linearities rather more difficult to reproduce :-(
--
John Phillips
Dave Plowman (News)
Ok - add in some distortion as well. 'Valve' sound being something special
is a myth.
--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?
Andy Evans
special
is a myth. >>
I know where you want to take this so I won't bother continuing.
Ian Iveson
Wally wrote
>
>> ... The
>> "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
>> reproduction.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
>> previous performance by someone else.
>
> I don't believe anyone said they were.
So? I am simply emphasising the point that real performance is not
about reproduction.
>> Neither is a typical
>> combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
>> performer, and is optimised for that purpose.
>
> Eh? Real musicians aren't trying to be a perfect clone of a
> previous
> performance by someone else, therefore SET amplifiers aren't
> reproduction
> equipment?? Talk about arguing apples and oranges...
You insert the "therefore", and then you object to its presence. How
daft is that?
Let me see if I can put therefore in better places:
The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
reproduction.
Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce
the "sound of real musicians playing".
SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction,
but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".
Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound
of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for
reproduction.
Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.
Whether they actually do or not, I don't know. I'm just examining
the logic of the arguments.
cheers, Ian
Ian Iveson
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ded48a...@davenoise.co.uk...
Of course. So what? Your point was that the behaviour of valves can
be simulated cheaply. I say it can't. A guitar amp obviously
accentuates valve behaviour, but the difficulty in simulation is in
the quality rather than the quantity. It is just as difficult to
simulate mild distortion.
I used guitar amps as a real example of the state of the art of
simulating valve behaviour. If you have another real example I'm
happy to go along with that.
> To enlarge, the amp/speaker combo is part of the actual instrument
> if an
> electric guitar, synthesizer etc.
No kidding?
> So it's perfectly ok to have that change
> the sound from the pickup.
Er...the pickup doesn't have a sound. The instrument as a whole has
a sound. That's why the aim of the amp/speaker combo is not
reproduction. Isn't that the point you have just made? But what are
we talking about pickups for?
> But not on a reproducing system - it should be
> as neutral to the signal input as possible.
As a matter of definition, of course. That is what reproduction
means. Reproducing the signal is not the same as reproducing the
sound, of course, but I gather it is axiomatic for reproductionists
that "being neutral to the signal" is a prerequisite of accurate
sound reproduction. I accept the point on the face of it, although I
can think of unlikely situations in which it would not be true.
>> Secondly, I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The
>> "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
>> reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce
>> a
>> previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical
>> combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
>> performer, and is optimised for that purpose.
>
> But it's not a performer - that is just rubbish. It's reproducing
> an
> already recorded performance. And although an inaccurate
> reproducing
> system might on occasion improve the sound of a recording in
> general it
> simply will make it worse.
But it *is* a performer, unquestionably, whether it is attempting
reproduction or not. If you aim for accuracy and fail, then your
inaccuracies, for want of due consideration, will probably make all
media sound worse. And fail you must, even when trying makes sense,
which mostly it doesn't these days because there was no original
performance in the first place, up to the point of final mixing.
But you must have been round most of these circles many times! The
real point I am making here is about music, not about technology.
Real music is about performance, and good performers transcend mere
reproduction. There is no reason to believe this is only true of
human performers, so it may equally be true of sound systems.
>> I am told that some SS amps are equally capable, and have no
>> reason
>> to believe otherwise. But they aren't cheaply modified versions
>> of
>> circuits previously intended for mere reproduction.
>
> I can see we'll never agree, then. ;-)
Maybe some day. Surely you hope for enlightenment ;-)
cheers, Ian
Arny Krueger
message
news:OOMAf.178865$vl2.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> Dave Plowman wrote
>
>>> In the Sunday Telegraph, an endorsement for Audio Note:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/01/22/svturnon22.xml
>>
>> Love the bit about valve based systems over transistors
>> being that it
>> sounds like real musicians playing. But of course
>> ignores the fact that
>> whatever he's listening to will have gone through
>> probably thousands of
>> transistors before being played at home. It's possible
>> the actual output
>> stage of his valve power amp is altering things to the
>> sound he prefers -
>> but this could be cheaply reproduced by some high and
>> low pass filtering
>> of a transistor amp...
>
> There is more to this than has met your eye.
>
> Firstly, SS guitar amps couldn't hit the spot until DSP,
> and even now most DSP is shit.
Yet another bozo who doesn't know about the profound differences between
making music and reproducing music....
Iain Churches
"Serge Auckland" <serge.a...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43d533dc$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
John, while I agree with your statement above, we ought to get valve amp
performance in better perspective. THD of 0.1% at full pwer is not
difficult to achieve. (Harold Leak did it in the 1950s)
On my own homebrew 50W PP valve amp the THD is about 0.03%
at a lusty listening level. Could anyone hear an improvement if it were
less?
Good makers quote their max power at 0.1% THD.
My KT88 50W amp is aproaching 72W at 1%, but an honest man
would still refer to it as a 50W amplifier.
Iain
Iain Churches
>> Ok - add in some distortion as well. 'Valve' sound being something
>> special
>> is a myth.
"Andy Evans" replied:
>> I know where you want to take this so I won't bother continuing.
>
Dave. The 6CG7 in mu-follower topology has typical THD of
0.02% so not too much of your "added distortion" there, Do
you think you could hear it?
But are you saying that you cannot hear the difference in the
sound (i.e. on musical performance) of a 6CG7 made by
Westinghouse and one from Sovtek?
If not, I agree with Andy, this would be a good place to leave it.
Iain
Ian Iveson
> Yet another bozo who doesn't know about the profound differences
> between making music and reproducing music....
>Nope, I do both, and they feel different.
Context, Arny...you must get tired of being so trigger-happy.
cheers, Ian
Iain Churches
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:43d4b001$0$2683$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Hi BB. Do you have experience of studio work?
Most studios pay a great deal of attention to the acoustic of both
the studio, and the control room. Their huge investment and their
future depends on it.
Most hi-fi enthusiasts have an audio system in their living room
placed to accomodate the dining table, chairs, the three piece
suite, the TV, the PC, the aspidistra, the rocking horse and
the children's toys:-)
Few have a dedicated music room, and fewer still have a budget
for equipment and acoustic treatment of the standard even
approaching that found in a good studio control room.
As an example, B+W Nautilus 802 loudspeakers are
often the loudspeaker of choice in studios control rooms.
I have come across only a couple of "hi-fi enthusiasts" who
have these, but know of no-one who does not like them:-)
The same can be said of the Crown Machro-Tech MA500
power amplifier (RRP US$ 4,200) which many studio use
to drive them.
Keith G
"Andy Evans" <performan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138058788.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Despite the *flood* of valve gear into this country and the fact that half
the space in all 'hifi comix' is given over to valves nowadays, there are
still on or two in this group who walk the streets of a weekend with a
sandwich board on which says 'The End Of The Valve Is Nigh!' on the front
and 'Eat At Joe's' on the back....
:-)
Andy Evans
half
the space in all 'hifi comix' is given over to valves nowadays, there
are
still on or two in this group who walk the streets of a weekend with a
sandwich board on which says 'The End Of The Valve Is Nigh!' on the
front
and 'Eat At Joe's' on the back.... >
On any newsgroup you'll find threads and threads on themes that seem to
defy any need for them. If it's jazz, then every couple of weeks it'll
be 'Is jazz dead?' If it's classical it'll be 'what's the future of
classical music?'. The equivalent of the Archers on this ng seems to be
"do solid state amps sound better than valve amps", and the mythology
usually contains one or other of the following:
a) there are good valve amps and bad ones (presumably all ss amps are
'good') the 'good ones' (sic) can sound as good as some ss amps.
b) musicians have no understanding of sound because they all listen on
kitchen radios or in the car between gigs. That shows they're deaf
c) all you have to do to get a valve amp to sound like a solid state
one is add distortion to it
d) people who own and use solid state amps do so in the secure
knowledge that their technology offers the lowest measured distortion
and is therefore most like the original sound of the instruments.
e) Valve users who 'think' valves sound more like the original
instruments are deluded, but it's all right because if you like
euphonic music, however inaccurate, that's your choice as long as you
admit you're deluded and prefer euphonic music to the real thing.
I could go on and on, but of course it is vital to be factual here and
show proper respect for engineering (audio is engineering, not music,
even if you buy audio for nothing else except to listen to music). So
without more ado I present an excerpt from the defining paper on this
subject by one of the acknowledged pioneers of audio engineering:
"Why you should use a SET amplifier.
As everybody knows, high power amplifiers use larger electrons to
achieve this high power. The bigger electrons don't start or stop as
fast as normal electrons resulting in much heavier, less nimble Watts.
So high power amplifiers can never have the finesse of low power
amplifiers. High sensitivity speakers only work with the smaller
electrons (the smallest are produced by tube amplifiers). Thus if you
use a high power amplifier with sensitive speakers you need a
transformer that slims down the electrons and makes them swifter. Such
transformers are available from Jenny Craig Audio Inc., Phen-Fenophile
Corp. and the US Nuclear Agency. Crucially, don't forget to elevate the
amplifiers above the speakers, so the signal can flow easier."
References:
"SET sound and badger worship" 1923, John O'Groats
"Slimmer electrons - the op-amp cookbook" 1976 Walt Jung
"The use of transformers in unarmed military combat during the Crimean
War, pp 234-7 and appendix 5" 1967 Home Office Publications
"Why I am addicted to chocolate, and further essays on the
transportation of gas by pipeline" 2001, (In "Collected Memoirs)
Vladimir Putin
Wally
> Let me see if I can put therefore in better places:
>
> The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> reproduction.
Agreed.
> Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce
> the "sound of real musicians playing".
>
> SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction,
> but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".
I question your use of the qualifier "designed". It is outwith the context
given in...
----------
The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction.
----------
The context is *sound*, specifically that of real musicians playing, and not
amplifier design, or design intent. Moreover, designing for X doesn't entail
X.
> Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound
> of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for
> reproduction.
Your introducton of "more like" suggests that your earlier comment that a
SET "system *is* a live performer" [your emphasis] is no longer what you're
saying, but that it's 'sorta like' a live performer.
Naturally (ho-ho), one wonders what sort of 'live performer' is it like. Is
it like a guitarist? If you don't mean it's like a real musician (a common
example of a live performer, the sound of which being the focus of this very
discourse), then what sort of live performer is it like? An automaton
operated by means of mains electricity?
> Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.
Some people say their burnt toast has Jesus on it. For some suitable value
of true, it is indeed true, but, without knowing what that value is, their
testimony doesn't add anything.
> Whether they actually do or not, I don't know. I'm just examining
> the logic of the arguments.
Given the premise that the sound of real musicians playing can never come
about by reproduction, it follows that, for an amp to 'sound like real
musicians playing', then said amp must be a part of the real musician's
sound equipment - the source of the music being produced by the real
musician. For example, a guitar amp. Any amplifier which is being used
outwith the context of being part of the musician's equipment is functioning
as a reproducer.
Dave Plowman (News)
I'm not surprised. If you want to alter the incoming signal to something
'better' to your ears that's your prerogative. I just expect it to be
reproduced as accurately as possible - since I'm often in the position of
knowing what the original recording sounded like. A good valve power amp
is of course capable of doing this, but at very much greater cost than a
SS one.
--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?
Wally
>> So it's perfectly ok to have that change
>> the sound from the pickup.
>
> Er...the pickup doesn't have a sound.
Insofar as they don't have something that vibrates air, but they do have
characteristic signal qualitities, like the difference between single coil
and humbucker. If an amplifier can be said to have a 'sound', then I'd say a
pickup can as well.
Andy Evans
ears that's your prerogative. I just expect it to be reproduced as
accurately as possible>
Well, I must confess I've secretly wanted to turn a viola into a
bassoon and a bass clarinet into a crumhorn, but then I'm just a
professional musician so what would I know. The idea that I would want
an oboe to sound like an oboe looks like it's just too radical to
understand. Never mind. As I say, I'm just a professional musician -
what would I know.
Dave Plowman (News)
Ian Iveson <IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Err, a valve guitar amp sounds as it does when it is overdriven and
> > distorting. It's also driving a crap loudspeaker designed for that
> > purpose. If you don't believe me try feeding the output of a CD into
> > the line input and see just how bad it sounds on music.
> >
> > The requirements for a home system are *totally* different.
> Of course. So what? Your point was that the behaviour of valves can
> be simulated cheaply. I say it can't. A guitar amp obviously
> accentuates valve behaviour, but the difficulty in simulation is in
> the quality rather than the quantity. It is just as difficult to
> simulate mild distortion.
I'd rather not. In a home system. If you like distortion you're welcome to
it. Bit like preferring vinyl to CD - assuming both are correctly mastered.
> I used guitar amps as a real example of the state of the art of
> simulating valve behaviour. If you have another real example I'm
> happy to go along with that.
> > To enlarge, the amp/speaker combo is part of the actual instrument if
> > an electric guitar, synthesizer etc.
> No kidding?
You're not really following this argument, are you?
> > So it's perfectly ok to have that change
> > the sound from the pickup.
> Er...the pickup doesn't have a sound.
You're saying all guitar pickups etc sound the same? I think you need to
get out more. ;-) They don't - anymore than microphones or vinyl record
cartridges all sound the same.
> The instrument as a whole has a sound. That's why the aim of the
> amp/speaker combo is not reproduction. Isn't that the point you have
> just made? But what are we talking about pickups for?
Because you seem to be confusing valve distortion from an electronic
instrument - pleasant as it may be - with the requirements of a good
domestic reproducing system.
> > But not on a reproducing system - it should be as neutral to the
> > signal input as possible.
> As a matter of definition, of course. That is what reproduction
> means. Reproducing the signal is not the same as reproducing the
> sound, of course,
It is.
> but I gather it is axiomatic for reproductionists
> that "being neutral to the signal" is a prerequisite of accurate
> sound reproduction. I accept the point on the face of it, although I
> can think of unlikely situations in which it would not be true.
If you love the sound of a well overdriven guitar amp producing n%
distortion and then do the same at home you end up with n%x2 distortion.
Great for the musician who wanted more distortion than he could get
originally - but not if he was happy with the original.
> >> Secondly, I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The
> >> "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> >> reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
> >> previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical
> >> combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
> >> performer, and is optimised for that purpose.
> >
> > But it's not a performer - that is just rubbish. It's reproducing an
> > already recorded performance. And although an inaccurate reproducing
> > system might on occasion improve the sound of a recording in general
> > it simply will make it worse.
> But it *is* a performer, unquestionably, whether it is attempting
> reproduction or not. If you aim for accuracy and fail, then your
> inaccuracies, for want of due consideration, will probably make all
> media sound worse. And fail you must, even when trying makes sense,
> which mostly it doesn't these days because there was no original
> performance in the first place, up to the point of final mixing.
> But you must have been round most of these circles many times! The
> real point I am making here is about music, not about technology.
No you're not. You're trying to 'improve' on the recorded sound which
really is impossible.
> Real music is about performance, and good performers transcend mere
> reproduction. There is no reason to believe this is only true of
> human performers, so it may equally be true of sound systems.
Total bollocks, IMHO. A sound system isn't a performer or instrument.
> >> I am told that some SS amps are equally capable, and have no reason
> >> to believe otherwise. But they aren't cheaply modified versions of
> >> circuits previously intended for mere reproduction.
> >
> > I can see we'll never agree, then. ;-)
> Maybe some day. Surely you hope for enlightenment ;-)
I've been a keen appreciator of good sound reproduction equipment since my
teenage years - so longer than most on here. And I doubt I'll change my
views.
--
*When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say?
Andy Evans
course>
It is. >
This may just be semantics, but I think the point being reached for
here is that a signal can be faithful in many important respects for
the sound engineer - flat frequency response etc. (all understandable,
no argument here) but it may not 'sound' idiomatically like the music
it is supposed to reproduce in subtle ways. The Germans distinguish
between musker and musikant, roughly translated as 'makes music' and
'is musical'. I think that's the difference, and however subtle it may
be it matters for musicians, as shown by the fact there are distinct
expressions for one and the other.
Keith G
I think the trick is to disregard all the huffing and puffing about
'accurate reproduction' because the phrase is quite meaningless where the
listener hasn't heard or isn't able to reference the original. As this is
probably about 99.5 % of the time I think most of us can fairly safely
settle for a 'music reproduction system' that best pleases us and best
depicts what we are expecting to hear from it. In any case, given the amount
of 'synthetic sound' we hear these days I would have thought 'accuracy'
today is more meaningless (less meaningful?) than it was in the days of 78s,
when the term 'high fidelity' (or lack thereof) actually had some meaning...
:
> "Why you should use a SET amplifier.
Well, I can only cite one or two instances that happened earlier this
evening - my oft-mentioned friend Nigey Wigey was round (first time in some
months) to hear my 300B SETs and my new 'Jericho' horns for the first time.
His immediate reaction was *wow!!* - please note that's not the reaction
from some starry-eyed punter about to blow his next three month's food
budget on a pair of fancy boxes, that was the reaction from a very 'hifi
jaded' person whose job it is to *flog* said boxes!!
Later, the drums on Track 3 (I think it was) of Ani Difranco's 'Living In
Clip' (Disk 1) brought forth the comments - 'Well, that's the best I've ever
heard drums on a speaker' and 'modern speakers can't do drums'!! So I pushed
it (this ole boy gives nowt away for free, believe you me) with 'so you
would say triodes and horn concede nothing to modern kit then?' - *No,
definitely/absolutely not!* (or words very much to that effect) was the
answer!!
To cap the evening off I then played the exact same track from my computer
(MP3) on the PP valve amp and tiny 'Needles' that I have hooked up to it and
reproduced an almost exact 'near field' (but no way weedy) version of it
with the same dynamics and basic sound quality. He said nothing, he was on
*overload* (total disbelief, actually)...!! :-))
I don't give a bollocks about this being my own kit, all I'm interested in
doing is killing some of the blind prejudice that exists in this group. All
this yap about 'distortion' is an attempt to obfuscate the reality - there
is no reason a pair of horns and a triode amp should have any less attack
and slam etc. than a *good* ss amp on modern, multiway speakers and there is
no reason the *expected perception* of 'accuracy' should be any the less
either....
Rob
I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].
The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will
remain problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good
listen, and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and
certainty.
Rob
1. Mainly because of the convenience of a SS amp.
2. Figures relating to my valve power amp back from the clinic:
Power output: 100W per channel with less than 1% distortion
Distortion @ 1W output: 3rd only @ -78dB
Distortion @ Full power: 2nd @ -70dB. 3rd @ -45dB
Noise @ 1W output: < -80dB
Difference in performance between channels – better than 1%.
Reference Notes: -40dB = 1%; -70dB = 0.03%
Means very little to me!
Iain Churches
What a brilliant idea, this may be the new direction
which the music industry needs, to boost flagging sales:-))
All we need is a valve amp "processor" to
turn our standard symphony orchestra into
Crumbones, and Violets, Flarps, Trombophones,
Xylorimbas, and cymgongs.
Deep Joy! Prof. Stanley Unwin would have been
delighted:-)
Iain
Keith G
"Rob" <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I don't give a bollocks about this being my own kit, all I'm interested
>> in doing is killing some of the blind prejudice that exists in this
>> group. All this yap about 'distortion' is an attempt to obfuscate the
>> reality - there is no reason a pair of horns and a triode amp should have
>> any less attack and slam etc. than a *good* ss amp on modern, multiway
>> speakers and there is no reason the *expected perception* of 'accuracy'
>> should be any the less either....
>>
>
> I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
> now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
> Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
> the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].
>
> The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
> translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will remain
> problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good listen,
> and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and certainty.
<snip distortion figures>
Rob, outside of this group I couldn't care less who uses valves and who
doesn't. Inside this group I feel compelled/tempted occasionally to gainsay
the claims made by a few people here who think 'distortion figures' are the
be-all and end-all of an amplifier's qualities. (Ditto with vinyl, but as I
said recently, let's not go there...)
Over a period of the last few years I have tried a great many different bits
of kit in the search of REALISM (not 'accuracy' per se - I am not a
manufacturer), the fact that I have evolved up/down to triodes and horns to
find it has been by a long process of comparison and elimination. For
example, here's a snap of an amp I *loved* and would have been very happy if
I could have lived with it:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DSCN0595.JPG
I couldn't, so the search went on until I hit into valves - the rest, as
they say is history. I do not *promote* valves - when people like Shiny
Nigel (whom you have met) come round to hear them I only *ask* what they
think. If they make claims I usually shrug and say 'Oh, do you think so?'
Nigel (as you might have gathered) has got progressively harder to impress -
he has himself evolved from *gobsmacked* (Day 1) to becoming an expert on
'the valve sound' - all without actually having bothered to get one himself,
IYSWIM....!! ;-)
Last night he was gobsmacked again!! :-))
How anyone can claim that ss amps are more 'realistic' when I have never
heard one with any sense of depth, for example, is utterly beyond me. Unless
it's a case of the more expensive 'high end' amps having the qualities I
seek, when I would then say the claim that valve amps are more expensive
falls on its arse.
Despite the pundits here, I read in the February 2006 HFW somewhere that
Chinese valve amps are selling in bigger numbers than ss amps from Japan
(must mean stereo amps only?) and without 'going there', FWIW, I read
somewhere that vinyl sales are slowly increasing. So all this tub-thumping
is actually having little or no effect, it would seem?
I think it's time to let the punters make their own minds up and for the
small minority here to stop trying to steer the situation according to their
own prejudices. Valves are definitely back on the menu in the UK so I don't
need to continue crusading for them - as I've said before, I ain't on
commission!
If a few here want to argue about summat new for a change - let's have a
look at how fekkin' poor most modern loudspeakers seem to be...???
Iain Churches
> In article <1138058788.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ok - add in some distortion as well. 'Valve' sound being something
>> > special is a myth. >>
>
>> I know where you want to take this so I won't bother continuing.
>
> I'm not surprised. If you want to alter the incoming signal to something
> 'better' to your ears that's your prerogative. I just expect it to be
> reproduced as accurately as possible - since I'm often in the position of
> knowing what the original recording sounded like. A good valve power amp
> is of course capable of doing this, but at very much greater cost than a
> SS one.
>
Look at it this way. A high performance vintage valve amp
is rising in value by some 12% p.a. A new SS amp is
depreciating by about the same amount. So if money is an issue
for you, you do not need to be a beancounter can see which
one really makes sense:-)
Plus the fact that you have had the added enjoyment of
thermionic audio - something which cannot be put into
monetary terms.
Iain
Jim Lesurf
> "Andy Evans" replied:
You mean we should ignore any distortions produced by output stages and
transformers in power amps on the basis that at much lower power levels the
levels of distortion in small-signal stages may be negligible?
That seems like a rather odd approach to engineering to me. :-)
Or should we discard loudspeakers, and just use headphones?... ;->
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
<IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Since you say here that your concern is with the 'logic of the arguments'
then the following comments may help. :-)
> The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> reproduction.
The above is an absolute assertion - i.e. presented as a 'fact' or axiom
which must be correct in all cases.
Yet it may be that some reproduction systems produce a result which some
listeners find they don't distinguish from the original sounds. Thus the
assertion may be simply false.
> Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the
> "sound of real musicians playing".
Note "therefore" based on the previous statement being stated as a given
fact or axiom, when it may be false. :-)
> SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but
> rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".
Or to put is slightly differently, SET systems are designed to alter the
signals in a way the users find pleasing.
> Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of
> real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction.
Many things are "possible" in terms of being a hypothesis which *might* be
correct in some or all cases. However being able to propose a hypothesis
does not mean it *is* reliable in any cases. May simple be false. OTOH if
some people like the results altered in a given way, fair enough.
> Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.
And others say otherwise. :-)
> Whether they actually do or not, I don't know. I'm just examining the
> logic of the arguments.
So far as I can see, the 'logic' is that SET or some other types of amp
alter the sounds 'by design and intent' in ways that some people prefer.
Some people regard this as being 'more like the original'. Others regard it
as being quite clearly 'less like the original' than using equipment
designed to avoid imposing such changes on any signals passed through them.
Although a difficulty here may be that those involved may have no reliable
idea what the original actually sounded like. Indeed, it may be an
electronic creation that was not a purely acoustic 'original' at all!
It may also be useful to raise the following point if logic is the
concern...
If those involved in making a recording or producing a broadcast feel
that the signals produced from their microphones, mixers, etc, also
need to be altered in specific ways by being passed through a valve
power amp, why do they not do this as part of the recording process?
If this *is* a desirable step for all recordings/broadcasts, and the
same form of alteration is desired for all such recordings/broadcasts,
then this would avoid the necessity for the end users to have to
do this. It would tend to make their output 'better' for all those
people (who, I think constitute the vast majority of those who
listen to reproduced/broadcast music) via SS equipment.
I can't really comment on 'pop/rock' recordings/broadcasts. However
my understanding is that when companies like EMI produce classical
recordings the people who make the recordings tend to listen to what
they are producing using equipment with low levels of distortion,
fairly well defined frequency response, etc.
This leads to a question I have asked in the past...
What is the purpose of those making the recording/broadcast actually
listening to what they produce with the playback systems at their
disposal *in terms of what they intend/expect the end user to hear*?
Do they expect - indeed require - end users to deliberately distort
or alter the results in specific ways to get an optimum result? If
so, why don't they apply that to ensure the result they wish the
end users to hear?
Iain Churches
"Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4deeb05...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> In article <dr504k$dj3$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi>, Iain Churches
> <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> Dave P wrote:
>
>> >> Ok - add in some distortion as well. 'Valve' sound being something
>> >> special is a myth.
>
>> "Andy Evans" replied:
>
>> >> I know where you want to take this so I won't bother continuing.
>> >
>
>> Dave. The 6CG7 in mu-follower topology has typical THD of 0.02% so not
>> too much of your "added distortion" there, Do you think you could hear
>> it?
>
>> But are you saying that you cannot hear the difference in the sound
>> (i.e. on musical performance) of a 6CG7 made by Westinghouse and one
>> from Sovtek?
>
>> If not, I agree with Andy, this would be a good place to leave it.
>
> You mean we should ignore any distortions produced by output stages and
> transformers in power amps on the basis that at much lower power levels
> the
> levels of distortion in small-signal stages may be negligible?
>
> That seems like a rather odd approach to engineering to me. :-)
No. I was asking if Dave could hear the difference between two
triodes, and stated that typical distortion is 0.02% in a front end
application.
But despite their measured similarities, they sound different.
This leads on from my earlier comments about voicing a valve amp,
after competion and test, and usually starts with the selection of
first stage valves.
Eric Barbour of Svetlana USA has done some very interesting
work in this field, particularly with the 6CG7, a remarkably linear
ao good sounding triode, which was produced by more than
ten different makers.
Iain
Don Pearce
What is the nature of the audible difference between the valves? Do
you know if anybody has tried to correlate the sound diffidence to a
performance difference. I could imagine that something like Gm could
make an audible difference, particularly in something like a phono
de-emphasis stage.
>Eric Barbour of Svetlana USA has done some very interesting
>work in this field, particularly with the 6CG7, a remarkably linear
>ao good sounding triode, which was produced by more than
>ten different makers.
>
>Iain
>
Can you point us at his conclusions?
d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Jim Lesurf
<news...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote:
> But if it can't be produced by filtering (i.e. general linear signal
> processing) then the valve power amp is producing either:
> - nonlinear distortion (harmonics; anharmonic distortion incl. intermod,
> jitter, wow, flutter; or compression); or
> - noise;
> As far as I can see linear modification to the signal (i.e. amplitude
> and phase changes that are signal-independent - i.e. filtering) and the
> list above are in theory the only possible things you can inflict on a
> signal.
You might like to also include some other possibilities e.g.
1) Intermod with 50Hz and its hartmonics from the PSU.
2) microphonic effects. This may be a particular problem with valves, and
implies resonant, time delayed, effects which may affect the *gain* as well
as simply injecting the delayed signals. Hence quite difficult to model as
it would vary so much from one case to another.
Jim Lesurf
<removethis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
> now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
> Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
> the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].
I doubt this is a 'problem' so far as Dave is concerned. :-)
> The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
> translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will
> remain problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good
> listen, and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and
> certainty.
Not quite. :-)
The 'problem' here is with assocating a device which can be shown alters
the signals with "more accurate".
Thus confusing an objective claim with a subjective one.
However if you can show that preceeding stages alter the signals in a way
that the valve amp accurately counters, then the useage here of "more
accurate" might have a more relevant definition.
Alternatively, if you can arrange for a test that compares
1) The actual orginal produced
2) The same reproduced via a non-valve system with low distortion and flat
response
3) The same reproduced via a valve system with the relevant levels of
distortion, etc.
and then have listeners decide - not knowing which was which - which were
more similar and which differered solely on the basis of the sounds. Then
you might have an interesting definition for the subjective use of "more
accurate" in this context.
There does seem to be to be a fairly clear distinction between "preferred"
and "more accurate". These may or may not co-incide, and this may vary from
one test item and/or user and/or set of circumstances to another.
Thus the "baggage" may be the assumption you make that "preferred" does
mean "more accurate".
> Rob
> 1. Mainly because of the convenience of a SS amp.
> 2. Figures relating to my valve power amp back from the clinic:
> Power output: 100W per channel with less than 1% distortion Distortion
> @ 1W output: 3rd only @ -78dB Distortion @ Full power: 2nd @ -70dB. 3rd
> @ -45dB Noise @ 1W output: < -80dB Difference in performance between
> channels " better than 1%. Reference Notes: -40dB = 1%; -70dB = 0.03%
> Means very little to me!
And to me - in the absence of some other data from the above. :-)
bugbear
>
> There does seem to be to be a fairly clear distinction between "preferred"
> and "more accurate". These may or may not co-incide, and this may vary from
> one test item and/or user and/or set of circumstances to another.
>
> Thus the "baggage" may be the assumption you make that "preferred" does
> mean "more accurate".
Abso-smegging-lutely.
In the world of PA and guitar amps this isn't even a question.
Nobody ever said a Mesa-boogie or Fender Twin
was accurate - just wonderful :-)
BugBear
Rob
> "Rob" <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>>I don't give a bollocks about this being my own kit, all I'm interested
>>>in doing is killing some of the blind prejudice that exists in this
>>>group. All this yap about 'distortion' is an attempt to obfuscate the
>>>reality - there is no reason a pair of horns and a triode amp should have
>>>any less attack and slam etc. than a *good* ss amp on modern, multiway
>>>speakers and there is no reason the *expected perception* of 'accuracy'
>>>should be any the less either....
>>>
>>
>>I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
>>now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
>>Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
>>the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].
>>
>>The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
>>translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will remain
>>problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good listen,
>>and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and certainty.
>
>
>
> <snip distortion figures>
>
>
> Rob, outside of this group I couldn't care less who uses valves and who
> doesn't. Inside this group I feel compelled/tempted occasionally to gainsay
> the claims made by a few people here who think 'distortion figures' are the
> be-all and end-all of an amplifier's qualities. (Ditto with vinyl, but as I
> said recently, let's not go there...)
>
I do tend to promote vinyl a little - but that's mainly when people I
know say they've got a pile of LPs in the attic. I'd tend not to push
valves except on rare occasions in this NG, to add a bit of balance.
> Over a period of the last few years I have tried a great many different bits
> of kit in the search of REALISM (not 'accuracy' per se - I am not a
> manufacturer), the fact that I have evolved up/down to triodes and horns to
> find it has been by a long process of comparison and elimination. For
> example, here's a snap of an amp I *loved* and would have been very happy if
> I could have lived with it:
>
> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DSCN0595.JPG
>
> I couldn't, so the search went on until I hit into valves - the rest, as
> they say is history. I do not *promote* valves - when people like Shiny
> Nigel (whom you have met) come round to hear them I only *ask* what they
> think. If they make claims I usually shrug and say 'Oh, do you think so?'
> Nigel (as you might have gathered) has got progressively harder to impress -
> he has himself evolved from *gobsmacked* (Day 1) to becoming an expert on
> 'the valve sound' - all without actually having bothered to get one himself,
> IYSWIM....!! ;-)
>
> Last night he was gobsmacked again!! :-))
>
He's a character!
> How anyone can claim that ss amps are more 'realistic' when I have never
> heard one with any sense of depth, for example, is utterly beyond me. Unless
> it's a case of the more expensive 'high end' amps having the qualities I
> seek, when I would then say the claim that valve amps are more expensive
> falls on its arse.
>
I'd re-adopt SS in a flash if it delivered valve sound. That's why I was
intrigued with Dave P's SS+tone controls=valve sound equation, but he
seems to have stepped back a little there. In fact, I've got a bid on
some Quad SS stuff ATM and use a nice little 70W SS power amp quite a
lot. The issue I've arrived at is that my preferred speakers (Dynaudio)
seem to need a hefty amp - more of an issue with valves than SS. There
it is, greater hardships etc - maybe your latest line in speakers will
change my chosen path :-)
> Despite the pundits here, I read in the February 2006 HFW somewhere that
> Chinese valve amps are selling in bigger numbers than ss amps from Japan
> (must mean stereo amps only?) and without 'going there', FWIW, I read
> somewhere that vinyl sales are slowly increasing. So all this tub-thumping
> is actually having little or no effect, it would seem?
>
I'm not sure why that's happening. Intrigued to see a 'gramaphone' ad in
Saturday's Guardian - full page spread!
> I think it's time to let the punters make their own minds up and for the
> small minority here to stop trying to steer the situation according to their
> own prejudices. Valves are definitely back on the menu in the UK so I don't
> need to continue crusading for them - as I've said before, I ain't on
> commission!
>
> If a few here want to argue about summat new for a change - let's have a
> look at how fekkin' poor most modern loudspeakers seem to be...???
>
I don't have a problem there - most 100UKP Tannoys and Missions sound
perfectly fine to me. DAB radio gets on my wick, but generally I'm happy
enough to punt my opinion FWIW.
Rob
Rob
> In article <dr7cf6$844$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Rob
> <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
>>now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
>>Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
>>the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].
>
>
> I doubt this is a 'problem' so far as Dave is concerned. :-)
>
Indeed - an assured fella; I could have phrased that better!
>
>>The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
>>translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will
>>remain problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good
>>listen, and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and
>>certainty.
>
>
> Not quite. :-)
>
> The 'problem' here is with assocating a device which can be shown alters
> the signals with "more accurate".
>
> Thus confusing an objective claim with a subjective one.
>
Not really. On that occasion I did choose my words with reasonable care.
I feel that measurement and the listening experience are both relative
and subjective.
> However if you can show that preceeding stages alter the signals in a way
> that the valve amp accurately counters, then the useage here of "more
> accurate" might have a more relevant definition.
>
> Alternatively, if you can arrange for a test that compares
>
> 1) The actual orginal produced
>
> 2) The same reproduced via a non-valve system with low distortion and flat
> response
>
> 3) The same reproduced via a valve system with the relevant levels of
> distortion, etc.
>
> and then have listeners decide - not knowing which was which - which were
> more similar and which differered solely on the basis of the sounds. Then
> you might have an interesting definition for the subjective use of "more
> accurate" in this context.
Fine - although arranging such a test will not be without problems.
>
> There does seem to be to be a fairly clear distinction between "preferred"
> and "more accurate". These may or may not co-incide, and this may vary from
> one test item and/or user and/or set of circumstances to another.
>
Yep.
> Thus the "baggage" may be the assumption you make that "preferred" does
> mean "more accurate".
>
You're quite right - that is my baggage, no argument :-)
>
>>Rob
>
>
>>1. Mainly because of the convenience of a SS amp.
>
>
>>2. Figures relating to my valve power amp back from the clinic:
>
>
>>Power output: 100W per channel with less than 1% distortion Distortion
>>@ 1W output: 3rd only @ -78dB Distortion @ Full power: 2nd @ -70dB. 3rd
>>@ -45dB Noise @ 1W output: < -80dB Difference in performance between
>>channels " better than 1%. Reference Notes: -40dB = 1%; -70dB = 0.03%
>
>
>>Means very little to me!
>
>
>
> And to me - in the absence of some other data from the above. :-)
>
I suppose I posted it to posit that it may measure like a SS amp, but it
certainly don't sound like one :-)
Keith G
"Rob" <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rob, outside of this group I couldn't care less who uses valves and who
>> doesn't. Inside this group I feel compelled/tempted occasionally to
>> gainsay the claims made by a few people here who think 'distortion
>> figures' are the be-all and end-all of an amplifier's qualities. (Ditto
>> with vinyl, but as I said recently, let's not go there...)
>>
>
> I do tend to promote vinyl a little - but that's mainly when people I know
> say they've got a pile of LPs in the attic. I'd tend not to push valves
> except on rare occasions in this NG, to add a bit of balance.
Well, I'm starting to think it's time to stop pushing the pea around the
plate and just squash it with 'If you don't like valves (triodes) in
particular then fine, just don't try and bamboozle me into thinking I'm
wrong to *prefer them*....
Ditto vinyl....
> He's a character!
Less so these days - he's been unwell!!
> I'd re-adopt SS in a flash if it delivered valve sound.
You think so, then you buy summat ss and the novelty wears off in under a
week...
That's why I was
> intrigued with Dave P's SS+tone controls=valve sound equation, but he
> seems to have stepped back a little there. In fact, I've got a bid on some
> Quad SS stuff ATM and use a nice little 70W SS power amp quite a lot. The
> issue I've arrived at is that my preferred speakers (Dynaudio) seem to
> need a hefty amp - more of an issue with valves than SS. There it is,
> greater hardships etc - maybe your latest line in speakers will change my
> chosen path :-)
:-)
Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!
You know you are welcome to hear the horns any time (don't drive past the
place) but I hafta tell ya the B&Ws have gone!! ;-)
> I'm not sure why that's happening. Intrigued to see a 'gramaphone' ad in
> Saturday's Guardian - full page spread!
Take it from me, the Great Unwashed are starting to wake up to the entire
'digital mess' and a lot of 'vinyl hoarders' have got to the age where
they've got a bit of time now and want to hear thw 'good old stuff'!! I've
lost count of the people who have told me about records in the attic and
wanting to hear them again!!
Trust me, the modern equivalent of a Dansette and/or Soundburger would sell
if it had a few LEDs on it and was marketted right!! (Forget the
Guardian...!! ;-)
Keith G
"Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
> Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!
Of course I meant *aren't*.....!!
:-)
Fleetie
>
>
> Of course I meant *aren't*.....!!
>
> :-)
Well mine sound very nice with my valve amp!
It'd take a lot to make me change mine for something else now. And I can't
imagine a single-driver (i.e. no tweeter) moving-coil driver speaker doing it.
Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie
Andy Evans
alter the sounds 'by design and intent' in ways that some people
prefer.>
I think the idea that modern designers of valve equipment routinely and
delberately doctor the sound to make it euphonic is entirely false.
They routinely reduce unwanted distortions through design and
measurement, and I can assure you that quite a few originally worked
for Tektronix and have as many machines on their test benches as you
would expect to find in any designers lab. Plus, a lot of modern
designers use push pull circuits anyway, particularly using
transformers.Yes - those same transformers one routinely finds in
studios and in the recording process. Plus most modern designers use a
mixture of valves and solid state, so the idea of all valve circuits is
a myth anyway. I was rather surprised to see these views coming from
you, Jim.
Dave Plowman (News)
> What is the purpose of those making the recording/broadcast actually
> listening to what they produce with the playback systems at their
> disposal *in terms of what they intend/expect the end user to hear*?
> Do they expect - indeed require - end users to deliberately distort
> or alter the results in specific ways to get an optimum result? If
> so, why don't they apply that to ensure the result they wish the
> end users to hear?
It seems to me that 'musicians' tend to be the ones on here that go for
the 'engineering is rubbish - it's the result at home that matters' school
of thought. But musicians are invariably involved in the final result of
any recording in my experience. So if that final result sounded so
terrible in the control room of the recording studio that it has to be
'improved' at home - why didn't they say?
--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > I'm not surprised. If you want to alter the incoming signal to
> > something 'better' to your ears that's your prerogative. I just expect
> > it to be reproduced as accurately as possible - since I'm often in the
> > position of knowing what the original recording sounded like. A good
> > valve power amp is of course capable of doing this, but at very much
> > greater cost than a SS one.
> >
> Look at it this way. A high performance vintage valve amp
> is rising in value by some 12% p.a. A new SS amp is
> depreciating by about the same amount. So if money is an issue
> for you, you do not need to be a beancounter can see which
> one really makes sense:-)
A vintage car might well appreciate in value while pretty well any new one
will depreciate. But by any benchmark of performance the modern car will
better the vintage one.
> Plus the fact that you have had the added enjoyment of
> thermionic audio - something which cannot be put into
> monetary terms.
Yes - you can certainly enjoy a Model T Ford. But then again at times it
will infuriate...
--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?
Keith G
"Fleetie" <fle...@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dr8jrs$gkj$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>> Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!
>>
>>
>> Of course I meant *aren't*.....!!
>>
>> :-)
>
> Well mine sound very nice with my valve amp!
Sure, I auditioned the 1.1s on valves and they did sound very nice - best
'little' speakers I've heard bar none. Rob uses them on valves as well, I
believe, but I still don't think they are best on valves - nor were the
Broadswords I had for a good while, with their Dynaudio drivers.
>
> It'd take a lot to make me change mine for something else now. And I can't
> imagine a single-driver (i.e. no tweeter) moving-coil driver speaker doing
> it.
Ah, now there's a thing.....???
:-)
Rob
Indeed :-)
Having fiddled on and off for about 30 years, it's good to find speakers
that feel 'right'. I now have three pairs of Dynuadios - 42, 52SE and
1.1. TBH I think I like them in that order, but there's not much in it,
and I'd happily cart any one pair off to a desert island (type thing). I
had some 62s but didn't get on with them so well - rather bass heavy
without TL 'deep', and less beguiling midrange.
Even three or so years in I still find them a novelty - I'm often drawn
to the strengths/sound/presence of the speakers, even when listening to
TV - but I find they bring out music whatever the source. And - I'm not
sure that's a good thing, perhaps their job is *not* to make presence
felt?! But the point here is I can't spot any significant weakness- and
they all manage the bass thing very well in particular.
And that brings me on to amplifiers - and my monster Beard 100W valve
amp is the only one that manages 'final analysis' bass with an all round
fine sound. I tried a high current big SS (Roksan Kandy), but that
really was rubbish. The problems with the Beard are the size, it's
temperamental - blows the occasional fuse, and the 'valve routine' -
standby for 2 minutes, then on, then switch off when I leave the flat
(or room!). All a labour of lust; soldier on :-)
It would be splendid to have a nice little low power amp - in fact I
rarely play music silly loud - and high sensitivity speakers, and I'm
interested in your horn builds. It's just I wasn't mightily impressed
with the Loths - the best sound of all, and I don't think I've heard
better, was your home brew SET and those B&Ws. Now that *shouldn't* work
... :-)
And that brings me round to wanting to give your latest a listen -
thanks for the offer, hope to be round your way soon, always a pleasure,
never a chore :-)
Rob
Iain Churches
> In article <dr7mmg$14s$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi>,
> Iain Churches <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > I'm not surprised. If you want to alter the incoming signal to
>> > something 'better' to your ears that's your prerogative. I just expect
>> > it to be reproduced as accurately as possible - since I'm often in the
>> > position of knowing what the original recording sounded like. A good
>> > valve power amp is of course capable of doing this, but at very much
>> > greater cost than a SS one.
>> >
>
>> Look at it this way. A high performance vintage valve amp
>> is rising in value by some 12% p.a. A new SS amp is
>> depreciating by about the same amount. So if money is an issue
>> for you, you do not need to be a beancounter can see which
>> one really makes sense:-)
>
> A vintage car might well appreciate in value while pretty well any new one
> will depreciate. But by any benchmark of performance the modern car will
> better the vintage one.
If you want to play louder or in the case of the car drive
or accelerate faster, then I would agree. But, it's the
quality of the ride that counts:-)
>
>> Plus the fact that you have had the added enjoyment of
>> thermionic audio - something which cannot be put into
>> monetary terms.
>
> Yes - you can certainly enjoy a Model T Ford. But then again at times it
> will infuriate...
>
> --
Interesting (but poor) analogy Dave, but if you replace your Model T
Ford with my Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire then we might be closer:-)
It is agreed by most that the technical specification of a good valve
amp certainly meets the requirements for high-fidelity. The downside is
of course that they do cost more (but hey, who's counting the pennies?)
And people buy them because they give greater enjoyment. Isn't that
what it's all about?
Iain
Don Pearce
Iain, I don't think anybody here has a problem with good valve amps -
apart from the nonsensical price, of course. The problem is with the
nasty, distorting little SET things.
As for the ride of old and new cars - thanks, but I'll take a new one
with decently designed suspension instead of the guesses of yesteryear
any day. Old cars - like valve amps - are strictly for the rosy glow
of nostalgia. Fun to take out at weekends, but not for driving
regularly.
Iain Churches
"Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:I6mdnaFk7fa...@pipex.net...
>
> How anyone can claim that ss amps are more 'realistic' when I have never
> heard one with any sense of depth, for example, is utterly beyond me.
> Unless it's a case of the more expensive 'high end' amps having the
> qualities I seek, when I would then say the claim that valve amps are more
> expensive falls on its arse.
>
> Despite the pundits here, I read in the February 2006 HFW somewhere that
> Chinese valve amps are selling in bigger numbers than ss amps from Japan
> (must mean stereo amps only?) and without 'going there', FWIW, I read
> somewhere that vinyl sales are slowly increasing. So all this tub-thumping
> is actually having little or no effect, it would seem?
>
> I think it's time to let the punters make their own minds up and for the
> small minority here to stop trying to steer the situation according to
> their own prejudices. Valves are definitely back on the menu in the UK so
> I don't need to continue crusading for them - as I've said before, I ain't
> on commission!
>
> If a few here want to argue about summat new for a change - let's have a
> look at how fekkin' poor most modern loudspeakers seem to be...???
>
Keith. I rarely read the British hif-mags, but while
at Arlanda (Stockholm airport) I had time to
browse at the news-stand. Current magazines
have a very high valve amp content. Much more
than one would have expected. The interest is
probably greater than we know (or care to admit)
on this group.
Personally, I don't mind either way. I am just happy
if people listen to and enjoy music.
Iain
Iain Churches
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:43d88536...@text.usenet.plus.net...
I have no idea what they cost retail. Like many "bottleheads"
I build my own, much better value for money, and I can get every
aesthetic detail just as I want it - right down to the number of inputs,
their sensitivity levels - even the engraving on the front logo and knobs.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Pics/C50_002.jpg
> The problem is with the
> nasty, distorting little SET things.
Understood. It would be interesting to know just how many of
the "anti Set brigade" have actually taken the trouble to sit down
and listen to one. Probably very few.
I have to admit, that for many years I could not see the attraction
of an amplifier which had distortion levels in direct proportion to
power output. It was not until recently, very recently
that I had a chance to listen to a very good SET amp, with some
very good recorded material. It was in total contrast to my
preconceptions!
>
> As for the ride of old and new cars - thanks, but I'll take a new one
> with decently designed suspension instead of the guesses of yesteryear
> any day. Old cars - like valve amps - are strictly for the rosy glow
> of nostalgia. Fun to take out at weekends, but not for driving
> regularly.
It was Dave who brought up the new/vintage car analogy. I have one
of each, and broadly speaking agree with what you say. I look forward
to some leasurely motoring on my days off -we have about 10% of the
volume of traffic you have in the UK.
Regards to all
Iain
Don Pearce
<taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
My very first ever building project - about 1963 - was a SET
amplifier. I thought it was brilliant, and quite likely it sounded
better then than many of the transistor amps being built with their
nasty harsh crossover distortion. Once I discovered proper SS amps,
though, I never looked back.
>I have to admit, that for many years I could not see the attraction
>of an amplifier which had distortion levels in direct proportion to
>power output. It was not until recently, very recently
>that I had a chance to listen to a very good SET amp, with some
>very good recorded material. It was in total contrast to my
>preconceptions!
>>
>> As for the ride of old and new cars - thanks, but I'll take a new one
>> with decently designed suspension instead of the guesses of yesteryear
>> any day. Old cars - like valve amps - are strictly for the rosy glow
>> of nostalgia. Fun to take out at weekends, but not for driving
>> regularly.
>
>It was Dave who brought up the new/vintage car analogy. I have one
>of each, and broadly speaking agree with what you say. I look forward
>to some leasurely motoring on my days off -we have about 10% of the
>volume of traffic you have in the UK.
>
I've driven in Finland quite a lot - one year I and a friend almost
entered the thousand lakes rally. It is indeed a pleasure,
particularly up around Sompio. London has its own challenges, of
course, which is why I use my bike or walk when I travel into town. I
am also very well aware of the fact that doctors in London call
cyclists organ donors.
>Regards to all
>Iain
Keith G
"Rob" <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote
> Having fiddled on and off for about 30 years, it's good to find speakers
> that feel 'right'. I now have three pairs of Dynuadios - 42, 52SE and 1.1.
> TBH I think I like them in that order, but there's not much in it, and I'd
> happily cart any one pair off to a desert island (type thing). I had some
> 62s but didn't get on with them so well - rather bass heavy without TL
> 'deep', and less beguiling midrange.
>
> Even three or so years in I still find them a novelty - I'm often drawn to
> the strengths/sound/presence of the speakers, even when listening to TV -
> but I find they bring out music whatever the source. And - I'm not sure
> that's a good thing, perhaps their job is *not* to make presence felt?!
> But the point here is I can't spot any significant weakness- and they all
> manage the bass thing very well in particular.
>
> And that brings me on to amplifiers - and my monster Beard 100W valve amp
> is the only one that manages 'final analysis' bass with an all round fine
> sound. I tried a high current big SS (Roksan Kandy), but that really was
> rubbish. The problems with the Beard are the size, it's temperamental -
> blows the occasional fuse, and the 'valve routine' - standby for 2
> minutes, then on, then switch off when I leave the flat (or room!). All a
> labour of lust; soldier on :-)
>
> It would be splendid to have a nice little low power amp - in fact I
> rarely play music silly loud - and high sensitivity speakers, and I'm
> interested in your horn builds.
The itch that just won't scratch eh? ;-)
It's just I wasn't mightily impressed
> with the Loths
Nor I - they were nasal I thought but they did point me in the right
direction. For all the boxiness and nasal qualities the clarity was
undeniable and I couldn't go back to ordinary speaker once I'd heard it!
Hopefully (2nd attempt) the Loths are in Berlin now!!
- the best sound of all, and I don't think I've heard
> better, was your home brew SET and those B&Ws. Now that *shouldn't* work
> ... :-)
Yes, that was an interesting combo. Truth is the B&Ws were/are a lovely load
for the SET. When the chap came for them last Friday we put them on and for
a split second they were 'identical' to the horns! Then the differences
started to come through - not all in favour of the horns, but the ultimate
*clarity* rested with the Jerichos. Gone to a good home now - another person
who is tired of the 'modern stuff'!!
Interestingly, the main 'source' we used was an iPod and the music was
really quite *excellent* - so much so I got myself summat similar (but
cheaper, not so stylish, bigger capacity and better functionality) the very
next day!!
>
> And that brings me round to wanting to give your latest a listen - thanks
> for the offer, hope to be round your way soon, always a pleasure, never a
> chore :-)
None more welcome Rob, you know that!! :-)
Keith G
"Iain Churches" <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote
<that's OK chaps, I'll do the snipping...>
>> The problem is with the
>> nasty, distorting little SET things.
>
> Understood. It would be interesting to know just how many of
> the "anti Set brigade" have actually taken the trouble to sit down
> and listen to one. Probably very few.
The sound of a nail being hit squarely on the head??
:-)
>
> I have to admit, that for many years I could not see the attraction
> of an amplifier which had distortion levels in direct proportion to
> power output. It was not until recently, very recently
> that I had a chance to listen to a very good SET amp, with some
> very good recorded material. It was in total contrast to my
> preconceptions!
The sound of an open mind...???
:-)
Keith G
"Iain Churches" <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote
> Keith. I rarely read the British hif-mags, but while
> at Arlanda (Stockholm airport) I had time to
> browse at the news-stand. Current magazines
> have a very high valve amp content. Much more
> than one would have expected. The interest is
> probably greater than we know (or care to admit)
> on this group.
I believe it is. The 'valve revival' is a damn sight bigger than some in
this group would have you believe. Production of modern valves is
*increasing* - not the other way round, I understand...!!??
>
> Personally, I don't mind either way. I am just happy
> if people listen to and enjoy music.
Yes.
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
> My very first ever building project - about 1963 - was a SET
> amplifier. I thought it was brilliant, and quite likely it sounded
> better then than many of the transistor amps being built with their
> nasty harsh crossover distortion. Once I discovered proper SS amps,
> though, I never looked back.
Dismissed the entire topology on a sample of one then?
Even I have 3 SETs atm and the differences between is them is *not*
inconsiderable...
Don Pearce
wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>
>> My very first ever building project - about 1963 - was a SET
>> amplifier. I thought it was brilliant, and quite likely it sounded
>> better then than many of the transistor amps being built with their
>> nasty harsh crossover distortion. Once I discovered proper SS amps,
>> though, I never looked back.
>
>
>Dismissed the entire topology on a sample of one then?
>
Not at all - I've heard plenty of them since, and haven't changed my
mind.
>Even I have 3 SETs atm and the differences between is them is *not*
>inconsiderable...
>
Doesn't that ring any sort of alarm bell at all for you?
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
> Iain, I don't think anybody here has a problem with good valve amps -
Who the hell is 'promoting' bad amps here (ss or valve)...???
> apart from the nonsensical price, of course. The problem is with the
> nasty, distorting little SET things.
See other reply....
>
> As for the ride of old and new cars - thanks, but I'll take a new one
> with decently designed suspension instead of the guesses of yesteryear
> any day. Old cars - like valve amps - are strictly for the rosy glow
> of nostalgia. Fun to take out at weekends, but not for driving
> regularly.
The car analogy is too flawed to be of much use - for a start it seems to be
directed to making comparisons between true vintage and modern as opposed to
modern implementations of both.If durability and reliability is an issue
here, my valve amps often run all day (18 hours at a stretch) happy as Larry
and I've never had to the starting handle once!! Also, how many watts does
it take to do 10 mph (average) on the M25 anyway??
I would say that the modern approach to 'motoring' does indeed offer an
interesting comparison to the modern approach to 'music reproduction in the
home' - small, neat, cheap, convenient, easy, fast, flashy and 'reliable'
(and ultimately hideous) versus any semblance of *quality*.
(Kinda get the journey over with as fast as possible rather than bother to
try and enjoy any part of it??)
:-)
(Tempted to cut my *40 year old* 60 watt Dynacos into the loop later
today..... ;-)
*Will* cut Johnny WAD (32 wpc KT88 PP) into the loop in about 20 minutes
from now for a comparison....
Andy Evans
the 'engineering is rubbish >
Certainly not in my case - I love engineering, spent my boyhood
building Meccano, did metalwork at school, have a drill press at home
etc etc. I'm not aware that anybody said engineering is rubbish. And I
hope that engineers will similarly refrain from rubbishing musicians.
Then we can all sleep in peace.
But musicians are invariably involved in the final result of
any recording in my experience.>
Some but not all are.
So if that final result sounded so terrible in the control room of the
recording studio that it has to be 'improved' at home - why didn't they
say? >
1) musicians have no control over the studio technology - they can't
say "hmmm I feel like .99999 copper interconnects today - get your tape
op to go under the desk and change them". They have control over their
own stage amps and settings, though not the DI link. Some musicians
bring their own mics or have specific requests but that's probably the
exception. Some rock groups have specific requests but that's usually
for effects
2) Some of the best studio engineers are musicians (e.g. Jan Erik
Kongshaug who did the award winning recordings for ECM - Jan Erik's a
fine gigging guitarist. There are a number of others, so this isn't a
binary)
3) If we leave vinyl firmly in the past, practically all of us are
happy with digital technology to bring the signal into the home
amplification unit, so in practice the question doesn't arise. We're
talking about how realistically we feel the final amplification process
is, to convert the digital signal into sound by interfacing with the
loudspeakers. By all means bring the speakers into the equation, since
amplification and speakers are the two variables in this case.
4) I repeat what I've always said - modern valve equipment uses a
number of transistors in CCSs, shunt regs, rectification etc so nobody
is talking pure valves. Once again this isn't an either/or situation.
Some feel that using valves in the amplification stages gives a closer
approximation to the real thing. But again, this isn't an absolute as
we've said many times over. "Closer approximation" may not be on all
factors. For instance it may not be on flat frequency response but it
may be on harmonic spectrum and timbre. The one is easily measurable,
the other with greater difficulty and with mixed results from
listeners. Some listeners - e.g. musicians but not only musicians - are
very sensitive to timbre and raise it to a very high priority, and are
prepared to sacrifice other factors to achieve it. Hence all the talk
about "midrange to die for, woolly bass". The engineer absolutely must
have a flat frequency response, so different priorities. I thought
we'd been through all this several times. Andy
Don Pearce
wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>
>> Iain, I don't think anybody here has a problem with good valve amps -
>
>
>Who the hell is 'promoting' bad amps here (ss or valve)...???
>
My definition of a bad amp is one that bends the signal. 90% of SETs
fall into this category. The fact that they do so deliberately doesn't
make them good.
>
>> apart from the nonsensical price, of course. The problem is with the
>> nasty, distorting little SET things.
>
>
>See other reply....
>
Yup - know all about that. Doesn't change the above, though.
>>
>> As for the ride of old and new cars - thanks, but I'll take a new one
>> with decently designed suspension instead of the guesses of yesteryear
>> any day. Old cars - like valve amps - are strictly for the rosy glow
>> of nostalgia. Fun to take out at weekends, but not for driving
>> regularly.
>
>
>The car analogy is too flawed to be of much use - for a start it seems to be
>directed to making comparisons between true vintage and modern as opposed to
>modern implementations of both.If durability and reliability is an issue
>here, my valve amps often run all day (18 hours at a stretch) happy as Larry
>and I've never had to the starting handle once!! Also, how many watts does
>it take to do 10 mph (average) on the M25 anyway??
>
I drove along the M25 the other day - between 80 and 90 where there
were no cameras. If I'd been stuck at 10mph in those circumstances I
would have been well pissed off. I used to have to use the starting
handle on my A30 van all the time ;-(
>I would say that the modern approach to 'motoring' does indeed offer an
>interesting comparison to the modern approach to 'music reproduction in the
>home' - small, neat, cheap, convenient, easy, fast, flashy and 'reliable'
>(and ultimately hideous) versus any semblance of *quality*.
>
>(Kinda get the journey over with as fast as possible rather than bother to
>try and enjoy any part of it??)
>
>:-)
>
I enjoy every journey in my S4 - and I have the choice of speed at all
times; fast when I want to, slow when I want to. I wouldn't be
interested in a car that only offered slow.
>(Tempted to cut my *40 year old* 60 watt Dynacos into the loop later
>today..... ;-)
>
>*Will* cut Johnny WAD (32 wpc KT88 PP) into the loop in about 20 minutes
>from now for a comparison....
>
As ever - let us know :-)
Keith G
Absolutely not - what 'alarm bell' specifically??
They have different valves/components in them - I would expect there to be
differences. They all sound absolutely fine in their own ways - the task now
is to match speakers to them!
John Phillips
> In article <slrndtabbj....@linux.mainly.me.uk>, John Phillips
><news...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> But if it can't be produced by filtering (i.e. general linear signal
>> processing) then the valve power amp is producing either:
>
>> - nonlinear distortion (harmonics; anharmonic distortion incl. intermod,
>> jitter, wow, flutter; or compression); or
>
>> - noise;
>
>> As far as I can see linear modification to the signal (i.e. amplitude
>> and phase changes that are signal-independent - i.e. filtering) and the
>> list above are in theory the only possible things you can inflict on a
>> signal.
>
> You might like to also include some other possibilities e.g.
>
> 1) Intermod with 50Hz and its hartmonics from the PSU.
>
> 2) microphonic effects. This may be a particular problem with valves, and
> implies resonant, time delayed, effects which may affect the *gain* as well
> as simply injecting the delayed signals. Hence quite difficult to model as
> it would vary so much from one case to another.
Yes. I was actually trying to think clearly about the complete spectrum
of possible audio imperfections and I had forgotten other "unwanted
inputs" from the mains and from the audio environment.
--
John Phillips
Don Pearce
wrote:
>> Doesn't that ring any sort of alarm bell at all for you?
>
>
>Absolutely not - what 'alarm bell' specifically??
>
>They have different valves/components in them - I would expect there to be
>differences. They all sound absolutely fine in their own ways - the task now
>is to match speakers to them!
>
>
Don't worry about it. I just still can't get my head around the way
you want to listen to your gear rather than the music. The alarm has
long, I suspect, been disconnected.
Iain Churches
> I used to have to use the starting
> handle on my A30 van all the time ;-(
Wow, Austin A30. That takes me back:-)
I used to have an A35, bright orange, when I played vibraphone
in a quintet called "Sophisticated Jazz" The instrument fitted into
the van with about 5cms to spare. Halcyon days:-))
Talking about starting handles.... ever tried to swing a diesel
Landrover? That sorts out the men from the boys:-)
Iain
Forwarder
>
> Iain, I don't think anybody here has a problem with good valve amps -
> apart from the nonsensical price, of course. The problem is with the
> nasty, distorting little SET things.
>
> As for the ride of old and new cars - thanks, but I'll take a new one
> with decently designed suspension instead of the guesses of yesteryear
> any day. Old cars - like valve amps - are strictly for the rosy glow
> of nostalgia. Fun to take out at weekends, but not for driving
> regularly.
>
But that's what listening to music exactly is, for some people. Fun.
Don Pearce
Keith is talking about 18 hours a day, you know...
Keith G
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>>
>>> Iain, I don't think anybody here has a problem with good valve amps -
>>
>>
>>Who the hell is 'promoting' bad amps here (ss or valve)...???
>>
>
> My definition of a bad amp is one that bends the signal. 90% of SETs
> fall into this category. The fact that they do so deliberately doesn't
> make them good.
I don't see how it makes them bad if they *sound* good - see below....
>>The car analogy is too flawed to be of much use - for a start it seems to
>>be
>>directed to making comparisons between true vintage and modern as opposed
>>to
>>modern implementations of both.If durability and reliability is an issue
>>here, my valve amps often run all day (18 hours at a stretch) happy as
>>Larry
>>and I've never had to the starting handle once!! Also, how many watts does
>>it take to do 10 mph (average) on the M25 anyway??
>>
> I drove along the M25 the other day - between 80 and 90 where there
> were no cameras.
To continue with the analogy then, I would say you'd hooked up to some nice
105 dB speakers on that occasion - I've never had much luck with the North
London section of the M25 that I've used often in the past!
If I'd been stuck at 10mph in those circumstances I
> would have been well pissed off. I used to have to use the starting
> handle on my A30 van all the time ;-(
Me too with a Standard 8...
Now, my memories of the Standard are *fond* - what about your van? Since the
Standard I've had over a hundred (way over) different cars and I can barely
remember them???
(Nothing like *arriving* when you barely got started out!! :-)
Fuck, I've nearly got a tear in me eye now!!
> I enjoy every journey in my S4 - and I have the choice of speed at all
> times; fast when I want to, slow when I want to. I wouldn't be
> interested in a car that only offered slow.
So build/get a SET with 211s or 845s or summat...
>
>>(Tempted to cut my *40 year old* 60 watt Dynacos into the loop later
>>today..... ;-)
>>
>>*Will* cut Johnny WAD (32 wpc KT88 PP) into the loop in about 20 minutes
>>from now for a comparison....
>>
> As ever - let us know :-)
OK, I did just after that post, it's on right now - sounds fine but a snap
choice would have me 'buying' the SET. The KT88 (Andy Grove design) is
obviously suited more to modern speakers....??
You want silly descriptives? The sound is big and bold but possibly not
quite as *crystal clear* and is possibly a little 'empty sounding'??
Definitely not as *engaging* - almost solid state, if you like!! (And I
built it - so it's *family*!!)
That do ya? :-)
Don Pearce
wrote:
Well, it was about 2:30 in the morning.
>
> If I'd been stuck at 10mph in those circumstances I
>> would have been well pissed off. I used to have to use the starting
>> handle on my A30 van all the time ;-(
>
>
>Me too with a Standard 8...
>
>Now, my memories of the Standard are *fond* - what about your van? Since the
>Standard I've had over a hundred (way over) different cars and I can barely
>remember them???
>
Fond memories indeed - not so much of the van itself, but what used to
happen in it.
>(Nothing like *arriving* when you barely got started out!! :-)
>
>Fuck, I've nearly got a tear in me eye now!!
>
>
>
>> I enjoy every journey in my S4 - and I have the choice of speed at all
>> times; fast when I want to, slow when I want to. I wouldn't be
>> interested in a car that only offered slow.
>
>
>So build/get a SET with 211s or 845s or summat...
>
Now why would I do that when I have a beautiful Cyrus sitting there,
cool as a cucumber?
>>
>>>(Tempted to cut my *40 year old* 60 watt Dynacos into the loop later
>>>today..... ;-)
>>>
>>>*Will* cut Johnny WAD (32 wpc KT88 PP) into the loop in about 20 minutes
>>>from now for a comparison....
>>>
>> As ever - let us know :-)
>
>
>OK, I did just after that post, it's on right now - sounds fine but a snap
>choice would have me 'buying' the SET. The KT88 (Andy Grove design) is
>obviously suited more to modern speakers....??
>
>You want silly descriptives? The sound is big and bold but possibly not
>quite as *crystal clear* and is possibly a little 'empty sounding'??
>Definitely not as *engaging* - almost solid state, if you like!! (And I
>built it - so it's *family*!!)
>
>That do ya? :-)
>
Well, you like what you like...
Keith G
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:28:19 -0000, "Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't that ring any sort of alarm bell at all for you?
>>
>>
>>Absolutely not - what 'alarm bell' specifically??
>>
>>They have different valves/components in them - I would expect there to be
>>differences. They all sound absolutely fine in their own ways - the task
>>now
>>is to match speakers to them!
>>
>>
> Don't worry about it. I just still can't get my head around the way
> you want to listen to your gear rather than the music.
Trust me Donald, my *worst* lash-up out of the junk I've got here is more
*musical* than just about any other kit I've heard!! (Spent enough time and
money sifting through a lot of stuff this last few years!!)
The alarm has
> long, I suspect, been disconnected.
:-)
Keith G
"Iain Churches" <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dracpt$9ki$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
>
> "Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:43dcaaa4...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>
>> I used to have to use the starting
>> handle on my A30 van all the time ;-(
>
> Wow, Austin A30. That takes me back:-)
>
> I used to have an A35, bright orange, when I played vibraphone
> in a quintet called "Sophisticated Jazz" The instrument fitted into
> the van with about 5cms to spare. Halcyon days:-))
Uh oh - 'Nationwide Nostalgia Epidemic Strikes'!!
(That's the price of valve radios doubling on eBay then...!! :-)
>
> Talking about starting handles.... ever tried to swing a diesel
> Landrover? That sorts out the men from the boys:-)
Ah...
You've never started a two cylinder (Thwaites?) diesel dumper on a bildin'
site in the middle of winter then...?? ;-)
http://www.jaybeeplant.co.uk/images/Thwaites-3-ton-dumper-002-o.jpg
(They didn't have electrics of any description in my time...!! ;-)
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>>To continue with the analogy then, I would say you'd hooked up to some
>>nice
>>105 dB speakers on that occasion - I've never had much luck with the North
>>London section of the M25 that I've used often in the past!
>>
> Well, it was about 2:30 in the morning.
OK.
Take it from me that the bends on the M1 just out of London are pretty
fierce at that time in the morning!
(Mazda RX7, 130/135 mph...!! ;-)
> Fond memories indeed - not so much of the van itself, but what used to
> happen in it.
:-)
OK, see above but I'm talking about *before* the trip back out of
London....!! ;-)
>>So build/get a SET with 211s or 845s or summat...
>>
> Now why would I do that when I have a beautiful Cyrus sitting there,
> cool as a cucumber?
OK Don, no way to be tactful about this - Cyrus (up to the 8) is a *perfect*
example of the ss amps that snuffs my interest out. No wonder we don't see
eye to eye!! Although I believe (haven't heard one) the 2 is a bit better
than the rest??
Here's the only one I ever *owned*
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/L1010187.JPG
>>OK, I did just after that post, it's on right now - sounds fine but a snap
>>choice would have me 'buying' the SET. The KT88 (Andy Grove design) is
>>obviously suited more to modern speakers....??
>>
>>You want silly descriptives? The sound is big and bold but possibly not
>>quite as *crystal clear* and is possibly a little 'empty sounding'??
>>Definitely not as *engaging* - almost solid state, if you like!! (And I
>>built it - so it's *family*!!)
>>
>>That do ya? :-)
>>
>
> Well, you like what you like...
Sure, but I'm alway *curious*....
The KiT88's a bit better now it's had a while to get going (less brash - I
don't think the pot-bellied Sovteks are the best KT88s in the world) but no
reason to change my earlier comments...
Keith G
18 hours would be a long day, 12 hours a short one - and I *never* tire of
it! Does that tell you anything?? :-)
Answers on a postcard, please.....
Don Pearce
wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>
>>>To continue with the analogy then, I would say you'd hooked up to some
>>>nice
>>>105 dB speakers on that occasion - I've never had much luck with the North
>>>London section of the M25 that I've used often in the past!
>>>
>> Well, it was about 2:30 in the morning.
>
>
>OK.
>
>Take it from me that the bends on the M1 just out of London are pretty
>fierce at that time in the morning!
>
>(Mazda RX7, 130/135 mph...!! ;-)
>
Now try them at 170 - even more fun!
>
>> Fond memories indeed - not so much of the van itself, but what used to
>> happen in it.
>
>
>:-)
>
>OK, see above but I'm talking about *before* the trip back out of
>London....!! ;-)
>
>
>>>So build/get a SET with 211s or 845s or summat...
>>>
>> Now why would I do that when I have a beautiful Cyrus sitting there,
>> cool as a cucumber?
>
>
>OK Don, no way to be tactful about this - Cyrus (up to the 8) is a *perfect*
>example of the ss amps that snuffs my interest out. No wonder we don't see
>eye to eye!! Although I believe (haven't heard one) the 2 is a bit better
>than the rest??
>
>Here's the only one I ever *owned*
>
>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/L1010187.JPG
>
Well, mine is a Cyrus II, so I suppose that is something in your eyes.
>
>>>OK, I did just after that post, it's on right now - sounds fine but a snap
>>>choice would have me 'buying' the SET. The KT88 (Andy Grove design) is
>>>obviously suited more to modern speakers....??
>>>
>>>You want silly descriptives? The sound is big and bold but possibly not
>>>quite as *crystal clear* and is possibly a little 'empty sounding'??
>>>Definitely not as *engaging* - almost solid state, if you like!! (And I
>>>built it - so it's *family*!!)
>>>
>>>That do ya? :-)
>>>
>>
>> Well, you like what you like...
>
>
>
>Sure, but I'm alway *curious*....
>
>The KiT88's a bit better now it's had a while to get going (less brash - I
>don't think the pot-bellied Sovteks are the best KT88s in the world) but no
>reason to change my earlier comments...
>
The Kit88 is not a bad amp - it should even sound quite like my Cyrus
:-)
Don Pearce
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>>Take it from me that the bends on the M1 just out of London are pretty
>>fierce at that time in the morning!
>>
>>(Mazda RX7, 130/135 mph...!! ;-)
>>
>
> Now try them at 170 - even more fun!
Fastest I've ever been in a car is 150 mph (V12 Jag) and probably not quite
150 on a bike (Honda CBR1000). Nowadays I tend to do 'traffic + 5/10 mph' or
65 (3000 rpm) when there's no-one about!! :-)
>>OK Don, no way to be tactful about this - Cyrus (up to the 8) is a
>>*perfect*
>>example of the ss amps that snuffs my interest out. No wonder we don't see
>>eye to eye!! Although I believe (haven't heard one) the 2 is a bit better
>>than the rest??
>>
>>Here's the only one I ever *owned*
>>
>>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/L1010187.JPG
>>
>
> Well, mine is a Cyrus II, so I suppose that is something in your eyes.
> The Kit88 is not a bad amp - it should even sound quite like my Cyrus
OK, read the 'Listening' bit here then:
http://www.audioshopper.com/cyrus.htm
It implies that the II is more detailed than the KT88s??
Now that would surprise me, but then I don't think the KT88s are as detailed
as the 300Bs. (Hah! While I type that the KiT88 has just gone
*hyperdetailed* with some extremely high-pitched tinkly percussion
instrument!!) What does interest me is the mention of 'lack of depth' -
that's EXACTLY what I say about ss amps - they are *planar* compared with
valves!!
OK, no-one takes what's written on the Net (or shithouse walls) as 'Gospel',
if they've a right mind... ;-)
Iain Churches
"Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:XtWdndX2Xo_...@pipex.net...
> The KiT88's a bit better now it's had a while to get going (less brash - I
> don't think the pot-bellied Sovteks are the best KT88s in the world) but
> no reason to change my earlier comments...
>
>
Keith. Re Kt88s. I agree that the Sovteks are not the best choice.
Try a pair of Svetlana, or better still Tesla (they are current production)
They seem a little fragile mechanically and so may not travel well,
particularly in the hands of Parcel Farce (1)
But they sound absolutely wonderful:-)
Iain
(1) I took receipt of a package from the UK today. The label
was all but illegible - obliterated by a huge footprint!!
Iain Churches
for doing it:-)
Don Pearce
wrote:
>
I've read that review before, and it made me grin. The bit about the
sound changing after an hour or so is quite funny; no such thing
happens, of course. And then the stuff about weak bass, the thing has
a 3dB frequency of 1Hz at the speaker terminals fer gossake!
That bit where the KiT88 went hyperdetailed just now. Are you sure
that wasn't just the music doing it?
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>>>>But that's what listening to music exactly is, for some people. Fun.
>>>
>>> Keith is talking about 18 hours a day, you know...
>>
>>
>>
>>18 hours would be a long day, 12 hours a short one - and I *never* tire of
>>it! Does that tell you anything?? :-)
>>
>>Answers on a postcard, please.....
>>
>>
>>
> OCD?
Alzheimers - it's the same record over and over....!! ;-)
Alzheimers - it's the same record over and over....!! ;-)
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com>
<loved that bit the other day when you said you frequently snipped replies!!
:-) >
>>OK, no-one takes what's written on the Net (or shithouse walls) as
>>'Gospel',
>>if they've a right mind... ;-)
>>
>>
>
> I've read that review before, and it made me grin. The bit about the
> sound changing after an hour or so is quite funny; no such thing
> happens, of course. And then the stuff about weak bass, the thing has
> a 3dB frequency of 1Hz at the speaker terminals fer gossake!
Didn't read it all - I never do unless it's something I *need* to know.
Those 'reviews are like the ones in the maggies - it depends how long I'm on
the bog as to how much of them I actually read!!
>
> That bit where the KiT88 went hyperdetailed just now. Are you sure
> that wasn't just the music doing it?
Bugger! Hadn't thought of that!! :-)
Keith G
>
> "Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:XtWdndX2Xo_...@pipex.net...
>
>> The KiT88's a bit better now it's had a while to get going (less brash -
>> I don't think the pot-bellied Sovteks are the best KT88s in the world)
>> but no reason to change my earlier comments...
>>
>>
> Keith. Re Kt88s. I agree that the Sovteks are not the best choice.
> Try a pair of Svetlana, or better still Tesla (they are current
> production)
> They seem a little fragile mechanically and so may not travel well,
> particularly in the hands of Parcel Farce (1)
>
> But they sound absolutely wonderful:-)
Iain, I've got a suite of Svet 6550Cs I use for *best* in that amp. KT88s
ain't cheap enought to have too many spare sets!!
(That's 'sets' Don - not 'SETs'!! ;-)
>
> Iain
>
> (1) I took receipt of a package from the UK today. The label
> was all but illegible - obliterated by a huge footprint!!
Oh? Who else do you know who would use the St Neots sorting office?
Ian Iveson
>>> Reproducing the signal is not the same as reproducing the sound,
>>> of
>>> course>
>> It is.
> This may just be semantics, but I think the point being reached
> for
> here is that a signal can be faithful in many important respects
> for
> the sound engineer - flat frequency response etc. (all
> understandable,
> no argument here) but it may not 'sound' idiomatically like the
> music
> it is supposed to reproduce in subtle ways. The Germans
> distinguish
> between musker and musikant, roughly translated as 'makes music'
> and
> 'is musical'. I think that's the difference, and however subtle it
> may
> be it matters for musicians, as shown by the fact there are
> distinct
> expressions for one and the other.
>
Thanks, Andy.
If subtle nuances are lost, they cannot be replaced as they were. To
bring the music back to life, my sound system must have its own
subtlety. In spirit, you are somewhere around where I would like to
be:-)
Actually, I would be happy first to at least agree on the simple
point I made. The signal is not the same thing as the sound. Just
dictionary-style, matter of simple definition, no baggage.
Clarity cannot be enhanced by adding confusion.
Surely no-one of any persuasion can claim that the electrical signal
*is* the sound? It is not necessary for Dave's case, or to
mainstream reproductionism, AFAIK.
It is only necessary to say that, whatever the transformation errors
between sound and signal, and from signal to sound, they cannot be
corrected by any universal transform of the signal. In between those
transformations, the signal is definitive and inviolate.
I don't think your point is just semantics at all, but if it is
true, it is some way down some road from where I am at present, and
I am trying not to be drawn by siren voices!
***...missing important part of argument...***
Music is not just not just any sound. It is the voice of
civilisation, it is necessarily social and interactive, and is
always live.
Try this as a proposition in need of substantiation:
Reproduction + creation = performance
Or, if that is a hostage to negative interpretation, this:
Performance = reproduction AND performance = creation.
That is the paradox I am trying to resolve. My hope is that they are
dialectically opposed, and that therefore a synthesis is possible,
and a corresponding argument that would appear true to both sides of
this debate. It is possible that a good SET system is an attempt at,
and therefore an exemplar of, a resolution of that paradox.
Another way of posing my question...is this SET system the holy
trinity...is it Performance, the Reproduction and the Creation, or
is it just reproduction + distortion = pile of shite?
cheers, Ian
Ian Iveson
>>> So it's perfectly ok to have that change
>>> the sound from the pickup.
>>
>> Er...the pickup doesn't have a sound.
>
> Insofar as they don't have something that vibrates air, but they
> do have
> characteristic signal qualitities, like the difference between
> single coil
> and humbucker. If an amplifier can be said to have a 'sound', then
> I'd say a
> pickup can as well.
Whoa...
Context, Wally. I think we were trying to clarify distinctions, not
cloud them!
I believe the point Dave was making, correctly but unnecessarily, is
that an electric guitar is not an instrument until its amp and
speaker are connected. The definitive sound comes from the speakers,
and hence cannot be considered to be distorted. Processing of the
*signal* from the pickups may involve distortion, and the signal
each pickup generates may be different, but the difference in
*sound* between using a humbucker or single coil can only be
discerned at the speaker output, and that is the sound of the whole
instrument, not the sound of the pickup.
I believe this distinction between signal and sound is a necessary
premise of Dave's point, and to be consistent he should have said
"signal from the pickup".
Further, the ease with which these inconsistencies arise
demonstrates that the distinction he makes is not as crystal clear
as some would claim.
cheers, Ian
Jim Lesurf
<removethis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Not quite. :-)
> >
> > The 'problem' here is with assocating a device which can be shown
> > alters the signals with "more accurate".
> >
> > Thus confusing an objective claim with a subjective one.
> >
> Not really. On that occasion I did choose my words with reasonable care.
Again, I'm afraid that you keep using words in an ambiguous - and thus
misleading - manner.
On an objective measurement basis an *amplifier* can be defined to be
'accurate' in terms of injecting an input waveform x{t} and then comparing
this with the output y{t}. (Where x{t} may be 'musical' if so desired.)
'Accuracy' would then be definable/measureable/assessable in terms of
seeing if there was real scalar values A and d for which we would find that
A.x{t+d} - y{y} was vanishingly small.
i.e. that by measurement we would find that the output was essentially an
'accurate' version of the input save for being scaled in size (amplified)
and perhaps slightly delayed by propagation through the amp.
Whereas your 'subjective' definition seems to be quite different in a
number of ways.
Firstly, you implicitly apply it to a *system* which includes the amplifier
- but is not confined to it - and *also includes the arrangements employed
to make the recording/braodcast and get it to your reproduction system.
Secondly, your assessment of 'accuracy' is entirely a matter of personal
judgement based on no actual measurements.
Thus the two meanings you seek to conflate for 'accuracy' are actually
quite different, both in method of assessment and in scope.
This seems to me to be an example of the kind of ambiguity which leads
people to argue pointlessly as they are doing so at cross-purposes as they
are trying to apply different meanings to the same words - or
symultaneously use the same words for two distinct meanings.
> I feel that measurement and the listening experience are both relative
> and subjective.
That seems to me to be another example of the above ambiguity. The
objective method I outline above for 'accuracy' could only be regarded as
"relative" in a different way to the subjective judgement. Although perhaps
what you say you "feel" is unclearly expressed, so I am misunderstanding
you.
[snip]
> >
> >>1. Mainly because of the convenience of a SS amp.
> >
> >
> >>2. Figures relating to my valve power amp back from the clinic:
> >
> >
> >>Power output: 100W per channel with less than 1% distortion
> >>Distortion @ 1W output: 3rd only @ -78dB Distortion @ Full power: 2nd
> >>@ -70dB. 3rd @ -45dB Noise @ 1W output: < -80dB Difference in
> >>performance between channels " better than 1%. Reference Notes: -40dB
> >>= 1%; -70dB = 0.03%
> >
> >
> >>Means very little to me!
> >
> >
> >
> > And to me - in the absence of some other data from the above. :-)
> >
> I suppose I posted it to posit that it may measure like a SS amp, but it
> certainly don't sound like one :-)
Well, my comment was to the effect that using the above figures to imply it
"measures like a SS amp" is quite misleading. :-)
Some examples.
1) The above says nothing about the frequency used for the measurements.
(Indeed, it does not even state it was sinewave/THD.) Different types of
amp may return similar sinewave values at one frequency, yet show quite
different distortion behaviours in other ways. For example at HF, or LF, or
for HF/LF intermod, or in terms of signal/PSU ripple injection.
2) It says nothing about the output impedance or frequency response of the
amp.
3) It says nothing about the loads used for the figures quoted. Hence tells
us nothing about current capability, or indeed stability into some loads.
Hence in reality, if we actually measured a sensible set of parameters it
may or may not "measure like a SS amp".
None of the above means we can conclude the amp is 'suspect' or indeed
'different' to some other amp. However that was my point. That taken in
isolation, the values you quoted mean very little. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
Andy
Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So far as I can see, the 'logic' is that SET or some other types of amp
> alter the sounds 'by design and intent' in ways that some people prefer.>
> I think the idea that modern designers of valve equipment routinely and
> delberately doctor the sound to make it euphonic is entirely false.
I appreciate you may think this. :-)
I would agree that at least some designers may be unaware of this, or do
not do so in a conscious and deliberate matter. They may simply
'experiment' with no particular understanding of the underlaying processes
that lead to a given result. However I would be surprised if at least some
did not do this with more awareness and understanding.
> They routinely reduce unwanted distortions through design and
> measurement,
I am sure you are right. But "*unwanted* distortions" are not what I was
referring to. :-) My point was that they may also choose to arrange to
alter the signals in ways that they find they (or some others) then prefer.
> and I can assure you that quite a few originally worked for Tektronix
> and have as many machines on their test benches as you would expect to
> find in any designers lab.
That may be so, but does not mean that what I said was wrong. :-)
> Plus, a lot of modern designers use push pull circuits anyway,
> particularly using transformers.Yes - those same transformers one
> routinely finds in studios and in the recording process. Plus most
> modern designers use a mixture of valves and solid state, so the idea of
> all valve circuits is a myth anyway.
Comment as above. Afraid I don't know what you mean by "all valve circuits
is a myth". However I was not referring to "all valve circuits", nor was
that the context of what I wrote.
> I was rather surprised to see these views coming from you, Jim.
Why? When you or others experiment with different components to do what I
think you call "voice" the amp, and judge this on the basis of listening.
In some cases, people may do that with the aim and result of reducing
the degree to which the signals are altered as they pass through the amp.
However in other cases they may simply select the alterations which
they prefer to have applied. That seems fine to me if it is what suits
them.
I might choose to design amplifiers in an entirely different manner.
However that it my own preference, based on satisfying myself that it
delivers results I prefer.
Note also that you have followed your usual practice of snipping the
previous comments to which mine were a response. Thus you have taken what I
wrote out of that context.
Keith G
"Ian Iveson" <IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
<snip hot air>
> Another way of posing my question...is this SET system the holy
> trinity...is it Performance, the Reproduction and the Creation, or is it
> just reproduction + distortion = pile of shite?
Or is it just an amp that is prized by a Favoured Few and largely reviled by
the Great Unwashed? I have been running one of my PP amps today and, nice as
it is, it *ain't* gonna put any of my 3 SETs out of a job....
:-)
Ian Iveson
Wally wrote
>> The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
>> reproduction.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never
>> produce
>> the "sound of real musicians playing".
>>
>> SET systems are not in general designed primarily for
>> reproduction,
>> but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".
>
> I question your use of the qualifier "designed". It is out with
> the context
> given in...
> ----------
> The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> reproduction.
> ----------
> The context is *sound*, specifically that of real musicians
> playing,
> and not amplifier design, or design intent.
I was careful to say a SET system, not just the amplifier. Before
*any* performer performs, there must be intent. The problem you
uncover here for me is that musicians have there own intention to
perform, whereas a sound system has its designer's intent. Perhaps
the most obvious problem there is that the design intent is singular
and universal to all performances, whereas the musician's intent
changes with each performance. This is a serious problem for sure.
> Moreover, designing for X doesn't entail
> X.
Not necessarily, but possibly and hopefully and, some experienced
listeners say, apparently! Neither is the opposite true: that X does
not necessarily entail designing for X; but experience of the
production process suggests that it is very often the case. It is
also often generally the case that designing for X *does* entail
X...as long as we don't get hung up on the semantics of "entail".
>> Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the
>> "sound
>> of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for
>> reproduction.
> Your introducton of "more like" suggests that your earlier comment
> that a
> SET "system *is* a live performer" [your emphasis] is no longer
> what you're
> saying, but that it's 'sorta like' a live performer.
I am trying the argument that *all* sysems are by their nature
performers...yes you are right, but good ideas are never one-shot
deals. Some don't sound like the "sound of real musicians playing",
but rather like...well, a poor sound system playing.
> Naturally (ho-ho), one wonders what sort of 'live performer' is it
> like. Is
> it like a guitarist? If you don't mean it's like a real musician
> (a common
> example of a live performer, the sound of which being the focus of
> this very
> discourse), then what sort of live performer is it like? An
> automaton
> operated by means of mains electricity?
Ah, but it *is* the real musician, instrument and all! That's what a
performer is. It is like itself.
It may sound bad doing what it is told, it may sound good playing
something different, or it may sound good performing the original
music. Er...and whatever the missing combination is...it may sound
bad playing something different.
>> Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.
> Some people say their burnt toast has Jesus on it. For some
> suitable value
> of true, it is indeed true, but, without knowing what that value
> is, their
> testimony doesn't add anything.
I guess for anyone who thinks their toast has Jesus on it, it must
have. What is more, I would guess that Jesus can be on many slices,
in many places, at the same time. After all, that's why God made
toasters.
>> Whether they actually do or not, I don't know. I'm just examining
>> the logic of the arguments.
>
> Given the premise that the sound of real musicians playing can
> never come
> about by reproduction, it follows that, for an amp to 'sound like
> real
> musicians playing', then said amp must be a part of the real
> musician's
> sound equipment - the source of the music being produced by the
> real
> musician. For example, a guitar amp. Any amplifier which is being
> used
> outwith the context of being part of the musician's equipment is
> functioning
> as a reproducer.
Oi! Now who's leaping, from tree to tree.
But no matter, your point is simply answered, the system *is* the
performer. Your argument is then circular and invalid when viewed
from my frame. Not that I mind, since I hope to argue that it is
*also* a "reproducer".
Just like performers are. And aren't. Simultaneously.
cheers, Ian
Rob
> In article <dr8gbo$5jp$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Rob
> <removethis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>
>>>Not quite. :-)
>>>
>>>The 'problem' here is with assocating a device which can be shown
>>>alters the signals with "more accurate".
>>>
>>>Thus confusing an objective claim with a subjective one.
>>>
>
>
>>Not really. On that occasion I did choose my words with reasonable care.
>
>
>
> Again, I'm afraid that you keep using words in an ambiguous - and thus
> misleading - manner.
>
> On an objective measurement basis an *amplifier* can be defined to be
> 'accurate' in terms of injecting an input waveform x{t} and then comparing
> this with the output y{t}. (Where x{t} may be 'musical' if so desired.)
>
> 'Accuracy' would then be definable/measureable/assessable in terms of
> seeing if there was real scalar values A and d for which we would find that
>
> A.x{t+d} - y{y} was vanishingly small.
>
> i.e. that by measurement we would find that the output was essentially an
> 'accurate' version of the input save for being scaled in size (amplified)
> and perhaps slightly delayed by propagation through the amp.
>
You make a number of assumptions: significance of sample variation,
standardised test procedure, accuracy of test equipment and the use of
that equipment, and possibly other variables that you would know far
more about than me. But presumably these variables are not significant -
I defer.
As for the science that underpins the objectivity claim, I would simply
state that you only know what you know today, and some other explanation
of variation and experience may arise tomorrow. I gather that quantum
physics has the potential to upend certain 'established facts' for
example. Perhaps not 'the ability of valve amps to amplify with more
accuracy', granted :-)
My main point is the validity - the *importance* - of such a finding
(sound in equals sound out, only amplified). While I can vaguely
appreciate the engineering/design skills necessary to achieve such a
thing I'm just not convinced it's all there is to amplified electrical
signals and music - hence relative and subjective.
And I don't think I'm far wrong when I say that the people who design
these things come up with non-linear solutions to real world
application, and thereby produce a 'better amplifier' - that is one that
does a better job of amplifying the original signal - again a relative
and subjective realm.
> Whereas your 'subjective' definition seems to be quite different in a
> number of ways.
>
> Firstly, you implicitly apply it to a *system* which includes the amplifier
> - but is not confined to it - and *also includes the arrangements employed
> to make the recording/braodcast and get it to your reproduction system.
>
No, not really. I have in mind power amplifiers only.
> Secondly, your assessment of 'accuracy' is entirely a matter of personal
> judgement based on no actual measurements.
>
Precisely - but I question the validity of measurements. You (I think)
rest your case on their unassailable objectivity.
> Thus the two meanings you seek to conflate for 'accuracy' are actually
> quite different, both in method of assessment and in scope.
>
> This seems to me to be an example of the kind of ambiguity which leads
> people to argue pointlessly as they are doing so at cross-purposes as they
> are trying to apply different meanings to the same words - or
> symultaneously use the same words for two distinct meanings.
>
Yes, I understand that, and I realise that it's not helpful if you're
trying to pin things down.
>
>>I feel that measurement and the listening experience are both relative
>>and subjective.
>
>
> That seems to me to be another example of the above ambiguity. The
> objective method I outline above for 'accuracy' could only be regarded as
> "relative" in a different way to the subjective judgement. Although perhaps
> what you say you "feel" is unclearly expressed, so I am misunderstanding
> you.
>
I don't see how the statement is ambiguous. We can agree that the
listening experience is relative and subjective, probably. We disagree
that the measurement of electrical equipment is *always* relative and
subjective.
Just out of interest, when your students do their theses (say MSc and
above), did/do they consider methodology - humanist, realist,
positivist, origin and nature of knowledge, that type of thing - as the
basis of their enquiry? Or did/does methodology usually mean 'method'?
Aha - thanks for that! I'm not too sure if he was trying to blind me
with science, or provide a little lay reassurance that it went through
some kind of mill. Looks like I'll never know :-)
Rob
Iain Churches
Hi Keith. Let's not have even a whiff of elitism here.
The soldier ants from the SS nest will be swarming
over you before you can say "cathode follower" :-)
I simply cannot understand why our solid state colleagues
get so hot under the collar about SET.
Some enjoy it, and find it especially good for the kind of
music they listen to. Some prefer valve push pull, still
triode. some UL. Others are firmly convinced that SS
is superior in every way.
I was thinking to pack my 50 valve amp and psu into
a flight case, and offer to send it to Dave P for evaluation
while I was away in Brasil. But I fear he might not have
wanted to return it ..... ever:-)
Iain
Wally
> Context, Wally. I think we were trying to clarify distinctions, not
> cloud them!
Oh! Okay, you first!
> I believe the point Dave was making, correctly but unnecessarily, is
> that an electric guitar is not an instrument until its amp and
> speaker are connected.
I'm aware of what Dave's point was. In my view, the whole is the
instrument - it's not a case of take any electric guitar and the amp and
speaker will be 'the sound of the instrument', the guitar and it's various
pickup configurations has its own range of sounds which work (or not) with
the amp and speaker. In other words, the contention that the pickup 'has no
sound' is false.
> The definitive sound comes from the speakers,
> and hence cannot be considered to be distorted. Processing of the
> *signal* from the pickups may involve distortion, and the signal
> each pickup generates may be different, but the difference in
> *sound* between using a humbucker or single coil can only be
> discerned at the speaker output, and that is the sound of the whole
> instrument, not the sound of the pickup.
The guitar can be plugged into a neutral/hifi amplifier and speaker setup,
the pickups switched, and different sounds heard.
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com
Tony Gartshore
don...@pearce.uk.com says...
> >Even I have 3 SETs atm and the differences between is them is *not*
> >inconsiderable...
> >
>
> Doesn't that ring any sort of alarm bell at all for you?
>
Surely the same would apply to SS amps? Or do all SS amps sound the
same? :)
T..
> d
>
>
Don Pearce
Keith G
No.....
....only *good* ones...!!
;-)
Don Pearce
wrote:
>
Don't think there are any bad ones any more. If we delve into the
archives, of course...
Keith G
So....?
Don't you think that might apply, if even in only a *little* way, to modern
valve amps then...??
Off oot tha hoose now! :-)
EOT