amplifier burn in, what happens to make it sound better?
Stephen Varga
absolutely nonsense. I heard people saying that break-in was
necessary and blah blah, but I never really took it seriously until I
experienced the results myself.
My question is, what actually happens that makes the sound better?
Stewart Pinkerton
Simple really - your ears get used to the new sound........
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
George Graves
<s_v...@msn.com> wrote:
A couple of things COULD be happening. New capicitors (especially
electrolytics) could be still forming their dielectric and
stabilizing over the first few minutes/hours of use. Tubes, in tube
equipment could be stabilizing their parameters after a few
start-up/shut-down cycles, etc. But guess what? They aren't.
Electronic equipment doesn't "burn-in" for any reason other than to
find infant mortality among its various components. OTOH, warm-up
does occur. An amp or preamp will sound better after its been on an
hour or so, than it does when its first turned on as the various
components in the circuit come up to their full stabilised operating
temperature and voltage potentials, but this is NOT burn-in, its
warm-up.
--
George Graves
Stephen Varga
> electrolytics) could be still forming their dielectric and
> does occur. An amp or preamp will sound better after its been on an
> hour or so, than it does when its first turned on as the various
> components in the circuit come up to their full stabilised operating
> temperature and voltage potentials, but this is NOT burn-in, its
> warm-up.
I experienced the sound opening up in the top end after playing the unit
extensively. This revelation did not happen after warming up but it
happened after the 100th or so time I powered up the amp. Now I am very
happy with the sound. This could be what Stewart Pinkerton has suggested
that I actually got used to the sound of the amp. But it also validates the
recommendation of various audiophiles that I give the unit time to "break
in". That was the word, breaking in not burning in.
As you stated before it could be the electronics and it could as Stewart
said be my mind's adjustment to the new sound I am hearing. Maybe it's both
but I wanted to know if there is a scientific basis other than psylogical to
the sound sounding better. You said "New capicitors (especially
electrolytics) could be still forming their dielectric and stabilizing over
the first few minutes/hours of use". I noticed this after about a total of
150 hours of use. Thanks for the information.
ROBERT C. LANG
Simple really - your ears get used to the new sound........
I can't disagree with your statement at all. In fact, I suggest
as much as a reason I why increasingly enjoyed my Musical
Fidelity Nu Vista 300 amplifier several months ago. See
http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Amplifier/product_3226.shtml
But might there be other factors at play here? There is a
dedicated
group of audiophiles who believe that "all amps sound the same"
(given the same circumstances). If that is the case there would
seemingly be nothing to get use to. The ear/brain would have
already gotten use to the sound of one quality amp in comparison
to another.
Certainly George's suggestion of "warm up" should also be given
consideration. I rountinely fire up my system, then take care of
some other things I want to do (such as submitting this post)
before sitting down for some listening. All to allow my
electronics
to warm up.
Does warm up allow my system to perform at its highest level?
I don't know, but I *believe* it does so the music sounds better
after the ritual warm up. (Of course, I perform other rituals
related to my listening for which I have no proof that they
actually make the music sound better. For example, I used
to listen in a large comfy, high back leather chair. I read a few
years ago that such a chair, with all its reflective surfaces,
especially around the ears, could compromise sound quality. I
then switched to a small "directors chair". And wouldn't you
know it the sound did improve [too me]. I list that change
as one of my all time audio tweaks).
Robert C. Lang
Saxon Liw
news:8pha16$5h6$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Simple really - your ears get used to the new sound........
>
> I can't disagree with your statement at all. In fact, I suggest
> as much as a reason I why increasingly enjoyed my Musical
> Fidelity Nu Vista 300 amplifier several months ago. See
> http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Amplifier/product_3226.shtml
>
> But might there be other factors at play here? There is a
> dedicated
> group of audiophiles who believe that "all amps sound the same"
> (given the same circumstances). If that is the case there would
> seemingly be nothing to get use to. The ear/brain would have
> already gotten use to the sound of one quality amp in comparison
> to another.
I don't really know if it's really the ears got used to the sound. I
have ever tried, turning the thing on, listen for a while, leave it
playing while going off somewhere for a while and when I come back
again, "Hey, it sounds different!" Maybe there's a psychological effect
to it, considering the thing I do when I away, then what about those
"demagnetizing tracks"? Do these really work or are they only
psychological?
And what about having new equipment for some time, then suddenly things
started to sound better overnight? I'm sure it's not just simply getting
used to the sound. I got a certain brand of speaker cables for more than
6 months and I was never able to get used to the sound. After I changed
to another brand for the same system, the sound do gradually change and
it sounds great in less than a month. What gives?
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Simple really - your ears get used to the new sound........
>
>I can't disagree with your statement at all. In fact, I suggest
>as much as a reason I why increasingly enjoyed my Musical
>Fidelity Nu Vista 300 amplifier several months ago. See
>http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Amplifier/product_3226.shtml
>
>But might there be other factors at play here? There is a
>dedicated
>group of audiophiles who believe that "all amps sound the same"
>(given the same circumstances).
Really? I don't recall anyone saying that. I've often seen other
people *claim* that the 'audio Borg' have said it......
> If that is the case there would
>seemingly be nothing to get use to. The ear/brain would have
>already gotten use to the sound of one quality amp in comparison
>to another.
Well, certainly it's been my experience that all well-designed amps
sound near-identical below the clipping level. Of course, some people
*prefer* the sound of bad designs like SETs, and indeed I've
encountered several SS class AB amps which did sound different and
would take some getting used to. Interestingly, they were from the
quirkier end of the hi-fi spectrum (e.g. Musical Fidelity and Rega),
so it's conceivable that the noticeably non-neutral sound was
deliberate rather than a sign of incompetence.
>Certainly George's suggestion of "warm up" should also be given
>consideration. I rountinely fire up my system, then take care of
>some other things I want to do (such as submitting this post)
>before sitting down for some listening. All to allow my
>electronics
>to warm up.
>
>Does warm up allow my system to perform at its highest level?
Well, it's certainly conceivable that it may take a few minutes for
everything to reach thermal equilibrium, and that *might* affect the
sound. However, I can't afford the electricity to leave my class A
Krell switched on permanently! :-)
George Graves
<s_v...@msn.com> wrote:
Actually, I meant that rather sarcastically. Most component engineers
will tell you that a capacitor's dielectric is formed in minutes
after the first application of power/signal. Certainly any change in
dielectric after the initial start-up would be minimal at best and
certainly not likely to cause the degree of change that the burn-in
believers say occurs over 50 - 100 hours. I do believe that certain
electromechanical devices such as transducers could benefit from a
break-in period, but I do not see any real mechanism other than
temperature which would account for any significant change in
operating parameters in any purely electronic devices. So what I'm
saying, basically, is that warm-up is a real, measurable factor in
amplifier/pre-amp performance (but certainly no more than an hour
should be necessary), but that there is no mechanism for burn-in that
I know about which would cause enough of a performance change to be
noticed occurring over the course of a long period of time. People
simply do not have that kind of aural memory. Don't believe me? Get
your self a tube amp. Listen to it for a year, tell me if you notice
any change. Then, all at once, change all the tubes for new ones, and
listen again. Its like a different amp, yet you will find that you
didn't notice the degradation that occurred in the tubes over that
year. With the new tubes, the unit sounds as it did when new. Believe
me its quite a change and it has proven to more than one audiophile
how poor the ear/brain is at recognizing a gradual deterioration in
fi.
--
George Graves
mcn...@my-deja.com
lan...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Simple really - your ears get used to the new sound........
>
> I can't disagree with your statement at all. In fact, I suggest
> as much as a reason I why increasingly enjoyed my Musical
> Fidelity Nu Vista 300 amplifier several months ago. See
> http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Amplifier/product_3226.shtml
>
> But might there be other factors at play here? There is a
> dedicated
> group of audiophiles who believe that "all amps sound the same"
> (given the same circumstances).
Not quite, but we'll let it pass.
> If that is the case there would
> seemingly be nothing to get use to. The ear/brain would have
> already gotten use to the sound of one quality amp in comparison
> to another.
The effect might work like this: You switch amps. Thanks to the
placebo effect, you believe the system sounds different. Then over
time, you either become accustomed to that perceived (but not actual)
difference, or else you stop being aware of that "difference."
The idea of "your ears breaking in" is quite compatible with the
"many amps are audibly indistinguishable" school. The fact that you
can hear the same thing differently, depending on circumstances, can
fool you both about the sound of two amps and about the sound of one
amp over time.
bob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
George Graves
> "ROBERT C. LANG" <lan...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
> >Certainly George's suggestion of "warm up" should also be given
> >consideration. I rountinely fire up my system, then take care of
> >some other things I want to do (such as submitting this post)
> >before sitting down for some listening. All to allow my
> >electronics
> >to warm up.
> >
> >Does warm up allow my system to perform at its highest level?
>
> Well, it's certainly conceivable that it may take a few minutes for
> everything to reach thermal equilibrium, and that *might* affect the
> sound. However, I can't afford the electricity to leave my class A
> Krell switched on permanently! :-)
I hear you. I leave my Audio Research preamp in standby all the time,
because it uses less current than a 40 watt lightbulb. For that I get
instant "on" and longer tube life. OTOH, I have heard the preamp
after a power outage, and its been off a couple of hours, and I must
say, that the difference is anything but subtle. When warm, this
preamp is quite neutral; when cold, its hard and steely sounding in
the upper midrange and highs. Poweramps? I turn mine on an hour
before serious listening. Sometimes I put FM in the background,
sometimes I leave it silent. My VTL Deluxe 140 tube amps sound a bit
dark when they are cold, and my Hafler TransNova 3000's sound a bit
bright when cold.
--
George Graves
Norbert Hahn
>I hear you. I leave my Audio Research preamp in standby all the time,
>because it uses less current than a 40 watt lightbulb. For that I get
>instant "on" and longer tube life.
I doubt the "longer tube life". Having the amp powered on all the
time, builds up to 8760 hours per year. That's half the life span
of a tube! Older tube require a longer time for a steady current,
a brand new one should stabilize within a couple of minutes.
Norbert
Kristian Larsen
nyhedsmeddelelse:8pdnh...@news1.newsguy.com...
After buying new components most people for manny reasons cannot concentrate
about the sound itself, later on when they become more relaxed, its peoples
mind that opens up and they get to know if they are on the path to bliss or
another step towards hifi - hell.
From Denmark
Kristian Larsen
Curtis Leeds
> >I hear you. I leave my Audio Research preamp in standby all the time,
> >because it uses less current than a 40 watt lightbulb. For that I get
> >instant "on" and longer tube life.
Norbert Hahn answers:
> I doubt the "longer tube life". Having the amp powered on all the
> time, builds up to 8760 hours per year. That's half the life span
> of a tube! Older tube require a longer time for a steady current,
> a brand new one should stabilize within a couple of minutes.
This is mistaken. I wouldn't leave a tubed amplifier on all
the time, but I have a tube hybrid ARC premaplifier that is
powered most of the time. (I'll unplug it during electrical
storms, but it's usually "on".) I get y-e-a-r-s on a set of
tubes. really.
What burns out many preamp tubes is the surge from turn-on,
not steady use.
George Graves
(Norbert Hahn) wrote:
I was, of course, referring to the filament. cycling the filament on
and off stresses it, and shortens its life. Reminds of a true story
about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
--
George Graves
Stewart Pinkerton
>Reminds of a true story
>about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
>installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
>was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
Light bulbs are *designed* to have a 1,000 hour lifespan, they could
easily be made to last 100,000 hours at no additional cost, but that
would hardly profit the light bulb companies.........
Way back then, a few companies might not have caught on to planned
obsolescence! OTOH, it's the stuff of life for high-end audio
companies, who make sure that you absolutely have to have the latest
and best amplifier, that just blows the old model away........
My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
*some* discernible effect........ :-)
Howard Ferstler
> My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
> yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
> think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
> *some* discernible effect........ :-)
I remember reading a series of interviews some time back (I
cannot remember the magazine title) that involved assorted
amp manufacturers and how they felt about their products,
technology in general, and the future.
Nearly all of them indicated that their own particular
products were the best, but that "more needed to be done" to
reach perfection. Obviously, this ploy was essential, in
order to make sure that current customers were ready for
future product upgrades.
Howard Ferstler
Norbert Hahn
>I was, of course, referring to the filament. cycling the filament on
>and off stresses it, and shortens its life. Reminds of a true story
Usually a tube "wears" by the cathode loosing its ability to emit
electrons. The heating doesn't change much over the lifespan. Of
course, tube my suddenly die from a broken filament, but that's rare.
A carefully designed tube amp should not simply switch the heating
on by switching the voltage; rather it should work with constant
current giving a life time of several 10.000 hours for the filament.
>about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
>installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
>was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
If that light bulb really is that old, it probably was designed
for much higher currents. If you dim a moders light bulb to about
90% of the nominal current the life will be extended by - a rough
guess - 20%. At 50% nominal current you'll get a very long life
*and* a more reddish color.
Norbert
George Graves
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >Reminds of a true story
> >about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
> >installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
> >was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
>
> Light bulbs are *designed* to have a 1,000 hour lifespan, they could
> easily be made to last 100,000 hours at no additional cost, but that
> would hardly profit the light bulb companies.........
>
> Way back then, a few companies might not have caught on to planned
> obsolescence! OTOH, it's the stuff of life for high-end audio
> companies, who make sure that you absolutely have to have the latest
> and best amplifier, that just blows the old model away........
>
> My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
> yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
> think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
> *some* discernible effect........ :-)
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
>
I dunno. Seems to me that after one has done all the "right" things
to a good amp design, there is really not much left to be done. After
all, there are only so many different circuit topologies, and once
one gets to a certain level of parts quality, going more expensive is
just guilding the lily. It also seems to me that the big challange in
amplifier design today should be moving the level of quality
associated with Krell and Levinson amps as well as a few others down
into more affordable gear (perhaps without the level of cosmetic
sophistication of many of these high-end designs, which, while
certainly appealing as eye candy, and engendering a good deal of
ownership pride, one must admit, does nothing for the sound). While
Krell does make a less expensive line of gear with more mundane
cosmetics, (the KAV series), they are primarily designed for home
theater, and are still pretty (and from my experience, needlessly)
expensive. One has to go to more prosaic companies to find this kind
of aidiophile "trickle-down" concept. One such effort is simply
stunning as far as price/performance is concerned. When David Hafler
retired, he sold his company to Rockford Inc., an Arizona based
pro-audio company. They have, over the last few years, "re-invented"
the Hafler line as professional studio monitor amplifiers. These
amps, known as the TransNova line, don't even have RCA jacks for
inputs, but rather XLR and balanced phone inputs only. These amps are
CHEAP, and as plain as Amish Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes, yet they
are dual-mono designs, bridgeable, have only local feedback around
each stage and sound so good that I'd put them agianst just about any
solid-state amp regardless of price. The 150 WPC TransNova P-3000
RETAILS for US$799 NEW, and if one goes to HCM audio (try the back of
Stereophile or www.hcmaudio.com) one can buy a factory refurbished
(new case, hardware, output devices, recycled power trasformer, and
circuit boards) so-called 'B stock' unit for HALF that (US$399)! Buy
two as I did, and bridge 'em for 400 WPC monoblocs at US$800. There
are other models too at similar cost saving. A 75WPC TransNova P-1500
is just US$299 refurb'd, There is also a P-7000 model at 350 WPC
available for only US$799 refurb'd. The 'B stock' Hafler amps carry a
three year warranty HCM gives you a 30 Day money-back guarantee with
each amp, so if you buy it and don't like it, you can send it back.
How could you go wrong?
Several of the new breed of AV- "receivers" designed primarily for
home theater use also have surprisingly good amps in them. The
Harman-Kardon A/V-7000 for instance, has five 110 WPC amps capable of
sourcing +/- 75 amperes. It sounds excellent - certainly at least 95%
as good a Levinson or other overpriced amp. Similar receivers from
Marantz (with their SR-8000), Yamaha, and Onkyo probably offer
performance which is in the same ballpark.
While I and probabaly a good many audiophiles, have been focusing on
the ultra-expensive gear at the top-end, low priced "consumer grade"
amps, and professional sound reinforcement and recording studio
monitoring amps have quietly, and inexpensively just about caught-up
with the (still) high-priced spread.
--
George Graves
Stewart Pinkerton
>If that light bulb really is that old, it probably was designed
>for much higher currents. If you dim a moders light bulb to about
>90% of the nominal current the life will be extended by - a rough
>guess - 20%. At 50% nominal current you'll get a very long life
>*and* a more reddish color.
Actually, it's a *lot* more dramatic than that. If you run a domestic
light bulb off 80% of its rated voltage (not current, but it equates),
then you will *at least* triple its rated lifespan. At 50%, it will
exceed your rated lifespan..........
Peter Irwin
>>Reminds of a true story
>>about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
>>installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
>>was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
> Light bulbs are *designed* to have a 1,000 hour lifespan, they could
> easily be made to last 100,000 hours at no additional cost, but that
> would hardly profit the light bulb companies.........
I don't know about recent refinements in light bulbs, but there
used to be a trade-off between bulb life and efficiency which
resulted in shorter life bulbs being more economical. I remember
reading an old magazine article (from the 1930s, I think) which
pointed out that a lot of people were wasting electricity with
old carbon-filament bulbs. The carbon filament bulbs needed twice
the power to produce the same amount of light as typical tungsten
bulbs, and the cost of replacing bulbs was more than offset by
the savings on electric bills. I think a typical carbon bulb
was supposed to last something like 10,000 hours, so the bulb
in that firehouse is still somewhat unusual.
On a somewhat related note, I recently visited the Radio Canada
International site in Sackville NB, and I asked about their
transmitter finals. A technician told be that they recently
replaced a tube after 50,000 hours of use, and it turned out
that the old tube wasn't the problem after all. He did indicate
that this was around the expected life of the tubes they use.
Apparently the quarter-megawatt finals cost 125,000 loonies,
so it's a good thing they last as long as they do.
> Way back then, a few companies might not have caught on
> to planned obsolescence! OTOH, it's the stuff of life for
> high-end audio companies, who make sure that you absolutely
> have to have the latest and best amplifier, that just blows
> the old model away........
I'm not sure this applies to all of high-end audio, it seems
to me that Bryston's retroactive application of a 20 year
warranty showed quite a bit of commitment to their older gear.
Of course, there was Peter Walker of Quad insisting for years
and years that his 1938 model amplifier sounded as good
as any other, and he just might have been right.
> My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
> yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
> think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
> *some* discernible effect........ :-)
If an amplifier is transparent, you can get quite a lot
of vast improvement without noticing a thing.
Peter.
----
pir...@ktb.net
Arny Krueger
news:8prvl5$d4k$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> > My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations
old,
> > yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that,
you'd
> > think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
> > *some* discernible effect........ :-)
> If an amplifier is transparent, you can get quite a lot of vast
improvement without noticing a thing.
Same thing is true for CD players... ;-)
In mainstream audio, general opinon at least 15 years is that all
audio amplifiers can do is get smaller, less costly, and more
efficient.
Interestingly enough, the current favored approach to accomplishing
that, being switchmode amplifiers have the possibilty of being less
transparent because of their rising output impedance at high
frequencies.
Keith A. Lahteine
Components that, actually, require some physical motion might require a
break in period but otherwise, not excluding your impression it may be a
very subjective conclusion .
It may be very similar to preferring vinyl over, "C.D.s" . For
instance vinyl as opposed to, "C.D.s", may contain a little,
"Personality", that the medium imparts itself .
You know, something you can't really describe . "I don't know
what it is but it just sounds better ". You might have to, actually, be a
little cold and realize you may prefer it somewhat tainted rather than
sterile .
Sincerely : Keith A. Lahteine
Donald C. Bingaman
pair of Vandersteen 3A's for several years, and I'm amazed how good this
amp is, and how few people know anything about them. I think much credit
must be given to Jim Strickland's MOSFET-tailored design. As you pointed
out, the parts quality is high but not extravagant, and the cabinet owes
nothing to the CNC milling machines that one pays for when buying a
Levinson, or Krell, but the sound is much the same. I understand
Transnovas are well thought of in recording and mastering studios, because
of their good sound and indestructablity. Tom Dung of DMP supposedly uses
a bunch of these.
George Graves wrote:
> In article <8ppv0g$ho2$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
> > George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > >Reminds of a true story
> > >about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
> > >installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
> > >was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
> >
> > Light bulbs are *designed* to have a 1,000 hour lifespan, they could
> > easily be made to last 100,000 hours at no additional cost, but that
> > would hardly profit the light bulb companies.........
> >
> > Way back then, a few companies might not have caught on to planned
> > obsolescence! OTOH, it's the stuff of life for high-end audio
> > companies, who make sure that you absolutely have to have the latest
> > and best amplifier, that just blows the old model away........
> >
> > My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
> > yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
> > think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
> > *some* discernible effect........ :-)
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
> >
>
Irv Robinson
news:8ppv0g$ho2$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>
> My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
> yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
> think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
> *some* discernible effect........ :-)
>
How did you determine that the FPB-300 sounded "just the same"? Did your
friend haul the beast over to your home, or did you lug the KSA to his?
What speakers were used for the comparison? Given the power difference,
probably at least 3db (?), one would think a difference related to power
output capability might be audible.
Irv
Dr. Bob
the current, and light bulb efficiency goes up with current as either
a power or exponential function. Filament resistances are chosen for
the best compromise between lifetime and efficiency.
Dr.Bob
-----------------------------------
In article <8ppv0g$ho2$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
|George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> writes:
|
|>Reminds of a true story
|>about a light bulb in a firehouse in Oakland Ca. The lightbulb was
|>installed in 19-0-X and has never been turned out except when there
|>was a power failure. Last I heard, It was still burning.
|
|Light bulbs are *designed* to have a 1,000 hour lifespan, they could
|easily be made to last 100,000 hours at no additional cost, but that
|would hardly profit the light bulb companies.........
|
|Way back then, a few companies might not have caught on to planned
|obsolescence! OTOH, it's the stuff of life for high-end audio
|companies, who make sure that you absolutely have to have the latest
|and best amplifier, that just blows the old model away........
|
|My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
|yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
|think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
|*some* discernible effect........ :-)
Auke Dost
is discussed
"Stephen Varga" <s_v...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8pdnh...@news1.newsguy.com...
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8ppv0g$ho2$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>>
>> My Krell KSA-50mkII is about fifteen years and five generations old,
>> yet it sounds just the same as a friends FPB-300. Strange that, you'd
>> think that five generations of 'vastly improved' sound would have
>> *some* discernible effect........ :-)
>>
>
>How did you determine that the FPB-300 sounded "just the same"? Did your
>friend haul the beast over to your home, or did you lug the KSA to his?
He came to my place.
>What speakers were used for the comparison?
Apogee Duetta Signatures.
> Given the power difference,
>probably at least 3db (?), one would think a difference related to power
>output capability might be audible.
You may have missed the past few years of these discussions, but the
basis is sound quality *below* the clipping point. I'm happy to
concede that the FPB 300 has an additional 7dB or so headroom which
will be valuable in appropriate circumstances.