[Mxsmanic]

Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about the
existence of high-end audio, a bizarre world that I had never heard about
before. It seems to be a very small world that presumably appeals to people of
low intelligence and high income (e.g., people working in financial markets).

I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
so it's really only a source of amusement.

I recall hearing about Monster Cables ages ago, and they seemed overpriced and
excessive at the time to me. Clearly, that market went off the deep end long
ago.

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 07:03:43 UTC+1, Mxsmanic wrote:
Well, I've learned something new again on this group.

I see you did research for best trolling themes. Your next post will be about overcompression and loudness wars, than vinyl vs CD, than ...

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/20/2012 2:03 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about the
existence of high-end audio

Well, there's a rec.audio.high-end newsgroup. Get your butt
over there and quit bugging us here. But I'll warn you -
it's moderated.

http://tinyurl.com/rec-audio-high-end-Moderation



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:01:51 UTC+1, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/20/2012 2:03 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about the
existence of high-end audio

Well, there's a rec.audio.high-end newsgroup. Get your butt
over there and quit bugging us here. But I'll warn you -
it's moderated.

http://tinyurl.com/rec-audio-high-end-Moderation



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

No, he did research for best trolling themes. Next from him will be
vinyl vs. CD, digital vs. analog, overcompression and loudness wars,...

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about
the
existence of high-end audio, a bizarre world that I had never heard about
before.

Lucky you!

Sorry to drag you near this can of worms.

It seems to be a very small world that presumably appeals to people of
low intelligence and high income (e.g., people working in financial
markets).

The people who fall for High End audio hype are often very smart people,
well educated (but usually not not in audio) who are generally quick
learners and think they can master other "lesser" professions like audio
quite easily. Being highly arrogant seems to help.

I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in
this
world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as
well,
so it's really only a source of amusement.

IME high end audio has some dupes in the realm of audio production. As a
rule, audio production is far more pragmatic.

I recall hearing about Monster Cables ages ago, and they seemed overpriced
and
excessive at the time to me. Clearly, that market went off the deep end
long
ago.

High End cable madness struck in the early 1970s, if memory serves.

[William Sommerwerck]

"High-end" audio has been around at least 60 years, though it was not called
that. In fact, it arguably extends back to the 30s, with E H Scott making
horribly expensive radio receivers, and Avery Fisher assembling custom
systems.

Its modern incarnation began with Macintosh and Marantz products after WWII,
which most people could not afford. $250 power amps and preamps were beyond
the reach of most listeners. (I remember this very well.)

The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the first "good"
transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but not blowing up. Though
intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold very well to consumers.

What happened since then is too complex to explain in a brief post.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:03:43 AM UTC-4, Mxsmanic wrote:
I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
so it's really only a source of amusement.

Full story he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

--Ethan

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
the rare category.

If PA use more than once I saw DC300's outputs fail in a way that took
out all downstream drivers. Not a pretty sight.

On top of that, take a look at the spec for phase @ 20KHz relative to
1KHz.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb wrote:
On Tue 2012-Mar-20 08:34, William Sommerwerck writes:
The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
$545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
very well to consumers.

YEp, and sound reinforcement people liked it as well.

Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
first and intended application was for use on shake tables.

Yes, we have a bunch of them running shaker tables still, at a customer of
mine.

The things sound godawful, especially into the high efficiency speakers
of the seventies, because they have a lot of crossover distortion. But
they put lot lots of power down to insanely low frequencies.

LEgend has it, being very religious the owenrs of Crown
weren't real happy with their amplifiers being used to power sound reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
meeting.

Crown is still one of the major supporters of HCJB Radio in Ecuador. Their
call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The Crown broadcast
division basically started out supporting them.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:

But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
the rare category.

If PA use more than once I saw DC300's outputs fail in a way that took
out all downstream drivers. Not a pretty sight.

That's the downside of DC coupling. When one output transistor fails into
a short, you get DC on the output.

Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to shut everything
down when this happens, but back in the DC300's day nobody had a good
understanding on how important this is.

On top of that, take a look at the spec for phase @ 20KHz relative to
1KHz.

It's a fine amp for applications that don't exceed 1 KHz though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

What happened since then is too complex to explain in a brief post.

I made occasional visits to the store on the Mainline that you managed,
to ogle that amp. William, why couldn't you have been a decent human
being and slipped me a DC300 out the back door ?

What about your back door?

I didn't manage the store (Barclay Recording and Electronics).


But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later.
And while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups
were not in the rare category.

Amps have continued to improve. I doubt any transistor amp of 45 years ago
could compete with good modern amps.

[William Sommerwerck]

Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to
shut everything down when this happens, but back in the DC300's
day nobody had a good understanding on how important this is.

I owned a modern amp with such protection that, when the output stage
failed, did not shut off. One of my speakers was nearly destroyed.

[William Sommerwerck]

The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
$545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
very well to consumers.

Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
Iow for those not familiar, put the component or product on
the table and pump low frequency audio through the amplifier
to make the surface shake and see what happens.

My favorite Crown dealer in New Orleans told a story
repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
meeting.

Probably true. They had a prayer session every morning.

When Barclay went out of business, Crown offered several employees jobs. Not
me, of course. Even if they'd offered it, I wouldn't have taken it.

Crown had a later industrial amp, the M300. We used two bridged pairs to
power Dayton-Wright electrostatics (one of the nastiest loads in the history
of loudspeakers) in a huge, acoustically dead basement. The Crowns drove
them effortlessly and cleanly, to near-earsplitting levels.

[david gourley[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) :

hank alrich wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:

But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later.
And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were
not in
the rare category.

If PA use more than once I saw DC300's outputs fail in a way that took
out all downstream drivers. Not a pretty sight.

That's the downside of DC coupling. When one output transistor fails
into
a short, you get DC on the output.

Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to shut
everything
down when this happens, but back in the DC300's day nobody had a good
understanding on how important this is.

On top of that, take a look at the spec for phase @ 20KHz relative to
1KHz.

It's a fine amp for applications that don't exceed 1 KHz though.
--scott


When I worked in a radio design lab in the 80s, we used one to power a
mechanical shake table. It did a great job throwing inductors across
the room.

david

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2012-Mar-20 08:34, William Sommerwerck writes:
The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
$545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
very well to consumers.

YEp, and sound reinforcement people liked it as well.

Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
Iow for those not familiar, put the component or product on
the table and pump low frequency audio through the amplifier to make the surface shake and see what happens.
LEgend has it, being very religious the owenrs of Crown
weren't real happy with their amplifiers being used to power sound reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
meeting.

Them, and a guy used to cut disks back in Iowa where I grew
up had bgw amplifiers he liked as well.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
#! rnews 2733
Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL
From: R

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/20/2012 2:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to shut everything
down when this happens, but back in the DC300's day nobody had a good
understanding on how important this is.

It's a fine amp for applications that don't exceed 1 KHz though.

A test lab that I used to work with used them to drive shake
tables.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not
in the rare category.

It was pushing the limits of the then available output devices, and the
numbers of them that were used.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not
in the rare category.

It was pushing the limits of the then available output devices, and the
numbers of them that were used.

And yet a lot less often than the early Phase Linear, Bose and Carver amps
that all came later.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Arny Krueger writes:

Sorry to drag you near this can of worms.

It was entertaining. Some of the equipment I saw looked like a UFO.

The people who fall for High End audio hype are often very smart people,
well educated (but usually not not in audio) who are generally quick
learners and think they can master other "lesser" professions like audio
quite easily. Being highly arrogant seems to help.

I know many such people (minus the arrogance), but none of them would fall for
some of the claims apparently being made for some high-end audio products.
There are basic scientific principles that any technically-minded, reasonably
educated person would be familiar with that conflict with some of these
claims. The notion that cables could be directional seems very suspect, even
to someone who has never been exposed to audio systems before.

High End cable madness struck in the early 1970s, if memory serves.

Some of the pages I visited implied that Monster Cables actually help, but I
am wary, as even those have always seemed unjustifiably extreme to me. The
more recent exaggerations thereof are very difficult to take seriously.

[Mxsmanic]

Luxey writes:

I see you did research for best trolling themes.

No, I didn't, but I thought it might be an attractive topic of discussion.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb wrote:
Their call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The
Crown broadcast division basically started out supporting them.

I'd heard that one too, at leastthe acronym for hcjb. I
wasn't sure how much credence to give it though, as amateur
call signs for Columbia are hk prefixes, iirc hk3. Every
one I've ever worked from down there on 20 meters was an hk3 anyway, and I think boats in columbian waters must since
/hk3.

Well, it's no sillier than WSB being Welcome South Brother, or
WGST for the Georgia School of Technology....
--soctt
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
$545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
very well to consumers.

What are your memories of the 300A ?

Only that it was supposedly "better". The designer, Gerry Stanley, said that
it could properly drive a reactive load, something the 300 wouldn't do. He
promised to "never make that mistake again".

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:03:43 AM UTC-4, Mxsmanic wrote:
I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
so it's really only a source of amusement.

Full story he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Very interesting. Much of what is said I already suspected.

Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with someone who
insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally distorting the sound of the
music he played in a video. After I expressed doubts on the degree of
distortion that YouTube's encoding and compression might cause, he finally
sent me sound files of the original recording and the YouTube recording. I
couldn't hear a difference, but I was flamed in the most arrogant way
imaginable for daring to say so. So I took the files again into Sound Forge
and nulled them in the same way shown in this video. The result was silence
.... which means, objectively, that there was no significant difference between
the YouTube version of the music recording and the original. I even looked at
the waveform resulting from the nulling, and it was essentially flat right
down to individual samples (a maximum amplitude of perhaps 2-4, out of
16,777,216). So obviously this guy was blowing smoke, but I could not convince
him of that.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2012-Mar-20 13:09, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip

Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
first and intended application was for use on shake tables.

Yes, we have a bunch of them running shaker tables still, at a
customer of mine.

Wouldn't doubt that.

The things sound godawful, especially into the high efficiency
speakers of the seventies, because they have a lot of crossover
distortion. But they put lot lots of power down to insanely low
frequencies.

Yep, used them for the dreaded voice of the theater
cabinets, then switched them to monitor amp dut when I
bought some qsc power in the mid-eighties for mains. YEah
yeah I'm showing my age again.

LEgend has it, being very religious the owners of Crown
weren't real happy with their amplifiers being used to power sound
reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
meeting.

Crown is still one of the major supporters of HCJB Radio in Ecuador.
Their call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The
Crown broadcast division basically started out supporting them.

I'd heard that one too, at leastthe acronym for hcjb. I
wasn't sure how much credence to give it though, as amateur
call signs for Columbia are hk prefixes, iirc hk3. Every
one I've ever worked from down there on 20 meters was an hk3 anyway, and I think boats in columbian waters must since
/hk3.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[[email protected]]

I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.

Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.

Mxsmanic wrote:
: writes:
: On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:03:43 AM UTC-4, Mxsmanic wrote:
: I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
: world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
: so it's really only a source of amusement.
:
: Full story he
:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

: Very interesting. Much of what is said I already suspected.

: Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with someone who
: insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally distorting the sound of the
: music he played in a video. After I expressed doubts on the degree of
: distortion that YouTube's encoding and compression might cause, he finally
: sent me sound files of the original recording and the YouTube recording. I
: couldn't hear a difference, but I was flamed in the most arrogant way
: imaginable for daring to say so. So I took the files again into Sound Forge
: and nulled them in the same way shown in this video. The result was silence
: ... which means, objectively, that there was no significant difference between
: the YouTube version of the music recording and the original. I even looked at
: the waveform resulting from the nulling, and it was essentially flat right
: down to individual samples (a maximum amplitude of perhaps 2-4, out of
: 16,777,216). So obviously this guy was blowing smoke, but I could not convince
: him of that.

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:50 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.

Yep, I have a friend who was/is like that. He's calmed down quite a bit after I've told him what matters and what doesn't. He initially didn't even have a grounded AC outlet in his room. I installed one for him. He used to put arrows on his connecting cables so he could install them in the same direction because "that was the way they were burned in". He'd change out the power cables to some upgraded stuff. He had a different set of inter-connects for classical and another for jazz and another for vocals. It was crazy just trying to listen to music at his house. I got a lot of my "high end" stuff from him because he was constantly trading pieces out. I'd get stuff I could never afford at rock bottom prices or for free. In reality, everything he did, did something. It was subtle and you'd have to debate wether the $300 cable was $270 better than the $30 cable. But, I have to admit, things did change, for better or worse, with all the tweaks he did. Unfortunately, he ended up listening to the equipment instead of the music.

[William Sommerwerck]

I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been
a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300K.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.

Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.

How unfortunate. For example, for a tenth that prices, he could have had
components that almost certainly more-accurately reproduced the recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been
a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300K.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.

Yep, I have a friend who was/is like that. He's calmed down quite a
bit after I've told him what matters and what doesn't. He initially didn't
even have a grounded AC outlet in his room. I installed one for him.
He used to put arrows on his connecting cables so he could install
them in the same direction because "that was the way they were
burned in". He'd change out the power cables to some upgraded stuff.
He had a different set of inter-connects for classical and another for
jazz and another for vocals. It was crazy just trying to listen to music
at his house. I got a lot of my "high end" stuff from him because he
was constantly trading pieces out. I'd get stuff I could never afford at
rock bottom prices or for free. In reality, everything he did, did
something. It was subtle and you'd have to debate wether the $300
cable was $270 better than the $30 cable. But, I have to admit, things
did change, for better or worse, with all the tweaks he did.
Unfortunately,
he ended up listening to the equipment instead of the music.

The irony is that one buys high-quality equipment because it is
(supposedly) neutral -- rather than "musical" -- so that you can appreciate
the performance, and ignore the hardware.

[Anahata]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:04:58 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with
someone who insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally
distorting the sound of the music he played in a video.

My experience of YouTube is that it can distort sound really badly, and
also that different uploaders get quite different results, depending on
(possibly) what video format they use for uploading. After numerous
experiments I came to the conclusion that the only useful advice offered
(in several forums where this has been widely discussed) was that uploads
in HD format (720p or higher) get treated better than lower resolution
uploads.

In my case, the difference was so obvious I didn't need to do any nulling
tests.

I obviously don't know the technical details of your story, but my first
reaction would be to question whether what you get when you download a
YouTube video (for comparison with the "original") is exactly what you
get when you play it in real time.

As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Jonathan[_5_]]

On Mar 21, 7:14*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been
a showroom for all that snake oil. *For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300K.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets"..
And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.

How unfortunate. For example, for a tenth that prices, he could have had
components that almost certainly more-accurately reproduced the recording..

Maybe even for a hundredth

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 7:14 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been
a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300K.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.

How unfortunate. For example, for a tenth that prices, he could have had
components that almost certainly more-accurately reproduced the
recording.

Maybe even for a hundredth

Probably not, but... One can put together an extremely good stereo system
for $3K.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were
not in the rare category.

It was pushing the limits of the then available output devices, and the
numbers of them that were used.

And yet a lot less often than the early Phase Linear, Bose and Carver amps
that all came later.

The DC-300 is said to have had overly-defensive protection circuits.

It is alleged that even fairly benign speakers such as AR3s would force the
protective circuits to react audibly.

Of course, the defensive nature of these circuits protected the amp itself
from damage.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s.

1967 would be "...the late '60s, William. By then, transistor amps were not
uncommon in music, but audiophiles were, and some still are, "tube heads"
when it came to selecting their preferred amplifiers.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s.

1967 would be "...the late '60s, William. By then, transistor amps were
not
uncommon in music, but audiophiles were, and some still are, "tube heads"
when it came to selecting their preferred amplifiers.

My memory is that it was earlier -- say, 1964 -- but if you're right, thanks
for the correction.

The point, of course, is that the DC-300 was not an inexpensive amplifier,
and it received general acceptance as a "good" amplifier.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

The point, of course, is that the DC-300 was not an inexpensive amplifier,
and it received general acceptance as a "good" amplifier.

It was a unique and amazing amplifier. I wouldn't say it sounded very good,
but it had so much damn power in that tiny little box that nobody really
cared. On one level, it was not a "good" amplifier, but on another level
it was better than good, it was revolutionary.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:36:46 AM UTC-4, anahata wrote:
As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.

Download and play the files from this Dither article, then email me your guesses as to which are dithered and which are not:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/dither.html

As this short excerpt from my Audio Myths video shows, I do *not* argue against using dither:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0U_L3tb_M

But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for most music that's recorded at sensible levels.

--Ethan

[William Sommerwerck]

There are two good reasons for dither.

First, it prevents obvious distortion when a musical note is a
"sub-multiple" of the sampling frequency.

Second, optimized dither makes the output of the DAC -- which is, strictly
speaking, digital -- look like an analog signal with random noise.

[Luxey]

�реда, 21. март 2012. 19.42.24 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:
There are two good reasons for dither.

First, it prevents obvious distortion when a musical note is a
"sub-multiple" of the sampling frequency.

Second, optimized dither makes the output of the DAC -- which is, strictly
speaking, digital -- look like an analog signal with random noise.

Oh no, not again.

Who'll place bet Mxsmainic is composite personality created by Krooger, Schnitzel & Smallerdick, .

[Mxsmanic]

anahata writes:

I obviously don't know the technical details of your story, but my first
reaction would be to question whether what you get when you download a
YouTube video (for comparison with the "original") is exactly what you
get when you play it in real time.

I was going by the audio files he gave me, and he claimed that there was a
huge, horrible difference between them. I did the nulling test and found
essentially no difference at all, and I trust the numbers more than I trust
his ear or his ego.

I think YouTube probably adopted the same position that I did. You can't fix
something that isn't broken.

As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.

If I understand dither correctly, then his assertion that it isn't important
seems reasonable.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

There are two good reasons for dither.

First, it prevents obvious distortion when a musical note is a
"sub-multiple" of the sampling frequency.

Second, optimized dither makes the output of the DAC -- which is, strictly
speaking, digital -- look like an analog signal with random noise.

The counterpoint is that virtually every real world audio signal has enough
noise to dither itself. Enough of it comes from the analog domain, which
just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.