[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the
thread"? From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is
that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he
likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he
draws are in correct.

At least any conclsions I draw are based on facts, not rumour, myths,
religious
beliefs or fairy stories. That could explain a few things about why you come
to
different conclusions.

Many conclusions you draw appear to be based an incomplete understanding
of your subject matter, your understanding of the underlying theory
appears shallow. It also appears that your main reason for posting to
this group is not to discuss tubes in any meaningful sense, but rather
your mission appears to be to convert people to transistors. This is a
newsgroup for those interested in tubes in a positive sense, not a
newsgroup for those interested in transistor proselytizing.

For your enlightenment let me state that I do not believe tubes are
better than transistors. Tubes are simply a hobby for me, I enjoy
working with them and I enjoy the nostalgia aspect of them. However
none of that means tubes are not capable of performance levels exceeding
what is required for music recording and reproduction.

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and
satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the
problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong.
Skin effect is not a myth.

It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed
speakers.

**Read what I wrote. Skin effect is not a myth.

Of course it's not but skin depth @ 20kHz isn't enough to be a serious issue.

Suppose you're using 2.5 mm2 cable, that's effectively a radius of 0.87 mm.
The skin depth @ 20kHz is ~ 0.5 mm so there will be a MILD increase only in
cable impedance. Remember that most of the current DOESN'T flow in the small
central section of the wire anyway.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers
under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active
speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be
entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice
are problems for most audiophiles.

Why ?

Even bi-wiring requires 2 cables.

Graham

[Eeyore]

tubegarden wrote:

Your arrogance is not your only problem.

Your STUPIDITY *IS* a problem along with all your MORONIC hobbyist stupid
beliefs that are based on myth and ignorance.

Yes, the world is now infested with clueless MORONS like yourself. That
doesn't make it right by force of numbers.

Graham

[Eeyore]

West wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

So, you'd damn me for designing BETTER DJ and karaoke kit ?

Not at all. But let's keep this thing in perspective.
You're our very own Eeyore not Dr Martin Jones:-)

What has Martin got to do with it ? I've worked with him you know and he
wouldn't tolerate fools any more than I do .

Graham

That' a revealing statement you made about not tolerating fools.

You're a COMPLETE FOOL.

The worst of it is that you LIKE being a FOOL and will not educate yourself.
People like you are destroying the West. It's part of the reason why why all
the jobs are going to Asia. They have more respect for knowledge and education
there.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more
pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the
nonsense
with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham


Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

Iain.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers
under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active
speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be
entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier
choice are problems for most audiophiles.

For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered
speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest.

Hi Arny.

The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of
active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments.
One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia.

http://www.genelec.com/

They are well represented in the US.
GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA -
Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 -
Email

Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you
will be disappointed.

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and
satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the
problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong.
Skin effect is not a myth.

It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed
speakers.

Arny. Your statement is precisely in agreement with what
I have been told by broadcast/research colleagues, and what it stated
in text books. None one denies that skin effect is not a real phenomenon,
but only someone selling cables would suggest that it has significance
in a domestic audio environment.

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more
pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the
nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and
satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the
problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong.
Skin effect is not a myth.

It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed
speakers.

**Read what I wrote. Skin effect is not a myth.

Of course it's not but skin depth @ 20kHz isn't enough to be a serious
issue.

Suppose you're using 2.5 mm2 cable, that's effectively a radius of 0.87
mm.
The skin depth @ 20kHz is ~ 0.5 mm so there will be a MILD increase only
in
cable impedance. Remember that most of the current DOESN'T flow in the
small
central section of the wire anyway.


Graham. Trevor is a salesman. He wants people to believe that
SE has a significant effect in domestic audio. There is a very good
retail markup for such products.

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers
under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active
speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be
entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier
choice are problems for most audiophiles.

For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered
speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest.

Hi Arny.

The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of
active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments.
One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia.

http://www.genelec.com/

They are well represented in the US.
GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA -
Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 -
Email

Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you
will be disappointed.

Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly. Presumably
a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame.

Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they do
it.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


tubegarden wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I've worked with him you know and he
wouldn't tolerate fools any more than I do .

Graham

Hi RATs!

Graham wrote to Al
If you don't know Martin (and I'm sure you don't) then don't poke your
****ing ignorant stinky nose into this thread you worthless piece of
bigoted ****.


Graham. I cannot say that I know Dr Jones, though we have both
been present at the same meetings on several occasions.
In contrast to yourself, he gave the impression of a cultured,
well educated gentleman.

Of all people here, Al does not deserve your venom.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific with
my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements
which can easily be proven incorrect.

Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to
flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable
using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible.

**Read what I wrote.

Even 2
parallel conductors, exhibiting skin effect, will appear as 2 normal
stranded or solid conductors, with the same interactions between them.
Skin effect is only of real interest where high currents (think 1500A
here) make solid copper busbars very expensive or heavy. In that case
aluminium bars with a copper coating are often used, or tubular bars
(more often on HV systems). The other main problems with skin effect
appear at VHF - but you certainly ain't gonna hear that... :-)

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite)
transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My
words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth.

I did not say it was. What I did say, and this is something I
have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and
which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny
wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic
audio environment"

I have discussed this many times with well-qualified people,
and also consulted books on the matter. All agree with my
statement. I did not just pull it out of a hat.

I can fully appreciate why, as a vendor of cables, you would
wish the situation to be otherwise.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

Many conclusions you draw appear to be based an incomplete understanding
of your subject matter, your understanding of the underlying theory
appears shallow. It also appears that your main reason for posting to
this group is not to discuss tubes in any meaningful sense, but rather
your mission appears to be to convert people to transistors. This is a
newsgroup for those interested in tubes in a positive sense, not a
newsgroup for those interested in transistor proselytizing.

For your enlightenment let me state that I do not believe tubes are
better than transistors. Tubes are simply a hobby for me, I enjoy
working with them and I enjoy the nostalgia aspect of them. However
none of that means tubes are not capable of performance levels exceeding
what is required for music recording and reproduction.

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.


My sentiments exactly
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.

**Ok, done.

I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth.

It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic
hi-fi installation. Your previous claim that it had, seriously
disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to
most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter.
I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-)


Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors,

but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

**Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to
personal attack is duly noted.

Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not
always be in the best interest of the customer.

Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You
claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not.

Neither do I claim it to be so. It can be easily measured. In
a broadcast environment it is especially important. It
has no significance in domestic audio.

You waffle on about audio mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like
SET amplifiers. Ask an engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean
those idiots you work with - I mean REAL engineers).

The idiots I work with are mainly DipEng and above.
Some have both technical and musical doctorates.
I would rather take their word for *anything*
against yours. Sorry:-(

I was talking about the musical experience from
SET. No-one who has listened to the new Russian
recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on
a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be
emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional
experience, Trevor.

Like it or not, people with high expectations and
sufficient disposable income more often than not
pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET)
They are usually cultured and well educated people,
who make their choice after extensive periods of
listening. I know many such people.

An engineer can explain to you that the small, but measurable flaws with
SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency response, poor
damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise things that
make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push pull).

I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know
exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened
to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard
the comments of other listeners to know the strengths
of SET with the genre of music at which they
excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore)
is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a
fraction of 1W. At this kind of level the THD is very
small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are
not intended for people who want to drive their
neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-)

But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have
nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion.
No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice
between two products both of which he has in stock:-)
It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to
endorse products for which he has no franchise.
This has become apparent in discussions with your
good self.

Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in shabby
personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I already
know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and shabbier
attacks.

I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply,
but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread.


Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers
under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active
speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be
entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier
choice are problems for most audiophiles.

For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered
speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest.

Hi Arny.

The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of
active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments.
One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia.

http://www.genelec.com/

They are well represented in the US.
GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA -
Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 -
Email

Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you
will be disappointed.

Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly.
Presumably
a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame.

Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they
do
it.


It's a question of taste. Maybe a forward sounding sound
stage is flattering for some clients/projects. They seem to
be a popular choice with UK studios.

Personally, I am stuck on Tannoys and B+W 801D
To each his own:-)

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
tubegarden wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I've worked with him you know and he
wouldn't tolerate fools any more than I do .

Graham

Hi RATs!

Graham wrote to Al
If you don't know Martin (and I'm sure you don't) then don't poke your
****ing ignorant stinky nose into this thread you worthless piece of
bigoted ****.

Graham. I cannot say that I know Dr Jones,

Well I DO and we've worked together. He's one of those rare examples of a
technically competent management type. Heck, I've even driven him to the pub
for a lunchtime meal and drink. In fact, come to think of it we've had
several meals together. An excellent Italian meal comes to mind.


though we have both been present at the same meetings on several
occasions.
In contrast to yourself, he gave the impression of a cultured,
well educated gentleman.

Of all people here, Al does not deserve your venom.

He deserves it for (as ever) poking his nose into a thread he has nothing to
contribute to.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even
more
pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the
nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.

My sentiments exactly
Iain

So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs
low.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth.

It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic
hi-fi installation. Your previous claim that it had, seriously
disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to
most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter.
I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-)

I like the mental picture I got from that.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.

My sentiments exactly
Iain

So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs
low.

Graham


It's trendy Graham. Tubes are "pop" :-)

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of
active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments.
One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia.

http://www.genelec.com/

They are well represented in the US.
GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA -
Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 -
Email

Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you
will be disappointed.

Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly.
Presumably a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame.

Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they
do it.


It's a question of taste. Maybe a forward sounding sound
stage is flattering for some clients/projects. They seem to
be a popular choice with UK studios.

Well ... a pronounced mid-range will certainly critically reveal certain
'defects' more readily perhaps. But I've yet to meet any Genelecs in a studio
myself. ATCs yes OTOH !

KRKs also seem popular right now.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even
more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the
nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

I actually didn't even know that.

No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.

My sentiments exactly
Iain

So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs
low.

Graham

It's trendy Graham. Tubes are "pop" :-)

Iain

Exactly. They have become nothing more than ornaments. In fact Behringer even
use several orange LEDs to 'simulate' the glow from the heater/filament to make
it more 'attractive'. Heck, they even 'ramp it up' to try and make it look
realistic.

It's hilarious quite frankly.

I bet the tubeophiles never realised that corporate greed would finally
completely prostitute valve/vacuum tube technology.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even
more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers'
the
nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

I actually didn't even know that.

No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right
now !


So why did he do it?
If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm
unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker.

These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here.

Best regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro
audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use
contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.

My sentiments exactly
Iain

So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep
costs
low.

Graham

It's trendy Graham. Tubes are "pop" :-)

Iain

Exactly. They have become nothing more than ornaments. In fact Behringer
even
use several orange LEDs to 'simulate' the glow from the heater/filament to
make
it more 'attractive'. Heck, they even 'ramp it up' to try and make it look
realistic.

Yes, I have seen those. But there are other, less flippant tube-based
mic-preamps. I have worked on many a session where the
vocalist has brought his own, and often his own Neumann also.


Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

--
Iain
Aural perception is a skill that requires study and careful development over
along period of time. Few have it as a natural gift.
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of
active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio
environments.
One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia.

http://www.genelec.com/

They are well represented in the US.
GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA -
Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 -
Email

Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you
will be disappointed.

Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly.
Presumably a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame.

Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why
they
do it.


It's a question of taste. Maybe a forward sounding sound
stage is flattering for some clients/projects. They seem to
be a popular choice with UK studios.

Well ... a pronounced mid-range will certainly critically reveal certain
'defects' more readily perhaps. But I've yet to meet any Genelecs in a
studio
myself. ATCs yes OTOH !

Pop along to SAE. They have a 32 channel Neve VR Legend console,
with Genelec monitoring.

http://www.sae.edu/display_image.php?media_id=201

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even
more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers'
the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

I actually didn't even know that.

No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right
now !

So why did he do it?

Heaven only knows.


If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm
unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker.

These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here.

You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ?

Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin
equivalent ciruit analyis can see that.

As I said don't get me started !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

But there are other, less flippant tube-based
mic-preamps.

Care to name any you feel worthy of mention ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote
in message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers
under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active
speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be
entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and
surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most
audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very
credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of
interest.


The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful
range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio
environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of
course in Scandinavia.

Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even
more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers'
the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

I actually didn't even know that.

No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right
now !

So why did he do it?

Heaven only knows.

If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm
unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker.

Assuming a so called "damping factor" of 40 with an 8 Ohm speaker, I
doubt it would be anywhere near 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker because a
different output transformer turns ratio would undoubtedly be used with
a 24 Ohm speaker, increasing the Zo to a value well above 0.2 Ohms.

These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here.

You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ?

The so called "damping factor" does not seem like a "myth" just a semi
useless and poorly named specification, however it does seem to be a
well defined quantity even if it is useless. What is a myth is its
importance, and the significance of its effect on speaker damping, which
is a far more complex issue than the simple minded "DF" figure implies.

Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin
equivalent ciruit analyis can see that.

"Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis", sounds like more name
dropping without a clue as what it might actually mean with respect to
"damping factor". Can you explain how "Norton/Thevenin equivalent
ciruit analyis" might possibly help one understand why the so called
"damping factor" is junk, which I agree it is?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote
in message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers
under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active
speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be
entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and
surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most
audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very
credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of
interest.


The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful
range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio
environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of
course in Scandinavia.

Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced.

Not overpriced if you live in a country with a currency
that has not been dragged to its knees-:-)

I have noticed when we discuss product Arny, that you
are always more concerned with cheapness than quality.
That must hold you back quite a lot.

Go for the best!
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

But there are other, less flippant tube-based
mic-preamps.

Care to name any you feel worthy of mention ?


These are current designs. I have seen two in
recent weeks. But they were both custom made,
and the schematics probably kept carefully locked away.
Let me mull, and make a call or two.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote
in message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the
amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The
improvement was even more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of
'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables
could be entirely eliminated.

The requirement of two cables per speaker, and
surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most
audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and
marketed some very credible powered speakers, and
dropped them for lack of interest.


The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful
range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic
and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK,
and of course in Scandinavia.

Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced.

Not overpriced if you live in a country with a currency
that has not been dragged to its knees-:-)

As always, currency values are abstract, quality of life is real.

But, the Genelecs were way overpriced before revaluations of the dollar took
place.

I have noticed when we discuss product Arny, that you
are always more concerned with cheapness than quality.

Not at all. However, I do like to stick it to products that offer limited
quality that has been equalled or surpassed for far less money.

I recently heard a comparison of some of the pricier Genelecs to Behringer
B2031A. The little Behrs won the day.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was
even
more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers'
the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

I actually didn't even know that.

No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right
now !

So why did he do it?

Heaven only knows.


If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm
unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker.

These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here.

You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ?


Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin
equivalent ciruit analyis can see that.

As I said don't get me started !


So please answer my question Graham?
What was Radford thinking about when he did this.

Iain

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and
satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the
problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong.
Skin effect is not a myth.

It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed
speakers.

**Read what I wrote. Skin effect is not a myth.

Of course it's not but skin depth @ 20kHz isn't enough to be a serious
issue.

Suppose you're using 2.5 mm2 cable, that's effectively a radius of 0.87
mm.
The skin depth @ 20kHz is ~ 0.5 mm so there will be a MILD increase only
in
cable impedance. Remember that most of the current DOESN'T flow in the
small
central section of the wire anyway.


Graham. Trevor is a salesman. He wants people to believe that
SE has a significant effect in domestic audio.

**Liar. I NEVER said anything of the sort. I merely corrected your continued
ignorance. Skin Effect is a real effect. It is not a myth. Further: Speaker
cables CAN and DO make a difference for some systems. Particularly ESLs.

There is a very good
retail markup for such products.

**Indeed.

Trevor Wilson

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was
even
more pronounced.

If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers'
the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated.

Graham

Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms
that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc,
which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's
nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in
the 1960s.

That's equally effective for all practical purposes.

In addition, Radford used a speaker element
(custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his
matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to
get improved damping, you do think?

I actually didn't even know that.

No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right
now !

So why did he do it?

Heaven only knows.


If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm
unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker.

These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here.

You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ?


Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin
equivalent ciruit analyis can see that.

As I said don't get me started !


So please answer my question Graham?

Didn't Graham already say "Heaven only knows"?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific
with
my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements
which can easily be proven incorrect.

Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to
flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable
using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible.

**Read what I wrote.

Even 2
parallel conductors, exhibiting skin effect, will appear as 2 normal
stranded or solid conductors, with the same interactions between them.
Skin effect is only of real interest where high currents (think 1500A
here) make solid copper busbars very expensive or heavy. In that case
aluminium bars with a copper coating are often used, or tubular bars
(more often on HV systems). The other main problems with skin effect
appear at VHF - but you certainly ain't gonna hear that... :-)

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite)
transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My
words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth.

I did not say it was.

**Yes, you did. Would you like me to repeat your lies?

What I did say, and this is something I
have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and
which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny
wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic
audio environment"


**And where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that skin effect was in any way
important with a normal audio system?


I have discussed this many times with well-qualified people,
and also consulted books on the matter. All agree with my
statement. I did not just pull it out of a hat.

**You lied when you stated that skin effect was a myth. It is not a myth. It
is a real, measurable effect.


I can fully appreciate why, as a vendor of cables, you would
wish the situation to be otherwise.

**Keep attempting to slur my name. It won't work. You are a liar and a
distorter of fact. Skin effect is real. It is not a myth. I suggest you
consult a text book sometime.

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.

**Ok, done.

I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth.

It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic
hi-fi installation.

**Read what I wrote, liar.

Your previous claim that it had, seriously
disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to
most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter.
I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-)

**You colleagues are morons. Skin effect is not a myth.



Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors,

but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

**Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to
personal attack is duly noted.

Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not
always be in the best interest of the customer.

**I note your continued attempt to sway the discussion away from facts and
into personal attack. You are worse than a liar.


Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You
claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not.

Neither do I claim it to be so.

**Yes, you did.

It can be easily measured. In
a broadcast environment it is especially important. It
has no significance in domestic audio.

**So? Where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that it was significant in a normal
audio system? I'll wait for your cite.


You waffle on about audio mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like
SET amplifiers. Ask an engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean
those idiots you work with - I mean REAL engineers).

The idiots I work with are mainly DipEng and above.
Some have both technical and musical doctorates.
I would rather take their word for *anything*
against yours. Sorry:-(

**If they ascribe to the notion that SET amplifiers are anything but a bad
joke, then they are exactly as stupid as you.


I was talking about the musical experience from
SET.

**Irrelevant. SET amplifiers add distortion (measurable and audible) to the
signal. It is that distortion that proponents enjoy. Not the music. Which,
if you had half a brain, you would understand.

No-one who has listened to the new Russian
recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on
a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be
emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional
experience, Trevor.

**Your point being?


Like it or not, people with high expectations and
sufficient disposable income more often than not
pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET)
They are usually cultured and well educated people,
who make their choice after extensive periods of
listening. I know many such people.

**So do I. They're deluded. What's your point?


An engineer can explain to you that the small, but measurable flaws with
SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency response, poor
damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise things that
make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push pull).

I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know
exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened
to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard
the comments of other listeners to know the strengths
of SET with the genre of music at which they
excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore)
is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a
fraction of 1W.

**So? A proper amplifier, used with sensitive speakers also operates at a
fraction of a Watt.

At this kind of level the THD is very
small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are
not intended for people who want to drive their
neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-)

**I note your deliberate avoidance of the very serious problems associated
with SET amps and your sole focus on THD.


But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have
nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion.

**No. You can ply your delusions anywhere you wish, without being accused of
finanical bias. BIG difference. Don't you imagine, for one millisecond, that
I could pad my income very nicely, if I were to flog SET amps? I could.
Easily. However, I do have some integrity. I also lack your delusional
nature.


No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice
between two products both of which he has in stock:-)
It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to
endorse products for which he has no franchise.
This has become apparent in discussions with your
good self.

**You should also note that I am not deluded.


Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in shabby
personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I already
know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and
shabbier
attacks.

I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply,
but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread.

**You should have posted directly to Graham, rather than engage in stupidity
on a public forum.

Trevor Wilson

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

What I did say, and this is something I
have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and
which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny
wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic
audio environment"

**And where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that skin effect
was in any way important with a normal audio system?

If you never intended to say that, then simply agree with Iain and I and it
will be.