Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. mp |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did subscribing to TAC. bob |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. mp Do you mean that he used a screwdriver to take the amp apart?? Were there nice pictures of the "guts" published? Did he provide a schematic and in depth circuit analysis? Surely he did not find any technical flaws in the amp?? Were not the distortion levels sufficient low? Merely puzzled... _-_-bear |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
michael wrote: But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did subscribing to TAC. First, there was never any "publication schedule". Where did you get that idea? The issues just showed up when they showed up. It was the Orson Welles-Paul Masson theory of journalism. Except you could never count on Audio Critic being on the shelves when you needed one. On the other hand, when one did show up, it was like getting a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild instead of the usual jug of Red. Dr. Rich actually did quite a bit for them. With a Web format there is no intrinsic reason material cannot be put up quickly, unlike problems associated with printing. Who knows? Maybe he had a falling out with Mr. Aczel. Maybe equipment makers told the editor they were not going to send TAC anymore gear if Rich was allowed to look on the inside. Maybe he was disappointed in his lack of exposure and the folks at SS made him an offer he just couldn't refuse. Whatever the reason, I am not happy since his contributions fit in nicely within the editorial format of Audio Critic. But I'm sure the editor can find someone of equal technical insight to replace him should he so desire. Still, it was always fun to read his loaded machine-gun, take no prisoners, kick 'em when they're down style. mp |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
michael wrote: A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did subscribing to TAC. bob Rich has been technical editor at $$ for quite some time now....more than a year I think. THere was overlap with onling TAC for that time. But his $$ output has up until recently been sporadic. It looks that that is ramping up, which is a Good Thing, even if it ends up being at the expense of TAC. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
BEAR wrote:
michael wrote: A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp... Do you mean that he used a screwdriver to take the amp apart?? Were there nice pictures of the "guts" published? Did he provide a schematic and in depth circuit analysis? Surely he did not find any technical flaws in the amp?? Were not the distortion levels sufficient low? Merely puzzled... Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. No need for puzzlement. There was an in depth discussion of the circuit; in depth given the constraints of an article format. And, as he notes, the schematics are published. You should subscribe and then you wouldn't have to rely on my comments. It's probably not more expensive than a music CD. Not much in the scheme of things, I guess. But, if you are interested, I can say that he was of the opinion it did not represent good value considering alternatives in the Bryston line, and considering similar products from other manufacturers. mp |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip Merely puzzled... Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik, none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and French somehow manage to get this included in their articles. No need for puzzlement. There was an in depth discussion of the circuit; in depth given the constraints of an article format. And, as he notes, the schematics are published. Do tell? Where are the schematics published? I may wish to build one for myself... You should subscribe and then you wouldn't have to rely on my comments. It's probably not more expensive than a music CD. Not much in the scheme of things, I guess. Ummm... I should "subscribe"? I see. Well, since your post brought up the publication and a specific article, perhaps you might wish to not be quite so reticent to discuss the relative merits of the information presented? Especially what the specific "issues" that the erstwhile Dr. Rich (Risch?)found in the Bryston amp he evaluated? Otherwise it comes off as a shill for the publisher... But, if you are interested, I can say that he was of the opinion it did not represent good value considering alternatives in the Bryston line, and considering similar products from other manufacturers. Nothing factual then, just his "opinion"? It sounded the same as the others? Tested as well? Not much of a "taking apart" then? mp Please excuse my cynicism on this sort of topic... I find that any publication that claims technical exertise and objectively based findings which does not fully deliver within a range that is quite reasonable to achieve to be suspect, imho. _-_-bear |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
BEAR wrote:
michael wrote: Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik, none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and French somehow manage to get this included in their articles. I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that the overseas press usually does a technical analysis of circuit design? That is what Rich does. Do tell? Where are the schematics published? I may wish to build one for myself... The Bryston Web site. Who else would have the rights to publish them? Ummm... I should "subscribe"? I see. Well, since your post brought up the publication and a specific article, perhaps you might wish to not be quite so reticent to discuss the relative merits of the information presented? Especially what the specific "issues" that the erstwhile Dr. Rich (Risch?)found in the Bryston amp he evaluated? If you subscribed then your comments would make more sense to the topic. I certainly do not feel compelled to paraphrase a review for someone who will not subscribe. Otherwise it comes off as a shill for the publisher... You really sound a bit angry in all of this. Do you hold some personal grudge against Dr. Rich? Why would you intentionally mock the spelling of his name? I'm guessing that there is something you really want to say, but, for some reason, cannot, or will not be open about it? Nothing factual then, just his "opinion"? There are opinions based on nothing but hidden agendas, and then there are opinions based on reasoned arguments. I can only suggest that you read the the article and then comment. Otherwise, your statement is, at best, an opinion of the first kind. It was clear to me from the article in question that Dr Rich's opinion, as you call it, was based upon the second criteria. But you will never know unless you check it out, yourself. It sounded the same as the others? Tested as well? Not much of a "taking apart" then? Again, you comment on something you have no first, or, apparently, even second hand knowledge of. Please excuse my cynicism on this sort of topic... I find that any publication that claims technical exertise and objectively based findings which does not fully deliver within a range that is quite reasonable to achieve to be suspect, imho. Again, how would you know unless you read the article? This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the Usenet Twilight Zone. mp |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
BEAR wrote:
michael wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip Merely puzzled... Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik, none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and French somehow manage to get this included in their articles. Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the Usenet Twilight Zone. Actually, it's been rather amusing watching you try to reason with this guy. What you apparently don't know is that he is notorious here as a purveyor of tube amps and high-priced cables. Hence his reflexive and uninformed negative reaction to someone like David Rich, who can see through the smoke. bob |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
bob wrote: michael wrote: But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did subscribing to TAC. First, there was never any "publication schedule". But Aczel always promised to do better. And he just kept getting worse. Where did you get that idea? The issues just showed up when they showed up. It was the Orson Welles-Paul Masson theory of journalism. Except you could never count on Audio Critic being on the shelves when you needed one. On the other hand, when one did show up, it was like getting a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild instead of the usual jug of Red. Dr. Rich actually did quite a bit for them. With a Web format there is no intrinsic reason material cannot be put up quickly, unlike problems associated with printing. Who knows? Maybe he had a falling out with Mr. Aczel. Then why is he still writing for Mr. Aczel? Maybe equipment makers told the editor they were not going to send TAC anymore gear if Rich was allowed to look on the inside. Maybe he was disappointed in his lack of exposure and the folks at SS made him an offer he just couldn't refuse. Whatever the reason, I am not happy since his contributions fit in nicely within the editorial format of Audio Critic. But I'm sure the editor can find someone of equal technical insight to replace him should he so desire. Still, it was always fun to read his loaded machine-gun, take no prisoners, kick 'em when they're down style. I think you've misunderstood. David Rich is still doing technical reviews for TAC, now that it's a webzine. What is "erstwhile" is the dead-tree edition, not Dr. Rich's association with it. bob |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
BEAR wrote:
michael wrote: A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their "erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments for TAC. mp Do you mean that he used a screwdriver to take the amp apart?? Were there nice pictures of the "guts" published? Did he provide a schematic and in depth circuit analysis? Surely he did not find any technical flaws in the amp?? Were not the distortion levels sufficient low? Merely puzzled... You can satisfy your curiosity he http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index...Id=21&blogId=1 Rich's comments start about halfway down the page. (You are a subscriber, aren't you?) bob |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
snip This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the Usenet Twilight Zone. mp Ummm... that's not what I recall reading. You cited an article available by subscription only wherein you claimed that Dr. Rich to quote your post: "recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches" When queried as to the nature of the taking apart - you dodged the question. In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz, that's called a "tease." As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from his writing? You did not merely post that you enjoyed publication XYZ nor did you merely state that you enjoy Dr. Rich's writings. Ok? _-_-bear |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
BEAR wrote: michael wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip Merely puzzled... Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik, none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and French somehow manage to get this included in their articles. Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way. I have no quarrel with in depth technical analysis and/or reverse engineering. I rather enjoy and prefer that sort of look "under the hood." An interesting comparison is that many auto mags seem to do the same sort of thing even when they are proporting to be "technical" - usually the DIY/hotrod/offroad etc. ones - where you see a whole lot of parts and steps to do XYZ. That's interesting and often helpful - but I find that once you know or figure out the basics of doing "ABC" that these articles lack specifics, depth and insights that really *tell the true story*. You usually only find out the *real deal* once you do it yourself, make mistakes, learn who makes what the right way, and what works in what application, what the trade-offs are... this sort of thing is not in any auto mag I've found. Similarly, I have yet to read an audio review anywhere where the writer actually provided this sort of depth, insight and view of the "ins and outs" of a given design... Dr. Rich's reviews, when I have had the occasion to read them in the *past* are quite cursory in this respect. If that has changed I would like to be informed. The foreign pubs often do a better job in this respect, as I said - the Japanese, German and French mags that I have seen, and even some Italian mags seem to look more closely at both the construction and the circuitry, depending of course on which mags we're looking at (not ALL of them...). Curiosly, you do find this sort of in-depth discussion audio design & tradeoffs on some internet forums. Rather insightful discussion of specific brands, specific types of circuits, tradeoffs, application, design, simulations and other matters that unless you'd actually tested, built or simulated one whole heck of a lot of circuits you'd never catch on to... and some that you'd still not come in contact with! So, it's not only possible, it's done daily. People like Dr. Rich present themselves, as far as I can see, as "experts" in the field. They present their opinions/writings as dispositive, for the most part. They may well be. But the writing that I have read or seen falls far short of presenting insight, detail or sufficient information to truly accept or deny the conclusions drawn. In the case of the two big mags, TAC & SP, we know *a priori* that what is presented is opinion. Different case. _-_-bear |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
I think you've misunderstood. David Rich is still doing technical reviews for TAC, now that it's a webzine. What is "erstwhile" is the dead-tree edition, not Dr. Rich's association with it. If you are correct then this is good news. michael |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
BEAR wrote:
Ummm... that's not what I recall reading. You cited an article available by subscription only wherein you claimed that Dr. Rich to quote your post: "recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches" When queried as to the nature of the taking apart - you dodged the question. No. I didn't dodge your question. I just said I wasn't going to paraphrase for you what he wrote. But someone else actually copied the link for you, which is more than I would have done. So now you can read it and make your own conclusions. Then, at least any further opinions you have will at least be based on the source material. In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz, that's called a "tease." I'm not in the business, but if you want to call me a shill that's OK with me. I have no desire to hide my admiration for the work Dr. Rich does. As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from his writing? Who said there was no way to encapsulate the thrust of his dissatisfaction? I just said I wasn't going to do it. After all, I was really only concerned about whether he was still going to be writing for them. But now that you have the opportunity to read the article thanks to the efforts of someone else, you will understand that he simply thought the amplifier was overpriced considering other alternatives out there. And that's what I meant when I told you that he didn't think it was good value. michael |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
First, there was never any "publication schedule". But Aczel always promised to do better. And he just kept getting worse. What started out as an embarrassment became an inside (to subscribers) joke. After a while no one expected anything other than something around Christmas time. Dr. Rich actually did quite a bit for them. With a Web format there is no intrinsic reason material cannot be put up quickly, unlike problems associated with printing. Who knows? Maybe he had a falling out with Mr. Aczel. Then why is he still writing for Mr. Aczel? I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is one way, and there have been no editorial discussions about what is going on. One has to read between the lines and that only leads to idle speculation, like mine. With the actual magazine there were always plenty of "philosophical" debates discussed. I'd personally like to see more discussion about the audio scene in addition to mere equipment reviews. For instance, in the letters section of the magazine there were always several interesting things going on. It would be good, in my view, for them to publish letters with commentary. michael |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
BEAR wrote:
michael wrote: snip =20 =20 This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether = or=20 not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the=20 comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the=20 review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of=20 gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical=20 expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what= he=20 said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the=20 Usenet Twilight Zone. =20 mp Ummm... that's not what I recall reading. You cited an article available by subscription only wherein you claimed that Dr. Rich to quote your post: "recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical=20 Rich...to the point and pulling no punches" When queried as to the nature of the taking apart - you dodged the ques= tion. In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to=20 subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going=20 to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the=20 publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz,= =20 that's called a "tease." As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way=20 to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this=20 amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in=20 fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from= =20 his writing? You did not merely post that you enjoyed publication XYZ nor did you=20 merely state that you enjoy Dr. Rich's writings. Ok? Heres's how the Rich part of the review starts: "Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the We= b=20 so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long=20 time since I looked at a Bryston, let=E2=80=99s have a brief review of=20 what=E2=80=99inside all their offerings." He then goes on to offer a *detailed* (and laudatory) overview of=20 previous Bryston philosophy, incorporating notes on how the 875HT=20 represents a break from it, e.g., "In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound=20 transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in=20 the 875HT. Putting voltage gain in the output stage allows the preceding=20 stages, which provide the bulk of the open-loop voltage gain of the=20 amplifier, to be run from regulated power supplies. The regulated rails=20 are at a lower voltage than the unregulated power rails connected to the=20 output stages (they need to swing only 25% of the output voltage). In a=20 normal amplifier, with the output current-gain stage having a gain of onl= y=20 1, the preceding stages would have to be run off the power supply that=20 supplies the output rails, lest the amplifier clip at a lower voltage set= =20 by the clipping point of the voltage-gain stages." Here is the first sentence of the concluding paragraph. "Should the Bryston 875HT be part of your home theater? I really do not=20 think so. It is overpriced for home applications. Instead consider=20 multiple Bryston 4B SST=E2=80=99s (full Bryston topology with an FCC rati= ng of=20 500 watts per channel into 4 ohms and a much lower price per watt), drive= n=20 by multiple 15-amp lines. " I trust I have remained within 'fair use' quoting limts here. There's=20 LOTS more to the review, not even counting Aczel's long review too.=20 Since you are *so* interested in what Rich actually wrote, I have to=20 wonder, are you short the $13 it would require for you to subscribe to=20 the webzine? If so I can spot you for it.=20 Or would you much rather 'critique' someone who is merely *praising* the=20 copyrighted review? --=20 -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stu= pidity of religious=20 fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip Merely puzzled... Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik, none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and French somehow manage to get this included in their articles. Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way. I have no quarrel with in depth technical analysis and/or reverse engineering. I rather enjoy and prefer that sort of look "under the hood." An interesting comparison is that many auto mags seem to do the same sort of thing even when they are proporting to be "technical" - usually the DIY/hotrod/offroad etc. ones - where you see a whole lot of parts and steps to do XYZ. That's interesting and often helpful - but I find that once you know or figure out the basics of doing "ABC" that these articles lack specifics, depth and insights that really *tell the true story*. You usually only find out the *real deal* once you do it yourself, make mistakes, learn who makes what the right way, and what works in what application, what the trade-offs are... this sort of thing is not in any auto mag I've found. Similarly, I have yet to read an audio review anywhere where the writer actually provided this sort of depth, insight and view of the "ins and outs" of a given design... Dr. Rich's reviews, when I have had the occasion to read them in the *past* are quite cursory in this respect. If that has changed I would like to be informed. As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's what's stopping you. Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me. The foreign pubs often do a better job in this respect, as I said - the Japanese, German and French mags that I have seen, and even some Italian mags seem to look more closely at both the construction and the circuitry, depending of course on which mags we're looking at (not ALL of them...). Rich has certainly looked at both constuction and circuitry in some reviews I've seen. People like Dr. Rich present themselves, as far as I can see, as "experts" in the field. They present their opinions/writings as dispositive, for the most part. They may well be. But the writing that I have read or seen falls far short of presenting insight, detail or sufficient information to truly accept or deny the conclusions drawn. What writings of his have you read? -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
michael wrote:
I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is one way, Not technically true. TAC is now structured as a blog, so it is possible to post comments in response to any review or other article. No one's done it yet, but the links are there. and there have been no editorial discussions about what is going on. One has to read between the lines and that only leads to idle speculation, like mine. With the actual magazine there were always plenty of "philosophical" debates discussed. I'd personally like to see more discussion about the audio scene in addition to mere equipment reviews. Plenty of philosphical discussions right here. If you want Aczel's take, just keep reading "Ten Myths" over and over and over again. Nothing changes. For instance, in the letters section of the magazine there were always several interesting things going on. It would be good, in my view, for them to publish letters with commentary. As I said, you can post a "letter" in response to a review at any time. bob |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... BEAR wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip Merely puzzled... Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way. On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik, none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and French somehow manage to get this included in their articles. Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way. I have no quarrel with in depth technical analysis and/or reverse engineering. I rather enjoy and prefer that sort of look "under the hood." An interesting comparison is that many auto mags seem to do the same sort of thing even when they are proporting to be "technical" - usually the DIY/hotrod/offroad etc. ones - where you see a whole lot of parts and steps to do XYZ. That's interesting and often helpful - but I find that once you know or figure out the basics of doing "ABC" that these articles lack specifics, depth and insights that really *tell the true story*. You usually only find out the *real deal* once you do it yourself, make mistakes, learn who makes what the right way, and what works in what application, what the trade-offs are... this sort of thing is not in any auto mag I've found. Similarly, I have yet to read an audio review anywhere where the writer actually provided this sort of depth, insight and view of the "ins and outs" of a given design... Dr. Rich's reviews, when I have had the occasion to read them in the *past* are quite cursory in this respect. If that has changed I would like to be informed. As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's what's stopping you. Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me. The foreign pubs often do a better job in this respect, as I said - the Japanese, German and French mags that I have seen, and even some Italian mags seem to look more closely at both the construction and the circuitry, depending of course on which mags we're looking at (not ALL of them...). Rich has certainly looked at both constuction and circuitry in some reviews I've seen. People like Dr. Rich present themselves, as far as I can see, as "experts" in the field. They present their opinions/writings as dispositive, for the most part. They may well be. But the writing that I have read or seen falls far short of presenting insight, detail or sufficient information to truly accept or deny the conclusions drawn. What writings of his have you read? He certainly seems to be going into much detail in his writeup from issue no.21 from Spring of 1994, when he wrote about the HK PA2400 or Krell KRC-2 from the same issue, or the Parasound HCA-2200II, from the same issue. His and Aczel's pieces on CD players,DA processors, and transports are also very detailed. I think it somewhat nasty to imply that Rich is anything other than an expert in the field. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
"michael" wrote in message
... Snip for brevity In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz, that's called a "tease." I'm not in the business, but if you want to call me a shill that's OK with me. I have no desire to hide my admiration for the work Dr. Rich does. As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from his writing? Who said there was no way to encapsulate the thrust of his dissatisfaction? I just said I wasn't going to do it. After all, I was really only concerned about whether he was still going to be writing for them. But now that you have the opportunity to read the article thanks to the efforts of someone else, you will understand that he simply thought the amplifier was overpriced considering other alternatives out there. And that's what I meant when I told you that he didn't think it was good value. I found the following quote to be very telling: The PowerCube of one channel of the Bryston 875HT is shown in Fig. 6. Interestingly enough, it is not even as good as that of the dirt-cheap Behringer A500 (see the December 2005 review on this website). I think using 4 A500's would likely offer tge same level of performance (albeit with a slightly more rolled of high frequency) for a much better price. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
michael wrote: I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is one way, Not technically true. TAC is now structured as a blog, so it is possible to post comments in response to any review or other article. No one's done it yet, but the links are there. The links are there, as you say, however I tried one tonight; it did not work with my Browser (Mozilla Firefox on Linux). You should try and see if they work for you and then let us know. I have an idea this function is not set up on the AC Website. michael |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
michael wrote: I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is one way, Not technically true. TAC is now structured as a blog, so it is possible to post comments in response to any review or other article. No one's done it yet, but the links are there. Looks like I spoke too soon here. Each article has a link to a comments page, but there is no way to actually post a comment there. Aczel must have that feature turned off. (Maybe to avoid flames.) Anayway, my apologies to anyone who's already tried to do this. bob |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's what's stopping you. Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me. If you would like to send me a gift subscription for a year, please feel free to do so. You can find my mailing address on my website http://www.bearlabs.com in the How To Order section, or you can email me from the site and I will be more than happy to supply it. What writings of his have you read? In the mag(s) that he has written for, at other persons homes and/or at the bookstore where said mags may be present... I believe I have also seen something by him online, but nothing specific stands out in my mind. I still do not know what exactly was his problem with the Bryston unit. Can you tell us? _-_-bear |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
Steven Sullivan wrote:
BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip snip Heres's how the Rich part of the review starts: "Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long time since I looked at a Bryston, lets have a brief review of whatinside all their offerings." Afaik Rane puts schematics online, and a few others do as well... but that's not a consumer audio company... snip "In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in the 875HT. I am unaware that Bryston does anything "novel" in their circuits. For many years their circuit and Krells circuit were effectively identical, fyi. Generally, these were both rather normal and pedestrian topologies - ie. nothing special. Perhaps things have changed, as well they should over a period of some decades... snip Or would you much rather 'critique' someone who is merely *praising* the copyrighted review? Horespucky - my comments were fairly made. The original poster cited what seemed like a "bash" at Bryston, albiet via citing Rich as the source, and indicated that there was some basis for the problem with this Bryston unit... is it unfair to ask for more information?? (Rhetorical question, to be sure). So the answer, encapsulated, is something like: 'Bryston used a different topology for this amp compared to their other amps, whereing the output stage provides gain. In Rich's opinion this is not as good as otherwise and is less cost effective than some other similar commercially available units.' Gee... that was difficult? FYI, the online site requires a paid subscription to view. _-_-bear |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bob wrote:
michael wrote: This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the Usenet Twilight Zone. Actually, it's been rather amusing watching you try to reason with this guy. What you apparently don't know is that he is notorious here as a purveyor of tube amps and high-priced cables. Hence his reflexive and uninformed negative reaction to someone like David Rich, who can see through the smoke. bob Say WHAT?? Notorious? TUBE AMPS?? obviously, it is you who is ignorant and incorrect. take a few seconds to determine what I actually do or don't do. look at my site: http://www.bearlabs.com You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS. Ones that will trounce 99% of all amps that exist on the market. My cables are actually rather middle of the road priced, thank you. Represent a good value, and perform technically very well, thank you. So, please don't attack me or my products with false accusations, who ever you are. And, I don't think I know who you are. _-_-bear |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bear wrote:
bob wrote: Actually, it's been rather amusing watching you try to reason with this guy. What you apparently don't know is that he is notorious here as a purveyor of tube amps and high-priced cables. Hence his reflexive and uninformed negative reaction to someone like David Rich, who can see through the smoke. bob Say WHAT?? Notorious? TUBE AMPS?? obviously, it is you who is ignorant and incorrect. take a few seconds to determine what I actually do or don't do. look at my site: http://www.bearlabs.com You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS. No kidding? Gee, I've always had you pegged as a tube guy. Can't say what gave me that impression. Maybe it was what you say on your home page: "TUBES our SPECIALTY!" That might have misled me into thinking that your specialty was tubes. My apologies. But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding. Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13 bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do. bob |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - pegs, specialty... etc.
bob wrote:
bear wrote: bob wrote: snip You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS. No kidding? Gee, I've always had you pegged as a tube guy. Can't say what gave me that impression. Maybe it was what you say on your home page: "TUBES our SPECIALTY!" That might have misled me into thinking that your specialty was tubes. My apologies. But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding. Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13 bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do. bob I am sure. Have you bothered to look at my Amplifier pages YET?? (Although I can do tubes as well as solid state. Is that ok?) But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding. Ummm... I did not do any "trashing (of) a review..." I asked whomever posted the first post & comments which were unsolicited, saying that Dr. Rich had in effect "trashed" a Bryston amp, WHAT precisely was the nature of the complaint. Which now turns out to be in effect a simple circuit change, and the idea that his *opinion* appears to be that it is not a cost effective unit. Big deal. Not a trashing review at all! And, fwiw, one could make a good case that Bryston's warranty is far superior to Behringer's so it STILL makes sense to buy the Bryston, IF those were your only two choices. Eh? I stated my opinion of what I have read from Dr. Rich in the past, and asked some specific questions, right? Dr. Rich's opinions have nil effect on my business and are "not bad for business." I encourage understanding of technical matters. Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13 bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do. I think not. But thanks for the encouragement. As I have said before, I have read some of Dr. Rich's work and Peter Aczel's writings and find that they both take a particular point of view, aimed at a particular niche audience, and do little to illuminate those ideas, points, issues, technological things that I find myself interested in. I suggest that IF one wants to discuss something here on rahe (or elsewhere for that matter, that: 1. Do not place a statement that is provocative and/or an overstatement for effect (ie. 'Rich trashes Bryston...'), or controversial without necessity, about something that people can not read or see without paying for. 2. Be prepared to back up one's assertion, albeit about someone else's writing or opinions with at least some fact or paraphrase of the matter. Especially if the cited article is in a paid-to-view only publication (like JAES, for example...) 3. Expect a response questioning statements that have the ring of item 1. above questioning your assertion(s)and/or asking for more information. Be prepared to respond appropriately. No one expects anyone to be an "expert" or to be perfect when one does this. Without providing some basis for the discussion, the discussion is extremely limited. And, as we have seen, some others had no difficulty encapsulating Dr. Rich's main concerns regarding this Bryston. Perhaps you care to explain that? bob _-_-bear |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich
bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: BEAR wrote: michael wrote: snip snip Heres's how the Rich part of the review starts: "Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long time since I looked at a Bryston, let???s have a brief review of what???inside all their offerings." Afaik Rane puts schematics online, and a few others do as well... but that's not a consumer audio company... snip "In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in the 875HT. I am unaware that Bryston does anything "novel" in their circuits. For many years their circuit and Krells circuit were effectively identical, fyi. Generally, these were both rather normal and pedestrian topologies - ie. nothing special. Perhaps things have changed, as well they should over a period of some decades... snip Or would you much rather 'critique' someone who is merely *praising* the copyrighted review? Horespucky - my comments were fairly made. The original poster cited what seemed like a "bash" at Bryston, albiet via citing Rich as the source, and indicated that there was some basis for the problem with this Bryston unit... is it unfair to ask for more information?? (Rhetorical question, to be sure). So the answer, encapsulated, is something like: 'Bryston used a different topology for this amp compared to their other amps, whereing the output stage provides gain. In Rich's opinion this is not as good as otherwise and is less cost effective than some other similar commercially available units.' Gee... that was difficult? Not nearly as difficult as you admitting you were wrong, apparently. FYI, the online site requires a paid subscription to view. Right -- I've already offered to spot you the *thirteen dollars* it costs for a subscription. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's what's stopping you. Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me. If you would like to send me a gift subscription for a year, please feel free to do so. What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too. You can find my mailing address on my website http://www.bearlabs.com in the How To Order section, or you can email me from the site and I will be more than happy to supply it. What writings of his have you read? In the mag(s) that he has written for, at other persons homes and/or at the bookstore where said mags may be present... I believe I have also seen something by him online, but nothing specific stands out in my mind. I still do not know what exactly was his problem with the Bryston unit. Can you tell us? Yes. But if you want to know so badly *exactly* what his problem with the Bryston is, I have to wonder why you're so reticent to spring for $13 measly bucks. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
On 17 Jan 2006 04:10:40 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
If you would like to send me a gift subscription for a year, please feel free to do so. What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too. BTW, the subscription cost for the webzine is not $13/year - it's $13 for a "permanent" sub, whatevever that turns out to mean :-) -- Steve Maki |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - pegs, specialty... etc.
"BEAR" wrote in message
... bob wrote: bear wrote: bob wrote: snip You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS. No kidding? Gee, I've always had you pegged as a tube guy. Can't say what gave me that impression. Maybe it was what you say on your home page: "TUBES our SPECIALTY!" That might have misled me into thinking that your specialty was tubes. My apologies. But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding. Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13 bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do. bob I am sure. Have you bothered to look at my Amplifier pages YET?? (Although I can do tubes as well as solid state. Is that ok?) But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding. Ummm... I did not do any "trashing (of) a review..." I asked whomever posted the first post & comments which were unsolicited, saying that Dr. Rich had in effect "trashed" a Bryston amp, WHAT precisely was the nature of the complaint. Which now turns out to be in effect a simple circuit change, and the idea that his *opinion* appears to be that it is not a cost effective unit. Big deal. Not a trashing review at all! And, fwiw, one could make a good case that Bryston's warranty is far superior to Behringer's so it STILL makes sense to buy the Bryston, IF those were your only two choices. Eh? The recomendation was not for Behringer over Bryston, but for ATI or B&K. From the review: The only thing wrong in this case is the price-the 875HT is a wonderful amplifier but not very good value at $5195. There are, for example, 12-channel power amps by B&K, ATI, and others in the $1500 to $2000 range that may not quite equal the Bryston in specs but aren't functionally inferior and have four more channels. I stated my opinion of what I have read from Dr. Rich in the past, and asked some specific questions, right? Dr. Rich's opinions have nil effect on my business and are "not bad for business." I encourage understanding of technical matters. Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13 bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do. I think not. But thanks for the encouragement. As I have said before, I have read some of Dr. Rich's work and Peter Aczel's writings and find that they both take a particular point of view, aimed at a particular niche audience, and do little to illuminate those ideas, points, issues, technological things that I find myself interested in. By niche audience, it would seem to me to imply that they aim their reviews at people who want to know the most objective point of view there is. If you want to know if something sounds different or better, Rich and Aczel are the guys to read. As to thorough here's another excerpt that seems to be to be very thourough: Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long time since I looked at a Bryston, let's have a brief review of what's inside all their offerings. Bryston amps are fully discrete, including the balanced-to-single-ended converter (one per channel) that precedes the main power amplifier. In bridged mode they use one of the discrete amplifiers for the balanced-to-single-ended conversion and the other for the phase inversion needed to create the bridged outputs. Please do not confuse a bridged amplifier with a fully balanced amplifier, which has many advantages over a bridged amp. The only fully balanced amplifiers known to me are the products of Spread Spectrum Technologies (James Bongiorno's company). Each Bryston amp is unique in that the stages that provide current gain also supply voltage gain. The voltage gain is to 4.75, set by a nested feedback loop. The closed-loop voltage gain is possible because transistor stages inside the feedback loop are not emitter followers. Recall that the emitter followers used in the back end of a standard amplifier supply no voltage gain. What is the topology Bryston uses to provide voltage gain? In the first stage, it is a common emitter amplifier. This drives a composite Darlington, with the collectors of the Darlington tied to the amplifier's output. For those of you into such things, the nested feedback loop is taken at the speaker output and returned to the emitter of the common-emitter amplifier. In other words, current feedback. In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in the 875HT. Putting voltage gain in the output stage allows the preceding stages, which provide the bulk of the open-loop voltage gain of the amplifier, to be run from regulated power supplies. The regulated rails are at a lower voltage than the unregulated power rails connected to the output stages (they need to swing only 25% of the output voltage). In a normal amplifier, with the output current-gain stage having a gain of only 1, the preceding stages would have to be run off the power supply that supplies the output rails, lest the amplifier clip at a lower voltage set by the clipping point of the voltage-gain stages. Gain in the output stage and the nested feedback loop reduce distortion in two ways: (1) the nested feedback loop, which has a wider bandwidth than the complete feedback loop; (2) the voltage-gain stages ahead of the nested feedback loop only need to swing at 20% of the output voltage swing. Since distortion is the result of nonlinearity, the less an amplifier signal moves the less distortion occurs. So why doesn't everybody do this? I believe the primary reason is that the Bryston topology could oscillate into some loads and when clipped, unless the engineering talent behind the amplifier really understood all the third-order issues that could bring about the oscillations. I am convinced the Bryston engineers have that understanding. The Bryston voltage amplifier stages are less complex than those of other amplifiers we have looked at that produce very low distortion at 20 kHz. First, no circuit to linearize the second voltage-gain stage is included in the Bryston. Douglas Self has written extensively on distortion mechanisms in traditional power amplifier designs. (2002. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook. 3rd ed. Newnes.) He identifies the need for an emitter follower before the second gain stage, or the use of a cascode transistor as part of the second gain stage, as key circuit elements to reduce distortion. Second, the differential pairs are biased by resistors, not an active current source. This can result in a reduced power-supply rejection ratio, but this is less of a problem with the regulated supply rails of the Bryston. We have a remaining problem, however, that is more subtle-the common-mode signal at the differential-pair input is suppressed less than if the current source were in place. A reduced common-mode rejection ratio of the differential pair can lead to distortion. Are these two circuit simplifications the source of distortion we see in the Audio Precision curves? Probably not, since the same circuits are used in the Brystons with higher power, which yielded some of the lowest numbers we have seen. The regulated rails and reduced signal swings that are unique to the Bryston appear to overcome the downside of the simplified front-end circuits. So why does this amplifier have more distortion than a typical Bryston amplifier? (They specify this amp will distort by a factor of two over the more powerful Bryston models.) The answer is most probably that the number of amplifier stages inside the nested feedback loop is reduced by one, and the stage eliminated is an interesting topology proprietary to Bryston. I also note that the amplifier's noise is not state of the art. Noise dominantly comes from the differential stage. Spread Spectrum Technologies again appears to be in the lead here. The output stage uses a foldback current limiter. This can cause trouble with early activation of this limiter into an inductive or capacitive load. The PowerCube shows this amp does not have that problem. Modern amplifiers for home applications use IV sensor circuitry which is independent of the amplifier itself. Complicated versions of these circuits can almost calculate if the output transistors are in their safe operating region. If you refer to the spec sheet of a power transistor, you may see multiple Safe Operating Area (SOA) curves. One will be for dc operation and the remaining ones, which allow more power to be dissipated, are only for short periods of operation. Complex external protection may allow the amp to deliver more current for a short sine-wave burst (what the PowerCube generator drives into the amp) before the amp is shut down for exceeding the dc SOA. Some amplifier manufactures are taking advantage of this and are bring back the dynamic power spec, although current FCC regulations were designed to prevent this sort of thing. The problem with external current- and voltage-limit protection is that when the protection is activated, relays in series with the speaker terminals open (the Bryston approach does not need the relays, which could cause a slight decrease in amplifier reliability) and the amp shuts down. You have to power-cycle it or press a reset button to bring it back to life. Fine for home use but unacceptable for a rock concert. The amplifier also includes clipping indicators, again as a warning to the pros that the amp could be getting ready to cut out because of the IV current limiter or, worse, come to a thermal shutdown (cycle time on this fault would be longer). The unit has two power transformers (one for four channels). Each transformer has two 33,000 ?F primary filter capacitors. In low-priced AV receivers rated at similar power output, we see much less primary capacitance. This is one reason we do not see FCC power ratings for all six or seven channels driven on these receivers, the other reasons being the transformer's ability to supply current and the size of the heat sinks to dissipate the energy lost in the class B amplifiers. On the other hand, Bryston does not specify an FCC rating for this amplifier driven into 4 ohms. It does so for its other products. Also, I note that Bryston specifies a maximum current rating for the ac line coming into the unit at 14 amps, which is just under the rating for a standard wall outlet (leaving 1 amp to supply everything else on the same ac loop that may serve several rooms in your house). This is an indication that the amplifier can drive significant current to the speaker load. Look at the back of some other 7-channel amplifiers and see what they give as a maximum current spec. A final point on the same subject is that UL would not approve an amplifier that can draw much more current. 125 watts into 4 ohms times 8 channels is about it. Amplifier manufacturers selling 300-watt channels times 7 will not pass UL, and you can see the absence of the label on these amplifiers. In reality, you would need to hang a 30-amp 220-volt fuse on these amplifiers to prevent them from popping a fuse. These giant amplifiers do not do this in real life because they never go near full power, at least not simultaneously on all channels. Why has no multichannel power amp been offered with the correct power cable-you guessed it, the high-end dealers would go crazy with thoughts of reduced sales. Imagine them having to say, first call your electrician and then come back. These same high-end dealers will of course happily sell you power conditioners that do nothing for well-designed amplifiers. The Bryston is especially well-designed with respect to the ability to reject power-supply noise, since the voltage-gain stages are regulated. (No, tweaks, the last thing you want to do is regulate the output stage, which would only limit the voltage that the amplifier can swing under dynamic conditions.) Seems pretty thourough to me. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too. Feel free. I will gratefully accept the gift. Yes. But if you want to know so badly *exactly* what his problem with the Bryston is, I have to wonder why you're so reticent to spring for $13 measly bucks. No, you miss the point - someone got up in the proverbial theater and shouted "look a double headed fire breathing dragon..." and I said, (proverbially, now) "ok, where is it?" As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was, let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply *have to know*!! Right? Ok then. _-_-bear |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
BEAR wrote:
As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was, let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply *have to know*!! Right? Provocative hyperbole? This is from my original post: I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. You subsequently wanted to know whether he took a screwdriver to it? I thought you were just being funny since I presumed that my quotes around the words in question would clue you in to my meaning. I didn't understand that you were taking my words literally. Sorry to have misled you in thinking that Rich disassembled the amp and then had a lot of criticisms. Really, I was merely commenting on his reviewing style, not so much the amp. With this in mind I could have cited any of his reviews, but the one I did cite was in keeping with my actual topic--that is, I wondered if Dr. Rich was going to be writing for Mr. Aczel in the future; it was my impression from Aczel's words that the Bryston review was likely a swan song. mp |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too. Feel free. I will gratefully accept the gift. OK. I'm emailing you your login and password Yes. But if you want to know so badly *exactly* what his problem with the Bryston is, I have to wonder why you're so reticent to spring for $13 measly bucks. No, you miss the point - someone got up in the proverbial theater and shouted "look a double headed fire breathing dragon..." and I said, (proverbially, now) "ok, where is it?" As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was, let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply *have to know*!! Right? Ok then. Odd how prominent your animus towards Dr. Rich seemed, if this was all that concerned you. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
michael wrote:
BEAR wrote: As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was, let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply *have to know*!! Right? Provocative hyperbole? This is from my original post: I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point and pulling no punches. The hyperbole in question is the "took apart" quote. As far as I can see he did nothing of the sort. Other than to say that his opinion was that it was overpriced, there was nothing negative that I could find in that review - ergo, hyperbole. You subsequently wanted to know whether he took a screwdriver to it? I thought you were just being funny since I presumed that my quotes around the words in question would clue you in to my meaning. I didn't understand that you were taking my words literally. No - you misunderstand. My point is/was that the "review" is cursory and would BENEFIT from a deeper look at the product, including a 'look under the hood.' mp _-_-bear |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
David Rich - thorough?
bear wrote:
The hyperbole in question is the "took apart" quote. As far as I can see he did nothing of the sort. Other than to say that his opinion was that it was overpriced, there was nothing negative that I could find in that review - ergo, hyperbole. That is why I placed "took apart" in quotes. My statement was not meant to be literal. Also, I never implied there was anything negative in the review. That you would think such a thing from what I wrote is something I cannot understand. No - you misunderstand. My point is/was that the "review" is cursory and would BENEFIT from a deeper look at the product, including a 'look under the hood.' Cursory? It is not "long" like some of the material I have read in other magazines. But it is concise, and to the point. Coming from an historical perspective (previous Bryston reviews in TAC) there is a continuity which allows deeper understanding. TAC has always been appreciative of the engineering of the Bryston company going back to their early days when (if I remember the name correctly?) Chris Russell wrote an editorial piece for them. This must have been in the mid to late 70's. michael |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|