Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Furthermore I view all your voodoo mumbo-jumbo about magic components
and the like as being a bit like little kids playing with things they don't understand and wrongly attributing effects to what they've been told by the snake oil merchants to believe. Sadly, I know that's what you believe. If you can't hear ther difference between componants there is absolutely no chance that your self-celebrated designs will sound truly excellent - except maybe by chance. As you know quite well, I have no patience whatever for all your armchair philosophy and bleating cynicisms. All audio components have been designed by somebody - some sound a lot better than others, and that's the job of the people that actually build them and the componants they use. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
But were these caps assembled by naked virgins at midnight under a full moon ?
Sure, if you make your power supply sloppy I'm sure it affects the sound. Since the typical toob nut appears to revel in added distortions, I have no doubt that worse in better in your febrile imagination. Graham Graham, go away and dream of naked virgins that are still interested in older men. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers
If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch If you don't believe him, read Poindexter If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter If you don't believe him, it really is time they came round with the straightjackets, my old pal. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message When I refer to a PSU being 'sloppy' I mean the load regulation being poor. So this must include the power transformer also. Yes it does. Some have considerably better regulation than others (to avoid mis- interpretation again, by "transformer regulation" I mean the term in the way that Sowter and Lundahl use it: i.e the variation in output voltage between no load and full load) Likewise. Although I actually go further than simple resistive load figures since a capacitor input supply has very different characteristics. This is what I tend to do, but I also don't believe in 'going over the top' with it ! I would be interested to know what you define as "over the top" As I mentioned before, I have just been listening to a Swedish built amp with 100uF-10H-200uF-10H-200uF-5k6-200uF. That seems to me to be a little "over the top" The first choke had a 1A rating. But it was a "money no object" design by the designer who demonstrated it to me, for a very discerning client. My experience is primarily with high performance solid state amps at high power and the requirements don't 'translate' well, esp since transistors are far more immune to the effects of power supply issues by their inherent properties ( think collector resistance vs anode / plate resistance ). It's unheard of to have inductors in the supply with ss amps ( or even the high power guitar amps I'm familiar with ) for example. I could certainly look at modelling it for sure though. It's clear from what I've heard here that those who like tubes are indeed captivated by their added distortions. :-) It is not difficult to cosnstruct a pp 50W tube amp with THD of 0.1% at 1kHz full power and a noise floor of about 150µV (weighted) I have built several. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...em/C50_002.jpg At lowish power (enough to fill the average listening room with music) the THD is 0.03% Do you think that you, or any of the rest of us can even detect this "added distortion" let alone be captivated by it? Is it 0.03% at say 100mW ? I once thought ( about 30 yrs ago ) that amplifiers with published THD figures of ~ 0.1% should be more or less blameless in that regard. I subsequently revised that view in the light of listening experience and reckon 0.01% is probably closer to the mark but I wouldn't even claim that as an absolute. It may be more helpful to consider these figures in dB terms btw. 0.1% for example is 'only' -60dB. 0.01% is -80dB. Also the harmonic structure of the distortion components is very significant wrt audibility. Not to mention that published THD figures are normally measured at close to full power where they are often at their best. I could elaborate at great length. Please do. That's what we come here for:-) There's a heck of a lot of it. In time ! OTOH I'm reluctant to go into detail in areas where I might accidentally disclose subjects that could be to my long-term commercial advantage. I don't consider it wasted time, it's been quite an education actually and also because I wanted to find out for myself what all the fuss was about. I additionally have a decent working knowledge of this area of electronics. As do most people who build valve amps. The best way to find out what all the fuss is about is to build one:-) I don't fret over the need to build one. I don't need any more boat anchors ! I live in Scandinavia, and so the situation here might not be parallel to yours, but here, particularly in the past ten years, there has been a considerable migration from SS to tube amps, by people who were not satisfied with what they were hearing. I cannot recall one single case of someone going the other way:-)) Not satisfied =/= the same as technically accurate. Indeed it's clear to me that toobs are popular with those who like them exactly because of their *inaccuracy*. In addition, here, the very top of high end audio is dominated by tube amps for which there is often a waiting list. In contrast, one can by a Krell over the counter at a very good discount. I'll bet 90% of that is show-off factor. It goes with the money. In the end, it all comes down to reproducing music. Many people feel that a valve/tube amp give a more musical performance (for whatever reason) This is why tube amps are so popular. This seems to bother you. Not for one moment. It does bother me that some ppl see *their* idea of amplification to be superior based on nothing more than something like religious fervour though and totally ( apparently ) to the contradiction of the scientific method. :-)) I have never come across this "religious fervour" - a term often used by the anti tube faction. They also talk about "snob value" etc. I have never come across this either. I certainly have ! Don't doubt it does exist and it's a powerful marketing tool for sure. I belong to a "recorded music group" with some thirty members. More than half of these now have tube amps. These people are not in the least concerned with snob value or religious fervour, they are simply looking for the system (amp and speakers) which will reproduce the music to which they listen in the way which they think it should be reproduced. It matters not a jot to them if the amp is SS, tube, or powered by North Sea gas. It's that simple. But do all of you have a standard reference to compare these tube amps to ? Also, do you listen mainly to orchestral, vocal, chamber music etc... or rock and roll / whatever and how if at all does this influence your preference(s) ? Graham |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: high capacitance and hence low impedance surely low impedence is a quality of the iron - the transformer and chokes. See Dr Lowmu (Jeff Medwin) in a huge number of AA threads on the subject. No. As far as the amplifier's concerned the predominating component if the supply impedance will be the *last* cap in the chain, so the bigger the better to minimise its impedance. Graham |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: Furthermore I view all your voodoo mumbo-jumbo about magic components and the like as being a bit like little kids playing with things they don't understand and wrongly attributing effects to what they've been told by the snake oil merchants to believe. Sadly, I know that's what you believe. If you can't hear ther difference between componants there is absolutely no chance that your self-celebrated designs will sound truly excellent - except maybe by chance. As you know quite well, I have no patience whatever for all your armchair philosophy and bleating cynicisms. All audio components have been designed by somebody - some sound a lot better than others, and that's the job of the people that actually build them and the componants they use. Very few *passive* components have any non-linearity. By definition that means they can't have a 'sound'. Those that are inherently non-linear are well-known and easily avoided by design. Some are only non-linear when used in certain ways and that is also easily avoided by design or 'designed around'. Every *active* component is non-linear. That is a fact. Even a kid should be able to determine where to usefully start looking. BTW, let's suppose you replace say a 10uF cap with another type. How do you know that if you hear a difference it's simply not down to the tolerance on its value ? That'll effect -3dB points. Many caps are only available in +-20% and electrolytics have even wider tolerances such as -20% +100% ! Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: But were these caps assembled by naked virgins at midnight under a full moon ? Sure, if you make your power supply sloppy I'm sure it affects the sound. Since the typical toob nut appears to revel in added distortions, I have no doubt that worse in better in your febrile imagination. Graham Graham, go away and dream of naked virgins that are still interested in older men. LOL ! Virgins are no fun. Graham |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch If you don't believe him, read Poindexter If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ? Graham |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Eeyore wrote: Andy Evans wrote: Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch If you don't believe him, read Poindexter If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ? Graham Put it this way, if you don't recognise any names it would be like a footballer who didn't recognise Pele, Maradonna or George Best |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because
that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham There have been several studies of the dielectric properties of caps and the better measuring dialectrics such as teflon spookily come out best in listening tests. I know a lot of this is beyond your belief, but I'm afraid that's your problem. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andy Evans wrote: Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch If you don't believe him, read Poindexter If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ? Graham Put it this way, if you don't recognise any names it would be like a footballer who didn't recognise Pele, Maradonna or George Best Oh really ? You expect me to be impressed by the names of a bunch of losers do you ? How many of them work in *pro* audio ? How many of them are AES members ? Graham |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham There have been several studies of the dielectric properties of caps and the better measuring dialectrics such as teflon spookily come out best in listening tests. I know a lot of this is beyond your belief, but I'm afraid that's your problem. Do please tell in what way teflon measures better as a dielectric than say mylar/polyester or polypropylene and its relevance to audio. That might finally give some basis ( albeit a flimsy one - see applicability ) to your unscientific rants. Graham |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
How many of them work in *pro* audio ?
How many of them are AES members ? Graham It would be too humiliating for you if I showed you all their websites, compared to whatever you personally have on the Net about tubes, which I imagine could be concealed in a fishpaste sandwich. Besides, being American, most are AAES |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
First they would calculate the choke size. In choke input filters inductance in Henries was required to be at least: L = Voltage/(Current x 940) for 50Hz supplies (Europe) L = Voltage/(Current x 1130) for 60Hz supplies (US) Now they could calculate the cap size: C = 56/L This is on the assumption that they would use two choke sections, LCLC, in a choke input filter. The input cap in a pi filter, CLC, would be the same as the second cap. All filtering sections of the same values offers the greatest efficiency. Dumb question: the above assumes a full wave rectifier circuit, yes? Thus the chokes and caps are really seeing 100 or 120Hz? |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Now, one of the ways in which the axiomatic audio band (as distinct from the real audiophile audio band, what people actually listen to, what will not interfere with their enjoyment) wrecks the sound of a system is by unbalancing the sound. To get rock-steady bass at 20Hz, the amp must be capped up almost as if for DC operation; the common 1.6Hz is an economy compromise (!). The sound is subtly unbalanced. Very few people can identify the cause instantly but there is a sense of vague unease. That sense of vague unease goes away the moment people hear a tube amp, especially a tube amp with a tube rectifier, on which a more balanced approach in the disposition of energy storage is almost forced by the tube rectifier's limitations, with the automatic consequence that the amp's bandwidth (and possibly its slewing behaviour) is balanced internally--and externally on the ear because the amp is now also more in tune with the speakers it drives. Alternatively, when you listen to one of those American banksa6550 amps, you instantly recover the psychic unease for the good and simple reason that you're listening to a pseudo-silicon amp, capped up to the "audio band" in the power supply and in the signal caps -- and then several multiples beyond reason. As an aside, regulated anything makes the unease worse. In a convential tube amp, I would think that the output transformer is a limiting factor on how much bass you can have. And there would be little point in having the power supply being able to deliver the power needed for twice lower bass (I picked that so the OPT dominates the bass pole). But I have to admit that I've wanted the power supply to be a circuit to replicate a big battery, low ripple and low sag. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
robert casey wrote: First they would calculate the choke size. In choke input filters inductance in Henries was required to be at least: L = Voltage/(Current x 940) for 50Hz supplies (Europe) L = Voltage/(Current x 1130) for 60Hz supplies (US) Now they could calculate the cap size: C = 56/L This is on the assumption that they would use two choke sections, LCLC, in a choke input filter. The input cap in a pi filter, CLC, would be the same as the second cap. All filtering sections of the same values offers the greatest efficiency. Dumb question: the above assumes a full wave rectifier circuit, yes? Thus the chokes and caps are really seeing 100 or 120Hz? Yes. Graham |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Andy Evans" wrote in message ups.com... How many of them work in *pro* audio ? How many of them are AES members ? Graham It would be too humiliating for you if I showed you all their websites, compared to whatever you personally have on the Net about tubes, which I imagine could be concealed in a fishpaste sandwich. Besides, being American, most are AAES Morgan Jones is a retired BBC engineer. One can't be much more *pro* audio than that. He is also a Welshman. Is there is a CAES? :-) Iain |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Iain Churches wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message ups.com... How many of them work in *pro* audio ? How many of them are AES members ? Graham It would be too humiliating for you if I showed you all their websites, compared to whatever you personally have on the Net about tubes, which I imagine could be concealed in a fishpaste sandwich. Besides, being American, most are AAES Morgan Jones is a retired BBC engineer. One can't be much more *pro* audio than that. Apparently promoting headphone amplifiers with 2% distortion ! http://www.headwize.com/projects/sho...=cmoy5_prj.htm How much more bottom of the barrel can you get ? Graham |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Andy Evans wrote: Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. http://www.clarisonus.com/blog/ Worshipper of the late Harvey Rosenberg If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin True believer in the holy rite of the 2A3 If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm http://www.pacifier.com/~gpimm/ Believes in tubes with solid state biasing circuits. If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle http://www.intactaudio.com/ True believer in autotransformer volume controls If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones Wrote many books touting the superiority of tubes If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html "In my experience all stranded Cables where each single conductor is made from several strands of copper that are not insulated from each other imparts an unpleasant harshness and brightness to the sound." If you don't believe him, read Poindexter real name is apparently Eric Kingsbury Audio Asylum regular, you guessed it, Tubes Asylum to be more specific, http://ekingsbu.users4.50megs.com/ If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett Self-proclaimed "tubehead". http://www.pmillett.com/ If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter U.S. Importer of Lundahl transformers, it seems http://www.kandkaudio.com/ Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ? A little googling shows that this is a list of people who have suspended disbelief and promote tubes as a superior high fidelity alternative. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Andy Evans wrote: Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham There have been several studies of the dielectric properties of caps and the better measuring dialectrics such as teflon spookily come out best in listening tests. I know a lot of this is beyond your belief, but I'm afraid that's your problem. Do please tell in what way teflon measures better as a dielectric than say mylar/polyester or polypropylene and its relevance to audio. That might finally give some basis ( albeit a flimsy one - see applicability ) to your unscientific rants. Graham There are major differences in the way different dielectrics pass pulses - the best ones, teflon & polystyrene, pass pulses more cleanly. Lesser dielectrics take longer to return to zero after the pulse is gone. Electrolytics tend to take very long times to return to zero. The effect in audio is a tendency to smear the sound and/or muffle the detail. Electros also tend to be much noisier than film caps. Large electros like the Sprague 39D's have a considerable inductive component which slows them down. One can almost always get an audible improvement by bypassing them with polypropylene, or better yet replacing them with polypropylene bypassed with polystyrene or teflon. Fred |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message ups.com How many of them work in *pro* audio ? How many of them are AES members ? Interesting question. Medwin claims to have authored a JAES article, but the AES site says "no matches found" for medwin, pimm, Slagle, Morgan Jones, Loesch, Poindexter, Millett, and Kevin Carter. That covers both JAES aticles and conference papers. It would be too humiliating for you if I showed you all their websites, I duuno - I found them to be worth a good laugh. compared to whatever you personally have on the Net about tubes, which I imagine could be concealed in a fishpaste sandwich. Not a problem as far as I can see. Besides, being American, most are AAES But not AES authors. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Phread wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Andy Evans wrote: Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham There have been several studies of the dielectric properties of caps and the better measuring dialectrics such as teflon spookily come out best in listening tests. I know a lot of this is beyond your belief, but I'm afraid that's your problem. Do please tell in what way teflon measures better as a dielectric than say mylar/polyester or polypropylene and its relevance to audio. That might finally give some basis ( albeit a flimsy one - see applicability ) to your unscientific rants. Graham There are major differences in the way different dielectrics pass pulses - the best ones, teflon & polystyrene, pass pulses more cleanly. How so ? Lesser dielectrics Lesser ? What kind of scientific term is this ? Have you ever heard of 'materials science' btw ? take longer to return to zero after the pulse is gone. Electrolytics tend to take very long times to return to zero. The effect in audio is a tendency to smear the sound and/or muffle the detail. Electros also tend to be much noisier than film caps. Junk 'science'. Show me an analysis of the underlying physics and I'd believe it though. Of couse you can't because it's all made-up audiophoolery myth. Large electros like the Sprague 39D's have a considerable inductive component which slows them down. LMAO ! Shows how a little knowledge can be a truly dangerous thing. Have you not heard of non-inductive winding btw ? Or even low-ESR caps that have to work at 100kHz in switch-mode PSUs ? One can almost always get an audible improvement by bypassing them with polypropylene, No you can't actually. Yet another myth and easily demostrated false if you believe in science. or better yet replacing them with polypropylene bypassed with polystyrene or teflon. And pray tell, what would that do ? Graham |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message ups.com Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham There have been several studies of the dielectric properties of caps and the better measuring dialectrics such as teflon spookily come out best in listening tests. What listening tests? Sighted evaluations? LOL! |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Phread" wrote in message
There are major differences in the way different dielectrics pass pulses - the best ones, teflon & polystyrene, pass pulses more cleanly. Unfortunately, analog audio is not composed of pulses, and certainly not signals like the pulses it takes to make audible issues like the diferences in dielectric absorbtion among say polyester and polystyrene. Lesser dielectrics take longer to return to zero after the pulse is gone. So what? Electrolytics tend to take very long times to return to zero. So what? The effect in audio is a tendency to smear the sound and/or muffle the detail Nonsense. Electros also tend to be much noisier than film caps. Nonsense again. In fact electrolytics are used as coupling capacitors in some of the quietest audio gear around. Large electros like the Sprague 39D's have a considerable inductive component which slows them down. Sprague 39Ds? Are you kidding? Is that old hack your idea of a modern SOTA capacitor? One can almost always get an audible improvement by bypassing them with polypropylene, or better yet replacing them with polypropylene bypassed with polystyrene or teflon. Bypassing high DA caps with low DA caps to form a composite capacitor has virtually no effect on the DA of the composite capacitor. The composite capacitor measures and sounds like the high DA cap that it incorporates. You should at least try to understand the effects that you are claiming to write expertly about before you embarass yourself with impossible claims like this. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Arny Krueger wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message ups.com Are you telling me you expect an 8uF cap to sound the same as a 20uF cap because that's the possibilty you're looking at. To then ascribe any audible difference to the dielectric is bogus beyond belief. Graham There have been several studies of the dielectric properties of caps and the better measuring dialectrics such as teflon spookily come out best in listening tests. What listening tests? Sighted evaluations? LOL! Oh. He said listening tests ! It's well-known that the ear is such a hugely more critical measuring instrument that anything science can offer ( not ). Any honest person knows full well that your hearing can vary significantly over even a short period and is readily and hugely influenced by 'stimulants' and state of mind too. Graham |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Eeyore said:
Any honest person knows full well that your hearing can vary significantly over even a short period and is readily and hugely influenced by 'stimulants' and state of mind too. Then why rule those factors out in a (double) blind test? ;-) -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
robert casey wrote: First they would calculate the choke size. In choke input filters inductance in Henries was required to be at least: L = Voltage/(Current x 940) for 50Hz supplies (Europe) L = Voltage/(Current x 1130) for 60Hz supplies (US) Now they could calculate the cap size: C = 56/L This is on the assumption that they would use two choke sections, LCLC, in a choke input filter. The input cap in a pi filter, CLC, would be the same as the second cap. All filtering sections of the same values offers the greatest efficiency. Dumb question: the above assumes a full wave rectifier circuit, yes? Thus the chokes and caps are really seeing 100 or 120Hz? Nothing dumb about the question, since the cycling rate is hidden in the constants. Yes, in audio work, even at that time, a full wave rectifier was always assumed unless otherwise specified. Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey Heh-heh! |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Sander deWaal wrote: Eeyore said: Any honest person knows full well that your hearing can vary significantly over even a short period and is readily and hugely influenced by 'stimulants' and state of mind too. Then why rule those factors out in a (double) blind test? ;-) Rule out which ones though ? Graham |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
robert casey wrote: Now, one of the ways in which the axiomatic audio band (as distinct from the real audiophile audio band, what people actually listen to, what will not interfere with their enjoyment) wrecks the sound of a system is by unbalancing the sound. To get rock-steady bass at 20Hz, the amp must be capped up almost as if for DC operation; the common 1.6Hz is an economy compromise (!). The sound is subtly unbalanced. Very few people can identify the cause instantly but there is a sense of vague unease. That sense of vague unease goes away the moment people hear a tube amp, especially a tube amp with a tube rectifier, on which a more balanced approach in the disposition of energy storage is almost forced by the tube rectifier's limitations, with the automatic consequence that the amp's bandwidth (and possibly its slewing behaviour) is balanced internally--and externally on the ear because the amp is now also more in tune with the speakers it drives. Alternatively, when you listen to one of those American banksa6550 amps, you instantly recover the psychic unease for the good and simple reason that you're listening to a pseudo-silicon amp, capped up to the "audio band" in the power supply and in the signal caps -- and then several multiples beyond reason. As an aside, regulated anything makes the unease worse. In a convential tube amp, I would think that the output transformer is a limiting factor on how much bass you can have. Sure thing, but my Lundahls, to name one instance, are so overspecified in for example 300B amps that I could easily specify and build a flat audioband amp. Only thing is, it would sound like **** on my Fidelio bicor horns, a hurricane of flappling paper or worse blowing through my music's low end because horns offer absolutely no resistance below Fs. And it would, if boosted up to PSE or PP 300B, sound like **** on my ESL-63, bloating the bass unnaturally, something that on speakers as clean as electrostats will be immediately and glaringly obvious. And if you have transformers custom designed and wound, you can set your LF point where you like. And on my own-design Impresario speakers (see my netsite) which being based on guitar drivers don't object to a lot of bass energy, a twenty-four foot room is soon overpowered and the treble stats suffering from the unbalance. When I used my Menno van der Veen designed 190+W SE outputs (20Kg each, plus two similarly hefty power trx...) to drive a woofer, they went down cleanly to 16Hz, which is the most humongous pipe on the biggest organs. But you needed a church hall to get the real value of that sound. The whole point of my story was that the amp, to be "fast", must match the speakers, the room, even your ears. If you have the money and the contacts and the obsession, you can make anything happen. The question isn't what you *can* do -- that leads only to squalid state Krell sound -- but what you *should* do. Music reproduction is a cultural imperative too important to be left to engineers; culture has moral component, hence the normative case of "should". And there would be little point in having the power supply being able to deliver the power needed for twice lower bass (I picked that so the OPT dominates the bass pole). But how justified is your assumption that you speakers and your room will go down as low as even an inexpensive transformer, say a Hammond? The problem with the low end of Hammonds is that they may be too low! Think about it: Hammond designers design mainly guitar amps, where a lot of bass is important. That's a mindset that probably reflects in their designs for the minuscule audiophile market. And the boutique winders like to brag about power handling. And when you go to Lundahl or Sowter or Bertolucci, their main business is with the broadcasters, who also like a low bass (they are quick to compress the HF though!). But I have to admit that I've wanted the power supply to be a circuit to replicate a big battery, low ripple and low sag. If you want a very controlled sound, again, sure; a good attitude when you're building a pre-amp. But today the need for a pre-amp is limited to those who prefer vinyl. Those of us who use CD don't need preamps. Our requirement for control is different: we want the closest thing to the sound we heard in the concert hall and, possibly serendipitously, the low-cap high-end amp of yore, now known as a "fast" amp, gives it to us. (Well, not exactly that old amp; in fact we -- meaning people like Andy and me and many on that list he published elsewhere in this thread -- upcap that old amp about 600% though the total combined LC filtering effect is only about 300% what it was then because we also use smaller chokes. But the logic of our power supply is the same as then: it must make the amp fit the speakers, the room, the listener.) Air is not a big battery; air ripples and sags. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Ian Iveson Pile of ASD ****ed Pommy Pus " But if Linear = Linear Regulated, then Regulated = 0 ** Purest gobbledegook. Quite. ** Yep. It is common to use "linear" as distinct from "switching". ** It is an error to do so if the supply is not regulated, on the grounds that ambiguity is error. But there is already a good word for "regulated". We generally say "regulated". ** Another non sequitur ..... yawn. Plus - there is nothing very " linear " about what happens when an AC supply is rectified and filtered by electros to get DC. Such supplies are mostly called "conventional" when there is a need to distinguish them from the switchmode kind. Rubbish. ** Fraid it is true - ****wit. Just searched several suppliers for "Linear unregulated power supply". Plenty hits. ** Agrees with the point about ambiguity exactly. Linear is pretty meaningless word to use for a power supply anyway, ** Not it isn't - you ****ing ass. What you call them in writing DEPENDS ON CONTEXT. As with all things. ** Then stop ignoring that fact - ****HEAD. ........ Phil |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
How much more bottom of the barrel can you get ?
Both Morgan and I have published about five books, a couple of which are currently used as standard texts - from the bottom of the barrel no doubt. Would you care to give us your own book refs, Graham? Amazon will do. Failing that, any articles? Failing that a letter to a utilities company showing you can write? Andy |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg.
-- Robert Casey Heh-heh! - You ought to get this amplifier, mate, - it's a real belter. It gives out a full 8 ohms - look, it says so here on the back! (Junk shop owner) |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Andre Jute wrote: (1) Technically, one of the ways the "fast amp" achieves its beneficial effects is by faster response to transient spikes because it isn't sitting there waiting for humongous computer grade caps to charge up... Counter-intuitive, I agree, but if you think it through you will come to the same conclusion. Not only is it counter intuitive but it's plain *wrong* too ! The voltage on the large cap drops less than with a smaller one by virtue of the very charge stored in it so it has no more re-charging to do than a small one anyway - hence no "sitting there waiting for humongous computer grade caps to charge up ". As ever, Jootikins promulgates total untruths. Graham |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: How much more bottom of the barrel can you get ? Both Morgan and I have published about five books, a couple of which are currently used as standard texts - from the bottom of the barrel no doubt. Would you care to give us your own book refs, Graham? Amazon will do. Failing that, any articles? Failing that a letter to a utilities company showing you can write? Andy So you're suggesting I should bow to you because you wrote a book or two of nonsense ? Your approach seems to consist exclusively of " I say therefore it is " arguments. How many hundreds of thousand of units of your designs have you sold ? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/L-k-Studiomast...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-7...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-A...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-8...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Studiomaster-2...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-P...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-C...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-C...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-1...QQcmdZViewItem So where's your stuff ? Those last 2 items with the custom FX, I wrote the effect algorithms myself btw in DSP code, along with the host MCU software too. I did all the analogue design for all the above too of course. Graham |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Andre Jute wrote: They subscribed to another precept that most of today's "audiophiles" can relearn with profit. Though they didn't call it that, the took a systems approach to their hi-fi. It was expressed as a balanced system, with each component balanced to the rest, and each component internally at peace with its own balance. They would never build an amp, for instance, with excessive reach into one of the frequency extremes. "Excessive" here means not only odd, over the top, but out of balance with the other frequency extreme. An amp capable of a clean 100Hz, actually rather good in the day, should not reach past 8 or 10KHz at the other extreme or it will sound skewed. They aspired to perhaps 60Hz-15KHz. Today we thoughtlessly accept as axiomatic the wretchedly inaccurate statement, devised by bureaucrats for the convenience of lowest common denominator engineers and jumped-up techies, that the human audio range is 20Hz to 20KHz, and furthermore we don't swat down those idiots who claim all speakers should go down to 20Hz just because any old fool can make a solid state amp produce some kind of 20Hz noise (and it isn't so difficult in tubes either, though tubies are generally a bit smarter). These two facts between them account for a lot of truly wretched sound produced at vast expense. That position can only become worse when the same morons will assure us that, because the new media can go up to 35KHZ, we should follow the techies up there. No one asks the devastating question, Why? So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ? Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ? What a charlatan ! Graham |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
eeyore wrote (somebody wrote, anyway...I've rather lost the plot):
It is in the interests of no-one to build a sloppy psu. I notice that most amps from the 60s had fairly modest supplies,. and quite often the output pair in a pp amp were supplied straight from the reservoir cap, which was often 47uF to enable the use of a smaller choke downstream to supply the phase inverter and front end. But in those days, large electrolytics were scarce and expensive. Now they are plentiful and not-too-costly, so it seems to make sense to use a stiffer supply. Large electros also had much higher ESR and ESL than now, so they were slow in the sense that their HF performance was poor. It is far less common these days to see large caps bypassed by small ones, as it is usually no longer necessary. I believe there is more to history than the quality of caps, though. There are issues of stability, proper placement of zeros, overload behaviour, and transient response. "Slow", as far as I can make out from those who use the term, could be either or both of the last two, which rather overlap. Transient response...how long the amp takes to settle after an impulse, and what it does in the meantime, can have many components. Although a big PS cap is slow to sag, it is also slow to recover. Like soft, wallowing suspension. Not my idea of stiff, which is a quality that a cap cannot ultimately bestow. Could be that with some amp designs, a small cap may contribute to soft clipping on overload, and then get on with the job as usual. A large cap under the same circumstances may allow harder clipping, and then take ages to recharge. Altogether, I suggest that cap size be optimised according to some design criteria...not a matter of big or small, but of being the right size for the job. As big as it needs to be, and *definitely* no bigger. We want more and lower bass these days, and use speakers that may have low impedance at LF, so we have to move all the zeros down. If you want your hip-hop to sound right, you probably need a big cap. To go with that, you need PP and a low turns ratio on your OPT. Horses for courses. Cheers, Ian |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Poopie by his own admission told a whopper (another one!) so I dug a
pit for him and staked it -- and, as is his wont, he dived into it face-first: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: (1) Technically, one of the ways the "fast amp" achieves its beneficial effects is by faster response to transient spikes because it isn't sitting there waiting for humongous computer grade caps to charge up... Counter-intuitive, I agree, but if you think it through you will come to the same conclusion. Not only is it counter intuitive but it's plain *wrong* too ! The voltage on the large cap drops less than with a smaller one by virtue of the very charge stored in it so it has no more re-charging to do than a small one anyway - hence no "sitting there waiting for humongous computer grade caps to charge up ". As ever, Jootikins promulgates total untruths. Graham Just ten hours earlier, Poopie told that selfsame "total untruth" to Iain Churches. Iain asked Poopie to explain how a more modest "fast" supply can sound different/better. and Poopie replied: It results in greater short term dynamic headroom. It is so short term though that it's value is questionable. and signed his name to it: Graham So how come this fact in Poopie's mouth is the gospel and in mine is a "total untruth"? Hey, Poopie, you aren't only a dull and ignorant clown, you are a liar and a hypocrite of the ugliest stripe. More staked put diving by Poopie in this thread. Hey, Poopie, that's a bad case of teenage acne you have there, all these large craters on you fat mug -- you really want to stop stuffing your face. Andre Jute Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when they will get off their collective fat arse and criminalize negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by undesirables like Poopie Stevenson. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Pulling Poopie's chain, was On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Andre Jute threw out an old boot and Poopie tried it on:
Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Today we thoughtlessly accept as axiomatic the wretchedly inaccurate statement, devised by bureaucrats for the convenience of lowest common denominator engineers If you think you're a lowest common denominator "engineer", Poopie, the boot fits. and jumped-up techies, If you think you're a jumped-up techie, Poopie, the boot fits. that the human audio range is 20Hz to 20KHz, and furthermore we don't swat down those idiots If you think you're an idiot, Poopie, the boot fits. who claim all speakers should go down to 20Hz just because any old fool If you know you're an old fool, Poopie, the boot fits. can make a solid state amp produce some kind of 20Hz noise If you admit that you make noise rather than music, Poopie, the boot fits. (and it isn't so difficult in tubes either, though tubies are generally a bit smarter). If you agree that it has often been demostrated that the tubies are smarter than you, Poopie, the boot fits. These two facts between them account for a lot of truly wretched sound If all that wretched sound you made haunts you, Poopie, the boot fits. produced at vast expense. That position can only become worse when the same morons Here's a boot we don't even have to ask about, eh, Poopie. Everyone, including you, know you're a moron. will assure us that, because the new media can go up to 35KHZ, we should follow the techies up there. No one asks the devastating question, Why? And the best this clown can come up with is to call me an "idiot" as in: the idiot Joot Poor old Poopie. That's the difference between us. I know how little I know -- and still I pull your chain every time I'm bored, without fail. You're a jailhouse ****mat, man. Andre Jute The Boss |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Poopie "The Jailhouse Hoover" Stevenson demands to know: So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ? Nope, only when the components demand it. Andre Jute has horns that go from 32Hz to 22kHz, electrostats that cover the full audio range of 99% of his 6000 odd CDs, speakers of his own design and construction, and bought, that go down to 16Hz. Nobody knows where you get this dumb idea that Andre Jute is somehow against a relevant bandwidth. Maybe you're just stupid, Poopie. Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ? That's your idea. Why don't you tell us why we should roll off our hi-fi at 8K. We could do with a good laugh, and in two years you haven't made us the gift of even a slight smile. Here's your opportunity not to be dull and boring for the rest of your life. What a charlatan ! Nobody on my side of the fence agrees with you, Poopie, and I stopped valuing what everyday common or garden morons like you think when I was seven, more than five decades ago. In fact, they're egging me on to turn you into a public clown and call it an experiment in internet psychology, as I did to dear Arnie. Wanna play, sonny? Graham Why the hell *are* you called Poopie anyhow? Someone who knows someone who was at school with you told me you were the most unprepossessing boy at school, that he was certain no one wanted your arse. So how does a fellow like you get a nickname like Poopie? Or did you start swinging late in life? Now let's see what I said that Poopie is lying about this time, or didn't understand because his grasp of basic English doesn't quite come up the third grade: Andre Jute wrote: They subscribed to another precept that most of today's "audiophiles" can relearn with profit. Though they didn't call it that, the took a systems approach to their hi-fi. It was expressed as a balanced system, with each component balanced to the rest, and each component internally at peace with its own balance. They would never build an amp, for instance, with excessive reach into one of the frequency extremes. "Excessive" here means not only odd, over the top, but out of balance with the other frequency extreme. An amp capable of a clean 100Hz, actually rather good in the day, should not reach past 8 or 10KHz at the other extreme or it will sound skewed. They aspired to perhaps 60Hz-15KHz. Today we thoughtlessly accept as axiomatic the wretchedly inaccurate statement, devised by bureaucrats for the convenience of lowest common denominator engineers and jumped-up techies, that the human audio range is 20Hz to 20KHz, and furthermore we don't swat down those idiots who claim all speakers should go down to 20Hz just because any old fool can make a solid state amp produce some kind of 20Hz noise (and it isn't so difficult in tubes either, though tubies are generally a bit smarter). These two facts between them account for a lot of truly wretched sound produced at vast expense. That position can only become worse when the same morons will assure us that, because the new media can go up to 35KHZ, we should follow the techies up there. No one asks the devastating question, Why? Nope. I don't see where I advocate blanket limits on bandwidth. Like I said, Poopie is the next worst thing to an illiterate -- well, maybe not: there should be a special class of infamy for the terminally dull, and it should be more infamous than the illiterate, who may be the victims of unfortunate circumstances. Andre Jute "You can wait 'til more important things get taken care of." -- Ned Carlson of TubeZone to a Customer who already waited *14 weeks* for his tubes. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Andre Jute wrote: Poopie by his own admission told a whopper (another one!) so I dug a pit for him and staked it -- and, as is his wont, he dived into it face-first: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: (1) Technically, one of the ways the "fast amp" achieves its beneficial effects is by faster response to transient spikes because it isn't sitting there waiting for humongous computer grade caps to charge up... Counter-intuitive, I agree, but if you think it through you will come to the same conclusion. Not only is it counter intuitive but it's plain *wrong* too ! The voltage on the large cap drops less than with a smaller one by virtue of the very charge stored in it so it has no more re-charging to do than a small one anyway - hence no "sitting there waiting for humongous computer grade caps to charge up ". As ever, Jootikins promulgates total untruths. Graham Just ten hours earlier, Poopie told that selfsame "total untruth" to Iain Churches. Iain asked Poopie to explain how a more modest "fast" supply can sound different/better. and Poopie replied: It results in greater short term dynamic headroom. It is so short term though that it's value is questionable. and signed his name to it: Graham So how come this fact in Poopie's mouth is the gospel and in mine is a "total untruth"? You said large caps take longer to recharge after a transient. Your statement is totally untrue. Small caps do however sag more under such conditions. My statement is true. It's a simple electrical calculation. End of story. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Vintage Neve Console Modules, Panels, Power Supplies + much more | Pro Audio | |||
here is how firewire ports fail | Pro Audio | |||
List of NOS mostly tubes | Vacuum Tubes | |||
"The Audibility of Power Supplies" | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS: SOUNDSTREAM CLOSEOUTS AND MORE!! | Car Audio |