| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
A large poor book written around a small fair one
High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
...any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". Not at all. To quote Hamm's JAES paper's abstract: "This paper, however, points out that amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signal transients (THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in the harmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with tubes, transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into distinct groups" Thus the Hamm 1973 paper is only relevant to people who judge amplifiers by how they sound when grossly abused. It is therefore irrelevant to those of us who use hi fi amplifiers reasonably and sanely. It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. That's because Hamm's JAES paper, according to its own abstract, is irrelevant to the use of audio amplifiers as Hi Fi components. It should be pointed out that the form of the Hamm paper that seems to be most commonly posted on the web is not the 1973 JAES paper, but the longer 1972 conference paper. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
...any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". Not at all. To quote Hamm's JAES paper's abstract: "This paper, however, points out that amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signal transients (THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in the harmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with tubes, transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into distinct groups" Thus the Hamm 1973 paper is only relevant to people who judge amplifiers by how they sound when grossly abused. It is therefore irrelevant to those of us who use hi fi amplifiers reasonably and sanely. It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. That's because Hamm's JAES paper, according to its own abstract, is irrelevant to the use of audio amplifiers as Hi Fi components. It should be pointed out that the form of the Hamm paper that seems to be most commonly posted on the web is not the 1973 JAES paper, but the longer 1972 conference paper. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
...any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". Not at all. To quote Hamm's JAES paper's abstract: "This paper, however, points out that amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signal transients (THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in the harmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with tubes, transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into distinct groups" Thus the Hamm 1973 paper is only relevant to people who judge amplifiers by how they sound when grossly abused. It is therefore irrelevant to those of us who use hi fi amplifiers reasonably and sanely. It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. That's because Hamm's JAES paper, according to its own abstract, is irrelevant to the use of audio amplifiers as Hi Fi components. It should be pointed out that the form of the Hamm paper that seems to be most commonly posted on the web is not the 1973 JAES paper, but the longer 1972 conference paper. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
...any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". Not at all. To quote Hamm's JAES paper's abstract: "This paper, however, points out that amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signal transients (THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in the harmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with tubes, transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into distinct groups" Thus the Hamm 1973 paper is only relevant to people who judge amplifiers by how they sound when grossly abused. It is therefore irrelevant to those of us who use hi fi amplifiers reasonably and sanely. It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. That's because Hamm's JAES paper, according to its own abstract, is irrelevant to the use of audio amplifiers as Hi Fi components. It should be pointed out that the form of the Hamm paper that seems to be most commonly posted on the web is not the 1973 JAES paper, but the longer 1972 conference paper. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
I happen to think his section on subjectivism is well-written, considering
the intended audience. His arguments are clearly not strawmen. He tackles many of the claims that tube advocates cite, but does indeed dismiss the "just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" crowd. Do you fault him for that? PS - for those who haven't read this book but are interested, I can provide the "misinformation in audio" section in pdf format via email. Ssshhhh. Don't tell on me.  A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
I happen to think his section on subjectivism is well-written, considering
the intended audience. His arguments are clearly not strawmen. He tackles many of the claims that tube advocates cite, but does indeed dismiss the "just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" crowd. Do you fault him for that? PS - for those who haven't read this book but are interested, I can provide the "misinformation in audio" section in pdf format via email. Ssshhhh. Don't tell on me. A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
I happen to think his section on subjectivism is well-written, considering
the intended audience. His arguments are clearly not strawmen. He tackles many of the claims that tube advocates cite, but does indeed dismiss the "just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" crowd. Do you fault him for that? PS - for those who haven't read this book but are interested, I can provide the "misinformation in audio" section in pdf format via email. Ssshhhh. Don't tell on me. A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
I happen to think his section on subjectivism is well-written, considering
the intended audience. His arguments are clearly not strawmen. He tackles many of the claims that tube advocates cite, but does indeed dismiss the "just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" crowd. Do you fault him for that? PS - for those who haven't read this book but are interested, I can provide the "misinformation in audio" section in pdf format via email. Ssshhhh. Don't tell on me. A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Disagree entirely.
I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Disagree entirely.
I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Disagree entirely.
I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Disagree entirely.
I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no
recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory- or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no
recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory- or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no
recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory- or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no
recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory- or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Anybody who thinks they need monoblock amplifiers in order to have adequate separation is quite thorougly mislead. Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory - Now, that I can agree with. However, what action does that important requirement lead us to? or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. I can agree with that as well. However, what action does this important fact lead us to? These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. That's total nonsense. Quality SR and MI applications benefit from quality audio gear as much as anything else. The SR system that I ride herd on most frequently is based on two very large high-efficiency speakers with massive waveguides and highly-efficent compression drivers. We drive them with a 50 wpc power amp which is probably overkill. "The first watt" is obviously very important to their effective implementation. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. This would be a non-fact. Letsee, 1 125 wpc amp, and 2 75 wpc amps.That's 550 watts. Seems like you're off by a factor of nearly 20, Fred. Is the rest of your post this factual? As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Exploiting 10 KW amps with home audio type speakers would lead to serious problems with ear damage not to mention loudspeaker damage. I do know of a couple of people with 3 KW amps, but they use them to drive highly-inefficient subwoofers. Run the numbers - 90 dB/W speakers and 10 KW (40 dBW) leads to SPLs in the 120-130 dB range. OSHA would not approve and neither would any conscientious audiophile. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Thanks for deconstructing your own ludicrous argument, Fred. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Anybody who thinks they need monoblock amplifiers in order to have adequate separation is quite thorougly mislead. Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory - Now, that I can agree with. However, what action does that important requirement lead us to? or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. I can agree with that as well. However, what action does this important fact lead us to? These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. That's total nonsense. Quality SR and MI applications benefit from quality audio gear as much as anything else. The SR system that I ride herd on most frequently is based on two very large high-efficiency speakers with massive waveguides and highly-efficent compression drivers. We drive them with a 50 wpc power amp which is probably overkill. "The first watt" is obviously very important to their effective implementation. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. This would be a non-fact. Letsee, 1 125 wpc amp, and 2 75 wpc amps.That's 550 watts. Seems like you're off by a factor of nearly 20, Fred. Is the rest of your post this factual? As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Exploiting 10 KW amps with home audio type speakers would lead to serious problems with ear damage not to mention loudspeaker damage. I do know of a couple of people with 3 KW amps, but they use them to drive highly-inefficient subwoofers. Run the numbers - 90 dB/W speakers and 10 KW (40 dBW) leads to SPLs in the 120-130 dB range. OSHA would not approve and neither would any conscientious audiophile. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Thanks for deconstructing your own ludicrous argument, Fred. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Anybody who thinks they need monoblock amplifiers in order to have adequate separation is quite thorougly mislead. Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory - Now, that I can agree with. However, what action does that important requirement lead us to? or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. I can agree with that as well. However, what action does this important fact lead us to? These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. That's total nonsense. Quality SR and MI applications benefit from quality audio gear as much as anything else. The SR system that I ride herd on most frequently is based on two very large high-efficiency speakers with massive waveguides and highly-efficent compression drivers. We drive them with a 50 wpc power amp which is probably overkill. "The first watt" is obviously very important to their effective implementation. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. This would be a non-fact. Letsee, 1 125 wpc amp, and 2 75 wpc amps.That's 550 watts. Seems like you're off by a factor of nearly 20, Fred. Is the rest of your post this factual? As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Exploiting 10 KW amps with home audio type speakers would lead to serious problems with ear damage not to mention loudspeaker damage. I do know of a couple of people with 3 KW amps, but they use them to drive highly-inefficient subwoofers. Run the numbers - 90 dB/W speakers and 10 KW (40 dBW) leads to SPLs in the 120-130 dB range. OSHA would not approve and neither would any conscientious audiophile. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Thanks for deconstructing your own ludicrous argument, Fred. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Fred Collins wrote:
He makes a number of flat out wrong statements, such as that no recording studios use tube amps for monitoring and mixdown, and concantenates issues by saying that "monoblock" amplifiers are not superior in stereo separation because "single-ended, directly heated triode" amps are available which produce up to 5% THD. "Monoblock" simply means a single channel amplifier: whether it's a tube or solid state amp, or whether it is single-ended or push-pull, or whether it uses triodes or beam power tetrodes are all separate issues. (The most expensive of all single-ended amplifiers is in fact a stereo integrated amp.) Anybody who thinks they need monoblock amplifiers in order to have adequate separation is quite thorougly mislead. Of course, he fails to bring up any concept not in line with his doctrine, such as the idea that for hi-fi use the behavior of an amplifier at very low signal levels is most important-the "first watt" theory - Now, that I can agree with. However, what action does that important requirement lead us to? or the idea tha Class AB amplifiers operate in Class A for the lower portion of their power band. I can agree with that as well. However, what action does this important fact lead us to? These are not relevant concepts for PA or MI use but for domestic listening they are why amplifier designs have evolved as they have. That's total nonsense. Quality SR and MI applications benefit from quality audio gear as much as anything else. The SR system that I ride herd on most frequently is based on two very large high-efficiency speakers with massive waveguides and highly-efficent compression drivers. We drive them with a 50 wpc power amp which is probably overkill. "The first watt" is obviously very important to their effective implementation. Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. This would be a non-fact. Letsee, 1 125 wpc amp, and 2 75 wpc amps.That's 550 watts. Seems like you're off by a factor of nearly 20, Fred. Is the rest of your post this factual? As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Exploiting 10 KW amps with home audio type speakers would lead to serious problems with ear damage not to mention loudspeaker damage. I do know of a couple of people with 3 KW amps, but they use them to drive highly-inefficient subwoofers. Run the numbers - 90 dB/W speakers and 10 KW (40 dBW) leads to SPLs in the 120-130 dB range. OSHA would not approve and neither would any conscientious audiophile. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Thanks for deconstructing your own ludicrous argument, Fred. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. Which I assume he has done, to be able to state it does not clip with a full scale tone at 1/2 volume control rotation! If we assume the CD player has a fixed output for a DFS signal, and the amplifier has a reasonably constant gain at a given attenuator (volume control) setting, then indeed we can say that if the amplifier can handle a DFS continuous waveform of any shape at any frequency, without clipping, at a particular gain setting, (ie the 1/2 way specified) then it follows that any lower level of signal input or volume control setting, will not cause amplifier clipping. TonyP. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. Which I assume he has done, to be able to state it does not clip with a full scale tone at 1/2 volume control rotation! If we assume the CD player has a fixed output for a DFS signal, and the amplifier has a reasonably constant gain at a given attenuator (volume control) setting, then indeed we can say that if the amplifier can handle a DFS continuous waveform of any shape at any frequency, without clipping, at a particular gain setting, (ie the 1/2 way specified) then it follows that any lower level of signal input or volume control setting, will not cause amplifier clipping. TonyP. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. Which I assume he has done, to be able to state it does not clip with a full scale tone at 1/2 volume control rotation! If we assume the CD player has a fixed output for a DFS signal, and the amplifier has a reasonably constant gain at a given attenuator (volume control) setting, then indeed we can say that if the amplifier can handle a DFS continuous waveform of any shape at any frequency, without clipping, at a particular gain setting, (ie the 1/2 way specified) then it follows that any lower level of signal input or volume control setting, will not cause amplifier clipping. TonyP. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. Which I assume he has done, to be able to state it does not clip with a full scale tone at 1/2 volume control rotation! If we assume the CD player has a fixed output for a DFS signal, and the amplifier has a reasonably constant gain at a given attenuator (volume control) setting, then indeed we can say that if the amplifier can handle a DFS continuous waveform of any shape at any frequency, without clipping, at a particular gain setting, (ie the 1/2 way specified) then it follows that any lower level of signal input or volume control setting, will not cause amplifier clipping. TonyP. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Since the music has already been through a compressor and limiter before it got onto disk, neither a limiter or 10kW amplifier is necessary in the home. Nor can you obtain 90+ dB dynamic range in any normal house, regardless of amplifier size, without certain damage to your hearing. Nor will many (any?) speakers handle 10kW, no matter how short the duration, but most especially with those cannon shots! TonyP. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Since the music has already been through a compressor and limiter before it got onto disk, neither a limiter or 10kW amplifier is necessary in the home. Nor can you obtain 90+ dB dynamic range in any normal house, regardless of amplifier size, without certain damage to your hearing. Nor will many (any?) speakers handle 10kW, no matter how short the duration, but most especially with those cannon shots! TonyP. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Since the music has already been through a compressor and limiter before it got onto disk, neither a limiter or 10kW amplifier is necessary in the home. Nor can you obtain 90+ dB dynamic range in any normal house, regardless of amplifier size, without certain damage to your hearing. Nor will many (any?) speakers handle 10kW, no matter how short the duration, but most especially with those cannon shots! TonyP. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bose 901 Review | General | |||
| My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
| Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
| FS: SOUNDSTREAM CLOSEOUTS AND MORE!! | Car Audio | |||
| FS: 3000 watt amp $179!! 900 watt woofers $36!! new- free shipping | General | |||
Linear Mode
