Stewart Pinkerton said:


For this we require Albert Einstein:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."


A triode is simpler (to make) than an epitaxial transistor. ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Nope - read it again:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should
not
be posited without necessity."

Doesn't distinguish between "should" for truth or "should" for
expedience. Or should for any other reason.

This is pretty universally interpreted as meaning that, when
presented
with both complex and simple answers to a problem, the simple
answer
is likely to be correct. Not *guaranteed*, of course, but likely.

No Stewart. This is a misunderstanding of the objective of science
for most scientists. It is not a metaphysical pursuit, and so has
nothing to say about absolute truth. Adjust "correct" to mean what
fits most simply in the currently accepted working model.

"God made everything just how it is." Is simpler than science from
the point of view of a theist, but neither useful nor true, in my
view. Lots of scientists are theists. God for truth, science for
expedience.

As for likely, if you mean likely to be true, that is also nonsense.
Simple real events are no more likely than complex ones. They are
just as likely to have complex causes as simple ones. That is not
what Occam was talking about, I hope.

cheers, Ian

"Eike Lantzsch, ZP6CGE" wrote:

John Stewart wrote:
"Eike Lantzsch, ZP6CGE" wrote:

[snip]
published in FUNKSCHAU AFAIK. There is another mistake in the circuit.
The screen voltage is 275V and the Plate voltage is 265V.

Not a mistake. Simply the voltage drop thru the output transformer
primary winding resistance caused by the EL503 plate current.
That happens in any power amp.

Yes it does, but that does not mean that it is good. We had the
discussion about screen voltages some days ago on this newsgroup.
It would be interesting to try that tube with different screen
voltages. A screen resistor and a cap should do the trick.
An indicator for problems with higher screen voltage than plate
voltage on this tube is the use of chokes on the screen leads
to avoid RF-oscillation.
But I think that any argument about the EL503 is moot because
this tube is so scarce that the remaining stock shall only be used
to restore vintage equipment. There is no replacement for EL503 that
I know of, with the low plate voltage and low Ra of this jewell.

Kind regards, Eike
--
Lions go to absurd lengths to retain the posession of their skins.
- Stewart Edward White 1913

How best to respond to your comments? I guess I could start by saying that as
we all know there are in any design or endeavor tradeoffs, whether the outcome
is to be an auto, a house, a Zeppelin or an amplifier.

All amplifiers will need a power supply of some kind & most of those will need
an output transformer as well. That is where some of the most important
tradeoffs will have to occur in order to keep the cost under control.

If the world were a perfect place we could always arrange that the plate
voltage would exceed that applied to the screen. Many of the more powerful
designs do just that. You can get more power from many of the available tubes
by running the plate at a higher voltage than the screen.

But what happens if you choose to run Ultralinear? This very desirable
connexion automatically sets the plate at a lower voltage than the screen.
There are ways out of that but they are very expensive & not readily available
to the amateur constructor.

Another, lower powered connexion would run the screen from the same well
filtered point on the HV PS. If it is a PP OP then in most cases all that is
needed is a large cap immediately after the rectifier. Some might prefer to go
further & use another LC section to reduce the ripple further for both the
plate & screen. Either way the plate will be at a lower voltage than the
screen because of the IR drop in the OPT primary. I've done both & got good
results. However, I never concerned myself that the screen might be a few
volts higher than the plate. Another route would be to LC filter the screen
only. That way it would be possible to get the screen running at a lower
voltage than the plate.

Take a look at the plate family of curves for something like a 6V6 at say 250
volts on the screen. On that graph, which is published in many places you
would see that comparing a loadline whose Q point was shifted from 250 volts
down to 200 volts would simply raise the screen current a few milliamps & that
would be pretty well offset by a decrease in plate current. A new loadline
could be drawn on the curves up into the zero bias knee which would be of a
lower impedance & the whole thing would work just fine. Needless to say, the
max power output would be reduced. Not recommended, but nothing stops this
from working. That is what the suppresser grid in the pentode & the beam
forming plates in a 6V6 are in there for. Don't try that with a tetrode.

Now, what about the RF Oscillation? I too have seen that on occasion,
especially when working with high perveance tubes such as the KT88, 6550,
6L6GC & some TV Horizontal OP tubes. The parasitic oscillation problem is
certainly not new. It showed up in the 30's when amp designers tried
paralleling pentodes to get more audio.

It showed up as well in amateur transmitters & there was a line of RF chokes
just as you have pointed out which were a great help. But they were frequency
specific since they were wound to be parallel resonant with their stray C &
then often loaded with a parallel R to get the Q down. That was done quite
simply by winding the inductor right onto a resistor. That worked well for the
amateur radio operators, but may not do as well for audio. The chokes were
wound to fit into the various amateur frequency bands.

I've found that beyond careful layout of the signal carrying wires one of the
best cures for parasitic oscillations is to attach to every grid lead a
non-inductive resistor, as close to the socket as possible. For the screen I
use 100R & for all of the signal grids anything from one to 10K. Since Q = (
1/R ) ( root (L / C)), any RF that might get going is eliminated & the audio
passes through. I always use R's of 1/2 watt or less. That is because many
years ago in the R&D lab I worked in I found I could build attenuators in 50
ohm systems using 1/2 watt R's good to 2 GHZ, while those made with 2 watt R's
were no good above one GHZ. Its called 'skin effect'.

If you take another look at the plate family of many of the power tubes you
may notice that the plate resistance may become negative at low voltages &
current (lower left hand corner). That creates problems for us when dealing
with real loads such as a loudspeaker, since the loadline is no longer nice &
straight but rather an ellipse, which might pass thru that part of the plate
family. Further, the signal from your program source is complex so that the
loadline then becomes very complicated indeed. That region of negative
resistance does cause lots of problems for the designer as he tries to apply
NFB to his amp!!

I did take a look at the EL503 spec sheet & it does appear to be a useful
tube, if only it were available!! To bad.

BTW, you can read my articles covering amplifiers & test equipment in Glass
Audio & AudioXpress magazines. If you would like a list of articles then email
me direct. Cheers, John Stewart

http://frank.pocnet.net/sheets/020/e/EL503.pdf

"Ian Iveson" = what a wacko !!


** The appalling load a verbal diarrhoea posted below proves my contention
seen above beyond a doubt.


......... Phil




You are two premises short of a legitimate argument. An example of extreme
misapplication of the razor perhaps. There again, for the totally
clueless, the simplest and safest argument is no argument at all. I
suppose you must believe in god.

Talking of which, monastic scholars had a much simpler model of the world
than modern science. The bible is much shorter than the collected works of
science. The idea that the earth was not the centre of the world appeared
to them a ludicrous complication.

Science redefined simplicity. It *became* more simple to see the sun at
the centre of the solar system. It became more simple because it added
least complexity to the *new* model, at the expense of adding complexity
to the old one. New data necessitated a paradigm shift.

I believe Occam was aware of this, as you seem not to be. His razor works
within, but not between, alternative views of the world. He did not argue
that the least complex of equally valid theories is most likely to be
true; only that it provides the best workable assumption for practical
purposes.

That's why I said:

Revolutions happen; fitting in is
not and never has been sufficient in the end, and is stupefyingly
boring anyway.

Now that is *my* point, never attributed to Occam. I assumed, wrongly as
it is turning out, that you know something about his principle.

** Since your premise is wrong so are subsequent conclusions.

Not a premise, but a conclusion of my own. You would need a very
substantial argument to shift me from it. Twaddle won't do at all.

Incidentally, in an effort to clamber back on topic, the view that
linearity is the sole criterion of domestic audio equipment quality is an
excellent application of Occam's razor. To state that linearity is best,
or even necessary, for high fidelity strays into metaphysics, which is
just where no-one should take him. His principle is not about truth, but
about best assumption in the absence of complete data.

So the best assumption is that your cap is missing from the diagram. That
has no bearing on the truth, which we will probably never discover.

But ask the question "How can this circuit be fixed?", and there are
several simple answers. The method I suggested saves a cap and one or two
resistors compared to yours, although it assumes that the output stage is
cathode biased.

In passing, are you sure your octave is correct, given that the caps are
in a closed loop in my scheme? True for one side but not the other
perhaps. Of course I would resize as necessary, since I am not applying
the razor.

Occam can presumably be applied in reverse. Because my method is simpler,
and because designers choose otherwise, there must be something wrong with
mine. But what?

cheers, Ian

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:37:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:


For this we require Albert Einstein:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

A triode is simpler (to make) than an epitaxial transistor. ;-)

Tell that to the people at Sovtek........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:54:05 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Nope - read it again:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should
not
be posited without necessity."

Doesn't distinguish between "should" for truth or "should" for
expedience. Or should for any other reason.

This is pretty universally interpreted as meaning that, when
presented
with both complex and simple answers to a problem, the simple
answer
is likely to be correct. Not *guaranteed*, of course, but likely.

No Stewart. This is a misunderstanding of the objective of science
for most scientists. It is not a metaphysical pursuit, and so has
nothing to say about absolute truth. Adjust "correct" to mean what
fits most simply in the currently accepted working model.

Oh, right, you of course know much more about this than most
scientists. How silly of me..................

"God made everything just how it is." Is simpler than science from
the point of view of a theist, but neither useful nor true, in my
view. Lots of scientists are theists. God for truth, science for
expedience.

Actually, lots of scientists make their judgements based on available
evidence. Theism is a separate issue, and is actually rather a
difficult proposition for those who are trained to accept only that
for which there is physical evidence.

BTW, 'God for truth' is a particularly stupid expression, given the
lack of evidence for the existence of any such entity. Science is far
from expedient, although it is pragmatic. Perhaps 'God for a crutch'
is closer to the objective reality. And which particular God, anyway?

As for likely, if you mean likely to be true, that is also nonsense.
Simple real events are no more likely than complex ones. They are
just as likely to have complex causes as simple ones. That is not
what Occam was talking about, I hope.

What a load of ancient shoemakers! That is *exactly* the point, that
simple explanations *are* more likely to be correct. If I say that you
are a dickhead due to your inherently faulty brain, this is a *much*
more likely explanation than that you were abducted by aliens who
extracted 73.2% of your cerebellum by dematerialisation and
teleportation of the cerebral material.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

A triode is simpler (to make) than an epitaxial transistor. ;-)

Tell that to the people at Sovtek........................


That's why I prefer Svetlana.

She even makes me dinner, note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:54:05 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
: wrote:
:
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
:
: Nope - read it again:
:
: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should
: not
: be posited without necessity."
:
: Doesn't distinguish between "should" for truth or "should" for
: expedience. Or should for any other reason.
:
: This is pretty universally interpreted as meaning that, when
: presented
: with both complex and simple answers to a problem, the simple
: answer
: is likely to be correct. Not *guaranteed*, of course, but likely.
:
: No Stewart. This is a misunderstanding of the objective of science
: for most scientists. It is not a metaphysical pursuit, and so has
: nothing to say about absolute truth. Adjust "correct" to mean what
: fits most simply in the currently accepted working model.
:
: Oh, right, you of course know much more about this than most
: scientists. How silly of me..................
:
: "God made everything just how it is." Is simpler than science from
: the point of view of a theist, but neither useful nor true, in my
: view. Lots of scientists are theists. God for truth, science for
: expedience.
:
: Actually, lots of scientists make their judgements based on available
: evidence. Theism is a separate issue, and is actually rather a
: difficult proposition for those who are trained to accept only that
: for which there is physical evidence.
:
: BTW, 'God for truth' is a particularly stupid expression, given the
: lack of evidence for the existence of any such entity. Science is far
: from expedient, although it is pragmatic. Perhaps 'God for a crutch'
: is closer to the objective reality. And which particular God, anyway?
:
: As for likely, if you mean likely to be true, that is also nonsense.
: Simple real events are no more likely than complex ones. They are
: just as likely to have complex causes as simple ones. That is not
: what Occam was talking about, I hope.
:
: What a load of ancient shoemakers! That is *exactly* the point, that
: simple explanations *are* more likely to be correct. If I say that you
: are a dickhead due to your inherently faulty brain, this is a *much*
: more likely explanation than that you were abducted by aliens who
: extracted 73.2% of your cerebellum by dematerialisation and
: teleportation of the cerebral material.
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
.................................................. ................
Occam's razor is a rule-of-thumb, a cognitive strategy of economy,
that is, it'll usually get you in the ballpark without too much fuzz,
but occasionally, will lead you astray. It is not an a priory truth.

Picture scientific knowledge as an everexpanding 'tree' -
branches, twigs, leafs and all - . In problem solving, a search tree
is frequently used, for instance in a chess software program.
What makes sense is a rule, which at every node determines the most
promising and the least promising continuation (further moves on a
chessboard). The alternative would be brute force, but that leads to a
combinatorial explosion that quickly overwhelmes even the mightiest
computing power. What is used is an evaluation function, leading to
indicators at every node, that can be used by the minimax algorithm.
The least promising branches ,twigs and leafs are pruned (not searched).
This is the same kind of rule-of-thumb , but a lot more refined.
Tiz why hardly anyone can beat these programs these days :-)

In science, the equivalent of that evaluation function is the current set
of beliefs, paradigma's. Occam's razor is therefore limited to the extent
that the paradigma's are limited in scope and incomplete.
But rather than seeing a paradigma as a-work-in-progress , many see it
as a religious type of 'untouchable'. That can lead to Occam's blindness

Rudy

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

[...later...]

But Stewart, you must know better. Science, like understanding but
unlike truth, develops, and there is no evidence to suggest that it
will not always do so. If truth were its objective, then there is no
evidence that it has ever or will ever find it.

For example, conservation of mass, or of momentum, or of energy,
were all "correct" in the sense that they were workable assumptions
that fitted in with the rest of science and were useful to
technology at the time. Still are in the right context. But not
true. Occam's razor correctly applied pared those assumptions down
to the simplest equations that fitted in with available data. They
enabled the industrial revolution. Times change, new data and new
problems arise from the new industrial world, and we are forced to
accept that they were over-simplifications.

But they were still the correct assumptions to make. Using the razor
was still the right thing to do. If science had not assumed the
simple, it would never have developed the technology to discover the
complexity.

Let's say you have two data points and you wish to establish a
relationship. Occam says you draw a straight line, because it is the
simplest relationship, and because any wiggles would be unjustified
complexity. Is the relationship actually most likely to be linear in
truth? Not at all. In fact the chance of being linear is
infinitesimally small, just the same as any wiggly line. A straight
line is simply a more convenient basis for progress. It's a matter
of expedience, not truth.

If you check scientific journals or go to conferences, I am
confident that you will rarely if ever find truth on the agenda.
Claims to know the truth are unnecessary complications that
scientists can well do without. They apply Occam's razor and cut out
the extraneous truth stuff. They leave that to the TV celebrity
posers and the weekend magazines.

Oh, right, you of course know much more about this than most
scientists. How silly of me..................

I don't think I do, no matter how silly you may be. I do think I can
distinguish between mainstream science and philosophy, and the
fringes.

"God made everything just how it is." Is simpler than science from
the point of view of a theist, but neither useful nor true, in my
view. Lots of scientists are theists. God for truth, science for
expedience.

Actually, lots of scientists make their judgements based on
available
evidence. Theism is a separate issue, and is actually rather a
difficult proposition for those who are trained to accept only
that
for which there is physical evidence.

Judgements about truth, or about practicality? I say the latter. I
took theism as just one example of a metaphyical approach.
Personally I am a materialist, and so I would come closer than most
to viewing science as absolute truth.

BTW, 'God for truth' is a particularly stupid expression, given
the
lack of evidence for the existence of any such entity. Science is
far
from expedient, although it is pragmatic. Perhaps 'God for a
crutch'
is closer to the objective reality. And which particular God,
anyway?

Evidence demonstrates what is not false. Evidence is not a pointer
to truth, it *is* truth.

As for likely, if you mean likely to be true, that is also
nonsense.
Simple real events are no more likely than complex ones. They are
just as likely to have complex causes as simple ones. That is not
what Occam was talking about, I hope.

What a load of ancient shoemakers! That is *exactly* the point,
that
simple explanations *are* more likely to be correct. If I say that
you
are a dickhead due to your inherently faulty brain, this is a
*much*
more likely explanation than that you were abducted by aliens who
extracted 73.2% of your cerebellum by dematerialisation and
teleportation of the cerebral material.

It was nearly 98%, the *******s. I was cleverer than you think. See
the line example, above. You are wrong. Absolutely.

cheers, Ian

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 02:28:08 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:

Occam's razor is a rule-of-thumb, a cognitive strategy of economy,
that is, it'll usually get you in the ballpark without too much fuzz,
but occasionally, will lead you astray. It is not an a priory truth.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. However, it proves a
very useful guide in most cases.

In science, the equivalent of that evaluation function is the current set
of beliefs, paradigma's. Occam's razor is therefore limited to the extent
that the paradigma's are limited in scope and incomplete.
But rather than seeing a paradigma as a-work-in-progress , many see it
as a religious type of 'untouchable'. That can lead to Occam's blindness

That would I guess be those who continue to believe that tube amps
somehow retain something that is somehow lost by SS amps, despite an
overwhelming mass of evidence which proves that this paradigm is
obsolete.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:51:00 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

[...later...]

But Stewart, you must know better. Science, like understanding but
unlike truth, develops, and there is no evidence to suggest that it
will not always do so. If truth were its objective, then there is no
evidence that it has ever or will ever find it.

It approaches ever more closely, and most 'conventional' science is as
accurate as any of us will ever need. I doubt that I'll ever need to
leave Newtonian physics and factor in the quantum corrections.

For example, conservation of mass, or of momentum, or of energy,
were all "correct" in the sense that they were workable assumptions
that fitted in with the rest of science and were useful to
technology at the time. Still are in the right context. But not
true. Occam's razor correctly applied pared those assumptions down
to the simplest equations that fitted in with available data. They
enabled the industrial revolution. Times change, new data and new
problems arise from the new industrial world, and we are forced to
accept that they were over-simplifications.

No, they were not oversimplifications, since they are more than
adequate for all but the most extreme circumstances.

But they were still the correct assumptions to make. Using the razor
was still the right thing to do. If science had not assumed the
simple, it would never have developed the technology to discover the
complexity.

Quite so - and we should not attempt to overcomplicate normal
situations by misapplying quantum theory to the macro world.

Let's say you have two data points and you wish to establish a
relationship. Occam says you draw a straight line, because it is the
simplest relationship, and because any wiggles would be unjustified
complexity. Is the relationship actually most likely to be linear in
truth? Not at all. In fact the chance of being linear is
infinitesimally small, just the same as any wiggly line. A straight
line is simply a more convenient basis for progress. It's a matter
of expedience, not truth.

It's a matter of reality that this remains the shortest distance
between those two points in almost all cases.

If you check scientific journals or go to conferences, I am
confident that you will rarely if ever find truth on the agenda.
Claims to know the truth are unnecessary complications that
scientists can well do without. They apply Occam's razor and cut out
the extraneous truth stuff. They leave that to the TV celebrity
posers and the weekend magazines.

Why the concentration on 'truth' as some kind of abstract? It's merely
a useful shorthand for 'the facts as they exist in the normal world'.

Oh, right, you of course know much more about this than most
scientists. How silly of me..................

I don't think I do, no matter how silly you may be. I do think I can
distinguish between mainstream science and philosophy, and the
fringes.

Interesting then, that you seem to espouse a fringe technology.

"God made everything just how it is." Is simpler than science from
the point of view of a theist, but neither useful nor true, in my
view. Lots of scientists are theists. God for truth, science for
expedience.

Actually, lots of scientists make their judgements based on available
evidence. Theism is a separate issue, and is actually rather a
difficult proposition for those who are trained to accept only that
for which there is physical evidence.

Judgements about truth, or about practicality? I say the latter.

I agree, but what has that to do with audio?

I took theism as just one example of a metaphyical approach.
Personally I am a materialist, and so I would come closer than most
to viewing science as absolute truth.

BTW, 'God for truth' is a particularly stupid expression, given the
lack of evidence for the existence of any such entity. Science is far
from expedient, although it is pragmatic. Perhaps 'God for a crutch'
is closer to the objective reality. And which particular God, anyway?

Evidence demonstrates what is not false. Evidence is not a pointer
to truth, it *is* truth.

Only if the evidence is true...............

As for likely, if you mean likely to be true, that is also nonsense.
Simple real events are no more likely than complex ones. They are
just as likely to have complex causes as simple ones. That is not
what Occam was talking about, I hope.

What a load of ancient shoemakers! That is *exactly* the point, that
simple explanations *are* more likely to be correct. If I say that you
are a dickhead due to your inherently faulty brain, this is a *much*
more likely explanation than that you were abducted by aliens who
extracted 73.2% of your cerebellum by dematerialisation and
teleportation of the cerebral material.

It was nearly 98%, the *******s. I was cleverer than you think.

I'll accept your use of the past tense, since what was is
incalculable, we only have the evidence of what is, presented in your
current demented ramblings.

See
the line example, above. You are wrong. Absolutely.

No, I simply see the world more clearly than you. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 02:28:08 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: Occam's razor is a rule-of-thumb, a cognitive strategy of economy,
: that is, it'll usually get you in the ballpark without too much fuzz,
: but occasionally, will lead you astray. It is not an a priory truth.
:
: I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. However, it proves a
: very useful guide in most cases.
:
: In science, the equivalent of that evaluation function is the current set
: of beliefs, paradigma's. Occam's razor is therefore limited to the extent
: that the paradigma's are limited in scope and incomplete.
: But rather than seeing a paradigma as a-work-in-progress , many see it
: as a religious type of 'untouchable'. That can lead to Occam's blindness
:
: That would I guess be those who continue to believe that tube amps
: somehow retain something that is somehow lost by SS amps, despite an
: overwhelming mass of evidence which proves that this paradigm is
: obsolete.
: --
And you have actually measured lsp + amp performance ?
Because that is the real testbed, n'est ce pas ?

Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
active systems, of course
What about trying a pair of those next to your current setup,
report on what you heard / dbt'd with visitors, Stewart ?
cheers,
Rudy



: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: ...
: : On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 02:28:08 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: : wrote:
: :
: : That would I guess be those who continue to believe that tube amps
: : somehow retain something that is somehow lost by SS amps, despite an
: : overwhelming mass of evidence which proves that this paradigm is
: : obsolete.
: : --
: And you have actually measured lsp + amp performance ?
: Because that is the real testbed, n'est ce pas ?
:
: Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: active systems, of course
: What about trying a pair of those next to your current setup,
: report on what you heard / dbt'd with visitors, Stewart ?
: cheers,
: Rudy

O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course


: : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
:
:

"Ruud Broens"

Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
active systems, of course
What about trying a pair of those next to your current setup,
report on what you heard / dbt'd with visitors, Stewart ?
cheers,

O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course




** Here is an "obscure" home hi-fi speaker review from 24 years ago:

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm

THD between 0.1 % and 0.03 % at 96 dB SPL (8 watts input )


No thermal compression - while coil drivers can drop by up to 3 dB at high
average levels due to the wire heating.

No magnetic compression - while coil drivers can instantly drop by up to 4
dB at high peak levels due to loss of magnet force.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/technote/tn_v1n18.pdf





............. Phil

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:58:44 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

That's why I prefer Svetlana.

She even makes me dinner, note.

Stalin's daughter?


Brian McAllister

Sarasota, Florida

email bkm at oldtech dot net

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:13:23 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:

: Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: active systems, of course

O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course

Now who's dumb enough to think that you can tell how something sounds
by reading the spec sheet? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:02:54 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 02:28:08 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: Occam's razor is a rule-of-thumb, a cognitive strategy of economy,
: that is, it'll usually get you in the ballpark without too much fuzz,
: but occasionally, will lead you astray. It is not an a priory truth.
:
: I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. However, it proves a
: very useful guide in most cases.
:
: In science, the equivalent of that evaluation function is the current set
: of beliefs, paradigma's. Occam's razor is therefore limited to the extent
: that the paradigma's are limited in scope and incomplete.
: But rather than seeing a paradigma as a-work-in-progress , many see it
: as a religious type of 'untouchable'. That can lead to Occam's blindness
:
: That would I guess be those who continue to believe that tube amps
: somehow retain something that is somehow lost by SS amps, despite an
: overwhelming mass of evidence which proves that this paradigm is
: obsolete.
: --
And you have actually measured lsp + amp performance ?
Because that is the real testbed, n'est ce pas ?

No, listening is the real testbed. Measurement simply shows that SS
amps are *vastly* superior.

Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
active systems, of course
What about trying a pair of those next to your current setup,
report on what you heard / dbt'd with visitors, Stewart ?

There's never any point in DBTs of speakers, and I'd sooner go with
Meridian or ATC active solutions if we're talking 'state of the art'.
The K&H range would certainly be worth a listen, although they appear
to be competitors for Genelec rather than say Avantgarde.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:02:54 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 02:28:08 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: : wrote:
: : But rather than seeing a paradigma as a-work-in-progress , many see it
: : as a religious type of 'untouchable'. That can lead to Occam's blindness

: :
: : That would I guess be those who continue to believe that tube amps
: : somehow retain something that is somehow lost by SS amps, despite an
: : overwhelming mass of evidence which proves that this paradigm is
: : obsolete.
: : --
: And you have actually measured lsp + amp performance ?
: Because that is the real testbed, n'est ce pas ?
:
: No, listening is the real testbed. Measurement simply shows that SS
: amps are *vastly* superior.
:
: Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: active systems, of course
: What about trying a pair of those next to your current setup,
: report on what you heard / dbt'd with visitors, Stewart ?
:
: There's never any point in DBTs of speakers, and I'd sooner go with
: Meridian or ATC active solutions if we're talking 'state of the art'.
: The K&H range would certainly be worth a listen, although they appear
: to be competitors for Genelec rather than say Avantgarde.
................
Well, that's a bit of a problem, then! How *are* you going to do the
DBT amp stuff with _active_ loudspeaker systems, Stewart ?
Rudy
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:13:23 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: : Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: : http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: : active systems, of course
:
: O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
: limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
: and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
: below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course
:
: Now who's dumb enough to think that you can tell how something sounds
: by reading the spec sheet? :-)
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Rather inconsistent, are we ?

First you claim SS amps are superior, as is established by a certain set of
measurements (no need for the tube - rosy gloss, remember ?)
Then when talking loudspeakers, measurements are *not* indicative for
superior peformance ?? Explain, please ;-)

Rudy

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:13:23 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: : Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: : http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: : active systems, of course
:
: O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
: limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
: and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
: below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course
:
: Now who's dumb enough to think that you can tell how something sounds
: by reading the spec sheet? :-)
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Rather inconsistent, are we ?

First you claim SS amps are superior, as is established by a certain set of
measurements (no need for the tube - rosy gloss, remember ?)
Then when talking loudspeakers, measurements are *not* indicative for
superior peformance ?? Explain, please ;-)

Rudy

All this waffle about whether wonderful sound comes from tubes or not
is somewhat silly since this *is* a tube based group, not a solid state
based group.

When the Pinkies of this world come around to convince us that SS
is a better way to amplify music, then he may as well tell
the rec.sailing group they should really all use motor cruisers,
or that the rec.quilting group should all buy doonas
or salvation army blankets and make nothing.

By jove, those stern ladies in the quilting group would give that pinky twerp
of a man such an ear bashing, he'd have tinnitis forever.

The sailing mob would throw pinky overboard and tow him around the bay
while they sat comfortably with gin and tonics....

Patrick Turner.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:26:07 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:13:23 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: : Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: : http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: : active systems, of course
:
: O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
: limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
: and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
: below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course
:
: Now who's dumb enough to think that you can tell how something sounds
: by reading the spec sheet? :-)
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Rather inconsistent, are we ?

First you claim SS amps are superior, as is established by a certain set of
measurements (no need for the tube - rosy gloss, remember ?)
Then when talking loudspeakers, measurements are *not* indicative for
superior peformance ?? Explain, please ;-)

Rudy

All this waffle about whether wonderful sound comes from tubes or not
is somewhat silly since this *is* a tube based group, not a solid state
based group.

A fair point, but I didn't start this thread.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:35:46 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:13:23 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
: : Here is an example of where studio monitor state of the art is at:
: : http://www.klein-hummel.de/html/stud...io_index_g.htm
: : active systems, of course
:
: O500c - 96dB/oct FIR crossover, rulerflat 35 Hz - 19000 Hz,
: limiter based on thermal compression characteristics of individual drivers
: and power rating , most of the frequency range over 110 .. 115 dB SPL at
: below 1% distortion, that's as coming from the speaker, of course
:
: Now who's dumb enough to think that you can tell how something sounds
: by reading the spec sheet? :-)

Rather inconsistent, are we ?

First you claim SS amps are superior, as is established by a certain set of
measurements (no need for the tube - rosy gloss, remember ?)

Nope, never said any such thing - I said that they are *audibly*
superior. It is of course a given that SS amps are grossly superior in
terms of measurements.

Then when talking loudspeakers, measurements are *not* indicative for
superior peformance ?? Explain, please ;-)

Measurements may indicate a *likelihood* of superior performance, but
listening is still the final arbiter. Especially since flat FR and low
steady-state distortion are grossly inadequate measurements for
predicting speaker sound.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Brian McAllister said:

That's why I prefer Svetlana.

She even makes me dinner, note.

Stalin's daughter?


A distant relative.

Gin Dobre ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "