Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: John Byrns wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote: I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi salesman would start the thread. It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the thread"? From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he draws are in correct. At least any conclsions I draw are based on facts, not rumour, myths, religious beliefs or fairy stories. That could explain a few things about why you come to different conclusions. Many conclusions you draw appear to be based an incomplete understanding of your subject matter, your understanding of the underlying theory appears shallow. It also appears that your main reason for posting to this group is not to discuss tubes in any meaningful sense, but rather your mission appears to be to convert people to transistors. This is a newsgroup for those interested in tubes in a positive sense, not a newsgroup for those interested in transistor proselytizing. For your enlightenment let me state that I do not believe tubes are better than transistors. Tubes are simply a hobby for me, I enjoy working with them and I enjoy the nostalgia aspect of them. However none of that means tubes are not capable of performance levels exceeding what is required for music recording and reproduction. On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio" equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote "Trevor Wilson" wrote **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed speakers. **Read what I wrote. Skin effect is not a myth. Of course it's not but skin depth @ 20kHz isn't enough to be a serious issue. Suppose you're using 2.5 mm2 cable, that's effectively a radius of 0.87 mm. The skin depth @ 20kHz is ~ 0.5 mm so there will be a MILD increase only in cable impedance. Remember that most of the current DOESN'T flow in the small central section of the wire anyway. Graham |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. Why ? Even bi-wiring requires 2 cables. Graham |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
tubegarden wrote: Your arrogance is not your only problem. Your STUPIDITY *IS* a problem along with all your MORONIC hobbyist stupid beliefs that are based on myth and ignorance. Yes, the world is now infested with clueless MORONS like yourself. That doesn't make it right by force of numbers. Graham |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
West wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote So, you'd damn me for designing BETTER DJ and karaoke kit ? Not at all. But let's keep this thing in perspective. You're our very own Eeyore not Dr Martin Jones:-) What has Martin got to do with it ? I've worked with him you know and he wouldn't tolerate fools any more than I do . Graham That' a revealing statement you made about not tolerating fools. You're a COMPLETE FOOL. The worst of it is that you LIKE being a FOOL and will not educate yourself. People like you are destroying the West. It's part of the reason why why all the jobs are going to Asia. They have more respect for knowledge and education there. Graham |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. Iain. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Eeyore" wrote in message Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest. Hi Arny. The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. http://www.genelec.com/ They are well represented in the US. GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA - Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 - Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. Regards Iain |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed speakers. Arny. Your statement is precisely in agreement with what I have been told by broadcast/research colleagues, and what it stated in text books. None one denies that skin effect is not a real phenomenon, but only someone selling cables would suggest that it has significance in a domestic audio environment. Iain |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. Graham |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote "Trevor Wilson" wrote **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed speakers. **Read what I wrote. Skin effect is not a myth. Of course it's not but skin depth @ 20kHz isn't enough to be a serious issue. Suppose you're using 2.5 mm2 cable, that's effectively a radius of 0.87 mm. The skin depth @ 20kHz is ~ 0.5 mm so there will be a MILD increase only in cable impedance. Remember that most of the current DOESN'T flow in the small central section of the wire anyway. Graham. Trevor is a salesman. He wants people to believe that SE has a significant effect in domestic audio. There is a very good retail markup for such products. Iain |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "Eeyore" wrote Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest. Hi Arny. The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. http://www.genelec.com/ They are well represented in the US. GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA - Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 - Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly. Presumably a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame. Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they do it. Graham |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... tubegarden wrote: Eeyore wrote: I've worked with him you know and he wouldn't tolerate fools any more than I do . Graham Hi RATs! Graham wrote to Al If you don't know Martin (and I'm sure you don't) then don't poke your ****ing ignorant stinky nose into this thread you worthless piece of bigoted ****. Graham. I cannot say that I know Dr Jones, though we have both been present at the same meetings on several occasions. In contrast to yourself, he gave the impression of a cultured, well educated gentleman. Of all people here, Al does not deserve your venom. Iain |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific with my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements which can easily be proven incorrect. Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible. **Read what I wrote. Even 2 parallel conductors, exhibiting skin effect, will appear as 2 normal stranded or solid conductors, with the same interactions between them. Skin effect is only of real interest where high currents (think 1500A here) make solid copper busbars very expensive or heavy. In that case aluminium bars with a copper coating are often used, or tubular bars (more often on HV systems). The other main problems with skin effect appear at VHF - but you certainly ain't gonna hear that... :-) **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. I did not say it was. What I did say, and this is something I have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic audio environment" I have discussed this many times with well-qualified people, and also consulted books on the matter. All agree with my statement. I did not just pull it out of a hat. I can fully appreciate why, as a vendor of cables, you would wish the situation to be otherwise. Iain |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... Many conclusions you draw appear to be based an incomplete understanding of your subject matter, your understanding of the underlying theory appears shallow. It also appears that your main reason for posting to this group is not to discuss tubes in any meaningful sense, but rather your mission appears to be to convert people to transistors. This is a newsgroup for those interested in tubes in a positive sense, not a newsgroup for those interested in transistor proselytizing. For your enlightenment let me state that I do not believe tubes are better than transistors. Tubes are simply a hobby for me, I enjoy working with them and I enjoy the nostalgia aspect of them. However none of that means tubes are not capable of performance levels exceeding what is required for music recording and reproduction. On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio" equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job. My sentiments exactly Iain |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... Hi Trevor. Please re-read carefully what I wrote. **Ok, done. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests. **I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic hi-fi installation. Your previous claim that it had, seriously disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter. I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-) Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors, but I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables, you would wish things to be otherwise. **Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to personal attack is duly noted. Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not always be in the best interest of the customer. Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not. Neither do I claim it to be so. It can be easily measured. In a broadcast environment it is especially important. It has no significance in domestic audio. You waffle on about audio mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like SET amplifiers. Ask an engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean those idiots you work with - I mean REAL engineers). The idiots I work with are mainly DipEng and above. Some have both technical and musical doctorates. I would rather take their word for *anything* against yours. Sorry:-( I was talking about the musical experience from SET. No-one who has listened to the new Russian recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional experience, Trevor. Like it or not, people with high expectations and sufficient disposable income more often than not pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET) They are usually cultured and well educated people, who make their choice after extensive periods of listening. I know many such people. An engineer can explain to you that the small, but measurable flaws with SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency response, poor damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise things that make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push pull). I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard the comments of other listeners to know the strengths of SET with the genre of music at which they excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore) is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a fraction of 1W. At this kind of level the THD is very small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are not intended for people who want to drive their neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-) But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion. No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice between two products both of which he has in stock:-) It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to endorse products for which he has no franchise. This has become apparent in discussions with your good self. Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in shabby personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I already know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and shabbier attacks. I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply, but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread. Regards Iain |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "Eeyore" wrote Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest. Hi Arny. The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. http://www.genelec.com/ They are well represented in the US. GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA - Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 - Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly. Presumably a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame. Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they do it. It's a question of taste. Maybe a forward sounding sound stage is flattering for some clients/projects. They seem to be a popular choice with UK studios. Personally, I am stuck on Tannoys and B+W 801D To each his own:-) Iain |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote tubegarden wrote: Eeyore wrote: I've worked with him you know and he wouldn't tolerate fools any more than I do . Graham Hi RATs! Graham wrote to Al If you don't know Martin (and I'm sure you don't) then don't poke your ****ing ignorant stinky nose into this thread you worthless piece of bigoted ****. Graham. I cannot say that I know Dr Jones, Well I DO and we've worked together. He's one of those rare examples of a technically competent management type. Heck, I've even driven him to the pub for a lunchtime meal and drink. In fact, come to think of it we've had several meals together. An excellent Italian meal comes to mind. though we have both been present at the same meetings on several occasions. In contrast to yourself, he gave the impression of a cultured, well educated gentleman. Of all people here, Al does not deserve your venom. He deserves it for (as ever) poking his nose into a thread he has nothing to contribute to. Graham |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? Iain |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "John Byrns" wrote On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio" equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job. My sentiments exactly Iain So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs low. Graham |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote **I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic hi-fi installation. Your previous claim that it had, seriously disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter. I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-) I like the mental picture I got from that. Graham |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Iain Churches wrote: "John Byrns" wrote On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio" equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job. My sentiments exactly Iain So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs low. Graham It's trendy Graham. Tubes are "pop" :-) Iain |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. http://www.genelec.com/ They are well represented in the US. GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA - Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 - Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly. Presumably a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame. Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they do it. It's a question of taste. Maybe a forward sounding sound stage is flattering for some clients/projects. They seem to be a popular choice with UK studios. Well ... a pronounced mid-range will certainly critically reveal certain 'defects' more readily perhaps. But I've yet to meet any Genelecs in a studio myself. ATCs yes OTOH ! KRKs also seem popular right now. Graham |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! Graham |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "John Byrns" wrote On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio" equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job. My sentiments exactly Iain So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs low. Graham It's trendy Graham. Tubes are "pop" :-) Iain Exactly. They have become nothing more than ornaments. In fact Behringer even use several orange LEDs to 'simulate' the glow from the heater/filament to make it more 'attractive'. Heck, they even 'ramp it up' to try and make it look realistic. It's hilarious quite frankly. I bet the tubeophiles never realised that corporate greed would finally completely prostitute valve/vacuum tube technology. Graham |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here. Best regards Iain |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "John Byrns" wrote On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio" equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job. My sentiments exactly Iain So why does Behringer fit them ? And they of all people want to keep costs low. Graham It's trendy Graham. Tubes are "pop" :-) Iain Exactly. They have become nothing more than ornaments. In fact Behringer even use several orange LEDs to 'simulate' the glow from the heater/filament to make it more 'attractive'. Heck, they even 'ramp it up' to try and make it look realistic. Yes, I have seen those. But there are other, less flippant tube-based mic-preamps. I have worked on many a session where the vocalist has brought his own, and often his own Neumann also. Regards Iain |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
-- Iain Aural perception is a skill that requires study and careful development over along period of time. Few have it as a natural gift. "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. http://www.genelec.com/ They are well represented in the US. GENELEC Inc. - 7 Tech Circle - Natick - MA 01760 - USA - Tel +1 508 652 0900 - Fax +1 508 652 0909 - Give them a listen if you get the chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. Genelecs have reputation of sounding excessively 'forward' sadly. Presumably a 'pronounced' mid-range is to blame. Maybe they feel they sell more speakers that way ? Who can tell why they do it. It's a question of taste. Maybe a forward sounding sound stage is flattering for some clients/projects. They seem to be a popular choice with UK studios. Well ... a pronounced mid-range will certainly critically reveal certain 'defects' more readily perhaps. But I've yet to meet any Genelecs in a studio myself. ATCs yes OTOH ! Pop along to SAE. They have a 32 channel Neve VR Legend console, with Genelec monitoring. http://www.sae.edu/display_image.php?media_id=201 Iain |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here. You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ? Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis can see that. As I said don't get me started ! Graham |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: But there are other, less flippant tube-based mic-preamps. Care to name any you feel worthy of mention ? Graham |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Eeyore" wrote in message Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest. The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. Assuming a so called "damping factor" of 40 with an 8 Ohm speaker, I doubt it would be anywhere near 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker because a different output transformer turns ratio would undoubtedly be used with a 24 Ohm speaker, increasing the Zo to a value well above 0.2 Ohms. These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here. You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ? The so called "damping factor" does not seem like a "myth" just a semi useless and poorly named specification, however it does seem to be a well defined quantity even if it is useless. What is a myth is its importance, and the significance of its effect on speaker damping, which is a far more complex issue than the simple minded "DF" figure implies. Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis can see that. "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis", sounds like more name dropping without a clue as what it might actually mean with respect to "damping factor". Can you explain how "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis" might possibly help one understand why the so called "damping factor" is junk, which I agree it is? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Eeyore" wrote in message Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest. The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced. Not overpriced if you live in a country with a currency that has not been dragged to its knees-:-) I have noticed when we discuss product Arny, that you are always more concerned with cheapness than quality. That must hold you back quite a lot. Go for the best! Iain |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Iain Churches wrote: But there are other, less flippant tube-based mic-preamps. Care to name any you feel worthy of mention ? These are current designs. I have seen two in recent weeks. But they were both custom made, and the schematics probably kept carefully locked away. Let me mull, and make a call or two. Iain |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Eeyore" wrote in message Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. The requirement of two cables per speaker, and surrendering amplifier choice are problems for most audiophiles. For example, Paradigm developed and marketed some very credible powered speakers, and dropped them for lack of interest. The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced. Not overpriced if you live in a country with a currency that has not been dragged to its knees-:-) As always, currency values are abstract, quality of life is real. But, the Genelecs were way overpriced before revaluations of the dollar took place. I have noticed when we discuss product Arny, that you are always more concerned with cheapness than quality. Not at all. However, I do like to stick it to products that offer limited quality that has been equalled or surpassed for far less money. I recently heard a comparison of some of the pricier Genelecs to Behringer B2031A. The little Behrs won the day. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here. You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ? Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis can see that. As I said don't get me started ! So please answer my question Graham? What was Radford thinking about when he did this. Iain |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote "Trevor Wilson" wrote **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It's pretty irrelevant in the normal audio band, with well-designed speakers. **Read what I wrote. Skin effect is not a myth. Of course it's not but skin depth @ 20kHz isn't enough to be a serious issue. Suppose you're using 2.5 mm2 cable, that's effectively a radius of 0.87 mm. The skin depth @ 20kHz is ~ 0.5 mm so there will be a MILD increase only in cable impedance. Remember that most of the current DOESN'T flow in the small central section of the wire anyway. Graham. Trevor is a salesman. He wants people to believe that SE has a significant effect in domestic audio. **Liar. I NEVER said anything of the sort. I merely corrected your continued ignorance. Skin Effect is a real effect. It is not a myth. Further: Speaker cables CAN and DO make a difference for some systems. Particularly ESLs. There is a very good retail markup for such products. **Indeed. Trevor Wilson |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here. You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ? Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis can see that. As I said don't get me started ! So please answer my question Graham? Didn't Graham already say "Heaven only knows"? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific with my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements which can easily be proven incorrect. Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible. **Read what I wrote. Even 2 parallel conductors, exhibiting skin effect, will appear as 2 normal stranded or solid conductors, with the same interactions between them. Skin effect is only of real interest where high currents (think 1500A here) make solid copper busbars very expensive or heavy. In that case aluminium bars with a copper coating are often used, or tubular bars (more often on HV systems). The other main problems with skin effect appear at VHF - but you certainly ain't gonna hear that... :-) **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. I did not say it was. **Yes, you did. Would you like me to repeat your lies? What I did say, and this is something I have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic audio environment" **And where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that skin effect was in any way important with a normal audio system? I have discussed this many times with well-qualified people, and also consulted books on the matter. All agree with my statement. I did not just pull it out of a hat. **You lied when you stated that skin effect was a myth. It is not a myth. It is a real, measurable effect. I can fully appreciate why, as a vendor of cables, you would wish the situation to be otherwise. **Keep attempting to slur my name. It won't work. You are a liar and a distorter of fact. Skin effect is real. It is not a myth. I suggest you consult a text book sometime. Trevor Wilson |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... Hi Trevor. Please re-read carefully what I wrote. **Ok, done. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests. **I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic hi-fi installation. **Read what I wrote, liar. Your previous claim that it had, seriously disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter. I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-) **You colleagues are morons. Skin effect is not a myth. Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors, but I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables, you would wish things to be otherwise. **Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to personal attack is duly noted. Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not always be in the best interest of the customer. **I note your continued attempt to sway the discussion away from facts and into personal attack. You are worse than a liar. Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not. Neither do I claim it to be so. **Yes, you did. It can be easily measured. In a broadcast environment it is especially important. It has no significance in domestic audio. **So? Where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that it was significant in a normal audio system? I'll wait for your cite. You waffle on about audio mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like SET amplifiers. Ask an engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean those idiots you work with - I mean REAL engineers). The idiots I work with are mainly DipEng and above. Some have both technical and musical doctorates. I would rather take their word for *anything* against yours. Sorry:-( **If they ascribe to the notion that SET amplifiers are anything but a bad joke, then they are exactly as stupid as you. I was talking about the musical experience from SET. **Irrelevant. SET amplifiers add distortion (measurable and audible) to the signal. It is that distortion that proponents enjoy. Not the music. Which, if you had half a brain, you would understand. No-one who has listened to the new Russian recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional experience, Trevor. **Your point being? Like it or not, people with high expectations and sufficient disposable income more often than not pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET) They are usually cultured and well educated people, who make their choice after extensive periods of listening. I know many such people. **So do I. They're deluded. What's your point? An engineer can explain to you that the small, but measurable flaws with SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency response, poor damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise things that make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push pull). I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard the comments of other listeners to know the strengths of SET with the genre of music at which they excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore) is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a fraction of 1W. **So? A proper amplifier, used with sensitive speakers also operates at a fraction of a Watt. At this kind of level the THD is very small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are not intended for people who want to drive their neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-) **I note your deliberate avoidance of the very serious problems associated with SET amps and your sole focus on THD. But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion. **No. You can ply your delusions anywhere you wish, without being accused of finanical bias. BIG difference. Don't you imagine, for one millisecond, that I could pad my income very nicely, if I were to flog SET amps? I could. Easily. However, I do have some integrity. I also lack your delusional nature. No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice between two products both of which he has in stock:-) It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to endorse products for which he has no franchise. This has become apparent in discussions with your good self. **You should also note that I am not deluded. Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in shabby personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I already know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and shabbier attacks. I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply, but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread. **You should have posted directly to Graham, rather than engage in stupidity on a public forum. Trevor Wilson |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... What I did say, and this is something I have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic audio environment" **And where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that skin effect was in any way important with a normal audio system? If you never intended to say that, then simply agree with Iain and I and it will be. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proposal for D.M. | Audio Opinions |