Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... : : "Arny Krueger" wrote in message : news : "Peter Wieck" wrote in message : : : Most Americans are listening to computer driven : pacific-rim speakers with formerly impressive names on : them - : : They don't all sound alike. Some are actually respectible. Some are worse : than trash. : : that or ear-buds. : : or IEMs or earphones, which can be audio professional's tools and : head-and-shoulder above $1.99 ear buds. : : I am not so sure that the rest : of the world is any different in that regard. But in any : case, even that Auratone POS would leave suchlike in its : dust. : : ???????? : : The Auratone was a cheap 5" driver with no whizzer or tweeter, mounted in : a cubic box. : : There was also a wedge : : Ever actually hear one? : : : Early in the 1970s they were the most comnonly used near field monitor : (probably because there was no other competition) They were used to : give a rough approximation of what the recording might sound like on : a car cassette system. They were (and still are) *horrible*. : : Iain : heh, agreed :-) i think for popular productions in the 80s and 90s, you should have used gettoblasters for nearfields, hehe. on RAO i suggested some time ago, nowadays, for that purpose, you could be worse off than by using a pair of Pioneer TS series carspeakers in a small enclosure ;-) Rudy |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message I would be interested to hear of your musical experiences as a listener. **As well you might be. After you start treating me with a little respect, I may decide to tell you of my personal feeling about such things. This was a gesture on my part to get the conversation back to some sort of rational level. **Rational is the discussion of accuracy, not musical experiences. Don't you think the two are interrelated? FWIW: The most intensely satisfying musical experiences I've had were all live and (mostly) unamplified. As such, they bore no relation to SETs. push pull, CD players or anything mechanical. I am sure that is so for the majority of us. The state of "actually being there" whether its a symphony concert, an open air event, or a small jazz club date, has much to do with the enjoyment. The problem is that once passed, you cannot recreate that performance. Hence the demand for recorded music. Regards Iain |
#243
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on. Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most competent loudspeakers confirm. The exception being ESL. **ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers. No one suggested they were not. They are the common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5. When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and said that he belived his father Peter had "received a dispensation from the Pope" That satisfied everyone:-) Iain |
#244
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article i, "Iain Churches" wrote: Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same time. How can it be Jazz without all the artists being in the same studio at the same time? Indeed:-) But where does it say that a pre-reqisite of jazz is that all players must be present? Sometimes, especially in the case of international bands (I am thinking of for instance the Kenny Clarke Francy Boland Big Band, with whom I have worked) the logistics of getting everyone in the same studio in the same city on the same day, are sometimes not feasible. I guess it depends on which part of the wide ranging music form we label jazz you are talking about. But given that a large part of much of jazz performance involves improvisional playing, and for that to progress beyond the "solo over a backing track" level, it requires at the least two way communication between the soloist and the rhythm section, and hopefully communication between the creator/maintainer of the harmonic framework. It depends on your use of the word "all". I expect a marktree could be added later without any major problem :-) -- ' Hello Nick. Nice to see you on RAT. I agree with what you say, but jazz is rather more than "We Free Kings" A great deal of jazz is structured, played from written scores of accurate tutti and section playing, with solos. This is especially so in big band jazz. I gave the Clarke/Boland orchestra to illustrate my point.. I agree that a recording of say a quintet would be all-but- impossible without one member, but a 22 piece band is, due to the way it works, not quite so restricted. I agree, of coure, that in an ideal situation for the best possible interaction/dynamic betweeen the players, a full-house is desirable. Iain |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on. Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most competent loudspeakers confirm. The exception being ESL. **ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers. No one suggested they were not. They are the common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5. When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and said that he belived his father Peter had "received a dispensation from the Pope" That satisfied everyone:-) **Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me. Trevor Wilson |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"John Byrns" wrote in message
My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? Mostly the lack of NFB, but probably something about the odd OPT configurations that are used. I ask because you and others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer from these frequency response errors. It would be appropriate to say PP amps with NFB. I am not attempting to contradict your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to equivalent PP amplifiers? Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4" as some sort of tube bible, it is enlightening to read the text printed directly above Fig. 13.14 which reads as follows. "A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load impedance. This is a standard condition of test for a loudspeaker, and some models of loudspeakers are designed to operate under these conditions (see Chapters 20 and 21). A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of view, with or without feedback." This harkens back to the triode/pentode controversy that raged back in the 1950s, perhaps earlier. These were the days of the Brook p-p triode amp was being compared to various amps with p-p pentodes etc. The early Brook amps had loop feedback and both interstage and output transformers. Later on the interstage transformer was replaced with inductive loading of the driver stage. The trade-off then became the comparative effectiveness of a triode amp with inherently lower output impedance, but also lower voltage gain and therefore less potential for loop feedback, all other things being equal. http://www.ampslab.com/vintage1.htm |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on. Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most competent loudspeakers confirm. The exception being ESL. **ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers. No one suggested they were not. They are the common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5. When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and said that he belived his father Peter had "received a dispensation from the Pope" That satisfied everyone:-) **Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me. I recall a post from Patrick just a couple of days ago, in which he states that a good SET amp has no difficulty in driving an ELS. I would presume he says that from first-hand experience. Iain |
#248
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi Consider a recording put together, layer by layer: Bass and drums plus 1 gtr. Next day perhaps piano, and congas. Then a couple of weeks later two more nylon acoustic guitars, and a flat-back mandolin. Later some brass and maybe saxes. Now let's add a vocal group, and when she gets back from Australia we can add the vocal. None of the players on this recordings, except thos playing is specific sections (rhythm., brass or saxes) have even met each other or been in the studio at the same time. So please explain to me how there is a *live* performance. Here's a news flash Iain, not all popular recordings are made that way. Do you see anything in my statement above where I claim that *ALL* popular recordings are made like that? Of course not. But what I describe is indeed the way the majority of studio recordings are put together. Arny please don't even *pretend* you know how high-quality commercial recordings are made, and in return I will never claim I know how to repair second-hand PCs. We can then both remain in our areas of experience. Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same time. Yet another one of Iains little conceits. He knows how every recording was made, going back to the turn of the last century. Oh Arny, you *are* a warm and wonderful person:-) I have certainly studied hard at recording arts, including acoustic recording, using techniques from the late 1920s. I wager there are not too many people of your acqaintance who have recorded a line up identical to the Duke Ellington Orchestra of 1930 using both an acoustic recording phonograph and a Studer digital multitrack. I was fascinated by the ideas of Phil Spector, Jo Meek and Les Paul, and later the UK "glitter" sound (do you know about that Arny?). Like many students, I wanted to investigate Paul McCartney's Hoffner Bass sound, and know how Ringo's Starr's snare was recorded. When I started to work with jazz, I spent a great deal of time listening to and identifying the various styles and timbres of the great saxophone players from 1930 to the present time. When someone asks you to help with an "Earl Bostic", "Coltrane" or "Long Island sound" you have to know what he/she is talking about. Don't tell me Arny. You have "been there, done that" too.... LOL:-) Iain |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
.. "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi The expectations of a pop audience (who probably listen mainly in their cars, or with iPod, are very different to those who enjoy classical music.. So then Iain it is your claim that all car systems and iPod systems sound so much alike that one can pre-color recordings so they sound best on them. What an absurd statement:-) Of course I did not say that, but repeat the findings of newpaper surveys (The Independent in the UK for example) which show that most people listen to pop music on car systems or on iPods, noit on dedicated stereo systems in their living or listening rooms. To make this believable Iain, please document the equalization curve that is used to accomplish this. Arny. Arny. Please try to get yourself involved in some commercial (non-Baptist) CD mastering, and find out what is really going on in this big bad world:-) Obviouisly Iain would prefer to insult and posture than discuss. End of discussion. It is your inability to respond, your snipping the rest of my post, in which I described *exactly* what often goes on in mastering sessions, plus your feeble enactment of "the injured party" that brings this discussion to a close. Iain |
#250
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi Perhaps you or Iain can show us a requisition from a well-known music production organization, Decca for example, for a large number of highly-colored SET amplifiers driving say Lowther horn-loaded speakers, intended to be used universally in-house for producing records. Good try. Arny. No cigar:-) The prerequisite posturing, followed by the concession speech. I see neither. Record companies choose amplifiers and speakers for their generic performance. This is because a studio may be used to record a classical work on one day, and a punk-rock band on the next. Most studios can offer a range of loudspeakers. Due to the fact that they cannot be regarded as "all-rounders" neither ESL or Lowther are commonly seen. See, Iain concedes the point. He was wrong and now he admits it. Not at all. You trimmed my post, (presumably because you had no sensible response to the points made in it) and snipped the paragraph where I assured you that any studio of good repute would provide the speakers and amp of your choice when requested. We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters and a fine Radford STA100 for which there is considerable demand. But neither of these would be part of a generic control room setup. Iain |
#251
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi “ Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone chest that you would probably sell your soul to the devil for:-) Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves don't make the recording. The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt, the most important link in the recording chain, be it analogue or digital, and the most important tool of any in the recording engineer's kit as any good teacher will tell you. Your mic chest is something that will probably exist a very long time, from one generation to another, while amplifiers speakers and even recording formats change and are all but forgotten. We have people working within our team who were not born when some of our Neumann 87s (still in pristine condition) were manufactured. You can lease or rent a good large-format digital console, and buy a Crown amp for a fairly small outlay. A studio or engineer with a good reputation can usually get speakers on permanent loan at no cost. But your mic chest is the heart and soul of your whole system. Make no mistake about that Arny. Once you get to a certain level of performance, quality is far more dependent on how the mic is used. However you may use a toyshop mic, it will still produce a toyshop sound, as you have so clearly illustrated. Iain |
#252
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters Oxymoron. Graham |
#253
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. The team of which I am a member has a microphone chest that you would probably sell your soul to the devil for:-) Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves don't make the recording. The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt, the most important link in the recording chain, be it analogue or digital, and the most important tool of any in the recording engineer's kit as any good teacher will tell you. That's where you are tragically wrong, Iain. The most important links in the production of a recording a (1) the musican (2) the room (3) the skill and resourcefulness of the the recordist etc. |
#254
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on. Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most competent loudspeakers confirm. The exception being ESL. **ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers. No one suggested they were not. They are the common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5. When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and said that he belived his father Peter had "received a dispensation from the Pope" That satisfied everyone:-) **Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me. More BS from TW. If the SE Triode amp, or SE Transistor amp, or SE Mosfet amp or SE Beam Tetrode/Pentode amp has been designed to cope with a given ESL, it will cope just as well as any other amplifier!!!! Trevor omits to inform us of the full truth. Now most full range ESL such as the Quad ESL63 and some older models by Martin Logan present to an amplifier a supposedly horrid sort of load varying from high Z at LF, ie, very easy to drive at LF, to a low Z of maybe 1 ohm at 20kHz, or even less, and perhaps rather like a C + small value R in series. Not only is the load vary variable in Z, the ESL tends to be insensitive, requiring a large voltage ability at LF and a large current ability at HF. But overall, most ESL require more power ability than dynamic speakers merely because there has to be both high voltage at LF and ENOUGH current ability at HF. But fortunately, most of the audio energy in music is between 100Hz and 1KhZ, and anyone who has listened solely to the audio being fed to a tweeter with Xover point at 3kHz will be surprised to find how little music energy exists between 3kHz and 20kHz. What we do not want is the amplitude of this small amount of power signal modulated by LF wave production, whose amplitude is usually many times the HF voltage amplitude. So speakers like ESL57 are comfortably driven by the amplifiers such as the Quad-II, a humble amp if ever there was one, compared to today's behemoths with 10 times the power ability. But Quad-II struggle with ESL63 and later Quad ESL. Quad-II produce 20 watts into 16 ohms class AB, and the reducing ESL load down to 1.8 ohms at 18kHz will stifle any attempt the amp makes to produce 20 watts at 18kHz. But the amp will never ever be needed to make such a huge amount of power at HF, unless the owner is mentally unbalanced and likes ear crushing recordings of ppl bashing cymbols turned up to absurdly loud levels. The set of house keys jingled in front of a microphone does produce lots of HF, but we do not ever require the replayed recording of keys jingled to be louder than if we slip a set of keys out of a pocket and jingle them loudly as possible in front of us. So the Quad-II does manage to make sufficient power to give what was considered to be superlative sound in 1960 when used with ESL57. One lone 300B, with 1/3 of the power of the Quad-II would not give enough drive to ESL57 unless you like sitting very close to the speakers, then it becomes a headphone experience. So you'd have to use a quad of 300B in parallel SE to keep up with a the Quad-II, because the Quad-II does have a slight ability to make more instantaneous AB power than the class A power when tested with a sine wave, and at lower loads than the 16 ohms. Quad-II has its Rout = 1 ohm, and hence the output voltage sags badly at HF, about 3dB even at low levels when driving 2 ohms at 15 kHz. Peter Walker, who knew a shirtload more than I do, and a trouserload more than Trever does took this into consideration, and you will find the ESL57 will give a near flat response driven with a 1 ohm source Z. Many but not all SE amps with ZERO GLOBAL NFB are rarely ever going to measure with Rout 1ohm, so you get considerable sag in treble voltages with poorly made SET. Some ppl quite like this, because if Rout = 3 ohms, the roll off at 10kHz with ESL57 still wouldn't be too bad; many older people don't mind if all information above 10kHz went AWOL. But I still prefer a flat response. But it definately is possible to make SE amps which achieve Rout = 1ohm or less easily, something TW would not know how to achieve, even if his life depended upon it, because if he did, he'd recommend how to get sufficiently low Rout correctly. GNFB is one way to lower Rout, and you also lower THD/IMD, and if the circuit is linear enough to begin with the added low level harmonics created by applied GNFB won't be audible. Another way is to raise the anode loads with a higher than normal OPT turns ratio. But this reduces the power mabybe by 1/2 to 4 watts per 300B, and although it sounds blameless, its expensive.... Unfortunately, we live in a marketing world driven mainly by greed and BS. So SE amp makers try to cut costs and boost profits by lying about the capabilities of their Crud Production models being sold online to gullible ppl. Often the Rout is 3 ohms, way too high for any speakers. A 300B is often loaded with a load for maximum power and symetrical clipping, and this load = (Ea / Ia) - (2 x Ra). So for a given Pda of 32 watts for the 300B, one can select an Ea, find out the Ia, and then the Ra, and work out your load. Most makers choose 400V and 80mA and Ra = 800ohms, so the anode load is 3,400 ohms. An OPT is then made with a 3.4k : 8 ohm match. This gives a 425 : 1 Z ratio. And it means that where the triode Ra = 800 ohms, it appears as 800 / 425 at the OPT sec, ie 1.88 ohms. Added to this is the OPT winding resistance, often 10% of the secondary load value, so total Rout = 2.88 ohms with no global NFB. Adding just 10dB of GNFB will transform the Rout down to about 0.8 ohms and the SET 300B will be OK to drve ESL57, except for the volume ceiling. So use another few 300Bs so you have 4 all in parallel, and reduce the OPT Z ratio so each tube sees 3.4k, then we'd have an OPT with 850ohms:8, or Z ratio 106:1, and the Ra of all 4 tubes becomes 200 / 106 at the sec, ie, 1.88 ohms, and with the same 10dB GNFB the Rout becomes 0.8 ohms approx or lower if we use an OPT with 5% or lower losses, something few commercial makers ever try to do because they hate spending money on production costs, and the freight costs due to weight mount up. The amp with a quad of 300B will make a max PO = 32 watts, and it will surely drive ESL57. If the sec windings on the OPT can be re-arranged to offer a match to 4 ohms, the power will reduce when 8 ohms is connected to about 20 watts, about equal to Quad-II, but Rout will be 0.4 ohms. Distortions of any kind at the 2 watt level won't be meaningfully worse than the Quad-II. We must remember that with two MATCHED KT66, and MATCHED EF86, and with accurate R values in the Quad-II, the distortion is well below 0.1% at 2 watts/8 ohms, although it is mainly 3H. But seldome are Quad-II amps seen with brand new matched tubes fitted and I have often seen such amps with very serviceable tubes one wouldn't bother replacing for a few more years that have 2H THD some 5 times above where it is supposed to be, ie, below the predominately 3H THD of all PP amps. So if you had a 32 watt SE amp made with class A triodes, the THD difference to the real world operation of PP amps becomes purely academic, and of no concern. The bit of 2H and 3H in either types of amps doesn't ruin music because its produced while the tubes concerned are all remaining well within their class A linear region of operation, and nothing is switching on and off. I've just built the first of a pair of SE amps using 2 x 845, equivalent to using 7 x 300B in parallel. The sound is truly wonderful. It measures well. THD in SET amps can be dramatically minimised by careful arrangement of the driver tube so that considerable natural 2H cancelation occurs; instead of 2H CURRENT cancelation you get in a PP amp, you can have 2H VOLTAGE cancelations in cascaded triode stages. The small amount of GNFB does the rest. If TW wants to place ALL SE amps into the same category as being awfully problematical, let the world judge him as being plain wrong. If one does own the most horridly awkward to drive Martin Logan ever made, then one has to think very carefully about what sort of amp one uses. Ditto AR9 dynamics, which have low Z at LF, where you'd want the Z to be highish. One MUST do one's calculations about what maximum power is needed, what max current, and simply work out what class A current is needed through the output SE devices so that the amp doesn't clip when trying to make twice the max speaker current. My guess is that the Worst To Drive MartLogan probably needs 3 x 845 in parallel, which gives 75 watts of SET PO. Frankly, 4 x 6550 well set up for a lot of class A and about 90 watts max in PP would also work and sound well, see my 8585 amp at my website. I've also considered 2 x 845 in PP with the first 30 watts in class A; should be awesome! The 845 has Ra = 2k2, and a class A load is about 12k ideally, so without GNFB there is a better ration of Ra to load than with a 300B. Just rabbiting on about saying SET is a problem without mentioning the conditions of use is just rabbit chatter, and it dirties up the Internet. Meanwhile, I had to repair an ME850 for the second time in two months because a thermistor went west on one channel giving a false indiaction of the amp becoming too hot. The ME is a powerful Oz made SS 200W amp with huge current ability, and it does put up with horrid loads. To my ears after repeated tests with it now working well, it sounds better than all generic budget Marantz, Nads, Denons, Yamahas etc etc. But certainly no better than the 845 amps. Or better than an 8585, or the ARC VT100 I recently re-engineered to my own circuit topology. I suspect the amp played up because of a lightning strike. Lightning does funny things to conplex SS circuits for sure. Vacuum tubes giggle in their sockets during lightning strikes. Atomic bombs going off nearby don't affect them either. But when the owner comes around to collect his repaired amp today he tells me he pulled the covers off the bass drivers on his AR9s, ( bloody ancient old speakers!! ) he finds all the speaker surrounds are broken and barely holding the cones aligned. So I could assume the voice coils will jam on their magnet poles with any high level, and when they do that they become a low Z, and this can well wreck a not so good amplifier. I told him not to use his speakers until he gets the surrounds fixed. An SET amp with a lone 300B would certainly get lemon of the week award if used with an AR9 in good condition let alone in the poor condition I've mentioned. I then had a great laugh at the response curves printed out on the AR9 owner manual sheets the guy brought me for a look. Two years ago I re-engineered a very damaged pair of AR9 and tested one when i got it back to original working condition. The manual sheets show a very nice almost ruler flat response with slight bass boost, but what I measured with the AR9 I fixed was as flat as the US Rocky Mountains, with peaks and troughs up to +/- 8 dB along the band. This is the typical result when I measure lots of nice brand speakers. Anyway, looks like another re-engineering job for me in late autumn. During the exercize I may include replacing ALL drivers, and completely re-enginering a new Xover; the original AR9 is a horror story designed by US bean counters. Instead of appallingly low impedance at bass F of the original AR9 the reformed speakers will have a civilised and near constant Z and be more able to be driven by ANY amp, and one without having to have absurdly high voltage OR current abilities, And even an SET amp will cope quite well, if built properly. Trouble is that whatever i do is limited by funds available.... Last time I did up a pair of AR9, I replaced the surrounds on the 4 woofers, and used Peerless replacement minor drivers. The final response was MUCH flatter, and the owner was rapt. Drivers for speakers have improved vastly since the days when AR9 were regarded well, and I could say almost anything made by the North Europeans would be better than anything made in the US in 1980. Now George, down boy, no need to send those B52s out to stop me saying what i think about ancient old manufacturers in foreign powerful countries. Patrick Turner. Trevor Wilson |
#255
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi “ Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone chest that you would probably sell your soul to the devil for:-) Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves don't make the recording. The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt, the most important link in the recording chain, be it analogue or digital, and the most important tool of any in the recording engineer's kit as any good teacher will tell you. That's where you are tragically wrong, Iain. Arny, m'dear old fellow, you are a master of misinterpretation. The engineer can do little about the musicians, and the room is the choice of the client. I was referring specifically to the "tools" which the recording engineer has at his disposal to make his recording. Regards Iain |
#256
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? Mostly the lack of NFB, but probably something about the odd OPT configurations that are used. I ask because you and others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer from these frequency response errors. It would be appropriate to say PP amps with NFB. I am not attempting to contradict your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to equivalent PP amplifiers? Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4" as some sort of tube bible, it is enlightening to read the text printed directly above Fig. 13.14 which reads as follows. "A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load impedance. This is a standard condition of test for a loudspeaker, and some models of loudspeakers are designed to operate under these conditions (see Chapters 20 and 21). A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of view, with or without feedback." This harkens back to the triode/pentode controversy that raged back in the 1950s, perhaps earlier. These were the days of the Brook p-p triode amp was being compared to various amps with p-p pentodes etc. The early Brook amps had loop feedback and both interstage and output transformers. Later on the interstage transformer was replaced with inductive loading of the driver stage. The trade-off then became the comparative effectiveness of a triode amp with inherently lower output impedance, but also lower voltage gain and therefore less potential for loop feedback, all other things being equal. http://www.ampslab.com/vintage1.htm The Brook reminds me of the Lincoln-Walsh which had IST and tetrode output tubes with CFB like Quad-II. Both the Brook and L-W would be quite unstable with a 0.22uF load. Quad-II measure lots better with KT90, and Rout becomes 1/2 the KT66 figure because effective Ra of the KT90 is much lower than the KT66. Just what amount of NFB you can apply depends upon the OPT and IST if there is one, and open loop gain reduction with GNFB, and gain shelving and FB compensation. Tube amps with many stages and IST and GNFB can have big response problems with ESL at HF because the ESL C causes extra phase shift. Well designed ESL have enough series R due to step up tranny winding resistances so that a pure C is never seen by the amplifier. A typical poor amp with GNFB might give a peak in sinewave response at 20kHz of +6dB with 2uF ( at low levels to avoid clipping ). Placing 2 ohms in series may avoid the peaks well, and many makers will have some added R in addition to the winding resistances of the step up tranny. Triodes are good for output stages, to be sure; but the ratio of Ra to RL is still not low enough to be able to get a DF 10 with most triodes without loop NFB. A 300B has Ra = 800 ohms, and typical RL in class A is 3.4k, so Ra:RL = approx 1/4 only. If you have two 300B in PP, Ra-a = 1k6, so RLa-a would be 6k8 for max PO but DF about 4. Raising RL to 16k a-a gives DF = 10 without NFB and much lower THD/IMD but much lower PO ability. So use 4 x 300B, and RL 8k. VAC amplifiers have 4 x 300B per channel in AB1. They screw about 50+ watts per channel, and its because they know the triodes produce a fine first 5 watts in pure class A even when loaded with a much lower load than I've mentioned above. I am repairing one of these amps now. I've been to have a good listen. They sound well, and the one I am repairing ( failed tube and cathode bias bypass parts ) has switchable GNFB from 0dB to 9dB. I hear ZERO sound quality change with/without NFB. Its hard to make a comparison as you switch the FB away because the sensitivity increases. BUT, the owner has Ambience Ribbon speakers, with fairly constant Z. AND he has ZeroImpedance matching transformers to make the speaker load look like a higher load at the amp terminals. The impedance raising transformers will effectively reduce the PO available but he has plenty with the 4 x 300B per channel. 4 x KT90 in triode per channel is also awesome, but using beam tetrodes with local CFB a la Quad-II gives triode like performance but with far more AB1 PO than pure A or AB1 triode. Patrick Turner. |
#257
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters Oxymoron. Many discerning producers like them. As I say they do not form a part of what one might consider a generic setup these days. The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly when we work in Prague, he is not consulted about the coffee. Iain |
#258
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters Oxymoron. Many discerning producers like them. As I say they do not form a part of what one might consider a generic setup these days. The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Iain |
#259
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi “ Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone chest that you would probably sell your soul to the devil for:-) Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves don't make the recording. The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt, the most important link in the recording chain, be it analogue or digital, and the most important tool of any in the recording engineer's kit as any good teacher will tell you. That's where you are tragically wrong, Iain. Arny, m'dear old fellow, you are a master of misinterpretation. The engineer can do little about the musicians, and the room is the choice of the client. I was referring specifically to the "tools" which the recording engineer has at his disposal to make his recording. That would be his brain. Once you get down to the list of components that are absolutely required to make a recording, they are all equally important since removing or compromising any of them results in a poor recording. Getting down to microphone quality - the real question at hand is whether its possible for a skilled recordist to get as good results with $400 microphones as opposed to $2000 microphones. In times past, $400 microphones were far more compromised then they are today. Most of the interesting discussion today is whether $400 or $200 microphones make sense, or whether $40 microphones can suffice in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing. |
#260
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on. Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most competent loudspeakers confirm. The exception being ESL. **ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers. No one suggested they were not. They are the common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5. When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and said that he belived his father Peter had "received a dispensation from the Pope" That satisfied everyone:-) **Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me. I recall a post from Patrick just a couple of days ago, in which he states that a good SET amp has no difficulty in driving an ELS. I would presume he says that from first-hand experience. **AFTER Patrick submits a frequency response, I'll get interested. I do not, nor have I ever, suggested that a SET cannot make an ESL produce sound. What I do dispute, is the ability of a SET amp to drive most ESLs such that they provide a linear frequency response. IOW: Drive an ESL with a SET amp and you will probably get sound. With the SETs Patrick mentioned, you may even get quite acceptable sound (at huge cost). If that SET is compared with another amplifier, which possesses a suitably low output impedance and high current ability, then the sound from the ESLs will mostly likely be far more accurate. Back in the days when I used SE amplifiers, I thought they sounded pretty good. Great, in fact. Then I built a push pull amp and my world changed. Simply no comparison. The push pull amp was more powerful, able to cope with a wide range of load impedances, lower distortion, etc, etc. For the record: Both SE amp push pull amps used 6V6 output valves. I was 16 years old. I have not bothered with SE designs since. Well, once. I mucked about with some SE transistor designs (2N301) briefly. I dumped them pretty quick and went back to valves. Then I discovered KT88s (they cost AUS$25.00 each way back then). Mmmmm. Nice valves. FWIW: One of my instructors at college was part of the design team at GE-MOV for the KT88. Trevor Wilson |
#261
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters Oxymoron. Many discerning producers like them. Would these be OLD producers by any chance ? I suppose there is some merit in mixing on what you're used to. Graham |
#262
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! Graham |
#263
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! You don't seem to understand the psychology of music recording, Graham:-) One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing him/her to state a preference of speaker from two good alternatives which you have carefully selected. He/she will probably be pleased with the opportunity to make a contributive decision, and less likely to have too strong an opinion on more critical matters, like orchestral layout and mic placing etc. Czech coffee is some of the finest in the world. You don't want some health-freak producer insisting on de-caf:-) Iain |
#264
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! You don't seem to understand the psychology of music recording, Graham:-) One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing him/her to state a preference of speaker from two good alternatives which you have carefully selected. I was referring to the COFFEE ! Graham |
#265
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! You don't seem to understand the psychology of music recording, Graham:-) One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing him/her to state a preference of speaker from two good alternatives which you have carefully selected. I was referring to the COFFEE ! Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe" instant coffee in the UK? Iain |
#266
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! You don't seem to understand the psychology of music recording, Graham:-) One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing him/her to state a preference of speaker from two good alternatives which you have carefully selected. I was referring to the COFFEE ! Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe" instant coffee in the UK? There are many blends of Nescafe these days. Graham |
#267
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe" instant coffee in the UK? Two words: French Press |
#268
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on. Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most competent loudspeakers confirm. The exception being ESL. **ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers. No one suggested they were not. They are the common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5. When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and said that he belived his father Peter had "received a dispensation from the Pope" That satisfied everyone:-) **Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me. I recall a post from Patrick just a couple of days ago, in which he states that a good SET amp has no difficulty in driving an ELS. I would presume he says that from first-hand experience. **AFTER Patrick submits a frequency response, I'll get interested. In a recent other post most people have ignored because it probably is too hard to refute, I mentioned Quad-II and ESL57. There isn't any need for ME to posr a response curve when if you wanted one you could find one done by Walker & Co. get it from the horses mouth, not me. SE amps that I make have Rout of less than Walker's amps, so whatever Walker got when he measured the response would be flatter if my amps were used, except I suspect ESL57 sounds a little treble rich if driven by an amp with a say Rout = 0.1 ohm. I do not, nor have I ever, suggested that a SET cannot make an ESL produce sound. What I do dispute, is the ability of a SET amp to drive most ESLs such that they provide a linear frequency response. Depends what SET amp you are talking about. They vary considerably in their Rout depending on the whims of the designers. Some SET amps will not give a linear F response because Rout exceeds the ESL maker's specifaction of source R in order to get a flat voltage response of say +/- 1.0dB. Some SET amps will easily produce a response within the +/- 1.0dB 20Hz to 20kHz, simply because their Rout is say 0.3 ohms, and the lowest Z of the ESL along the band at some HF has a minimum of say 2 ohms. IOW: Drive an ESL with a SET amp and you will probably get sound. With the SETs Patrick mentioned, you may even get quite acceptable sound (at huge cost). Yes, finally you have got the message that not all SET amps are the same, and ppl find the sound they hear worth the expense. If that SET is compared with another amplifier, which possesses a suitably low output impedance and high current ability, then the sound from the ESLs will mostly likely be far more accurate. Not necessarily so. Its not hard to make an SE amp with sufficient voltage and current ability so much so that it acts like a Rolls Royce, and you never have to worry about having enough power; there is always enough. And the Rout of the amp need only be sufficiently low to meet the speaker maker's recomendations. Very little is to be gained sonically by exceeding the maker's requirements which are usually based on basic LCR theory. Put it this way, all my amps have Rout less than 1 ohm, often only 0.3 ohms, including all SE and PP tube and SS PP amps. Forcing any of my designs to have lower Rout by using more gainy tubes and more GNFB will not improove the sonics. The Law of diminishing returns sets in. Back in the days when I used SE amplifiers, I thought they sounded pretty good. Great, in fact. 1958 was it? maybe a lone 6V6? Yeah, i went through all that too at about that time. The first serious SE amps I did in 1993 used 1 x EL84/6BQ5 in pentode with local cathode FB from the OPT and as I added GNFB the sound became clearer and better up to a point where any further increase was useless. The stereo amps are still in my shed on a Kriesler radio chassis. I ran a pair of sensitive "ceiling speakers" with "full range" ability, ie about 50Hz to 18kHz in ported boxes and because of good sensitivity the little SE amps did a fine job for some radio music. I used a walkman to provide the FM radio feed. With any class A pentode/beam tet amp, a total of 20dB of series voltage NFB is all you need to make what is virtually a current source into virtually a voltage source. Triode SET amps have local NFB within the output tube, so Ra is usually 10 times lower compared to pentodes/beams. So you simply do not need to apply much GNFB. The 845 SET amps have only 8 dB GNFB. Then I built a push pull amp and my world changed. Simply no comparison. The push pull amp was more powerful, able to cope with a wide range of load impedances, lower distortion, etc, etc. For the record: Both SE amp push pull amps used 6V6 output valves. I was 16 years old. So I guessed right about what you and countless others have done. I have not bothered with SE designs since. Nobody is forcing you towards anything. But because YOU have not bothered with SE, it does not make it wrong that anyone else might persevere with SE designs. The amp with four 6V6 in SE parallel beam tetrode with local NFB from the OPT and some GNFB will give you 20 watts of PURE CLASS A, and the pair you used in PP was maybe barely capable of the 20 watts, more like only 12 watts, and very class AB, and lots more odd order THD than the SE. The first few watts of the SE amp will easily sound just as good or better than the PP amp. Tonight I demonstrated one of the 50 watt 845 amps to my customer. He brought in the reformed and re-engineered CR Audio 5050 amp I did up about 5 months ago which now has my far better circuit within, and over two hours with several CDs and swaps too and fro from PP KT88 to SE 845, we compared the performances. The SE had slightly more bass, but better space around instruments, air, and detail, and you felt more drawn in to where the musicians were. Both PP and SE were fine drinkable wines indeed, and the guy is looking forward to me completing the second mono. He spent $5,500 for the CR Audio "Woodham" amp which was an absolute pile of ****e before I completely re-built it. Not all PP amps are better than SE amps just because they happen to be PP, and not SE. The Woodham CR Audio amplifier is a tragic case of the designers being right out of their depth. The list of design no-nos were long as my arm. I think CR which is supposedly a UK based company has their product made to order in China somewhere judging by the very poor skills used. They do look pretty, and looks fool ppl. What's the use of a good looking wife if she can't/won't cook? My 845 were not much more expensive. Well, once. I mucked about with some SE transistor designs (2N301) briefly. I dumped them pretty quick and went back to valves. Then I discovered KT88s (they cost AUS$25.00 each way back then). Mmmmm. Nice valves. FWIW: One of my instructors at college was part of the design team at GE-MOV for the KT88. The KT88 at $25 each were EXPENSIVE; 1960 was it? that makes the KT88 as expensive than as one KR Audio 845 is today maybe, ie, about $400. Nowdays chinese KT88 or 845 are dirt cheap in real terms, and so what if one has to use twice the tube count in SE amps to get the same PO as a PP amp. If you DO use enough tubes which ain't expensive ( Sovtek basic KT88 can be had for $35 each including freight if you buy 10 pcs from the US ) then SE isn't any worse than PP, and although 4 tubes in SE can only have about the same PO as an AB PP amp with two, The power is nicer power in the super critical region of less than 5 watts, but you have to know what your'e doing. But even 6V6 made in Oz in 1960 were expensive, and everyone was crying poor back in those days, and there wasn't much anything else you could use. Most ppl though serious hi-fi was a pretentious and frivolous waste of money. Hardly anyone could afford the luxury of it. 807 were a favourite, bought from army disposal stores which continued to sell ex armed forces junk left over from excess production during WW2 until after 1965. But they priced the NOS 807 about the same as any comparable other new made tube like 6L6. In other words, they'd paid peanuts for the NOS 807 at army auctions, and charged what the market would bear. Some makers did fit single 807s in radios. I have repaired a couple, and they sound equal to a pair of 6V6 in PP, simply because with 8 watts from a lone 807, and needing only 1/2 a watt to fill a room with sound with the type of sensitive speaker used, the sound was blameless.... Everyone mostly made do with single 6V6s in countless radio and radio grams, and only the rich could afford the "deluxe" sets with PP amps. Of course these PP amps were better generally. The SE 6V6 amps in the radios and cheap grams rarely had much NFB. Adding GNFB meant an extra tube for gain so NFB could be applied to reduce this gain and get low Rout and THD/IMD. Makers hated spending on the extra tube. Beene Kounter & Associates had their guys working in most electronics manufacturing plants to ensure quality remained low. Deluxe sets had twice the tube count, and instead of 4 watts you had 12 watts max, and of course speakers all were about 95dB SPL 1M @ 1M. Now speakers are maybe 88dB, and you NEED 3 times the power at least. But 1960 speakers were very non-flat mostly, attrocious is the word. Cones were thinly papered and being true flat cones not curvilinear, they tended to flap irregularly in the breeze. Some were quite good, the Delauxe Rolas fitted to Deluxe Radiolas sure were, and I have one in my kitchen radio with EL34 SE triode amp with GNFB and its a beautiful sounding AM radio, far better than any commercial set I have EVER worked on, simply because I designed it with a few more tubes and with linear techniques used in the IF amp and detector and audio stages. But in 1960, we all grooved and bopped to the rock and roll anyway. Johnny O'Keefe screamed his lungs out and overloaded all the gear used to record him and most of the source material we listened to was well and truly pre-distorted before our amps added another 0.5%, considered SFA in 1960. KT88 PP could sure do 30 watts in pure class A and and much more in AB. But for 35watts PURE class A, you only need 4 x 6L6, or KT66, or EL34/6CA7, see http://www.turneraudio.com.au/se35cfbmonobloc.html 3 KT88 may be used in the same amps, or 4 which is overkill. Fine sound quality good measurements are the result of the ideas employed to make these amps. There isn't much extra work to make them in comparison to any other PP monoblock amp with 4 octal socket output tubes. During today, I road tested a Luxman Receiver I'd repaired with a Dual 505 TT and the Lux has an LED PO power readout for each channel. The 3 watt level was only ever reached on bass rich music by Taj Mahal, a 'Giant Step', from an LP I got in about 1977. Thunderous bass in the music. And tonight while I compared the PP amps with KT88 to SET with 2 x 845, I doubt I used any more power than 3 watts. The PP amp never moved out of class A. The SET had an easy time of it making 3 watts max. Its 50 watt ability couldn't be reached because my speakers this time are average about 9 ohms, and the amp only makes 50 watts if the load is 4 ohms. The two 6 ohm SEAS Da'polito mids are series connected, 12" bass is 8 ohms, and tweeter is 6 ohms. Never did we ever get close to clipping, or any audible distortion. Yesterday I auditioned an ME850 which ran perfectly after repairs, and it didn't sound any better than the SE or PP tube amp. The SE seems to have more "foundational bass" and sweeter midrange. Patrick Turner. , Trevor Wilson |
#269
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in news:kuYlj.285599$A41.140043
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi: some of our Neumann 87s (still in pristine condition) were manufactured. I hated my u87s until Stephen Paul audio did their magic on them. Now I wouldnt trade them for anything. A diamond in the rough to be sure. Had some that Klaus Heine worked on too, but sold them within a week of having them..seems as if everything he "makes better" has this horrible bright, etched HF sound. Stephen Paul(tony merill actually, as Stephen has long passed away *rip*(now he was a prime example of an audio genius..google his name on rec.audio.pro and youll see) and Peter Drefahl get all of my business now. |
#270
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! You don't seem to understand the psychology of music recording, Graham:-) One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing him/her to state a preference of speaker from two good alternatives which you have carefully selected. I was referring to the COFFEE ! Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe" instant coffee in the UK? There are many blends of Nescafe these days. Do any of them taste remotely like the real thing? Good quality ground coffee (Paulig President) is Euro 4 per kilo. I see that Nescafe Gold retails at about Euro 42/kilo. So, if it tastes disgusting at ten times the price, why do people drink it? Iain |
#271
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi Good quality ground coffee (Paulig President) is Euro 4 per kilo. I see that Nescafe Gold retails at about Euro 42/kilo. So, if it tastes disgusting at ten times the price, why do people drink it? Obviously Iain, you know nothing about making real coffee versus instant. The instant coffee powder required to make a cup of coffee weighs next to nothing. Compare that to the weight of grounds required to brew a good cup of cofffee. For the record, I share your distaste for instant. When we camp, we bring ground coffee. At home, we grind right before brewing. |
#272
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Jan 18, 3:04 am, "West" wrote: I expect Wiecked to now leave this group forever because he is a man of his word. I promise to place no impediment along his journey and wish him a fond farewell as he sails off into the sunset. Goodbye Peter. Cordially, west Pillock: Lemme see if I get this straight - You made the promise that if I found you under other identities, you would leave forever. I found three within as many weeks. I will not count your desperate attempt at humor with Dufis (sic) Arse - that is a freebie. You have proven yourself a liar, now you have engaged in an interesting fantasy that has me leaving? Those anti-cancer drugs must be _really_ strong. But, you did never answer the most important question - does your mother still clean up after you? I'm afraid the answer is yes. :-( Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#273
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in news:Hdrnj.288390
: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: The client is generally allowed to state his preference on two major issues. The monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee. Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she is not consulted about the coffee. Criminal ! You don't seem to understand the psychology of music recording, Graham:-) One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing him/her to state a preference of speaker from two good alternatives which you have carefully selected. I was referring to the COFFEE ! Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe" instant coffee in the UK? There are many blends of Nescafe these days. Do any of them taste remotely like the real thing? Good quality ground coffee (Paulig President) is Euro 4 per kilo. I see that Nescafe Gold retails at about Euro 42/kilo. So, if it tastes disgusting at ten times the price, why do people drink it? Iain I was a big dallmayr/jakobs/gevalia/8 o clock bean) drinker until I went to Greece..I went back to Germany with 5 lbs of Greek coffee and 3 Brikis and wont drink anything but. Thank goodness there is a big Greek importer right down the road(well, about 45 minutes) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proposal for D.M. | Audio Opinions |