[Bret L]

Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY.

The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier
on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on
wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it
was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat
a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T,
the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and
is to replace it entirely.

There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated
and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output
transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the
best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to
duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of
them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as
well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs as compared to the
whole project is small.

Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, much can be done.
The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized.
A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of
having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages
have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also
solved thereby.

The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the
power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if
they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be
bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good.
The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today.

So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but
the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T
Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a
museum or in the hands of a collector.

Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit
out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones?

[MarkS]

"Bret L" wrote in message
...
Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY.

The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier
on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on
wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it
was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat
a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T,
the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and
is to replace it entirely.

There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated
and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output
transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the
best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to
duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of
them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as
well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs as compared to the
whole project is small.

Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, much can be done.
The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized.
A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of
having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages
have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also
solved thereby.

The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the
power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if
they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be
bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good.
The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today.

So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but
the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T
Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a
museum or in the hands of a collector.

Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit
out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones?

Bret,

Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did
an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or
something?? Damn...

8)

MarkS

[Watt? Me worry?]

On Apr 25, 5:25�pm, "MarkS" wrote:
"Bret L" wrote in message

...





Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. �Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY.

The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier
on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on
wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it
was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat
a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T,
the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and
is to replace it entirely.

There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated
and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output
transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the
best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to
duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of
them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as
well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs �as compared to the
whole project is small.

Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, �much can be done.
The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized.
A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of
having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages
have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also
solved thereby.

The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the
power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if
they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be
bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good.
The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today.

So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but
the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T
Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a
museum or in the hands of a collector.

Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit
out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones?

Bret,

Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did
an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or
something?? Damn...

8)

MarkS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi RATs!

Relax. Some people understand there is more to Audio than how it
sounds. In fact, the sound doesn't matter to some folks.

If everything else is correct, it will sound good enough, if you
attach speakers, instead of a dummy load.

Happy Ears!

Al

PS Breathed on the Xovers, great improvement, even with speakers.

[MarkS]

"Watt? Me worry?" wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 5:25?pm, "MarkS" wrote:
"Bret L" wrote in message

...





Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. ?Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY.

The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier
on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on
wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it
was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat
a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T,
the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and
is to replace it entirely.

There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated
and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output
transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the
best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to
duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of
them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as
well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs ?as compared to the
whole project is small.

Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, ?much can be done.
The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized.
A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of
having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages
have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also
solved thereby.

The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the
power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if
they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be
bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good.
The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today.

So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but
the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T
Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a
museum or in the hands of a collector.

Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit
out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones?

Bret,

Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession
really...did
an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or
something?? Damn...

8)

MarkS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi RATs!

Relax. Some people understand there is more to Audio than how it
sounds. In fact, the sound doesn't matter to some folks.

If everything else is correct, it will sound good enough, if you
attach speakers, instead of a dummy load.

Happy Ears!

Al

PS Breathed on the Xovers, great improvement, even with speakers.

Al says "Relax"

OK!

MarkS

"Champion of the Under-Amplifier"

[Bret L]

On Apr 25, 5:25*pm, "MarkS" wrote:
"Bret L" wrote in message

...



Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. *Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY.

The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier
on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on
wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it
was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat
a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T,
the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and
is to replace it entirely.

There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated
and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output
transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the
best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to
duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of
them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as
well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs *as compared to the
whole project is small.

Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, *much can be done.
The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized.
A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of
having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages
have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also
solved thereby.

The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the
power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if
they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be
bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good.
The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today.

So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but
the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T
Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a
museum or in the hands of a collector.

Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit
out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones?

Bret,

Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did
an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or
something?? Damn...

As i said several vendors offer ST70 kits, but not others. I would
like to stop people from wasting time and money on this inferior
design.

[Ian Iveson]

Several companies sell replacement transformers and
chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has
to ask WHY.

Authenticity. If you want the true sound of American middle
class music of the time, the ST70 would be a reasonable
choice of amp.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

On Apr 27, 11:56*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Several companies sell replacement transformers and
chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. *Apparently they sell. One has
to ask WHY.

Authenticity. If you want the true sound of American middle
class music of the time, the ST70 would be a reasonable
choice of amp.

Ian

The sound ot a brand new well assembled and adjusted ST70 at say a 1
watt average power at each channel would be no different from say a UK
made Leak which also had EL34 outputs. All the action is covered by
the low distortion class A operation and enclosed by a large amount of
GNFB. While working at low levels with the sensitive speakers of the
1960s all the amps rated for about 30 watts had vitually no
distinguishable sonic signatures mainly because the speakers and
pickups and tape replay were so awfully coloured.

Once one tries to use the ST70 at quite high levels with low
sensitivity modern speakers the action becomes mainly class AB with
THD and IMD levels some 5 times higher. Quad, Leak, and other UK
brands all lurch along in class AB with modern conditions. Crummy amps
like the Quad-II have no proper provision for 4 ohm speaker
connections so that you can use an 8 ohm speaker plugged to the 4 ohm
outlet to get much more class A because the RLa-a becomes 8ka-a
instead of the lousy 4ka-a which is what Quad-II provide. Quad-II only
remain in class A if the loads are 32 and 16 on the strappable ouputs
of 16 and 8 ohms. This suited the ESL57.
I have played around with modifying Dynaco ST70 and been able to get
excellent sound at high modern levels with modern loads after fixing
the terrible PSU and frightful input/driver stages.

The trouble with the 1960 amp designs is that they all were cheap crap
foisted on the public by bean counters who always voted to dumb down
engineers designs to suit the shareholders and never the listeners.

So the True Sound of amercian middle class music reproduction was
never much better or worse than British Sound, or French Sound, or
German Sound.

Amateurs hi-fi enthusiasts of the 1960s could easily access excellent
OPTs better than anything used in any consumer brand name designs or
kits and then get a quad of 807 from army disposal stores cheaply and
make amps that would leave all the expensive commercial amps for dead.

I have a customer's pair of Dynaco Mk-III which are waiting for me to
fix. I will be totally eliminating all evidence of the cheap jack ****
US kit design mentality and making two wonderful amps with decent PSU
and all triode drivers with 6550 outputs which I know will work OK
with the old Dynaco OPT, existing PTs and the chassis metalwork,
although I may also change the PTs if I have cooler running PTs which
have 240V primaries.

The great thing about the crappy old garbage which my father may have
settled for is that it can be hotted up to give more clean watts with
modern parts and design.

There are now many high-end and low end designs being sold at
expensive prices which are no better than the 1960s crap.
All respond well to total re-engineering if the OPT and PT have
adequate ability.

Patrick Turner.

[Bret L]

I have played around with modifying Dynaco ST70 and been able to get
excellent sound at high modern levels with modern loads after fixing
the terrible PSU and frightful input/driver stages.

The trouble with the 1960 amp designs is that they all were cheap crap
foisted on the public by bean counters who always voted to dumb down
engineers designs to suit the shareholders and never the listeners.

So the True Sound of amercian middle class music reproduction was
never much better or worse than British Sound, or French Sound, or
German Sound.

The Marantz, McIntosh, Fairchild and Harmon Kardon were all entirely
adequate. Probably the best were the Fairchild and the Marantz. The
Mcintosh was the most reliable and trouble free. Although the Brits
had the Radford and Leak, along with Wharfedale and Tannoy speakers,
no other country came close to the United States in overall audio
excellence. We were _the ****ing best_ at SOMETHING in those days! The
Germans clearly had the capability but did not market it as a hi-fi
product. Had they aggressively marketed the transformers in the
Klangfilm gear and the EL156 and other exotic tubes, they'd have been
world beaters.


Amateurs hi-fi enthusiasts of the 1960s could easily access excellent
OPTs better than anything used in any consumer brand name designs or
kits and then get a quad of 807 from army disposal stores cheaply and
make amps that would leave all the expensive commercial amps for dead.

The proper audio tubes were not that much more expensive. You could
get GE or TungSol 6550s cheaply enough and even the British Gold Lion
KT88 was affordable.

The price of a Heathkit with Peerless OPT was only a little more than
just the Peerless OPT itself. And in fact the transformers were fairly
expensive.

[Bret L]

On Apr 26, 8:56*pm, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Several companies sell replacement transformers and
chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. *Apparently they sell. One has
to ask WHY.

Authenticity. If you want the true sound of American middle
class music of the time, the ST70 would be a reasonable
choice of amp.


The middle class had consoles. Dyna specifically catered to a
'bohemian' or "sophisticated beatnik" market niche.

[MarkS]

"Bret L" wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 5:25 pm, "MarkS" wrote:
"Bret L" wrote in message

...



Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY.

The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier
on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on
wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it
was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat
a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T,
the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and
is to replace it entirely.

There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated
and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output
transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the
best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to
duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of
them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as
well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs as compared to the
whole project is small.

Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, much can be done.
The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized.
A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of
having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages
have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also
solved thereby.

The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the
power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if
they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be
bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good.
The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today.

So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but
the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T
Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a
museum or in the hands of a collector.

Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit
out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones?

Bret,

Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession
really...did
an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or
something?? Damn...

As i said several vendors offer ST70 kits, but not others. I would
like to stop people from wasting time and money on this inferior
design.

The ST70 was and still is a stepping stone into tube audio. To that end it
does its job well.

Think about it though. The ST70 is very well known, the kit is easy to copy
and the kit assembly instructions already exist as well as many documented
mods to increase performance.

A newbie to tube audio may go though the assembly and mod of an ST then on
to his own design and or reconstruction of a better design (at this point we
got 'em, they're hooked).

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 11:12*pm, Bret L wrote:
The Mcintosh was the most reliable and trouble free.
I am not sure that McIntosh was intrinsically more reliable than its
competitors. However, their traveling clinics did make maintenance
trouble-free for the aficionados.

[Bret L]

On Apr 27, 9:52*am, " wrote:
On Apr 26, 11:12*pm, Bret L wrote: The Mcintosh was the most reliable and trouble free.

I am not sure that McIntosh was intrinsically more reliable than its
competitors. *However, their traveling clinics did make maintenance
trouble-free for the aficionados.

The Mcintosh unity coupled design was pretty well bombproof. The bias
voltage was set high enough that the idle current was quite low and
tubes often lasted decades. The big problems with the amp in the first
twenty or thirty years of its life were mostly cosmetic. Of course now
any Mc tube amp, besides reissues, needs to be fully recapped as well
as replacing some high current resistors and the diodes for good
measure.

Was the Mc the best SOUNDING amp of its day? it does offer some
opportunity for improvement but in applications where it has to work
it is an excellent choice. The most sensitive horn speakers are a poor
match except for disco or sound reinforcement use.

I would love to see the Unity Coupled Mc kitted out for modern
builders but no one really wants to wind the transformers, the C-cores
are expensive, a special run of insulated wire is needed (which IMO is
why Mc themselves went to a lesser transformer on reissues) and some
fixturing needs to be built.

The Marantz 8B and McIntosh MA230 (which is NOT unity coupled)
transformers, are straightforward to wind as are a number of Peerless,
Acro, Partridge, and UTC Linear Standard designs. Any of these would
be a good choice. The Dyna ST70 is asymmetrical wind as are a number
of other questionable transformers, I think the British Rodgers Cadet
is in this category.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 4:29*pm, Bret L wrote:
*The Mcintosh unity coupled design was pretty well bombproof. The bias
voltage was set high enough that the idle current was quite low and
tubes often lasted decades. The big problems with the amp in the first
twenty or thirty years of its life were mostly cosmetic. Of course now
any Mc tube amp, besides reissues, needs to be fully recapped as well
as replacing some high current resistors and the diodes for good
measure.
I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics,
watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction (most?) of
the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were usually brought
up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. Of
course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there
had been since the previous service call. I also did not know if the
owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a
biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the
clinics came to town (a more random and representative population).
The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that
most other brands did not.

[Sal]

My god,
Give it up Bret, you have been singing the same tune for years.

Why don't you design the perfect audio transformer and audio amp and
market it.

Dynaco is the best value today in tube amplifiers where many got their
first taste in tube audio at a reasonable.

Are you that bored that you have to bring up the same topic year after year?

[Bret L]

On May 3, 5:42*am, Sal wrote:
My god,
Give it up Bret, you have been singing the same tune for years.

Why don't you design the perfect audio transformer and audio amp and
market it.

Dynaco is the best value today in tube amplifiers where many got their
first taste in tube audio at a reasonable.

Are you that bored that you have to bring up the same topic year after year?

Only because people are still selling new kits to build them. What a
waste of money. A little more build cost and they could have a good
amp.

[Patrick Turner]

On Apr 28, 11:16*am, " wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:29*pm, Bret L wrote: *The Mcintosh unity coupled design was pretty well bombproof. The bias
voltage was set high enough that the idle current was quite low and
tubes often lasted decades. The big problems with the amp in the first
twenty or thirty years of its life were mostly cosmetic. Of course now
any Mc tube amp, besides reissues, needs to be fully recapped as well
as replacing some high current resistors and the diodes for good
measure.

I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics,
watching their techicians at work. *A significant fraction (most?) *of
the amps did not meet the distortion specs. *They were usually brought
up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. *Of
course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there
had been since the previous service call. *I also did not know if the
owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a
biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the
clinics came to town (a more random and representative population).
The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that
most other brands did not.

Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days when there
was some real service!

Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and so if they
are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each channel
then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone will notice
something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature of so much
NFB.
McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they are
clinical and lifeless.

Patrick Turner.

[Ian Iveson]

Patrick Turner wrote:

I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh
clinics,
watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction
(most?) of
the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were
usually brought
up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic
capacitors. Of
course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much
usage there
had been since the previous service call. I also did not
know if the
owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion
(making it a
biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every
time the
clinics came to town (a more random and representative
population).
The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular
maintenance that
most other brands did not.

Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days
when there
was some real service!

Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and
so if they
are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each
channel
then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone
will notice
something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature
of so much
NFB.
McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they
are
clinical and lifeless.


I've wondered for years what clinical and lifeless might
mean but progress is slow. I have this idea that Al is its
antipode, but that notion only affords spiritual relief.

Are you suggesting that clinical and lifeless is the at the
extreme of neutrality? Would that be because of insufficient
distortion, or isn't it as simple as that?

My hope was that it would turn out to be a result of low
output impedance achieved by the use of much feedback,
driving low impedance speakers. Hope isn't science, but it's
better than nothing.

It could be that, for hi fi, a performance should be
rendered using equipment from its own epoch.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

On May 7, 10:20*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh
clinics,
watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction
(most?) of
the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were
usually brought
up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic
capacitors. Of
course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much
usage there
had been since the previous service call. I also did not
know if the
owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion
(making it a
biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every
time the
clinics came to town (a more random and representative
population).
The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular
maintenance that
most other brands did not.

Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days
when there
was some real service!

Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and
so if they
are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each
channel
then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone
will notice
something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature
of so much
NFB.
McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they
are
clinical and lifeless.

I've wondered for years what clinical and lifeless might
mean but progress is slow. I have this idea that Al is its
antipode, but that notion only affords spiritual relief.

Are you suggesting that clinical and lifeless is the at the
extreme of neutrality? Would that be because of insufficient
distortion, or isn't it as simple as that?

I have a number of clients who prefer vacuum tube amps to solid state
amps which they say are neutral, clinical and thus dull, boring and
lifeless sounding.

A typical example is the Musical Fidelity A1. One guy had one of these
and I thought it was smooth as silk compared to some SS horrors. But
when he got a pair of 28W SE tube amps he said the music really began
to live and sound real. He only used 1/2 a watt per channel output
from an available 28W, and the tube THD/IMD artifacts at the 1/2 watt
level were very low because the OP tube was in UL and there was 16dB
global NFB. Later I changed the design to CFB with much lower THD and
lower Rout and the tubes still sounded better.

I have lost count of ppl who have told me they like a lone 300B
without any GNFB in preference to a 100W SS amp or a 100W PP tube amp
with huge levels of NFB.
I've heard their systems and I understand why they like such simple
amps. Usually they all have very sensitive speakers.

There was that guy Cheever who has published somewhere on the Net some
years ago and he explains the reasons why there are differences in the
sound of amplifiers. There is rather a lot of stuff published about
amplifier sound, and they can't all be correct because opinions and
hence preferences differ so widely.


My hope was that it would turn out to be a result of low
output impedance achieved by the use of much feedback,
driving low impedance speakers. Hope isn't science, but it's
better than nothing.

?

It could be that, for hi fi, *a performance should be
rendered using equipment from its own epoch.

Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment,
we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on
the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young
and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi
gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were
zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of
super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a
flat response without colourations.

Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold
at the foot of a rainbow.
Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really
experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6
months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing
routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's
daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable.

1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people.

Patrick Turner.



Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Bret L]

Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment,
we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on
the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young
and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi
gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were
zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of
super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a
flat response without colourations.

Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold
at the foot of a rainbow.
Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really
experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6
months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing
routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's
daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable.

1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people.

In the United States, the entire 1950s and much of the 1960s were the
best of times. The hi-fi equipment was in a Golden Age, you know it
and I know it. JBL, Altec, Bozak, Jensen, all that is highly prized
and brings big dollars in Asia today along with the McIntosh, Marantz,
Fairchild, Fisher, HH Scott, etc. Although prices were in real dollar
terms quite high by today's standards- a full system of top flight
equipment was roughly the price of a medium price new car- the job
situation was fantastic compared to today. Any young man could get a
good job, career girls did OK too.

Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just
can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business
so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation.
After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of
austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray
veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred.
There always was a tradition of excellent expensive goods for the
upper crust so you had Quad, Leak, etc which were quite
sophisticated.

Germany and Italy, which made good cars and other goods, were never
players in hi-fi. The Germans had some remarkable tech but only sold
it as commercial equipment. France never did anything with
electronics, and the Scandinavians had only bang and Olufson which was
always style over substance. I don't know why that was. I have seen
Swedish military radios, for instance, which were really first rate.

I think you don't really like the UK and really don't like the US in
particular. I don't care but if you let that influence your technical
judgment that would be foolish.

[MarkS]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 10:20 am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh
clinics,
watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction
(most?) of
the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were
usually brought
up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic
capacitors. Of
course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much
usage there
had been since the previous service call. I also did not
know if the
owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion
(making it a
biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every
time the
clinics came to town (a more random and representative
population).
The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular
maintenance that
most other brands did not.

Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days
when there
was some real service!

Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and
so if they
are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each
channel
then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone
will notice
something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature
of so much
NFB.
McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they
are
clinical and lifeless.

I've wondered for years what clinical and lifeless might
mean but progress is slow. I have this idea that Al is its
antipode, but that notion only affords spiritual relief.

Are you suggesting that clinical and lifeless is the at the
extreme of neutrality? Would that be because of insufficient
distortion, or isn't it as simple as that?

I have a number of clients who prefer vacuum tube amps to solid state
amps which they say are neutral, clinical and thus dull, boring and
lifeless sounding.

A typical example is the Musical Fidelity A1. One guy had one of these
and I thought it was smooth as silk compared to some SS horrors. But
when he got a pair of 28W SE tube amps he said the music really began
to live and sound real. He only used 1/2 a watt per channel output
from an available 28W, and the tube THD/IMD artifacts at the 1/2 watt
level were very low because the OP tube was in UL and there was 16dB
global NFB. Later I changed the design to CFB with much lower THD and
lower Rout and the tubes still sounded better.

I have lost count of ppl who have told me they like a lone 300B
without any GNFB in preference to a 100W SS amp or a 100W PP tube amp
with huge levels of NFB.
I've heard their systems and I understand why they like such simple
amps. Usually they all have very sensitive speakers.

There was that guy Cheever who has published somewhere on the Net some
years ago and he explains the reasons why there are differences in the
sound of amplifiers. There is rather a lot of stuff published about
amplifier sound, and they can't all be correct because opinions and
hence preferences differ so widely.


My hope was that it would turn out to be a result of low
output impedance achieved by the use of much feedback,
driving low impedance speakers. Hope isn't science, but it's
better than nothing.

?

It could be that, for hi fi, a performance should be
rendered using equipment from its own epoch.

Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment,
we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on
the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young
and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi
gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were
zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of
super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a
flat response without colourations.

Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold
at the foot of a rainbow.
Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really
experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6
months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing
routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's
daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable.

1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people.

Patrick Turner.


I dunno Patrick, 55 wasn't too awful bad...small block chevys, Lionel
trains, jobs with PENSIONS were common as dirt, people smoked like nuts but
that had been going on for sometime by then....

Mark



Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Bret L]

Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold
at the foot of a rainbow.
Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really
experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6
months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing
routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's
daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable.

1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people.

Patrick Turner.

I dunno Patrick, 55 wasn't too awful bad...small block chevys, Lionel
trains, jobs with PENSIONS were common as dirt, people smoked like nuts but
that had been going on for sometime by then....

People smoke now just as then. In fact I expect the excessive
taxation of tobacco to be rolled back as the US Government figures out
that tobacco saves billions. Tobacco smokers die of cancer relatively
cleanly in their late 50s through early 70s, presenting in Stage III
where heroic eforts are impossible, whereas nonsmokers live a long
time with Alzheimers and rack up colossal care bills.

I have quoted the case of Arthur Miller before, but to recap: Miller-
who just finished writing another play- died at 89, was living with
and engaged to a 34 year old woman, and his death was blamed on sixty-
plus years of smoking. What was he smoking?? Where do I get it??

[Patrick Turner]

On May 7, 11:17*pm, Bret L wrote:
Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment,
we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on
the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young
and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi
gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were
zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of
super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a
flat response without colourations.

Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold
at the foot of a rainbow.
Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really
experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6
months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing
routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's
daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable.

1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people.

*In the United States, the entire 1950s and much of the 1960s were the
best of times.

Despite the horrific losses of the USA's finest young men in WW2, the
legacy of winning the war equipped the USA with technological
superioity which is now only being challenged.


The hi-fi equipment was in a Golden Age, you know it
and I know it. *JBL, Altec, Bozak, Jensen, all that is highly prized
and brings big dollars in Asia today along with the McIntosh, Marantz,
Fairchild, Fisher, HH Scott, etc.

None of the US made stuff could be sold at volumes here to make it
worthwhile.
The US standard of living was way above most other countries.

But it pays to remember that only the flagship models gained the good
reputaition it deserved; the basic "bread and butter" budget models of
audio gear wasn't very good quality.


Although prices were in real dollar
terms quite high by today's standards- a full system of top flight
equipment was roughly the price of a medium price new car- the job
situation was fantastic compared to today. Any young man could get a
good job, career girls did OK too.

Yep, and how things have changed eh.

*Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just
can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business
so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation.

In Oz we had favourable trading terms with MOTHER ENGLAND. You see the
majority of people in Oz had historical links back to the UK.
So we had Quads, Leaks, Radfords, etc, and a little bit of local ot of
Oz made selling in small numbers.
Hi-fi was never a big thing in Oz, and it still isn't, judging by what
I hear from many systems. The main AV entertainment is via the BIG
SCREEN, often with attrocious audio quality.

In the 1960s and 70s the trade tarriffs which proteced Oz
manufacturers of electronics were abolished and we were flooded by
cheaper Japanese mades and Oz makers went to te wall.

After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of
austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray
veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred.

The UK paid a much higher price than most countries for being amoung
winners of WW2.
And Germany was producing more steel by 1955 than Britain, and its no
wonder Britain had troubles you call a
" backward period of austerity and general ****tiness".

Margaret Thatcher changed a lot of that.....


There always was a tradition of excellent expensive goods for the
upper crust so you had Quad, Leak, etc which were quite
sophisticated.

Some was sophisticated. But I still think Quad-II amps are toys....

*Germany and Italy, which made good cars and other goods, were never
players in hi-fi. The Germans had some remarkable tech but only sold
it as commercial equipment. *France never did anything with
electronics, and the Scandinavians had only bang and Olufson which was
always style over substance. *I don't know why that was. I have seen
Swedish military radios, for instance, which were really first rate.

Well, Europe was the country that was bashed about so much that
frivolities like hi-fi were unimportant compared to the basics of
getting their whole countries re-built.


*I think you don't really like the UK and really don't like the US in
particular. *I don't care but if you let that influence your technical
judgment that would be foolish.- Hide quoted text -

I judge things on their merit, no matter where the stuff is designed
and made.

I have been the one to re-engineer a whole range of smoke producing hi-
fi gear from many countries.
I have been able to get far better technical and sonic performance
from this mountain of crap.
Most of the revered hi-fi makers who produced speakers included gross
sonic colourations due to woeful enclosure quality,despicable
crossover engineering, and bean counter designs driver units.
I apologise to nobody I may offend by having a permanent attitude that
all the past audio engineering was mainly crap until proven
otherwise.

For example, think of AR9 speakers. These were about $4,500 in 1975
when I only earned about twice that much in a job in a year.
I once tested a pair when I repaired the woofer surrounds. Bloody
disgusting frequency response. It was like having a graphic eq unit
with random settings of +/- up to 10dB in 5 bands.
And these speakers could blow up many amps.
Anyway, I complety re-designed the pair I got here from a customer and
fitted new north european drivers completely new crossovers and they
began to sing, and they didn't make his amp smoke.
So I have little reverence to any brand.

I am difficult to please.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 8, 1:00*pm, Bret L wrote:
Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold
at the foot of a rainbow.
Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really
experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6
months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing
routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's
daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable.

1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people.

Patrick Turner.

I dunno Patrick, 55 wasn't too awful bad...small block chevys, Lionel
trains, jobs with PENSIONS were common as dirt, people smoked like nuts but
that had been going on for sometime by then....

*People smoke now just as then. In fact I expect the excessive
taxation of tobacco to be rolled back as the US Government figures out
that tobacco saves billions. Tobacco smokers die of cancer relatively
cleanly in their late 50s through early 70s, presenting in Stage III
where heroic eforts are impossible, *whereas nonsmokers live a long
time with Alzheimers and rack up colossal care bills.


In Oz the number of ppl who smoke has fallen from nearly 50% to 25%
over the last 50 years.

Of course you seem right about the economics of living longer at huge
expense.

But then in Oz we have increased our standard of living to allow ppl
to live the extra 20 years at the higher expense.

I'd rather be aged 63 with a possibility of living until 93 like my
mother in 2010 than be 63 back in 1950 when the cure rates for cancer
and many other ills were non-existant.

I have a fabulous life now compared to most other people my age had
back in 1955.

1955 belongs in the dustbin.


*I have quoted the case of Arthur Miller before, but to recap: Miller-
who just finished writing another play- died at 89, was living with
and *engaged to a 34 year old woman, and his death was blamed on sixty-
plus years of smoking. What was he smoking?? Where do I get it??- Hide quoted text -

The exceptions around us distort our hopes for a future.

All my mother's friends who smoked are all dead, and have been dead
for many years.

Patrick Turner.

- Show quoted text -

[Bret L]

*Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just
can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business
so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation.

In Oz we had favourable trading terms with MOTHER ENGLAND. You see the
majority of people in Oz had historical links back to the UK.
So we had Quads, Leaks, Radfords, etc, and a little bit of local ot of
Oz made selling in small numbers.
Hi-fi was never a big thing in Oz, and it still isn't, judging by what
I hear from many systems. The main AV entertainment is via the BIG
SCREEN, often with attrocious audio quality.

In the 1960s and 70s the trade tarriffs which proteced Oz
manufacturers of electronics were abolished and we were flooded by
cheaper Japanese mades and Oz makers went to te wall.

After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of
austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray
veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred.


As I've said before, WWII was a horribly fratricidal and unnecessary
war-even had Hitler been born the Treaty of Versailles ensured an
encore- and Britain was horribly beaten down. Germany was even worse
and by 1960 West Germany was once again a prosperous country with the
future bright. Britain was hobbled more by government interference
than Germany, "rationalisation" destroyed many of its competitive
advantages and the government control of everything meant the kind of
bold decisions needing to be made did not get made. Britain was fully
competitive in aerospace technology with the US for awhile, but the
various Tory and especially Labour governments found everything "too
risky" and shut it down.

At any rate, in the US it was sink or swim and the swimmers did
pretty well. In fact, from 1945 to 1965 America was an economic
paradise despite marginal tax rates of up to 90% and a ban on
individuals owning gold. We had manufacturing and a hell of a lot of
it. The politicians made the determination to apply a two headed
attack on manufacturing, excessive regulation on one end and
unfettered imports-worse, unfettered export by US copmanies of their
technology and tooling to empower foreign plants-on the other. Wages
imploded.

Well, it was nice while it lasted.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 12, 8:31*am, Bret L wrote:
*Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just
can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business
so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation.

In Oz we had favourable trading terms with MOTHER ENGLAND. You see the
majority of people in Oz had historical links back to the UK.
So we had Quads, Leaks, Radfords, etc, and a little bit of local ot of
Oz made selling in small numbers.
Hi-fi was never a big thing in Oz, and it still isn't, judging by what
I hear from many systems. The main AV entertainment is via the BIG
SCREEN, often with attrocious audio quality.

In the 1960s and 70s the trade tarriffs which proteced Oz
manufacturers of electronics were abolished and we were flooded by
cheaper Japanese mades and Oz makers went to te wall.

After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of
austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray
veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred.

*As I've said before, WWII was a horribly fratricidal and unnecessary
war-even had Hitler been born the Treaty of Versailles ensured an
encore- and Britain was horribly beaten down. Germany was even worse
and by 1960 West Germany was once again a prosperous country with the
future bright. Britain was hobbled more by government interference
than Germany, "rationalisation" destroyed many of its competitive
advantages and the government control of everything meant the kind of
bold decisions needing to be made did not get made. Britain was fully
competitive in aerospace technology with the US for awhile, but the
various Tory and especially Labour governments found everything "too
risky" and shut it down.

*At any rate, in the US it was sink or swim and the swimmers did
pretty well. In fact, from 1945 to 1965 America was an economic
paradise despite marginal tax rates of up to 90% and a ban on
individuals owning gold. We had manufacturing and a hell of a lot of
it. The politicians made the determination to apply a two headed
attack on manufacturing, excessive regulation on one end and
unfettered imports-worse, unfettered export by US copmanies of their
technology and tooling to empower foreign plants-on the other. Wages
imploded.

*Well, it was nice while it lasted.-

Yeah, it was nice while it lasted for Americans.
I'm not so sure many ppl outside the USA benefitted.

I went to primary school with a lad whose father was the american
chief executive of Coca-Cola in Australia. We used to see him turn up
at church on Sunday with his family in a Huge American Car with
everyone dressed to kill.
None of the rest of us could afford anything like that. But few of us
wanted the bull**** existance of "putting on the agony and putting on
the style" which we saw in rich folks like those americans at church.
And ironically, we mostly thought Coca-Cola was an extremely poor
quality drink - just ****en rot-gut. We went to church to worship, not
show off, and we wondered what Christ would have thought about all
this money worship.

Anyway, we could rake over the coals of a golden age if we wanted to
but from what I could see of the 1950s, it was just hard work for low
wages and ppl slaved for "ultimate dreams" of heaven on earth which
never showed up.
I discovered materialism, like communism, or nationalism, or religion,
does not bring happiness. Most of life is a con.

But I heard from David Letterman Himself, that the latest Huge Project
in the USA is to drain the Gulf of Mexico, and just fill it up with
oil. Just back yer car up to the beach and fill 'er up.
Its better to have an oil industry than a fishing industry, and
besides, we have nearly emptied the sea of its fish.

Patrick Turner.



- Show quoted text -

[Patrick Turner]

On May 12, 10:58*am, François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 15:53:23 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
we wondered what Christ would have thought about all
this money worship.

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of
a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God", Matthew
19:24

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth
corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt,
and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also.

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the
other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not
serve both God and Mammon", Matthew 6:19-21,24

The logistics of storing one's wealth upstairs in Heaven are rather
difficult to arrange.

The trouble with being decidedly frugal is that all the other guys get
the best ****s in town.

Patrick Turner.