| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Audio Critic
Is now a web magazine.
www.theaudiocritic.com They have a great review of the Linkwitz Labs Orion speakers. Very favorable and a steal for the money. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net Is now a web magazine. www.theaudiocritic.com They have a great review of the Linkwitz Labs Orion speakers. Very favorable and a steal for the money. They are also giving away this article, which is a classic: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf 2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon. It's an all-pervasive lie, however, in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications-don't you believe it. Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!) digital components like CD and DVD players. What's wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. There's nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); it's just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability. Even the world's best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.) As for the "tube sound," there are two possibilities: (1) It's a figment of the deluded audiophile's imagination, or (2) it's a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way. Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fi electronics might consider using a tube (e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), but those rare and narrowly qualified exceptions cannot redeem the common, garden-variety lies of the tube marketers, who want you to buy into an obsolete technology |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net Is now a web magazine. www.theaudiocritic.com They have a great review of the Linkwitz Labs Orion speakers. Very favorable and a steal for the money. They are also giving away this article, which is a classic: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf 2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon. It's an all-pervasive lie, however, in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications-don't you believe it. Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!) digital components like CD and DVD players. What's wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. There's nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); it's just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability. Even the world's best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.) As for the "tube sound," there are two possibilities: (1) It's a figment of the deluded audiophile's imagination, or (2) it's a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way. Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fi electronics might consider using a tube (e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), but those rare and narrowly qualified exceptions cannot redeem the common, garden-variety lies of the tube marketers, who want you to buy into an obsolete technology The "ten biggest lies" from the Audio Critic, if inverted, could easily be the "top ten truths" from $tereopile. I hope many Audio Critic types show up for the debate. Let's kick a little Lyin' Limey butt. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net Is now a web magazine. www.theaudiocritic.com They have a great review of the Linkwitz Labs Orion speakers. Very favorable and a steal for the money. They are also giving away this article, which is a classic: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf 2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon. It's an all-pervasive lie, however, in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications-don't you believe it. Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!) digital components like CD and DVD players. What's wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. There's nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); it's just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability. Even the world's best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.) As for the "tube sound," there are two possibilities: (1) It's a figment of the deluded audiophile's imagination, or (2) it's a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way. Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fi electronics might consider using a tube (e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), but those rare and narrowly qualified exceptions cannot redeem the common, garden-variety lies of the tube marketers, who want you to buy into an obsolete technology The "ten biggest lies" from the Audio Critic, if inverted, could easily be the "top ten truths" from $tereopile. I hope many Audio Critic types show up for the debate. If they show up in proportion to the buyers of the two magazines (not likely given it is a Stereophile show) you may have some fraction of one person represent the Audio Critic. If Arny shows up to the debate he will likely be facing an unsympathetic audience. I still expect him to be a no show at the debate. Let's kick a little Lyin' Limey butt. Good luck. Scott Wheeler |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com wrote: The "ten biggest lies" from the Audio Critic, if inverted, could easily be the "top ten truths" from $tereopile. I hope many Audio Critic types show up for the debate. Point well taken. If they show up in proportion to the buyers of the two magazines (not likely given it is a Stereophile show) you may have some fraction of one person represent the Audio Critic. I know that SP has by far the larger circulation, but this seems a bit hyperbolic. IOW, in keeping with the SP tradition. If Arny shows up to the debate he will likely be facing an unsympathetic audience. Doooh! That's the whole point. I still expect him to be a no show at the debate. If I'm not there, it won't be my fault. I'm going to make every reasonable effort to be there. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com wrote: I still expect him to be a no show at the debate. If I'm not there, it won't be my fault. I'm going to make every reasonable effort to be there. Here we go!!!! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Let's kick a little Lyin' Limey butt. Begs the question as to whether or not he knows better. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Let's kick a little Lyin' Limey butt. Begs the question as to whether or not he knows better. I think the way Atkinson dances around certain issues indicates he is more of a deceiver than an ignoramus. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's kick a little Lyin' Limey butt. If I'm not mistaken, John Atkinson is an American. Norm Strong |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote:
These days, yes Norm. I became a US citizen in August '03. Hi John - As I'm sure you read, "someone" wrote that the reason you feel this debate is "necessary" is because Arny has put a serious dent in the credibility of your magazine. Could you stop laughing for a moment and elaborate a little bit on your statement "necessary". |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Someone wrote Let's kick a little Lyin' Limey butt. If I'm not mistaken, John Atkinson is an American. These days, yes Norm. I became a US citizen in August '03. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Welcome! We're glad to have you--at least I am. :-) Norm |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net Is now a web magazine. www.theaudiocritic.com They have a great review of the Linkwitz Labs Orion speakers. Very favorable and a steal for the money. They are also giving away this article, which is a classic: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf 2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon. It's an all-pervasive lie, however, in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications-don't you believe it. Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!) digital components like CD and DVD players. What's wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. There's nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); it's just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability. Even the world's best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.) As for the "tube sound," there are two possibilities: (1) It's a figment of the deluded audiophile's imagination, or (2) it's a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way. I can't wait for my next issue of Stereophile, chock full of ads for SS amps claiming to sound like tube amps, at a fraction of the cost! Aczel is so flummoxed, he can't even tell us which of the two alternatives (as to tube sound) he presented is operative. It can't be both!/ ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" quoted:
"What's wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. " Thanks, Arnold ;-) -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: As for the "tube sound," there are two possibilities: (1) It's a figment of the deluded audiophile's imagination, or (2) it's a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way. Bzzt. More than likely, it is simply that they are trying to run that amplifier that really should be rated at 30-40W instead of a "how large a spike can it produce before it blows out" 100W they stick on it for marketing purposes through inefficient speakers. Of course, the result is a nice 5-10%+ distortion. Since Tubes distort the harmonics instead of creating white noise, you get the classic "tube" sound. Just ask any guitar player.  |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes,one superiority of transformer coupled tube amplifiers is they
overdrive in a perceptionally palatable and non-speaker-destroying manner. Since amplifying music with realistic dynamic range makes occasionally overdriving the amplifier almost inevitable, (unless you have 10 kW of amplifier power, and if you did you would have many other problems...) tube amplifiers represent a case of cost-effective, simple management of conflicting parameters. By accepting the necessity for occasionally replacing and rebiasing power tubes, we accept a "system weak link" that is manageable and relatively convenient. As opposed to replacing drivers, or sets of soldered-in semiconductors. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Yes,one superiority of transformer coupled tube amplifiers is they overdrive in a perception palatable and non-speaker-destroying manner. Not really. Since amplifying music with realistic dynamic range makes occasionally overdriving the amplifier almost inevitable, (unless you have 10 kW of amplifier power, and if you did you would have many other problems...) tube amplifiers represent a case of cost-effective, simple management of conflicting parameters. Tubed audio amplifiers only make sense as audible EFX generators. By accepting the necessity for occasionally replacing and rebiasing power tubes, we accept a "system weak link" that is manageable and relatively convenient. As opposed to replacing drivers, or sets of soldered-in semiconductors. I have to admit that its been so long since I had a power amp in use that required replacement of any transistors except after one or more decades of use, that I have no distinct memory of such a thing ever happening. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since amplifying music with realistic dynamic range makes
occasionally overdriving the amplifier almost inevitable, (unless you have 10 kW of amplifier power, and if you did you would have many other problems...) tube amplifiers represent a case of cost-effective, simple management of conflicting parameters. Tubed audio amplifiers only make sense as audible EFX generators. If only all those square-wave cooked voice coils could talk....they'd call bull****. A good tubed amp does the same things a good solid state one does, but its failure and overdrive modes tend to be more benign. You could design most of its virtues in a solid state amp, but weight and build cost and thermal dissipation will be just as bad. It will probably cost more to build in fact. Of course if you love tough-dog troubleshooting challenges solid state amps can sure generate them. They can occasionally frustrate you into shotgunning them....occasionally literally but more often to stripping them to a chasssis and power xfmr and starting fresh. And think of the delightful hours you can spend matching P and N devices with a curve tracer. I suppose solid state is ultimately more fun, since Nelson Pass seems like a genuinely bright guy, as do several other solid state designers...but tubes are just easier to get going. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "Arny Krueger" Subject: The Audio Critic Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:15 AM "Lionel" wrote in message I just give you the refrain : "But you forgot what I was sayin' 'cause you're an asshole, you're an asshole That's right You're an asshole, you're an asshole Yes, yes You're an asshole, you're an asshole That's right You're an asshole, you're an asshole" In polite conversation we just say that they are autocratic and pompous. ;-) |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "Arny Krueger" Subject: The Audio Critic Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:36 AM "George M. Middius" wrote in message The Krooborg tries out its new "debating trade" software. If you believe his story, Scott is a Hollywood makeup artist. The nature of his occupation is that he often has time to burn. He's apparently achieved some success as a makeup artist which has convinced him that he is a brilliant audio technologist, master debater, legal expert, and that he is far more intelligent than John Atkinson. My, you have quite the little imagination, don't you? ;-) Thanks Middius for confirming that no reasonble person would think that Scott knows anything of merit about audio, that Scott can't argue his way out of a paper bag, that Scott's legal theories have been proven in court to be crap, and that Scott has less intelligence and common sense than a carrot. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Subject: The Audio Critic Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:36 AM "George M. Middius" wrote in message The Krooborg tries out its new "debating trade" software. If you believe his story, Scott is a Hollywood makeup artist. The nature of his occupation is that he often has time to burn. He's apparently achieved some success as a makeup artist which has convinced him that he is a brilliant audio technologist, master debater, legal expert, and that he is far more intelligent than John Atkinson. My, you have quite the little imagination, don't you? ;-) Thanks Middius for confirming that no reasonble person would think that Scott knows anything of merit about audio, that Scott can't argue his way out of a paper bag, that Scott's legal theories have been proven in court to be crap, and that Scott has less intelligence and common sense than a carrot. Arny's imagination may be small in scope but it seems to have no off button. Scott Wheeler |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
