Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article ,
August Karlstrom wrote: That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...eo-Integrated- Amplifier http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?op...16&Itemi d=32 August For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out. There are people who have trained themselves to pick up very subtle nuances in the sound, but frankly, I don't think they are in it for the music. For somebody who used to listen to scratch 78s, modern systems are pretty much universally wonderful. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article , Scott
wrote: Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. Well, then, you are stuck. Some people thought the original edison recorder was as good as it could get until somebody came up with something better. Then, everybody could hear the difference. Today it is getting almost impossible to hear the difference EXCEPT from an amplifier that is purposely designed to a non-standard spec; ie, euphonic colorations. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 15, 6:31=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an ideal amplifier is. =A0The high-end industry may well understand something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =A0The high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art: it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =A0See here for a definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng...ses/En123/Lec= tures/A... If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something different, fine. =A0But Mr. Empire is correct. If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals. Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers. You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition of an amplifier. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 15, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier =A0(which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. Amplifiers can certainly be built (either purposely or not) to add euphon= ic colorations to the sound. Speaker cables and interconnects can be built u= sing external components to act as fixed filters too in order to suppress some portion of the audio spectrum to "enhance" some other portion. But just a= s such cables are no longer merely conductors, euphonic amplifiers are no longer proper amplifiers. An ideal amplifier is one that should, by the standard definition found in almost any electronic engineering textbook, increases the amplitude of any signal fed to it without adding or taking = away anything from the original signal. IOW, whether you like euphonic colorations or not, euphonic colorations a= re distortion, and distortion is something. ideally, to be avoided as much a= s possible. Modern solid state amps have reduced distortion to vanishingly = low levels at practically all price points in audio. Without distortion and without large frequency response aberrations, there is little to keep mod= ern amps from sounding pretty much alike, and in any of the DBTs to which I h= ave been privy, they do. That doesn't mean that there can't be and won't be S= OME differences, but it does mean that they are generally trivial (under norm= al listening conditions) and difficult to hear even in a carefully set up DB= T. Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not ideal. We are just going round and round. If distortion makes something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like than it is better by my ideals. Accuracy just for the sake of accuracy serves no purpose in audio. Accuracy's only value is in so far as it serves the aesthetics of sound the system produces. If euphonic colorations better serve the aestheics then that is my preference and my ideal. If you prefer accuracy for the sake of accuracy and not for the sake of it's actual real world aesthetic value that is an ideal you are free to hold. But it is not a universal truth. It is a personal choice and one I can't relate to. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 15, 4:10=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION. The function of an amplifier is to increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and tak= ing nothing away. In your opinion. In my opinion the function of an amplifier is to drive the speakers using the signal it is fed in the most aesthetically pleasing way with the widest variety of source material. Fortunately for me there are talented designers of amplifiers who share my ideals and design their products to serve my ideals. In the end, the function of any playback system is to deliver the best aesthetic experience of playback as is possible for the source material that is oing to be played. Remember, amplifiers =A0amplify more than just audio signals. Do you want= the amplifiers in an MRI machine to introduce distortion and perhaps cause a diagnostician to miss a patient's tumor? This is about audio which is about an aesthetic experience. comparing audio to MRI machines is silly. If you want to make any meaningful analogies they will have to be with other things that are judged by their aesthetic value. We can make an analgy with photography. And yes, unless I am doing phorensec work I want my images to be aesthetically pleasing even if they are less accurate as a result. By the rules you guys are trying to set here a basic glamour lens would not be considered a lens. But they are in fact lenses. =A0Do you want an airliner's radar amplifier to be non-linear and make an oncoming plane seem further away t= han it really is? Again there is no relationship in youyr analogy since audio is about aesthetics and airplane radar is not. Do you want the video amp in your TV monitor to display a distorted picture? Of course not. Actually if you have ever seen the raw footage from most of the state of the art digital cameras these days you would understand that a great deal of "distortion" is added in post to make the final product aesthetically pleasing. So yes, I do want the picture as it is captured in most digital cameras to be "distorted" and I would be willing to bet you would too if you saw the raw signal played through a pro monitor side by side with the processed (distorted) signal. You want all of these amplifiers to do what amplifiers are supposed to do. Increase the amplitude of the signals fed = to them without adding or taking away anything. In every case where there is no aesthetic involved yes. In the cases where there is an aesthetic involved no. The fact that you LIKE certain types of audio distortion is irrelevant to= the definition of an amplifier. You are free to buy all the purposely non-lin= ear amplifiers you want. But that doesn't change the definition of an amplifi= er in any way shape or form. Neither does anyone's preference for more accurate amplifiers. The amplifiers I like that add euphonic distortions are in fact amplifiers. You can't redefine them out of existance. They are real, I have one, It works and it sounds terrific. And it is an amplifier. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 15, 4:12=A0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Scott wrote: There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. I guess whether that is wrong or not depends on what you are after. THANK YOU! You are correct. It does depend on that. Most people, I believe, would prefer everything from the source to the ear to be as transparent as possible. 1. Unless you have done a careful survey that really properly samples "most people" you really don't get to speak for them. 2. I don't care what "most people" want. I do not adjust my taste, my preferences, or my goals by what I think the masses want. =A0The only reason I can think of to use the amp you describe is to offset an opposite coloration in another component. =A0However, I suspect that would be impossible to get right. I assure it is quite possible to get a preferable sound from a euphonically colored amp. I get that from my amp. Doesn't matter how you word it. It does actually work. I heard the OP saying that all amps that are designed to be transparent, which is what I mean by well designed, will sound the same in their comfort zone. I would agree that all amps that are audibly transparent would all sound the same within their comfort zone. As John atkinson once said, all amps sound the same except the ones that don't. I have felt that way for years, but I am more interested in the music than the final little bit of detail in the sound. =A0From my point of view, the speakers are still the weak point and that is compounded by the room. =A0However, modern DSP techniques are even solving that problem= .. I'll take improved sound from any point in the audio chain. If it is better it is better doesn't matter why. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned, and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure. I doubt the Maggies are much different from Apogee speakers in this regard, and I destroyed a relatively low powered amp on mine. I use two Classe Audio 100wpc into 8 ohms stereo amps to drive my Apogees, one channel for the bass panel and one for the mid and treble ribbons. They seem to be able to handle pretty much any material. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article , Scott
wrote: On Mar 15, 4:10*pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION. The function of an amplifier is to increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and taking nothing away. In your opinion. In my opinion the function of an amplifier is to drive the speakers using the signal it is fed in the most aesthetically pleasing way with the widest variety of source material. Fortunately for me there are talented designers of amplifiers who share my ideals and design their products to serve my ideals. In the end, the function of any playback system is to deliver the best aesthetic experience of playback as is possible for the source material that is oing to be played. You are confusing feelings with engineering. An engineer really is trying to design a straight wire with gain. That may or may not appeal to how you feel about the sound. Additionally, the colorations you like may not be coming from the amp, alone. Most systems have, at least, a source, pre-amp, amp, speakers and room. Each component can add a certain amount of coloration. The amp you like in your setup might not sound as good in another whereas a completely neutral amp should. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 16, 2:43=A0am, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Scott wrote: Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier =A0(which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. Well, then, you are stuck. =A0Some people thought the original edison recorder was as good as it could get until somebody came up with something better. =A0Then, everybody could hear the difference. =A0Today = it is getting almost impossible to hear the difference EXCEPT from an amplifier that is purposely designed to a non-standard spec; ie, euphonic colorations. so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never auditioned a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations of the amp I already have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who can't get past the arbitrary choice of accuracy for the sake of accuracy are the ones who are stuck. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Scott wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:31?am, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an ideal amplifier is. ?The high-end industry may well understand something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. ?The high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art: it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. ?See here for a definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng...123/Lectures/A... If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something different, fine. ?But Mr. Empire is correct. If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. You're not really addressing my point. The ideal amplifier is a well- understood thing. It's discussed very early in every EE course. There is no dispute about ideal amplifiers in EE. It's not a matter of anyone's personal ideals, it's a matter of a well-defined notion in engineering. A similar notion is the ideal beam, which is the one with the least cross-sectional area (and hence requiring the least material) needed to achieve a given section modulus. [1] Would you stand up and object in class, saying "that's not *my* ideal beam! I like them bigger." Maybe you would. But you'd be wrong. There are some who share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. It is possible to be wrong about this. This isn't like preferring Mahler to Beethoven. But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals. Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers. You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition of an amplifier. I'm not. I'm trying to explain the ideal amplifier to you. Andrew. [1] Wikipedia |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:02:48 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:43=A0am, Robert Peirce wrote: snip=20 so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never auditioned a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations of the amp I already have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who can't get past the arbitrary choice of accuracy for the sake of accuracy are the ones who are stuck. You are free to use whatever amplifier you want and with whatever non-ideal= properties that you think are good. However, such an amplifier fails to me= asure up when compared to the technical definition of an ideal amplifer. Wh= ether or not you find that such an amplifier meets your needs, you need to = understand the technical definition of perfection. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned, and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure. Given that $79 receivers include fairly competent 100 wpc power amps, I don't really see much relevance to 40 watt amps. The last time I played with Large Magneplanars, the power amp at hand was a fairly inexpensive Hafler DH 220, and it seemed to be fully capable of blowing the speaker's fuses without excessive clipping. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:11 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 15, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not ideal. I do get to tell you the definition of an "ideal" amplifier. I.E. one that is "perfect". That you don't want a "perfect" amplifier, and prefer one that alters the signal fed to it is none of my business and definitely beyond my interest. IOW, I don't care what you want. I was merely answering the question. So don't kill the messenger. We are just going round and round. If distortion makes something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like than it is better by my ideals. Your ideals have nothing to do with the definition of an "ideal" amplifier. Like I said in another post, amplifiers increase the "size" of a signal. Some amplify audio, some amplify video, some amplify radar signals, some amplify medical monitoring signals. In all of these (except, apparently, audio) it is beneficial that the amplifier add nothing ro take nothing away from the signal being amplified. Accuracy just for the sake of accuracy serves no purpose in audio. Except to present the listener with a reasonable facsimile of the recording, you're right. Accuracy's only value is in so far as it serves the aesthetics of sound the system produces. Many happen to think that distortion detracts from the performance. If euphonic colorations better serve the aestheics then that is my preference and my ideal. That's your privilege. I don't see where you get the idea that anyone is arguing with your privilege to do what you want with your own audio system. The term "ideal amplifier" is a technical ideal, not an aesthetic one. If you prefer accuracy for the sake of accuracy and not for the sake of it's actual real world aesthetic value that is an ideal you are free to hold. But it is not a universal truth. It is a personal choice and one I can't relate to. It's a technical description. It's based on the need by most of the world for amplifiers that are transparent to the signals they amplify. What you are doing is akin to arguing with the dictionary because your personal definition of a word differs substantially from the dictionary's. Not only would your private definition be irrelevant, but nobody cares how an individual, personally, defines anything. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:02:48 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 16, 2:43=A0am, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Scott wrote: Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier =A0(which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. Well, then, you are stuck. =A0Some people thought the original edison recorder was as good as it could get until somebody came up with something better. =A0Then, everybody could hear the difference. =A0Today = it is getting almost impossible to hear the difference EXCEPT from an amplifier that is purposely designed to a non-standard spec; ie, euphonic colorations. so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never auditioned a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations of the amp I already have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who can't get past the arbitrary choice of accuracy for the sake of accuracy are the ones who are stuck. The term High-Fidelity means a high degree of faithfulness to the original performance. Ideally (there's that word again), that would require that every component from the microphone at the performance through the speaker in your listening room accurately transfer the EXACT sound of the original performance to some type of portable media and from there, EXACTLY reproduce it in one's living room. It's an impossible goal, to be sure. One only has to listen to live music to know how far we are from that goal, regardless of how good or how much money our audio systems cost. That being said, the difference between perfect reproduction and what we CAN achieve leaves lots of room for euphonic colorations that might give one a greater "illusion" of some aspect of reality to some people than a non euphonically colored presentation would do. But none of that alters the avowed GOAL of high-Fidelity to present an accurate reproduction of the original event and for that, all components must be TRANSPARENT to the original performance, including any and all amplifying stages from the microphone preamp, and or mixer to the analog output stage of the source component(s) to the stereo system's preamp (including phono) through to the power amplifier powering the speakers. Whatever. The reality these days is that the audio industry, to a greater or lesser degree seems to have converged upon the idea of making amplifiers as transparent as possible. That looks to be the current fashion. I used to love tube amps and the rich velvety sound they produced. But as my other components (like CD players, record decks, speakers, etc) became more and more transparent, I started to notice that Solid State amps that I used to turn my nose up at gave a sound that was MUCH closer to reality than my much loved VTL 140 monoblocks and my highly touted Audio Research SP11. I sold them both last year and bought a squeaky clean Harmon Kardon HK990 Integrated amp!. With it's built-in 24/192 DAC, and it's room/speaker-equalizing DSP, I'm now getting performances from my best recordings that are much more palpably real than anything I got from my expensive, euphonic tube gear. We live and learn, I guess. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:38 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): Neither does anyone's preference for more accurate amplifiers. The amplifiers I like that add euphonic distortions are in fact amplifiers. You can't redefine them out of existance. They are real, I have one, It works and it sounds terrific. And it is an amplifier. Just not a very accurate one. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:41 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 15, 6:31=A0am, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an ideal amplifier is. =A0The high-end industry may well understand something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =A0The high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art: it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =A0See here for a definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng...ses/En123/Lec= tures/A... If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something different, fine. =A0But Mr. Empire is correct. If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals. Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers. You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition of an amplifier. I agree, but in the OP, I wasn't describing some boutique amplifier designed to purposely color the sound. I was describing the TECHNICALLY IDEAL amplifier from an engineering standpoint. No one is attacking you for preferring an amplifier that is purposely "euphonically" colored. If that's your taste, have at at! |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:52:59 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned, and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure. I doubt the Maggies are much different from Apogee speakers in this regard, and I destroyed a relatively low powered amp on mine. I use two Classe Audio 100wpc into 8 ohms stereo amps to drive my Apogees, one channel for the bass panel and one for the mid and treble ribbons. They seem to be able to handle pretty much any material. I used to own a pair of Apogee Duetto IIs. I didn't find them difficult to drive at all. My VTL-140 monoblocks (in the triode mode) produced 60 watts/channel and it drove the Apogees very well. I also had a pair of Maggie 3.6's for a while. They were a lot more power hungry than the Apogees. The Maggies never sounded right at high SPLs with the VTLs in the triode mode, but they sang at high SPLs in the Ultra-Linear mode (140 Watts each). |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:01 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , August Karlstrom wrote: That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ereo-Integrate d- Amplifier http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?op...d=16&Itemi d= 32 August For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out. Really? I wouldn't have thought that the Apogees were such a difficult load that they would "blow out" a tube amp!! There are people who have trained themselves to pick up very subtle nuances in the sound, but frankly, I don't think they are in it for the music. For somebody who used to listen to scratch 78s, modern systems are pretty much universally wonderful. I don't think you can make a universal statement like that. I think most so-called "Golden Ears" just want their audio systems to sound as good as possible given current technology in order to let more of the music get through. Although, having said that, I will admit that I have known audiophiles in my time who were more interested in the sound than in music. But they were rare. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 16, 2:30=A0pm, jwvm wrote:
On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:02:48 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:On Mar 16, 2:43= =A0am, Robert wrote: so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have neverauditione= d a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorationsof the amp I a= lready have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks whocan't get past the arbi= trary choice of accuracy for the sake ofaccuracy are the ones who are stuc= k. You are free to use whatever amplifier you want and with whatever non-ide= al properties that you think are good. However, such an amplifier fails to = measure up when compared to the technical definition of an ideal amplifer. = Whether or not you find that such an amplifier meets your needs, you need t= o understand the technical definition of perfection. Perhaps you need to understand the nature of the concept of perfection. Perfection is a goal or an abstract model. Goals are subjective and determined by human values. human values when it comes to all things that are aesthetic in nature are personal. You you are just as free as I am to want whatever properties in an amplifier that *you* think are good. But you don't get to determine the ideal for the rest of the world. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 16, 4:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:11 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Mar 15, 4:09=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not ideal. I do get to tell you the definition of an "ideal" amplifier. Sorry no you don't. I.E. one that is "perfect". perfect is an abstract that requires a person to subjectively select a *desired* state of being or goal. That you don't want a "perfect" amplifier, and prefer one that alters the signal fed to it is none of my business and definitely beyond = my interest. IOW, I don't care what you want. I was merely answering the question. So don't kill the messenger. I'm not killing the messanger just correcting his eroneous message. =A0We are just going round and round. If distortion makes something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like than it is better by my ideals. Your ideals have nothing to do with the definition of an "ideal" amplifie= r. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 16, 4:37=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:41 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Mar 15, 6:31=3DA0am, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an ideal amplifier is. =3DA0The high-end industry may well understand something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =3DA0T= he high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art: it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =3DA0See here f= or a definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng...ourses/En123/= Lec=3D tures/A... If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something different, fine. =3DA0But Mr. Empire is correct. If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals. Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers. You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition of an amplifier. I agree, Great, it was a lot of work but I guess I made my point to at least one person. but in the OP, I wasn't describing some boutique amplifier designed to purposely color the sound. I was describing the TECHNICALLY IDEAL amplifier from an engineering standpoint. No one is attacking you for preferring an amplifier that is purposely "euphonically" colored. If that= 's your taste, have at at! Semantic argument. You agreed with what I said about ideals and then you talk about technically ideal amplifiers in universal terms? You may as well talk about universally objective favorite colors or flavors. They are no more reall than any other mythical creature. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On 3/17/2012 2:15 PM, Scott wrote:
No I am arguing with you. Are you a dictionary? Can you show me any real dictionary that defines an "ideal amplifier" as one with no audible colorations? Show me any real dictionary that offers that definition to that *specific* term (ideal amplifier) and I will concede the point. Try this: http://accessscience.com/content/Vol...fier/735700#S1 Doug McDonald |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 17, 1:16=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/17/2012 2:15 PM, Scott wrote: No I am arguing with you. Are you a dictionary? Can you show me any real dictionary that defines an "ideal amplifier" as one with no audible colorations? Show me any real dictionary that offers that definition to that *specific* term (ideal amplifier) =A0and I will concede the point. Try this:http://accessscience.com/content/Vol...fier/735700#S1 It was a pretty good shot only that it missed on both criteria. 1. That it needs to be an actual real dictionary. 2. That it has to define the specific term "ideal amplifier." |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 16, 11:03=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 15, 6:31?am, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*Ta= ste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what anid= eal amplifier is. ?The high-endindustry may well understandsomething diff= erent, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. ?Thehigh-endindustry ab= uses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:it= 's something you would be likely to learninEE 101. ?See here for adefinit= ion:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng.../Lectures/A..= .. If youinstead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as somethingdif= ferent, fine. ?But Mr. Empire is correct. If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals areinherentlypersona= l then there is nothing more to talk about. Your idealamplifier is one tha= t does not audibly alter theinput other than toincrease the amplitude. My = ideal amplifer is the one that nets themost life like and pleasing resulti= nmy system with a wide variety ofsource material. Those are both *personal= * ideals. You're not really addressing my point. You're not addressing my point that ideals are inherently personal in nature. =A0The ideal amplifier is a well-understood thing. =A0It's discussed very = earlyinevery EE course.There is no dispute about ideal amplifiersinEE. One small bubble does not represent the real world in it's entirety. =A0It's not a matterof anyone's personal ideals, it's a matter of a well-= defined notion in engineering Sorry but the opinions of a small subset of people in the world of audio do not get to redefine basic understood terms. Aplifiers with euphonic colorations are still amplifiers and ideals are not set for the world at large by some click. A similar notion is the ideal beam, which is the one with the leastcross-= sectional area (and hence requiring the least material) needed to achieve a given section modulus. [1] Would you stand up and objectincl= ass, saying "that's not *my* ideal beam! =A0I like them bigger." Maybe you would. =A0But you'd be wrong. Yet another bad analogy. Audio quality is judged by aesthetics. With aesthetic judgments come personal ideals. There are some who share your ideals there are some who sharemine. Ther= e are others with their own ideals that are completelydifferent than eithe= r of us. It is possible to be wrong about this. =A0This isn't like preferring Mahler to Beethoven. actually it is just like that. Both are preferences based on aesthetic value judgments. But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste andgoal= s. =A0Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations areamplifiers. They are mar= keted as such and used as such. That'sbecasue they are amplifiers. =A0You = can't wish them out of existanceby trying to alter the defenition of an am= plifier. I'm not. =A0I'm trying to explainthe ideal amplifier to you. And you have explained *your* idea of the the ideal amplifier. I do understand it I just don't accept *your* ideals as universal. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:15:52 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 16, 4:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:11 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Mar 15, 4:09=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not ideal. I do get to tell you the definition of an "ideal" amplifier. Sorry no you don't. I.E. one that is "perfect". perfect is an abstract that requires a person to subjectively select a *desired* state of being or goal. That you don't want a "perfect" amplifier, and prefer one that alters the signal fed to it is none of my business and definitely beyond = my interest. IOW, I don't care what you want. I was merely answering the question. So don't kill the messenger. I'm not killing the messanger just correcting his eroneous message. You don't get to make up definitions of technical terms any more than you get to make up definitions for dictionary words. =A0We are just going round and round. If distortion makes something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like than it is better by my ideals. Your ideals have nothing to do with the definition of an "ideal" amplifie= r. a persons *Ideals* have nothing to do with an *ideal*(fill in the blank). OK.....I would hope the failed logic there would be self evident You still fail to understand that the definition of an ideal amplifier IS NOT MY IDEAL, it's a TECHNICAL TERM that's already defined. It has nothing to do with taste! Ideal Amplifier: An amplifier which is perfect in that it adds nothing to and detracts nothing from the signal that it is amplifying. A straight wire with gain. If you can't get this through your skull then the problem is yours, not mine. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:16:38 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ): On 3/17/2012 2:15 PM, Scott wrote: No I am arguing with you. Are you a dictionary? Can you show me any real dictionary that defines an "ideal amplifier" as one with no audible colorations? Show me any real dictionary that offers that definition to that *specific* term (ideal amplifier) and I will concede the point. Try this: http://accessscience.com/content/Vol...fier/735700#S1 Doug McDonald Precisely. Apparently no one can make Scott understand that "Ideal amplifier" is an accepted technical term with a precise meaning. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with taste. Also, While I am not a dictionary, I'm perfectly capable of using and quoting one, which, apparently, Scott is not. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:16:27 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 16, 4:37=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:41 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Mar 15, 6:31=3DA0am, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an ideal amplifier is. =3DA0The high-end industry may well understand something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =3DA0T= he high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art: it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =3DA0See here f= or a definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng...ourses/En123/= Lec=3D tures/A... If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something different, fine. =3DA0But Mr. Empire is correct. If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals. Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers. You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition of an amplifier. I agree, Great, it was a lot of work but I guess I made my point to at least one person. but in the OP, I wasn't describing some boutique amplifier designed to purposely color the sound. I was describing the TECHNICALLY IDEAL amplifier from an engineering standpoint. No one is attacking you for preferring an amplifier that is purposely "euphonically" colored. If that= 's your taste, have at at! Semantic argument. You agreed with what I said about ideals and then you talk about technically ideal amplifiers in universal terms? You may as well talk about universally objective favorite colors or flavors. They are no more reall than any other mythical creature. I'm going to try one more time. I realize that it's hopeless and I'm talking to a wall, but for the last time: The term "Ideal amplifier" is a TECHNICAL TERM with a precise definition. It might not be YOUR ideal amplifier, it might not be MY ideal amplifier, but it is a real, concrete and defined technical term. As several, people have told you, the term means an amplifier which increases the amplitude of the signal fed to it without altering it in any other way. PERIOD! End of Story! |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Saturday, March 17, 2012 7:06:32 AM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
snip =20 Perhaps you need to understand the nature of the concept of perfection. Perfection is a goal or an abstract model. Goals are subjective and determined by human values. human values when it comes to all things that are aesthetic in nature are personal. You you are just as free as I am to want whatever properties in an amplifier that *you* think are good. But you don't get to determine the ideal for the rest of the world. The reason that there is so much controversy here is because you are using = a term that has a distinct engineering meaning that is universally recogni= zed by those with a technical background. As many have already noted, an id= eal amplifier is one that introduces no distortion and provides voltage gai= n or current gain or perhaps both. If you used a term like superb or peerle= ss to describe your idea of perfection, you could move the discussion on to= cover new ground. Calling your amplifier ideal simply violates the fundame= ntal knowledge and understanding of many other posters here. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Scott wrote:
On Mar 15, 4:09 pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. Amplifiers can certainly be built (either purposely or not) to add euphonic colorations to the sound. Speaker cables and interconnects can be built using external components to act as fixed filters too in order to suppress some portion of the audio spectrum to "enhance" some other portion. But just as such cables are no longer merely conductors, euphonic amplifiers are no longer proper amplifiers. An ideal amplifier is one that should, by the standard definition found in almost any electronic engineering textbook, increases the amplitude of any signal fed to it without adding or taking away anything from the original signal. IOW, whether you like euphonic colorations or not, euphonic colorations are distortion, and distortion is something. ideally, to be avoided as much as possible. Modern solid state amps have reduced distortion to vanishingly low levels at practically all price points in audio. Without distortion and without large frequency response aberrations, there is little to keep modern amps from sounding pretty much alike, and in any of the DBTs to which I have been privy, they do. That doesn't mean that there can't be and won't be SOME differences, but it does mean that they are generally trivial (under normal listening conditions) and difficult to hear even in a carefully set up DBT. Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not ideal. Sorry, but would you also argue that your ideal "circle" has major and minor radii differing by a factor 1.2378651? We are just going round and round. Because you won't agree to common definitions. Circle is a circle and amplifier is an amplifier. Circle is not al ellipse nor oval however pleasing one might look like and amplifier is not an signal processor nor grpahical corrector (while one of the later typically contains amplifying circuits). If distortion makes something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like than it is better by my ideals. Life like is not distorted per definition. Accuracy just for the sake of accuracy serves no purpose in audio. Yet it does. It's the basis of High Fidelity. Not the word "Fidelity" not "illusion". Accuracy's only value is in so far as it serves the aesthetics of sound the system produces. If euphonic colorations better serve the aestheics then that is my preference and my ideal. If you prefer accuracy for the sake of accuracy and not for the sake of it's actual real world aesthetic value that is an ideal you are free to hold. But it is not a universal truth. It is a personal choice and one I can't relate to. But what all of that has anything to common definition of an amplifier? No one prevents you from using any signal "improvers" you want in your audio system. But they're not ideal amplifiers while they might contain amplifying circuits. rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: I used to own a pair of Apogee Duetto IIs. I didn't find them difficult to drive at all. My VTL-140 monoblocks (in the triode mode) produced 60 watts/channel and it drove the Apogees very well. I also had a pair of Maggie 3.6's for a while. They were a lot more power hungry than the Apogees. The Maggies never sounded right at high SPLs with the VTLs in the triode mode, but they sang at high SPLs in the Ultra-Linear mode (140 Watts each). That sounds about right. It has been a really long time, but I seem to recall Apogee recommended 100wpc for the Divas. I'm sure almost anything would work at relatively low levels, but you need the extra capacity when you want to crank them up. My setup is probably overkill but I would rather have too much than not enough. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out. Really? I wouldn't have thought that the Apogees were such a difficult load that they would "blow out" a tube amp!! It was solid state. Maybe the 70 is wrong. It has been a while. I once had Dyna tube amps but not when I owned the Duvas. There are people who have trained themselves to pick up very subtle nuances in the sound, but frankly, I don't think they are in it for the music. For somebody who used to listen to scratch 78s, modern systems are pretty much universally wonderful. I don't think you can make a universal statement like that. I think most so-called "Golden Ears" just want their audio systems to sound as good as possible given current technology in order to let more of the music get through. Although, having said that, I will admit that I have known audiophiles in my time who were more interested in the sound than in music. But they were rare. You are probably correct. That's just my impression from the people I have met and I haven't met them all, only a very small sub-set. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: I used to own a pair of Apogee Duetto IIs. I didn't find them difficult to drive at all. My VTL-140 monoblocks (in the triode mode) produced 60 watts/channel and it drove the Apogees very well. I also had a pair of Maggie 3.6's for a while. They were a lot more power hungry than the Apogees. The Maggies never sounded right at high SPLs with the VTLs in the triode mode, but they sang at high SPLs in the Ultra-Linear mode (140 Watts each). That sounds about right. It has been a really long time, but I seem to recall Apogee recommended 100wpc for the Divas. I'm sure almost anything would work at relatively low levels, but you need the extra capacity when you want to crank them up. My setup is probably overkill but I would rather have too much than not enough. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:57:53 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out. Really? I wouldn't have thought that the Apogees were such a difficult load that they would "blow out" a tube amp!! It was solid state. Maybe the 70 is wrong. It has been a while. I once had Dyna tube amps but not when I owned the Duvas. OK, that makes a lot more sense. Bet it was a Dynaco Stereo 120, or perhaps a Stereo 80. Both were early SS designs and both were extremely fragile. Dynaco had to hand select the output transistors for V sub CE (IIRC). If you replaced blown ones with off-the-shelf 2N3055s, instead of ordering replacements directly from Dyna, more likely than not, they would blow instantly when the power was re-applied. Later in the Stereo 120's life, they changed to a different output transistor and different complementary drivers and then they didn't self-destruct so often. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Scott wrote:
On Mar 16, 11:03?am, Andrew Haley wrote: You're not really addressing my point. You're not addressing my point that ideals are inherently personal in nature. The ideal amplifier is a well-understood thing. It's discussed very early in every EE course. There is no dispute about ideal amplifiers in EE. One small bubble does not represent the real world in it's entirety. Surely it is not unreasonable to use conventional electronic engineering terminology when discussing electronic devices, whatever these devices are used for. It's not a matter of anyone's personal ideals, it's a matter of a well-defined notion in engineering Sorry but the opinions of a small subset of people in the world of audio do not get to redefine basic understood terms. But that "small subset" is precisely the group of people who understand how the technology works. Amplifiers with euphonic colorations are still amplifiers and ideals are not set for the world at large by some click. This is, I suppose, a philosophical question: is it better to use engineering terminology as defined by engineers or by the marketing departments of high-end companies? And, even if you don't use conventional engineering terminology, is it reasonable to for you to object to those who do? And you have explained *your* idea of the the ideal amplifier. I do understand it I just don't accept *your* ideals as universal. Again, it's not *my* ideal. Andrew. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On 20 Mar 2012 23:12:55 GMT "Audio Empire"
wrote in article OK, that makes a lot more sense. Bet it was a Dynaco Stereo 120, or perhaps a Stereo 80. Both were early SS designs and both were extremely fragile. Dynaco had to hand select the output transistors for V sub CE (IIRC). If you replaced blown ones with off-the-shelf 2N3055s, instead of ordering replacements directly from Dyna, more likely than not, they would blow instantly when the power was re-applied. Later in the Stereo 120's life, they changed to a different output transistor and different complementary drivers and then they didn't self-destruct so often. I still have a ST120 that I built in the early 70's. I turn it on every year or so in an attempt to save the electrolytic caps. It still works just fine though it hasn't been my primary amp for decades. I've used it for sound reinforcement for years at our village's Halloween haunted house, where it's called upon to run nearly flat-out for hours on end into parallel'd (nominally) 8-ohm speakers...sometimes 3 in parallel! |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:26:10 -0700, Jason wrote
(in article ): On 20 Mar 2012 23:12:55 GMT "Audio Empire" wrote in article OK, that makes a lot more sense. Bet it was a Dynaco Stereo 120, or perhaps a Stereo 80. Both were early SS designs and both were extremely fragile. Dynaco had to hand select the output transistors for V sub CE (IIRC). If you replaced blown ones with off-the-shelf 2N3055s, instead of ordering replacements directly from Dyna, more likely than not, they would blow instantly when the power was re-applied. Later in the Stereo 120's life, they changed to a different output transistor and different complementary drivers and then they didn't self-destruct so often. I still have a ST120 that I built in the early 70's. I turn it on every year or so in an attempt to save the electrolytic caps. It still works just fine though it hasn't been my primary amp for decades. I've used it for sound reinforcement for years at our village's Halloween haunted house, where it's called upon to run nearly flat-out for hours on end into parallel'd (nominally) 8-ohm speakers...sometimes 3 in parallel! Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120. it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors in the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and barely do-able. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion. After they went to a more robust set of drivers/output transistors and biased the amps more into class "A-B", the amp sounded OK (by the solid-state standards of the day) and was pretty bullet-proof as you point out. I had an early one that I built from a kit and it would go through a set of output transistors and complementary driver transistors sourced from Dynaco at least twice a year. At the time, the amp was driving a pair of Dynaco A-50 speakers - If anything should have been a decent match for the amp, they should have been it. When I later replaced the ST120 with a Harmon-Kardon Citation 12, the H-K sounded so much cleaner than the Dyna, that I thought it was a revelation. It wasn't of course, it was just an amp biased far enough into class "A" to not have crossover distortion. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Audio Empire wrote:
Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120. it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors in the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and barely do-able. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion. To be technically accurate, Class B operation is not a region or continuum, it is a very specific bias point where the conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees. Pushing it further than that is not "so far into class B", it's into class C operation. The definitions of biasing classes in push-pull amplifiers goes as follows: Class A Conduction angle is 360 deg, all devices conduct continuously Class AB Conduction angle less than 360 deg, but greater than 180 degrees, some portion of the signal range is handled by both devices, while outside that range either one side or the other handles the signal Class B Conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees: only one side or the other is handling the signal, with the transition from one side to the other occuring at the zero crossing. Class C Conduction angle is less than 180 degrees: a portion of the signal is handled by one device or the other, while some portion of the signal centerd around the zero crossing is not handled at all. Now all that being said, while it may seem that any class A, AB or (theoretically perfect) class B amplifier should be devoid of crossover distortion, in practice this is simply not the case. One of the assumptions is that the devices work either as perfectly linear through their operating range, or as perfect square-law devices, with no turn-on lag or hysteresis of any sort, of which there is no such device in practice. I have seen heavily over-biased tube amplifiers (almost in class A) exhibiting clear evidence of crossover (more accurately, zero-crossing) anomolies, and I have seen very well-behaved lightly biased (almost at class B) with much less. The early Dyna 120's had all sort of problems, and biasing was merely tone of the more obvious. Now, as an aside, one of the simplest ways of dramatically reducing the audible consequences of crossover distortion was to simply shift the operating point of the amplifier up or down so that the crossover did not occur at 0 volts, but rather at some other point, maybe like a volt or two. The result was that at low signal levels, there was no crossover, since the signal never crosses the boundary. When the signal level gets high enough to hit the crossover non-linearity, the signal, well, almost by definition, is high enough that the amount of distortion products produced by the crossover distortion is a very small portion of the total signal. It's a technique that has been used for many decades in other applications where low-level linearity is very important. It just seemed to never have occurred to anyone in the audio business, and, when it has been suggested to more than one high-end amplifier "designer," they would stumble all over themselves trying to figre out why it just had to be a bad idea, without having a clue what they were talking about. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:05:30 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120. it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors in the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and barely do-able. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion. To be technically accurate, Class B operation is not a region or continuum, it is a very specific bias point where the conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees. Pushing it further than that is not "so far into class B", it's into class C operation. The definitions of biasing classes in push-pull amplifiers goes as follows: Class A Conduction angle is 360 deg, all devices conduct continuously Class AB Conduction angle less than 360 deg, but greater than 180 degrees, some portion of the signal range is handled by both devices, while outside that range either one side or the other handles the signal Class B Conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees: only one side or the other is handling the signal, with the transition from one side to the other occuring at the zero crossing. Class C Conduction angle is less than 180 degrees: a portion of the signal is handled by one device or the other, while some portion of the signal centerd around the zero crossing is not handled at all. Now all that being said, while it may seem that any class A, AB or (theoretically perfect) class B amplifier should be devoid of crossover distortion, in practice this is simply not the case. One of the assumptions is that the devices work either as perfectly linear through their operating range, or as perfect square-law devices, with no turn-on lag or hysteresis of any sort, of which there is no such device in practice. I have seen heavily over-biased tube amplifiers (almost in class A) exhibiting clear evidence of crossover (more accurately, zero-crossing) anomolies, and I have seen very well-behaved lightly biased (almost at class B) with much less. The early Dyna 120's had all sort of problems, and biasing was merely tone of the more obvious. Now, as an aside, one of the simplest ways of dramatically reducing the audible consequences of crossover distortion was to simply shift the operating point of the amplifier up or down so that the crossover did not occur at 0 volts, but rather at some other point, maybe like a volt or two. The result was that at low signal levels, there was no crossover, since the signal never crosses the boundary. When the signal level gets high enough to hit the crossover non-linearity, the signal, well, almost by definition, is high enough that the amount of distortion products produced by the crossover distortion is a very small portion of the total signal. It's a technique that has been used for many decades in other applications where low-level linearity is very important. It just seemed to never have occurred to anyone in the audio business, and, when it has been suggested to more than one high-end amplifier "designer," they would stumble all over themselves trying to figre out why it just had to be a bad idea, without having a clue what they were talking about. To be fair, I think that most of us know that. when speaking about "biasing into class -B" I merely mean biasing to the point where there is no class A or class A-B operation at any signal level. And Dyna did, eventually, fix the ST120 and the ST80 so that they no longer exhibited the crossover notch for which they were so notorious. They also did eventually go to more robust driver and output transistors and later ST120s did become very versatile work-horse amps. (I once knew a sound reinforcement guy who used a stack of them for years. He swore by them). Unfortunately for Dynaco, the early amps had such a bad reputation, that it soured many an audiophile on the company's solid-state amplifiers. Also yesterday, I said that the ST-120 came out in 1967. I was wrong, the amp was introduced in 1966 and I built mine in late 1967. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120. That's questionable, based on comparison with competitive products. The amp was atypical in at least 2 ways. (1) Regulated power supply (2) Driver transistor bases connected together with bias applied through the emitters. Normal was emitters connected together and bias applied through the bases. Looks to me like someone wanted to avoid the possibility of paying royalties for using the more common Lin circuit http://home.comcast.net/~g.e.dunn/ST120/schem1.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~g.e.dunn/ST120/schem2.jpg it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors in the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and barely do-able. Agreed. Price was also an issue. The Dyna 120 was origionally built with 2N3055 outputs, but it didn't become really reliable until it was upgraded to 2N3772s. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion. Didn't happen with good Dyna 120s, of which I happen to own one and have bench tested it. Mine has the later output transistors, but was factory-built that way. After they went to a more robust set of drivers/output transistors and biased the amps more into class "A-B", the amp sounded OK (by the solid-state standards of the day) and was pretty bullet-proof as you point out. I'd like to find out what the documented differences were for the early 120s. I had an early one that I built from a kit and it would go through a set of output transistors and complementary driver transistors sourced from Dynaco at least twice a year. At the time, the amp was driving a pair of Dynaco A-50 speakers - If anything should have been a decent match for the amp, they should have been it. Agreed. When I later replaced the ST120 with a Harmon-Kardon Citation 12, the H-K sounded so much cleaner than the Dyna, that I thought it was a revelation. It wasn't of course, it was just an amp biased far enough into class "A" to not have crossover distortion. The Citation 12 was a later generation device, which enhanced the Lin circuit by upgrading to a differential input stage. Please see figure 5 at http://cygnus.ipal.org/mirror/www.pa...s/citation.pdf |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:58:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion. Didn't happen with good Dyna 120s, of which I happen to own one and have bench tested it. Mine has the later output transistors, but was factory-built that way. A minor quibble, here. You mean it didn't happen with LATER 120's. It was not a matter that some examples exhibited crossover distortion and some did not. Up until about 1971-72, all ST120s exhibited the characteristic. In the mid-1970's I was acquainted with Bob Orban (founder of Parasound and the manufacturer of the Orban Optimod FM limiter/compressor/modulator). He said that he had tested literally dozens of ST120s (including mine) and not found a one manufactured before about 1972 that didn't have crossover distortion. After they went to a more robust set of drivers/output transistors and biased the amps more into class "A-B", the amp sounded OK (by the solid-state standards of the day) and was pretty bullet-proof as you point out. I'd like to find out what the documented differences were for the early 120s. Seems to me that I posted that info here the last time we had a discussion about this component. I don't remember where I found it, but there was a list of parts on some web-page showing what Dyna replaced. Seems to me that the complete 'mod' consisted of a couple of resistors, capacitors and a couple of chokes (don't quote me on the chokes, I could be mixing this up with something else). Obviously, it would be the resistors that would change the bias point on the output switching... I had an early one that I built from a kit and it would go through a set of output transistors and complementary driver transistors sourced from Dynaco at least twice a year. At the time, the amp was driving a pair of Dynaco A-50 speakers - If anything should have been a decent match for the amp, they should have been it. Agreed. When I later replaced the ST120 with a Harmon-Kardon Citation 12, the H-K sounded so much cleaner than the Dyna, that I thought it was a revelation. It wasn't of course, it was just an amp biased far enough into class "A" to not have crossover distortion. The Citation 12 was a later generation device, which enhanced the Lin circuit by upgrading to a differential input stage. But, IIRC, it still used a pair of complementary drivers and NPN outputs, like the ST120 (seemed to me that they were still 2N3055s, but I could be misremembering here, I haven't laid eyes on that amp for 35 years). Please see figure 5 at http://cygnus.ipal.org/mirror/www.pa...s/citation.pdf Thanks. Yes, I see what they did. Q6 and Q7 have the number 40636 next to them. Is that an H-K part number? Doesn't sound like any transistor number with which I'm familiar. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Much So-Called Digital Ringing Debunked | High End Audio | |||
Downloads home · Trial downloads · Updates · Exchange · | Pro Audio | |||
High - end downloads wma -> dvd-A | High End Audio | |||
McCarty BULLSHIT debunked - affidavits on file | Marketplace | |||
Free MANUAL downloads Vintage Audio Radio | Vacuum Tubes |