"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
...
When somebody pegs my bull**** meter, I say let's see some proof, not for
Porky's sake, but for
anyone reading this and thinking they're getting the straight dope from a
knowledgable guy. To assume that something is logical because it sounds
logical
is just deluding yourself. You're right that the consequences seem minor,
but
I'll take fact over fiction anyday. Facts are easily proven and reliable.
Fiction is that long list of subjects that Porky "doesn't need to prove
because
it's true".

Perhaps your bull**** meter needs re-calibration, CW. I don't see any
point in providing proof for items that are common knowledge to anyone in
the field. Like, for example, that amplifiers are rated using resistive
loads.
I've made it clear in the past that my posts are aimed at those in
alt.music.home-studio, and I don't always notice the crossposting. As I
said, anyone crossposting should so state in the subject line to avoid that
situation. As I understand it, crossposting is considered bad manners. If
you want to post to several groups, just cut and paste and address each
group separately.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Arny Krueger spake thus:

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message


Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
living room environment.

Just as surely as response curves are introduced to make studio monitors
sound right to people in a studio monitoring environment.

Now this is something that set of by bull**** meter, and it sounds like
you're giving him a pass on it. The myth this implies is that amplifiers
(I assume we're talking about amps here, not speakers) are somehow tweaked
and tuned in order to alter their response curves to make them more
suitable for [fill in blank here].

It just ain't so.

What this implies is that the designer tests the amplifier design, says
"Oh, there's this peak here at 14KHz", then sticks in a notch filter to
compensate for it in the front end. One can imagine an amp with a
super-complex filter to "even out the response curve".

Anyone care to demolish this fantasy?

I never said anything about that, and it is a fantasy.

I even question whether this is really done with speakers, although it
would seem that since they're electromechanical devices, there are ways to
alter the physical shape of the cabinet, etc., to do things to the
response curve. But in amps? No.


This is where everything is getting out of whack. As a general rule,
studio amps are designed to maintain flat response over broader variances of
speaker reactance than are home hifi amps. The published specs have little
or nothing to do with it. There is much that can be done to alter an amp's
response curve, but that is done in the basic design, not in compensatio.
Studio amps usually have output stages that are less affected by speaker
reactance, it's part of the basic design, and it isn't always a
consideration in home hifi amp design..

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:54:06 -0500, "Mike Rieves"
wrote:

Personally, I have studio monitor speakers and JBL home speakers in my
studio. If I'm doing a mix for someone, I mix on the monitors, then listen
back on the JBL's to get an idea of what the mix will sound like in in a
living room.

How do JBLs in your studio tell you how they will sound in a living
room?

They are a decent pair of home hifi speakers with coloration typical of a
home hifi speaker. The sound is fairly typical of what one might find in a
fairly dead small living room. You cut out the part where I said that I burn
a CD and also try it out in my living room and in my car. Would that be
because if you hadn't, you couldn't have criticized me for using the JBL's?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:

The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for
those
who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well.
There
are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some
of
them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as
low-priced as the Alesis.

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes
something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

Sure, but all those companies make studio amps, I was talking about the
Alesis vs home hifi amps, since that was the topic of thios thread.

No. None of thsoe companies make studio amps. I am talking about home
hi fi amps.

Take another look, dude.

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
| ...
| snip
| A few months ago you were arguing (as if you knew) that high end preamps
| introduce response curves in order to make microphones sound different
| than the
| mic you paid for, as if this was desirable, and now you're claiming that
| this is
| somehow undesirable for "studio" equipment. I submit to you that it's
| totally
| undesirable in either application, and that any deviance is intentionally
| selected by the end user with the ubiquitous tone controls afforded.
|
| I never said it was desirable, I said they do it, and they do, Why else
| would one mic preamp sound different than another when using the same mic?
| That's why I suggested then that one try the preamps out with the same mic
| model he will be using in the studio. Since mic preamps do color the sound,
| it might behoove one to find a preamp that provides coloration that flatters
| the user's voice, if one insists on using a higi-end preamp. I'm sure there
| are preamps that do not color the sound, but I'll bet that they aren't the
| most popular ones.
|
There's no such thing as a perfect electronic circuit ... which is to say that
anything non-trivial is going to color it's output in some undesirable way. But
the only reason that preamps which are the least colorful are less popular is
because they are the most expensive. Accuracy costs.

| This thread is about power amps, not preamps, and I've been proclaiming the
| undesirability of amps that color the sound for this whole thread, that's
| why I suggested that one should select an amp designed for studio use.
| Whether preamps color the sound or not doesn't matter here, if the power
| amps and speakers do not color the sound, then the user can hear the
| coloration annd make allowances for it. If the power amps and speakers (and
| room environment) color the sound then other colorations may be masked or
| over-emphasized, making it impossible to get an accurate mix.
|
I agree, this is about amps (though a pre-amp is an important stage in that
chain, we'll leave it behind). In that same vein, speakers and room environment
are not part of this discussion.

|
| There are no response curves that match living rooms because there are no
| such
| things as living rooms that conform to any specification whatsoever.
|
| | Again, specs mean little because of the way they're
| | rated. Amps are rated driving pure resistive load, and when was the last
| | time you saw a speaker that presented a pure resistive load to an amp?
| |
| Now here's where you rankle my wrinkles, when you go off with that
| attitude that
| you know something that nobody else knows as if you had the slightest
| knowledge.
|
| It is, or should be, common knowledge that amps are rated when driving pure
| resistive loads and that speakers are reactive loads, this isn't something
| "nobody else knows", it should be something that everybody who deals with
| the subject in any way knows. though apparently it's not common knowledge
| here.
|
Anything that should be "common knowledge" should have abundant common reference
material. My claim is that anyone who says everybody should know something can
easily cite reference so that everyone literally can know. It's easy to say
everyone should know, but without some proof that everyone can see ... it's mere
talk.

| Since you make this sweeping generalization as an absolute, you can
| probably
| easily prove that in all cases, consumer equipment is rated with purely
| resistive loads, which you know and nobody else does, but let's be
| practical.
| I'm sure you can produce documentary evidence from any two name brand
| manufacturers that they strictly measure their consumer products using
| pure
| resistive loads (and of course, they never do that with their professional
| products). You'll be able to get part numbers for those resistors (They're
| huge
| with part numbers in large print) and you'll be able to provide a
| manufacturers
| spec sheet for those resistive loads showing that they have no inductive
| component. Further, your contacts in these labs (whom you know well enough
| that
| they keep you informed of their test techniques) will provide you with
| documentation showing the steps they adhere to in order to prevent any
| stray
| capacitance from introducing any reactive component on thier test
| specifications.
|
| All of them rate their amps when driving purely resistive loads, and
| those are the ratings they publish, they are the ratings listed in the
| owners' manuals and in the advertisements for the product. However, some
| manufacturers of studio equipment and high-end consumer audio equipment also
| make available white papers which discuss the amps' characteristics when
| driving reactive loads, but you don't see them for the average home hifi
| amp. The dummy loads used by the manufacturers are simply big power
| resistors calibrated to a specific resistance, any reactive components are
| so low as to be inconsequential. Back when the FTC specified how power amps
| were to be rated, resistive dummy loads were specified in the rules.
|
You've pegged my bull**** meter again. You continue with the claim that I
encourage you to back up in any meaningful way, but then, as if to add credence
to your claim, you state that the FTC has set rules for how Power amps are to be
tested. I have to laugh because there couldn't be a less qualified standards
comittee than the FTC when it comes to EE, nor could there be an industry less
deserving of government oversight. But my laughter is likely shortlived since
this is a claim you will have little trouble documenting with an easy web
reference ... I look forward to being made a fool in this regard.

| Or, more likely, you'll hem and haw and tell me that your sister dated a
| guy
| who's cousin lived next door to someone who knew someone who worked for
| someone
| that had a contract once with a guy that drove Harmon and Kardon to the
| airport
| in 1967, and your sister said he said she said he thought he overheard
| someone
| say something about something that the driver thought he may have
| rememberd
| about something he thought she said he said ......
|
| Now you're just being a jerk, CW.
|
I'll admit that I'm being harsh, but I hope you can see that I'm just describing
your typical modus operandi. You have a tendency to claim knowledge of facts,
but to my knowledge, you've never shown any proof when asked to do so. The
slightest proof would shut me right up (and make me leery of questioning you in
the future).

| Or even better [insert comments here].
|
| | Home
| | speakers are anything but flat, they boost things here and there to make
| | them sound good.
| |
| And the same is true for ALL speaker systems. You can't afford a speaker
| system
| that will accurately track the frequency response of a $300 radio shack
| HiFi
| amplifier (and you'd be wasting money if you tried).
|
| However, speakers designed for studio monitor use are designed to
| minimize any coloration, that's what studio monitors are all about.
|
That's true of quality home speakers as well.

| | "Forgiving" is a term often mentioned by reviewers of home
| | equipment and it is usually meant as a compliment, "overly analytical"
| is a
| | term often used as a negative criticism. In the studio, the last thing
| you
| | want is a "forgiving" piece of equipment, and there is no such thing as
| | "overly analytical"
| | I agree that good home hifi equipment is commonly available at
| reasonable
| | prices, but, what is good home hifi and what is good studio are two
| | different things!
| |
| Two different things, but only in a very superficial sense. I would expect
| that
| a home system would have an entirely useless EQ section, and it wouldn't
| break
| my heart to see a studio amp with no EQ section at all. As for
| reproductive
| accuracy of amps with identical wattage ( with both EQ systems set flat )
| good
| luck finding any meaningful difference.
|
| Superficial? Next, I guess you'll be saying that one can use home hifi
| speakers as studio monitor speakers.
|
Absolutely! Quality speakers are quality speakers regardless of the intended
market. I'll put my Cerwin Vegas which were built for a movie theater up against
anything you can produce built for a recording studio, in terms of accuracy. I
doubt they're the best money can buy ... but I sure appreciate 'em.

| | Studio equipment and home equipment have different design criteria, and
| | sometimes those criteria border on being mutually exclusive.
| |
| That's not true (except once again for superficialities). Assuming neither
| is a
| toy, they are both designed to deliver X watts into Y load with as close
| to
| unmeasurable coloration/distortion as you can afford, continuously for
| their
| warranteed life, or your money back. That's what quality amplifiers do.
| The
| silly Bass Treble Mid controls are so the home user feels "In control",
| and the
| rackmount and illumination jack are so the studio user feels "In control".
|
| | If you're only interested in a boombox or a car stereo or an mp3
| player,
| | all
| | bets are off, but if you want accurate reproduction; 1) You know
| better
| | than to
| | buy toys. 2) You'll find the consumer market flooded with excellent
| | choices.
| |
| | This is not to say that pro grade equipment should be avoided for pro
| | sound
| | production applications, but I will go so far as to say that if you
| have
| | quality
| | modern consumer reproduction equipment, you'll have to spend a lot of
| cash
| | to
| | get pro grade equipment that is more accurate in any meaningful sense.
| |
| | (speakers are an exception and should be carefully chosen by ear with
| a
| | guaranteed return policy so that they can be evaluated in their
| intended
| | environ).
| |
| | What I said in the beginning was that the Yamaha M-50 was a decent amp,
| but
| | I wouldn't go out and buy one for use in my studio, and I wouldn't
| recommend
| | that anyone else do so.
| |
| Just because you wouldn't buy one for the studio and wouldn't recommend
| it,
| doesn't make it unusable, or even unviable.
|
| | That apparently started a mini flame war about home
| | vs studio equipment. I also said that if you had one and wanted to use
| it
| | until you could afford something better, that is fine. In home studio,
| not
| | everyone has the budget to buy everything designed for the studio, and I
| | suppose that if one must use home equipment somewhere, the monitor amp
| is as
| | good a place as any to do so, as long is it is of reasonable fidelity.
| |
| That's so condescending. First it assumes that you know better how people
| should
| do things, and then suggests that poor people can make slight compromises
| with
| yuor blessings in rare instances.
|
| Okay, CW, you tell us how it's done.
| There was nothing condesending about what I said. It boils down to, "Use the
| best you can afford until you can afford better.". That's the way I started,
| and there is still much that I'd like to have in the way of studio equipment
| that I can't afford, so how could I be condesending about it.
|
Since you ask, it's really quite simple. When evaluating any piece of kit (in
this case an amplifier) for home studio use, write down all the reasons why the
equipment is unsuitable.
Cross out the line where it says "Mike Rieves said so".
Weigh the rest of the list against your budget and your priorities.
Whatever choice you make at this point is a sensible choice.


| | I
| | also noted that, in my experience, Yamaha Natural Sound equipment was
| | designed to certain psycho-acoustic principles, making it not
| necessarily
| | accurate from a fidelity standpoint.
| |
| And what exactly is your experience with the design of Yamaha equipment?
| Do you
| consult for them, or work full time in their engineering department?
|
| No, but I have used their equipment, I read about the natural sound line
| when they first started it, back in 1969 or 1970, I even ownd one of the
| first Natural Sound products, a Yamaha bass amp with Natural Sound speakers.
| And I have worked with Yamaha technical reps a time or two on sound
| reinforcement.
|
If only that made you a qualified expert.

| | I still say, if you want good home equipment go out and buy home
| equipment,
| | but if you want good studio equipment go out and buy studio equipment.
| |
| This seems like bad advice. Any audiophile (which probably describes
| anyone who
| has a home studio) will never accept garbage for their home system. To an
| audiophile, accuracy is paramount, therefore if a good home system is a
| good
| home system, it's also a good studio monitor amp. There are no substitutes
| for
| quality sound.
|
| Again, there are different requirements for studio monitor systems than
| there are for home hifi systems. and I never said anything a bout home
| systems being garbage. They aren't, they're just designed for a different
| purpose.
|
The differences are well known, but discussing quality gear, accuracy is not
among the differences.

Let's not spend a lot of time at this. If you can provide independent facts
proving your claims, I will respectfully acknowledge them, anything less is just
shooting yourself in the foot.

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
| ...
| When somebody pegs my bull**** meter, I say let's see some proof, not for
| Porky's sake, but for
| anyone reading this and thinking they're getting the straight dope from a
| knowledgable guy. To assume that something is logical because it sounds
| logical
| is just deluding yourself. You're right that the consequences seem minor,
| but
| I'll take fact over fiction anyday. Facts are easily proven and reliable.
| Fiction is that long list of subjects that Porky "doesn't need to prove
| because
| it's true".
|
| Perhaps your bull**** meter needs re-calibration, CW. I don't see any
| point in providing proof for items that are common knowledge to anyone in
| the field. Like, for example, that amplifiers are rated using resistive
| loads.
| I've made it clear in the past that my posts are aimed at those in
| alt.music.home-studio, and I don't always notice the crossposting. As I
| said, anyone crossposting should so state in the subject line to avoid that
| situation. As I understand it, crossposting is considered bad manners. If
| you want to post to several groups, just cut and paste and address each
| group separately.
|
Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,
and for the record, all my posts are from and to Alt music home studio. Though
being cross posted implies that smarter guys than I will set me straight ...
and often do.

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Graham

CWCunningham wrote:

You've pegged my bull**** meter again. You continue with the claim that I
encourage you to back up in any meaningful way, but then, as if to add credence
to your claim, you state that the FTC has set rules for how Power amps are to be
tested. I have to laugh because there couldn't be a less qualified standards
comittee than the FTC when it comes to EE, nor could there be an industry less
deserving of government oversight. But my laughter is likely shortlived since
this is a claim you will have little trouble documenting with an easy web
reference ... I look forward to being made a fool in this regard.

You could try the FTC !

Mike is 100% correct. The FTC introduced this *regulation* in fact to prevent abuse
of such ratings as *music power*.

It's called the 'amplifier rule' btw and was recently updated to take account of
recent new product categories such as powered/active speakers.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/12/amprule.htm


Graham

Mike Rieves wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:

The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for
those
who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well.
There
are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some
of
them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as
low-priced as the Alesis.

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes
something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

Sure, but all those companies make studio amps, I was talking about the
Alesis vs home hifi amps, since that was the topic of thios thread.

No. None of thsoe companies make studio amps. I am talking about home
hi fi amps.

Take another look, dude.

As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely that any
of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps for
home hobby studios not professional ones.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:


As a long time audio professional,


We all have opinions, and long lengths of time just tend to reinforce
these opinions.

The amount of time of your audio professionalism really doesn't interest
me.

CWCunningham wrote:
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message

| However, speakers designed for studio monitor use are designed to
| minimize any coloration, that's what studio monitors are all about.
|
That's true of quality home speakers as well.

I realize that my comment is mere talk but nonetheless I disagree.
The goal of home speaker design is to be as euphonic as possible for
as many people as possible and if that means deviation from objective
accuracy it is not considered a problem.

Contrary to majority opinion I believe that picking studio monitors
based on anything other than objective accuracy is folly. With any
other basis you can easily end up minimizing in the mix exactly what
it is that you most like about any deviations your speaker may have
which suit your taste. Whatever spectral balancing or tweaking is
required to create or reproduce the sound you want should be in the
mix and not in the monitor the mix is evaluated on.

It took me some time to acquire a pleasure listening taste for my
Mackie HR824's (speced and measured to be damned accurate) precisely
because they had no personality that matched my prior notions of what
a "good" speaker sounds like.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
news
Contrary to majority opinion I believe that picking studio monitors
based on anything other than objective accuracy is folly. With any
other basis you can easily end up minimizing in the mix exactly what
it is that you most like about any deviations your speaker may have
which suit your taste. Whatever spectral balancing or tweaking is
required to create or reproduce the sound you want should be in the
mix and not in the monitor the mix is evaluated on.

I'll probably get my ass handed to me on this one, but I see this quest for
accuracy as being like the scene in This Is Spinal Tap where they talk about
the dial going to 11.

In the video world, for example, it's standard procedure to color and
contrast balance the video monitors. In theory the viewer can do the same on
his gear and get a fairly accurate representation of the original (subject,
of course, to the inherent problems their TV might have).

There is no equivalent for audio. There is a huge difference among speakers
used by the average listener. They go from little ear buds to boom boxes to
car stereos to inexpensive home stereos to audiophile gear. The "raw"
reproduction varies greatly. There's no single reference mix for the
end-user like color bars. The room is also a huge factor as is the listening
position.

So, who really hears what the engineer hears?

What's more important: The accuracy of the gear or the engineer's knowledge
in creating a mix that he knows will translate well to various consumer
situations? If an engineer jumps from studio to studio chances are he will
encounter different monitors in different environments. Won't the same mix
sound different in those situations? Perhaps in theory the monitors will
have no coloration, but if that's the case, why are there so many different
choices?

In the books I have read some engineers bring monitors with them. On the
surface it would seem that what's more important to the engineer is
consistency rather than accuracy. Mixing is an art. I would venture to guess
that an engineer strives to create a mix that sounds "right" to him based on
his experience much like a photographer learns what works well for him based
on the camera, lens, settings, and film. What a photographer sees in the
view finder is not always what ends up in the untouched print.

We also hear advice about checking the mix on different systems for
reference. If it sounds "right" on the monitors but "wrong" on the reference
systems, then don't you end up making the mix sound "wrong" on the monitors
to make it sound "right" elsewhere? So in effect the monitors are
"accurately" reproducing something, but you're having to make the mental
adjustment to get the sound you want.

Which leads me back to consistency being more important than accuracy. If
you can learn what the "right" mix should be on your monitors based on
experience, then who cares if your monitors are slightly inaccurate in some
areas?

Let the bashing begin...

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

On Sun, 28 May 2006 16:03:54 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:


Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?

Why do people KEEP asking that? :-)

Laurence Payne spake thus:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 16:03:54 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?

Why do people KEEP asking that? :-)

Sorry 'bout that. I've been having this very annoying problem with my
ISP lately where sometimes messages don't get posted. Note to self:
don't get over-frustrated and re-post the message 17 times.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

As a long time audio professional,

We all have opinions, and long lengths of time just tend to reinforce
these opinions.

If it were an *opinion* you might have apooint. But it's not an opinion, it's
experience.

The amount of time of your audio professionalism really doesn't interest
me.

Maybe it doesn't to you. Sounds to me you're suffering from blinkered thinking.

Graham

Bob Cain wrote:

CWCunningham wrote:
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message

| However, speakers designed for studio monitor use are designed to
| minimize any coloration, that's what studio monitors are all about.
|
That's true of quality home speakers as well.

I realize that my comment is mere talk but nonetheless I disagree.
The goal of home speaker design is to be as euphonic as possible for
as many people as possible and if that means deviation from objective
accuracy it is not considered a problem.

Contrary to majority opinion I believe that picking studio monitors
based on anything other than objective accuracy is folly. With any
other basis you can easily end up minimizing in the mix exactly what
it is that you most like about any deviations your speaker may have
which suit your taste. Whatever spectral balancing or tweaking is
required to create or reproduce the sound you want should be in the
mix and not in the monitor the mix is evaluated on.

It took me some time to acquire a pleasure listening taste for my
Mackie HR824's (speced and measured to be damned accurate) precisely
because they had no personality that matched my prior notions of what
a "good" speaker sounds like.

NS10's are pretty grim too, yet almost universally found in many a studio.

Graham

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot
prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power
amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with reactive
loads. What say you to this?

That is NOT what I said at all, I said amps are rated, that is the
measurements for their published specs are made, using resistive loads.
NOTHING was said about them being designed using resistive loads, except by
you. Read what is written before posting!

Jim Carr wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
news
Contrary to majority opinion I believe that picking studio monitors
based on anything other than objective accuracy is folly. With any
other basis you can easily end up minimizing in the mix exactly what
it is that you most like about any deviations your speaker may have
which suit your taste. Whatever spectral balancing or tweaking is
required to create or reproduce the sound you want should be in the
mix and not in the monitor the mix is evaluated on.

I'll probably get my ass handed to me on this one, but I see this quest for
accuracy as being like the scene in This Is Spinal Tap where they talk about
the dial going to 11.

In the video world, for example, it's standard procedure to color and
contrast balance the video monitors. In theory the viewer can do the same on
his gear and get a fairly accurate representation of the original (subject,
of course, to the inherent problems their TV might have).

There is no equivalent for audio. There is a huge difference among speakers
used by the average listener.

That's because the average listener doesn't use an equalised monitor system.

The equivalent of your colour balanced monitor is the totally colured NS10 or
Auratone used for reference monitoring in many a studio. You don't mix on these
though, they're intended simply to provide that reference to asceratin
'compatibilty' with domestic systems.

Graham

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?

*All* amplifiers are *specced* into resistive loads.

You misunderstood what Mike was saying. One goal of a good amplifier design ( whether
studio or hi-fi ) to make the amp *tolerant* of highly reactive loads though but there
is no standard for this. It's simply that studio amps and perhaps high end audio
perform this task rather better ( it costs more too in parts which may help explain it
).

Graham

Mike Rieves wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot
prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power
amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with reactive
loads. What say you to this?

That is NOT what I said at all, I said amps are rated, that is the
measurements for their published specs are made, using resistive loads.
NOTHING was said about them being designed using resistive loads, except by
you. Read what is written before posting!

Reactive loads may be used in testing an amplifier being designed but not for
speccing it.

One simple reason for this is that reactance doesn't dissipate energy so you
couldn't use *watts* for the spec. This is in fact an interesting point. It
would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output
but it would be a task and a half to change decades of established practice.

Graham

Pooh Bear spake thus:

Mike Rieves wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com...

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you cannot
prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power
amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with reactive
loads. What say you to this?

That is NOT what I said at all, I said amps are rated, that is the
measurements for their published specs are made, using resistive loads.
NOTHING was said about them being designed using resistive loads, except by
you. Read what is written before posting!

Reactive loads may be used in testing an amplifier being designed but not for
speccing it.

One simple reason for this is that reactance doesn't dissipate energy so you
couldn't use *watts* for the spec. This is in fact an interesting point. It
would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output
but it would be a task and a half to change decades of established practice.

You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that
1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and
2) can dissipate the amp's power?

I find this hard to believe. I couldn't do it, but I'm sure some smart
guy somewhere has figured this out.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:KQoeg.24605$ZW3.4301@dukeread04...
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
news
Contrary to majority opinion I believe that picking studio monitors
based on anything other than objective accuracy is folly. With any
other basis you can easily end up minimizing in the mix exactly what
it is that you most like about any deviations your speaker may have
which suit your taste. Whatever spectral balancing or tweaking is
required to create or reproduce the sound you want should be in the
mix and not in the monitor the mix is evaluated on.

I'll probably get my ass handed to me on this one, but I see this quest
for
accuracy as being like the scene in This Is Spinal Tap where they talk
about
the dial going to 11.

In the video world, for example, it's standard procedure to color and
contrast balance the video monitors. In theory the viewer can do the same
on
his gear and get a fairly accurate representation of the original
(subject,
of course, to the inherent problems their TV might have).

There is no equivalent for audio. There is a huge difference among
speakers
used by the average listener. They go from little ear buds to boom boxes
to
car stereos to inexpensive home stereos to audiophile gear. The "raw"
reproduction varies greatly. There's no single reference mix for the
end-user like color bars. The room is also a huge factor as is the
listening
position.

So, who really hears what the engineer hears?

What's more important: The accuracy of the gear or the engineer's
knowledge
in creating a mix that he knows will translate well to various consumer
situations? If an engineer jumps from studio to studio chances are he will
encounter different monitors in different environments. Won't the same mix
sound different in those situations? Perhaps in theory the monitors will
have no coloration, but if that's the case, why are there so many
different
choices?

Studio monitors and control rooms are designed to minimize sonic
coloration, so while there will be some diffenence from studio to studio,
those design criteria are in place to insure that the difference is minimal.
In actual fact, there are differences, and at one time there were different
design criteria depending on what geographical area where the studio was
located. There was the "west coast sound", the "New York sound", the
"British sound", the "Nashville sound", and others. Listen to recordings
from the sixties and seventies, and with practice, you can often identify
the geographical area where the recording was made. :-) Things have become
more standardized in recent years, so there is little difference anymore.
Two reasons for having so many monitor choices are cost and the fact that
studio (especially home studio) control rooms are not acoustically
identical. there is also the choice of near, mid and far field monitors.
Personal taste is also an issue, since hearing is more subjective and, as
you pointed out, design criteria are more subjective as well.


In the books I have read some engineers bring monitors with them. On the
surface it would seem that what's more important to the engineer is
consistency rather than accuracy. Mixing is an art. I would venture to
guess
that an engineer strives to create a mix that sounds "right" to him based
on
his experience much like a photographer learns what works well for him
based
on the camera, lens, settings, and film. What a photographer sees in the
view finder is not always what ends up in the untouched print.

We also hear advice about checking the mix on different systems for
reference. If it sounds "right" on the monitors but "wrong" on the
reference
systems, then don't you end up making the mix sound "wrong" on the
monitors
to make it sound "right" elsewhere? So in effect the monitors are
"accurately" reproducing something, but you're having to make the mental
adjustment to get the sound you want.

Which leads me back to consistency being more important than accuracy. If
you can learn what the "right" mix should be on your monitors based on
experience, then who cares if your monitors are slightly inaccurate in
some
areas?

Let the bashing begin...


The emphasis has to be on the word "slightly"! If the innacuracy is too
big or there are too many innaccuracies, there is no way for our ears to
compensate for it, and we won't be able to get decent mixes. If the
innaccuracy is within that "slightly" range, it is fairly easy for the
experienced studioist to compensate. There is also a matter of personal
taste, there is usually more than one way to mix a song and get a good
sounding mix, and we tend to pick monitors that suit our mixing tastes,
again, within that "slightly" range.
You won't get any bashing from me, I think you are mostly right. I
wouldn't say consistancy is more important than accuracy, but I think both
belong right at the top of the list.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Mike Rieves wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:

The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp
for
those
who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well.
There
are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and
some
of
them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are
as
low-priced as the Alesis.

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes
something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

Sure, but all those companies make studio amps, I was talking about the
Alesis vs home hifi amps, since that was the topic of thios thread.

No. None of thsoe companies make studio amps. I am talking about home
hi fi amps.

Take another look, dude.

As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely
that any
of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true
professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably )
perhaps for
home hobby studios not professional ones.

Graham

Ah, but I'm posting from alt.music.home-studio where most of us are in it
as a hobby. He did mention Tascam, which does make pro studio equipment. :-)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Pooh Bear spake thus:

Mike Rieves wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ers.com...

Pooh Bear spake thus:

CWCunningham wrote:

Well I guess I can add this to the long list of "facts" that you
cannot
prove,

That amplifier power ratings are measured into resistive loads ?

As a pro-audio designer ( with a sub-specialisation in high power
amplification )
for ~ 30 yrs I can assure you it's the case.

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive
loads. What say you to this?

That is NOT what I said at all, I said amps are rated, that is the
measurements for their published specs are made, using resistive loads.
NOTHING was said about them being designed using resistive loads, except
by
you. Read what is written before posting!

Reactive loads may be used in testing an amplifier being designed but not
for
speccing it.

One simple reason for this is that reactance doesn't dissipate energy so
you
couldn't use *watts* for the spec. This is in fact an interesting point.
It
would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage*
output
but it would be a task and a half to change decades of established
practice.

You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that
1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and
2) can dissipate the amp's power?

I find this hard to believe. I couldn't do it, but I'm sure some smart guy
somewhere has figured this out.


Your post shows your lack of understanding of the amp/load interface. You
think you know what is going on but you don't. One can design a dummy load
with any amount of reactance one desires, but as Graham says, reactance
doesn't dissipate energy, meaning that it literally doesn't dissipate any
energy, and though it does affect the amp's voltage output, the wattage
would depend on the resistive component, so rating an amp with a reactive
load in watts would be useless and misleading (and it very nearly is
anyway!).
The effect of reactance on an amp's output varies with the frequency of
the signal, and since no two speaker designs have the same reactance, you'd
need a different dummy load for every speaker you were wanting to rate the
amp for.
The whole reason for rating an amp using a resistive load was to generate
some standard basis for comparison between different amps.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Pooh Bear spake thus:

Reactive loads may be used in testing an amplifier being designed but not for
speccing it.

One simple reason for this is that reactance doesn't dissipate energy so you
couldn't use *watts* for the spec. This is in fact an interesting point. It
would in fact be somewhat smarter to spec amplifers in terms of *voltage* output
but it would be a task and a half to change decades of established practice.

You mean to tell us that there's no way to design a dummy load that
1) has the same effective reactance as a real load (like a speaker) and

Correct ! Bingo ! You got it. Not least since there is no dummy load that can
replicate *all speakers*.

You make a tolerable 'model' of single loudspeaker drive unit to an acceptable degree
of accuracy but it won't model *every* speaker either.

When you get into multi-driver speakers, the hope of modelling the wide range of
effects from the crossover is nil. Some crossovers are actually quite benign, some are
truly awful. The awful ones are likely to sound worse when used with an amplifer that
is less tolerant of reactance.

2) can dissipate the amp's power?

It's not tricky to find big resistors. The point is that using *watts* as the spec
implies by first principle a resistive laod ( P= V^2/R ) . If you use reactance in the
load it's not the same number of watts any more. You'd have to specify by volts
instead, which I happen to think is a good idea but ppl wil get confused.

I find this hard to believe.

That's because this is science/technology.

I couldn't do it, but I'm sure some smart guy somewhere has figured this out.

No. It's inherent in the concept. Pure reactance doesn't dissipate energy.

Graham

Mike Rieves wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely
that any
of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true
professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably )
perhaps for
home hobby studios not professional ones.

Graham

Ah, but I'm posting from alt.music.home-studio where most of us are in it
as a hobby. He did mention Tascam, which does make pro studio equipment. :-)

Tascam is *semi-pro*. It's also ****e.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

If it were an *opinion* you might have apooint. But it's not an opinion, it's
experience.

Really? You said:

I can assure you that it's unlikely that any
of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps for
home hobby studios not professional ones.

So none of these amps could be used in a true professional situation?

DCOM GFA5802 Gold Series RMS 300 Watts X 2 Channels
Stereo Power Amplifier GFA5802 Price: $2,199.95
http://www.wildwestelectronics.net/gfa-5802.html

Rotel
http://europe.rotel.com/products/ste...amplifiers.htm

Parasound HCA-1500A
http://www.parasound.com/products/am.../hca1500a.html

Alesis RA500
http://alesis.com/products/ra500/index.html

Pooh Bear wrote:


Tascam is *semi-pro*. It's also ****e.

You mean like this one?

http://fr.audiofanzine.com/img/produ.../1/5/15911.jpg

You're an idiot.

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

If it were an *opinion* you might have apooint. But it's not an opinion, it's
experience.

Really? You said:

I can assure you that it's unlikely that any
of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps for
home hobby studios not professional ones.

So none of these amps could be used in a true professional situation?

DCOM GFA5802 Gold Series RMS 300 Watts X 2 Channels
Stereo Power Amplifier GFA5802 Price: $2,199.95
http://www.wildwestelectronics.net/gfa-5802.html

Rotel
http://europe.rotel.com/products/ste...amplifiers.htm

Parasound HCA-1500A
http://www.parasound.com/products/am.../hca1500a.html

Who do you think would be likely to specify one ? Hint. If it's not rack mountable
it's already less likely to be selected. If it doesn't have reliable XLR inputs even
less so. Do you seriously think any slf respecting pro would rely on an unbalanced RCA
phono connector for his critical monitoring signal ?

Alesis RA500
http://alesis.com/products/ra500/index.html

The Alesis is a well known POS. Semi-pro gear designed for home use masquerading as
something superior.

Graham

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

Tascam is *semi-pro*. It's also ****e.

You mean like this one?

http://fr.audiofanzine.com/img/produ.../1/5/15911.jpg

Never seen one in the real world. Proper pros don't use Tascam. Tascam is the
'poor relation' in the pro world.

I've seen plenty of Ampex, Studer, Otari and Sony though.

You're an idiot.

You don't have a clue about real pro audio. You also don't work in pro-audio. I
do.

Graham

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:


As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely that
any of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true
professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps
for home hobby studios not professional ones.

Graham

In the case of Parasound, the late Denny Purcell of Georgetown Masters
in Nashville had one in his surround room, and I know of several in use
at Universal in Los Angeles as well. The Halo series has balanced I/O
and John Curl is an experienced designer. Though not exceedingly common
in pro sound, I'd say they fit the bill. Other "hi-fi" amps like Pass
Labs and Classe certainly also find their way into high-level
professional use, though these aren't exactly budget solutions.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com

Jay-atldigi wrote:

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:


As a long time audio professional, I can assure you that it's unlikely that
any of Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound amplifiers would be used in a true
professional
situation. Alesis make toy amplifiers btw, suitable ( questionably ) perhaps
for home hobby studios not professional ones.

Graham

In the case of Parasound, the late Denny Purcell of Georgetown Masters
in Nashville had one in his surround room, and I know of several in use
at Universal in Los Angeles as well. The Halo series has balanced I/O
and John Curl is an experienced designer. Though not exceedingly common
in pro sound, I'd say they fit the bill. Other "hi-fi" amps like Pass
Labs and Classe certainly also find their way into high-level
professional use, though these aren't exactly budget solutions.

As you say, these aren't common at all. You'll note that I never said serious high
end audio was inferior to pro-audio. They certainly aren't typical of what's more
routinely used though.

Graham

On Sun, 28 May 2006 16:31:16 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Please clarify; do you mean *all* amplifiers, or only (presumably)
lower-quality home hi-fi ones? Mikey is saying that "they" (meaning guys
like you, I guess) design home hi-fi equipment using resistive loads,
while "pro" equipment (studio amps) get the royal treatment with
reactive loads. What say you to this?

I think the point was that published power ratings referred to
resistive loads, not that either weren't designed to cope with
reactive loads. It wasn't much of a point.