[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Emitter followers without loop-feedback aren't that
great.

**Who said that a BJT amp required Emitter follower
outputs?

What do you propose in their place ?

**The Sziklai type system seems to work well.

It's a sort of emitter follower with a transistor that assists it.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

How is this any different than an equivalent PP amplifier?

**The load presented by a loudspeaker is not a resistor (in the
vast
majority of cases). The impedance varies somewhat away from the
'nomimal'
impedance. Usually, that impedance falls below the nominal one. A
SET
amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum
of
5
Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and
so
on.
A
PP amp, OTOH, will almost always INCREASE it's power, as the load
impedance
falls. IOW: It more closely approximates a Voltage source.

You are making this assertion, but simply asserting it as you are
doing
doesn't make it true.

**I suggest you study up on the design and operation of SE
amplification
(it
doesn't matter if it is valve or transsistor). There is simply not
enough
space for me to explain. It is a fact, not an assertion.

In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are
simply repeating a myth you heard somewhere.

**I beg your pardon? Have you studied electronics? To what level? I don't
have the time nor the space to launch into a full dscription of what you
need to know. At some point, in these things, you need to do your own
homework. I studied electronics for 4 years. If you expect me to condense
several months study into a Usenet post, then you're in for a terrible
shock. It won't happen. Go buy the damned book. RDH4 is a good start for
valves. Doug Self's book is a good start for SS.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, a few simple sentences
would be all that was needed to provide justification for your assertion
if it were true, but you clearly didn't learn much in your 4 year study
of electronics and you are simply trying to avoid the issue.

**You need to read the following:

Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4.
Chapter 13 Section 2
Pay very careful attention to Fig. 13.14

Trevor Wilson

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

How is this any different than an equivalent PP amplifier?

**I suggest you study up on the design and operation of SE
amplification
(it
doesn't matter if it is valve or transsistor). There is simply not
enough
space for me to explain. It is a fact, not an assertion.

In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are
simply repeating a myth you heard somewhere.

**I beg your pardon? Have you studied electronics? To what level? I don't
have the time nor the space to launch into a full dscription of what you
need to know. At some point, in these things, you need to do your own
homework. I studied electronics for 4 years. If you expect me to condense
several months study into a Usenet post, then you're in for a terrible
shock. It won't happen. Go buy the damned book. RDH4 is a good start for
valves. Doug Self's book is a good start for SS.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, a few simple sentences
would be all that was needed to provide justification for your assertion
if it were true, but you clearly didn't learn much in your 4 year study
of electronics and you are simply trying to avoid the issue.

**You need to read the following:

Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4.
Chapter 13 Section 2
Pay very careful attention to Fig. 13.14

OK, I have looked at Fig. 13.14, however I don't understand how it
relates to the question I asked you? Let's backup and be sure you
understand the question I asked. In a series of posts with Iain you
said "SET amplifiers exhibit a range of linear and non-linear (THD and
IMD) distortions. The frequency response errors are the most critically
problematical areas of SET amplifiers, UNLESS they happen to be
operating into a resistive load."

My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP
amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? I ask because you and
others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular
criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
from these frequency response errors. I am not attempting to contradict
your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you
single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
equivalent PP amplifiers?

Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4" as
some sort of tube bible, it is enlightening to read the text printed
directly above Fig. 13.14 which reads as follows.

"A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load impedance.
This is a standard condition of test for a loudspeaker, and some models
of loudspeakers are designed to operate under these conditions (see
Chapters 20 and 21). A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a
loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of view, with or
without feedback."


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute]

On Jan 21, 11:37*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*"Trevor Wilson" wrote:



"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
....

How is this any different than an equivalent PP amplifier?

**I suggest you study up on the design and operation of SE
amplification
(it
doesn't matter if it is valve or transsistor). There is simply not
enough
space for me to explain. It is a fact, not an assertion.

In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are
simply repeating a myth you heard somewhere.

**I beg your pardon? Have you studied electronics? To what level? I don't
have the time nor the space to launch into a full dscription of what you
need to know. At some point, in these things, you need to do your own
homework. I studied electronics for 4 years. If you expect me to condense
several months study into a Usenet post, then you're in for a terrible
shock. It won't happen. Go buy the damned book. RDH4 is a good start for
valves. Doug Self's book is a good start for SS.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, a few simple sentences
would be all that was needed to provide justification for your assertion
if it were true, but you clearly didn't learn much in your 4 year study
of electronics and you are simply trying to avoid the issue.

**You need to read the following:

Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4.
Chapter 13 Section 2
Pay very careful attention to Fig. 13.14

OK, I have looked at Fig. 13.14, however I don't understand how it
relates to the question I asked you? *Let's backup and be sure you
understand the question I asked. *In a series of posts with Iain you
said "SET amplifiers exhibit a range of linear and non-linear (THD and
IMD) distortions. The frequency response errors are the most critically
problematical areas of SET amplifiers, UNLESS they happen to be
operating into a resistive load."

My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP
amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? *I ask because you and
others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular
criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
from these frequency response errors. *I am not attempting to contradict
your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you
single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
equivalent PP amplifiers?

Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4" as
some sort of tube bible, it is enlightening to read the text printed
directly above Fig. 13.14 which reads as follows.

"A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load impedance. *
This is a standard condition of test for a loudspeaker, and some models
of loudspeakers are designed to operate under these conditions (see
Chapters 20 and 21). *A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a
loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of view, with or
without feedback."

And the Tube God Langford-Smith inscribed the tablets with letters of
fire from his own finger

And Moses Byrns brought the tablets down to Earth
And laid the before the assembled tubies
And the tubies bowed low in awe
And went away, each about his own tubes,
To make high fidelity.

But the Enemies of Fidelity made common cause with the Silicon Slime
And scoffed and sinned against the Truth
For which God made them fat and old and ugly
And stupid
And slow learners besides.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
The KIng James Version

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote
"Eeyore" wrote

Emitter followers without loop-feedback aren't that great.

**Who said that a BJT amp required Emitter follower outputs?

What do you propose in their place ?

**The Sziklai type system seems to work well.

It is still basically an emitter follower configuration though. Much
improved of course.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**Not by a long chalk. Graham and I dissagree about
the use of NFB in amplifiers.

I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that you and
Graham disagree about the use of NFB in amplifiers.
Which one of you is on which side of the issue?

**I have a preference for zero global NFB. Graham
prefers global NFB.

It's about the ONLY way you can make the output impedance
of a normally biased bipolar output stage behave itself
for one thing.

Emitter followers without loop-feedback aren't that great.

Emitter followers are not all that bad.

Open-loop, such a stage will typically introduce ~ 0.1% THD and much of that
will be unpleasant high order distortion.

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

Trve rattled on and on against SET, Iain defended SET with ....


I agree entirely with your comments about excess distortion,
but you have yet to convince me, or anyone else it seems, that the
very low distortion (typically 0.1%) produced by a SET with speakers
of SPL 100 or so, is even discernible.

Trev retorted with........

**And AGAIN, you miss the point. THD is just ONE problem with SET
amplifiers. SET amplifiers exhibit a range of linear and non-linear (THD and
IMD) distortions. The frequency response errors are the most critically
problematical areas of SET amplifiers, UNLESS they happen to be operating
into a resistive load. I've explained this to you many, many times before.
Why do you continually ignore this point and focus almost solely on THD? Why
do you ignore, for instance, the quite audible frequency response variations
caused by using a SET amp into a pair of real-life loudspeakers?

Bashing Iain into submission won't work.

Trev, you've only ever played with the worst samples of SE amps.
See all my other posts where I challege all your thinking on SE
amplifiers,
and so far, you have not answered one of my long and convincing
arguments agaisnt the tripe
you have posted about SE amps.

BTW, a good SET amp copes well with any ESL or awkwardly reactive load.

Snip a lot od mutual cross insulting and BS .....

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**Not by a long chalk. Graham and I dissagree about the use of NFB in
amplifiers.

I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that you and Graham disagree
about the use of NFB in amplifiers. Which one of you is on which side
of the issue?

**I have a preference for zero global NFB. Graham prefers global NFB.


**And AGAIN, you miss the point. THD is just ONE problem with SET
amplifiers. SET amplifiers exhibit a range of linear and non-linear (THD
and
IMD) distortions. The frequency response errors are the most critically
problematical areas of SET amplifiers, UNLESS they happen to be operating
into a resistive load. I've explained this to you many, many times
before.
Why do you continually ignore this point and focus almost solely on THD?
Why
do you ignore, for instance, the quite audible frequency response
variations
caused by using a SET amp into a pair of real-life loudspeakers?

I'm new to this argument, can you explain it once for me, why a SET
amplifier should have worse frequency response variations than a PP
amplifier into a pair of real-life loudspeakers, assuming adequate OPT
inductance?

**SET amplifiers possess rather poor output impedance characteristics. More
critically, perhaps, is their inability to tolerate varying load impedances,
whilst maintaining an approximation of a Voltage source (which virtually all
loudspeakers require).

IOW: Anything a SE amplifier can do, a PP amp will do better, cheaper, more
efficiently and with lower distortion.

Trevor Wilson

Readers worldwide should now read my other related posts to see where TW
is
incorrect about SET amps because he applies his generic one opinion
to ALL SET amps. If he focused on samples made better than the samples
he has formed his opinion on
he might crack the concrete of his thinking.

One thing is sure a lot worse than a lone 300B without NFB.

Its an SE Transistor amp with one BJT.

BTW, my latest 50W SET amp has Rout = 0.32 ohms.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**Not by a long chalk. Graham and I dissagree about the use of NFB in
amplifiers.

I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that you and Graham disagree
about the use of NFB in amplifiers. Which one of you is on which side
of the issue?

**I have a preference for zero global NFB. Graham prefers global NFB.

It's about the ONLY way you can make the output impedance of a normally
biased
bipolar output stage behave itself for one thing.

**Nope.


Emitter followers without loop-feedback aren't that great.

**Who said that a BJT amp required Emitter follower outputs?

You may get by without an EF output, usually with a darlington pair
connection,
but the EF - darlington connection raises the otherwise the attrociously
low base
input resistance of the output stage. Some folks use darlington triples.
Quad use a kind of compound triple, with gain thrown in and better
switch off performance.

SS amp design does not belong in this thread, but many books are all
going to be more
informative than anything I say or TW says.
Ben Duncan's 1996 book on the history of amplifiers is a good read,
Douglas Self is another.
Wilson???? come on, hardly, and that guy Turner isn't terribly
experienced either.

But at least Turner has his designs and distilled thinking with
schematics at his website,
and quite a few ppl have emailed the man for guidance while they have
built samples of the
amps shown.

But we have argued long and hard and resolved the issues several times
before in the groups.

Patrick Turner.





Trevor Wilson

[Patrick Turner]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Emitter followers without loop-feedback aren't that great.

**Who said that a BJT amp required Emitter follower outputs?

What do you propose in their place ?

**The Sziklai type system seems to work well.

Its one of many ways to rig any gain stage including an output stage.
Its ain't necessarily better or worse than other types of topology.

It all depends who done the design and what devices they used and how.

And since Sziklai worked out his famous way of connecting two bjts with
its high loop NFB, npn and pnp,
some progress in bjt speed has been made.

Nothing simplistic can ever be stated about SS designs without appearing
to be silly
because usually many interacting devices are
involved. If one does not want to appera silly, focus on a specific
schematic please,
and so the validity of an opinion expressed can be tested properly.

To my mind SS class B amps have reached maturity of design, ie, bean
counters can't reduce costs much more,
and are heading for extinction as digital amps with SMPS replace them
because of hugely increasing demand for more amps worldwide
with 5 channels, and issues about efficiency and greenhouse etc.
My ears tell me digital easily matches generic budget SS amps.

Tube amps including SET amps will remain despite anything negative said
by TW
and despite the inefficiency and greenhouse effect of using them.
Only 0.01% of worldwide amp users are maybe using tubes, and if the
remaining 99.99% of folks switch to switching PWM amps then the
greehouse effect due to amp use will be reduced to near zero and the few
tube amps still in use
by ppl who don't feel guilty and who like good analog music won't mean
the end of the Earth.


Patrick Turner.



Trevor Wilson

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 18, 3:04*am, "West" wrote:
I expect Wiecked to now leave this group forever because he is a man of his
word. I promise to place no impediment along his journey and wish him a fond
farewell as he sails off into the sunset. Goodbye Peter.

Cordially,
west

Pillock:

Lemme see if I get this straight - You made the promise that if I
found you under other identities, you would leave forever. I found
three within as many weeks. I will not count your desperate attempt at
humor with Dufis (sic) Arse - that is a freebie.

You have proven yourself a liar, now you have engaged in an
interesting fantasy that has me leaving? Those anti-cancer drugs must
be _really_ strong.

But, you did never answer the most important question - does your
mother still clean up after you?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Auratone? Now there's a name from the past:-) I have a a pair of
Auratone wedges on my bench. Fine for close field monitoring for
TV commercials etc, but useless for music recording.

Iain


pretty good for approximating what most americans are listening to, stereo
wise..ive found.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Eeyore wrote in
:



"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

Unfortunately, the vast majority of "studio monitors" sound like dog
ass, and are not good for doing audio work(or listening, for that
matter)..so I purchase products aimed at the HiFi market instead, and
get better results to these ears(though I do use a single Auratone)

May I suggest you audition some PMCs ?
http://www.pmc-speakers.com/

I was most impressed.

Graham



I havent heard those, but yes, they are well regarded..

I have always wanted to check them out, ATCs too.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

The expectations of a pop audience (who probably listen
mainly in their cars, or with iPod, are very
different to those who enjoy classical music..

So then Iain it is your claim that all car systems and iPod systems sound
so much alike that one can pre-color recordings so they sound best on
them.

What an absurd statement:-) Of course I did not say that, but repeat the
findings of newpaper surveys (The Independent in the UK for example)
which show that most people listen to pop music on car systems or
on iPods, noit on dedicated stereo systems in their living or listening
rooms.

To make this believable Iain, please document the equalization curve that
is used to accomplish this.

Arny. Arny. Please try to get yourself involved in some
commercial (non-Baptist) CD mastering, and find out
what is really going on in this big bad world:-)

You will find there are three commonly chosen routes
taken by pop record labels in an attempt to make their
products sound louder (louder = better, you see Arny,
at least to the pop record buying public)

The first is called smiley EQ. (Think about it.
You should be able to work it out) The second is
severe overall compression. The third is to drive the
peak signal to its very limits, which may result in signal
clipping.



Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed Arny. You give the impression it is a lot simpler
than it actually is.

No, I'm just avoiding the introduction of irrelevant complexity. I don't
think I need to produce a treatise in microphoning techniques every time I
mention the word microphone.

Neither do you specify what you mean
by "a few mics". There are actually very few topologies
using a few mics that actually work well. In addition,
they require considerable skill and experience in placing
to get the correct ratio of orchestra to ambience etc.

Given that you've never produced a recording all by yourself Iain, it is
likely that the art of choosing and placing microphones is more of a
mystery to you than I.

Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone chest
that you would probably sell your soul to the devil for:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

High fidelity meaning with great accuracy. NOT with
high distortion.


**Because any product which DELIBERATELY introduces
(audible) distortion is, by definition, not high
fidelity. It is something else.

Exactly so. 'High fidelity' has a specific meaning that
specifically excludes adding intentional and entirely
avoidable distortions..

What is the relevance of "High fidelity" in today's
audio scene?

The search for accuracy made it everything good that it
is.

Most, if not all, current recordings fail the
"High fidelity" test because of all the equalization,
compression, clipping, and etc. applied to them, along
with the microphone techniques used.

There's a lot of stuff, particularly in the classical
domain, that is recorded with a few mics and that's
about it.

However, accurate reproduction of highly-produced
recordings gets you closer to what the producers
intended.

I would think that to get the sound the producers
intended, you would not want an "accurate" system, you
would want a reproducing system identical in its effects
to the one they used while producing the recording, and
even that wouldn't work if others made changes later, as
in the CD "mastering" process.

With few exceptions, the systems that people use while producing and
mastering a recording were designed for a goodly measure of sonic
accuracy.

Perhaps you or Iain can show us a requisition from a well-known music
production organization, Decca for example, for a large number of
highly-colored SET amplifiers driving say Lowther horn-loaded speakers,
intended to be used universally in-house for producing records.



Good try. Arny. No cigar:-)
Record companies choose amplifiers and speakers for their generic
performance. This is because a studio may be used to record a classical
work on one day, and a punk-rock band on the next. Most studios
can offer a range of loudspeakers.

Due to the fact that they cannot be regarded as "all-rounders" neither
ESL or Lowther are commonly seen.

The reason why SETs are absent should be obvious to you.
Many control room amps are 1kW. The Crown Mactrotech
MA 300VZ is typical.

You will however, as paying a client, find that any studio
of good reputation will be happy to install whatever
amplifier and speaker combination you may require.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

Arny wrote:

There's no way you can show logically that a strategy of adding
randomly-chosen noise and distortion gets you closer to the original
live
performance

But that's the whole point, Arny, with the exception of
classical and jazz recordings, there is no *live*
performance.

That's a common form of self-deceit that superannuated bigots tend to
indulge in.


Consider a recording put together, layer by layer: Bass and drums plus
1 gtr. Next day perhaps piano, and congas. Then a couple of weeks later
two more nylon acoustic guitars, and a flat-back mandolin. Later some brass
and maybe saxes. Now let's add a vocal group, and when she gets back from
Australia we can add the vocal. None of the players on this recordings,
except thos playing is specific sections (rhythm., brass or saxes) have even
met each other or been in the studio at the same time. So please explain
to me how there is a *live* performance.


Popular music is assembled track by track
(we call it musical brick-laying)

Similar techniques are sometimes used for jazz and classical works, and
billions of live recordings of popular and rock performances have been
sold.


Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally
different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes
it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same time.


Intelligent people know that all generalizations are false, including this
one. ;-)

Intelligent people can see that Arny doesn't
have a clue how records are made:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

I would be interested to hear of your musical experiences
as a listener.

**As well you might be. After you start treating me with a little respect,
I may decide to tell you of my personal feeling about such things.


This was a gesture on my part to get the conversation
back to some sort of rational level.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
Auratone? Now there's a name from the past:-) I have a a pair of
Auratone wedges on my bench. Fine for close field monitoring for
TV commercials etc, but useless for music recording.

Iain


pretty good for approximating what most americans are listening to, stereo
wise..ive found.

Interesting observation. My problem with them is that they
reduce a symphony orchestra to twenty players:-)

Auratone went out of business a kong time ago, after the
initial flush of success. Most facilities now use active speakers
such as Genelec or Tannoy for near-field. There are many
options.

best regards
Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

Arny wrote:

There's no way you can show logically that a strategy
of adding randomly-chosen noise and distortion gets
you closer to the original live
performance

But that's the whole point, Arny, with the exception of
classical and jazz recordings, there is no *live*
performance.

That's a common form of self-deceit that superannuated
bigots tend to indulge in.

Consider a recording put together, layer by layer: Bass
and drums plus 1 gtr. Next day perhaps piano, and
congas. Then a couple of weeks later two more nylon
acoustic guitars, and a flat-back mandolin. Later some
brass and maybe saxes. Now let's add a vocal group, and
when she gets back from Australia we can add the vocal. None of the
players on this recordings, except thos
playing is specific sections (rhythm., brass or saxes)
have even met each other or been in the studio at the
same time. So please explain to me how there is a *live* performance.

Here's a news flash Iain, not all popular recordings are made that way.
That's the conceit that you harbor.

There are such things as live recordings of rock and pop,
and there are such things as studio recordings of rock where everybody plays
together in the studio.

Popular music is assembled track by track
(we call it musical brick-laying)

Similar techniques are sometimes used for jazz and
classical works, and billions of live recordings of
popular and rock performances have been sold.

Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for
totally different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records
because sometimes it is difficult to get all the artists in the same
studio
at the same time.

Thanks for finally conceeding the point, Iain.

Intelligent people know that all generalizations are
false, including this one. ;-)

Intelligent people can see that Arny doesn't
have a clue how records are made:-)

Yet another one of Iains little conceits. He knows how every recording was
made, going back to the turn of the last century.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

High fidelity meaning with great accuracy. NOT with
high distortion.


**Because any product which DELIBERATELY introduces
(audible) distortion is, by definition, not high
fidelity. It is something else.

Exactly so. 'High fidelity' has a specific meaning
that specifically excludes adding intentional and
entirely avoidable distortions..

What is the relevance of "High fidelity" in today's
audio scene?

The search for accuracy made it everything good that it
is.

Most, if not all, current recordings fail the
"High fidelity" test because of all the equalization,
compression, clipping, and etc. applied to them, along
with the microphone techniques used.

There's a lot of stuff, particularly in the classical
domain, that is recorded with a few mics and that's
about it.

However, accurate reproduction of highly-produced
recordings gets you closer to what the producers
intended.

I would think that to get the sound the producers
intended, you would not want an "accurate" system, you
would want a reproducing system identical in its effects
to the one they used while producing the recording, and
even that wouldn't work if others made changes later, as
in the CD "mastering" process.

With few exceptions, the systems that people use while
producing and mastering a recording were designed for a
goodly measure of sonic accuracy.

Perhaps you or Iain can show us a requisition from a
well-known music production organization, Decca for
example, for a large number of highly-colored SET
amplifiers driving say Lowther horn-loaded speakers,
intended to be used universally in-house for producing
records.

Good try. Arny. No cigar:-)

The prerequisite posturing, followed by the concession speech.

Record companies choose amplifiers and speakers for their
generic performance. This is because a studio may be
used to record a classical work on one day, and a
punk-rock band on the next. Most studios can offer a range of
loudspeakers.

Due to the fact that they cannot be regarded as
"all-rounders" neither ESL or Lowther are commonly seen.

See, Iain concedes the point. He was wrong and now he admits it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed Arny. You give the impression it is a lot simpler
than it actually is.

No, I'm just avoiding the introduction of irrelevant
complexity. I don't think I need to produce a treatise
in microphoning techniques every time I mention the word
microphone.
Neither do you specify what you mean
by "a few mics". There are actually very few topologies
using a few mics that actually work well. In addition,
they require considerable skill and experience in
placing to get the correct ratio of orchestra to
ambience etc.

Given that you've never produced a recording all by
yourself Iain, it is likely that the art of choosing and
placing microphones is more of a mystery to you than I.

Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone
chest that you would probably sell your soul to the devil
for:-)

Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves don't make the
recording. Once you get to a certain level of performance, quality is far
more dependent on how the mic is used.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

The expectations of a pop audience (who probably listen
mainly in their cars, or with iPod, are very
different to those who enjoy classical music..

So then Iain it is your claim that all car systems and
iPod systems sound so much alike that one can pre-color
recordings so they sound best on them.

What an absurd statement:-) Of course I did not say that,
but repeat the findings of newpaper surveys (The
Independent in the UK for example) which show that most
people listen to pop music on car systems or on iPods, noit on dedicated
stereo systems in their
living or listening rooms.

To make this believable Iain, please document the
equalization curve that is used to accomplish this.

Arny. Arny. Please try to get yourself involved in some
commercial (non-Baptist) CD mastering, and find out
what is really going on in this big bad world:-)

Obviouisly Iain would prefer to insult and posture than discuss.

End of discussion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**Not by a long chalk. Graham and I dissagree about
the use of NFB in amplifiers.

I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that you
and Graham disagree about the use of NFB in
amplifiers. Which one of you is on which side of the
issue?

**I have a preference for zero global NFB. Graham
prefers global NFB.

It's about the ONLY way you can make the output
impedance of a normally biased bipolar output stage
behave itself for one thing.

Emitter followers without loop-feedback aren't that
great.

Emitter followers are not all that bad.

Open-loop, such a stage will typically introduce ~ 0.1%
THD and much of that will be unpleasant high order
distortion.

Isolated numbers mean very little. Please compare and contrast with other
configurations of tubes and SS run open loop.

[John Byrns]

In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

Arny wrote:

There's no way you can show logically that a strategy of adding
randomly-chosen noise and distortion gets you closer to the original
live
performance

But that's the whole point, Arny, with the exception of
classical and jazz recordings, there is no *live*
performance.

That's a common form of self-deceit that superannuated bigots tend to
indulge in.


Consider a recording put together, layer by layer: Bass and drums plus
1 gtr. Next day perhaps piano, and congas. Then a couple of weeks later
two more nylon acoustic guitars, and a flat-back mandolin. Later some brass
and maybe saxes. Now let's add a vocal group, and when she gets back from
Australia we can add the vocal. None of the players on this recordings,
except thos playing is specific sections (rhythm., brass or saxes) have even
met each other or been in the studio at the same time. So please explain
to me how there is a *live* performance.


Popular music is assembled track by track
(we call it musical brick-laying)

Similar techniques are sometimes used for jazz and classical works, and
billions of live recordings of popular and rock performances have been
sold.


Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally
different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes
it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same time.

How can it be Jazz without all the artists being in the same studio at
the same time?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 22, 2:11*am, "Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:
Auratone? Now there's a name from the past:-) *I have a a pair of
Auratone wedges on my bench. Fine for close field monitoring for
TV commercials etc, but useless for music recording.

Iain

pretty good for approximating what most americans are listening to, stereo
wise..ive found.

Mpfff.... Most Americans are listening to computer driven pacific-rim
speakers with formerly impressive names on them - that or ear-buds. I
am not so sure that the rest of the world is any different in that
regard. But in any case, even that Auratone POS would leave suchlike
in its dust. We need to remember that this NG represents a miniscule
portion of a tiny fraction of an infinitesimal segment of the
population.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:


Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally
different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes
it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same
time.

How can it be Jazz without all the artists being in the same studio at
the same time?

Indeed:-) But where does it say that a pre-reqisite of jazz is that
all players must be present? Sometimes, especially in the case of
international bands (I am thinking of for instance the Kenny Clarke
Francy Boland Big Band, with whom I have worked) the logistics
of getting everyone in the same studio in the same city on the same
day, are sometimes not feasible.

Multitrack recording, analogue or digital, makes it possible to
overlay a solo or a missing track (although of course it is preferable
for all core members of the band, especially the rhythm section to
be there on the original session.

Regards to all
Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Most Americans are listening to computer driven
pacific-rim speakers with formerly impressive names on
them -

They don't all sound alike. Some are actually respectible. Some are worse
than trash.

that or ear-buds.

or IEMs or earphones, which can be audio professional's tools and
head-and-shoulder above $1.99 ear buds.

I am not so sure that the rest
of the world is any different in that regard. But in any
case, even that Auratone POS would leave suchlike in its
dust.

????????

The Auratone was a cheap 5" driver with no whizzer or tweeter, mounted in a
cubic box.

Ever actually hear one?

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Most Americans are listening to computer driven
pacific-rim speakers with formerly impressive names on
them -

They don't all sound alike. Some are actually respectible. Some are worse
than trash.

that or ear-buds.

or IEMs or earphones, which can be audio professional's tools and
head-and-shoulder above $1.99 ear buds.

I am not so sure that the rest
of the world is any different in that regard. But in any
case, even that Auratone POS would leave suchlike in its
dust.

????????

The Auratone was a cheap 5" driver with no whizzer or tweeter, mounted in
a cubic box.

There was also a wedge

Ever actually hear one?


Early in the 1970s they were the most comnonly used near field monitor
(probably because there was no other competition) They were used to
give a rough approximation of what the recording might sound like on
a car cassette system. They were (and still are) *horrible*.

Iain

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 22, 1:22*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message



Most Americans are listening to computer driven
pacific-rim speakers with formerly impressive names on
them -

They don't all sound alike. Some are actually respectible. Some are worse
than trash.

that or ear-buds.

or IEMs or earphones, which can be audio professional's tools and
head-and-shoulder above $1.99 ear buds.

I am not so sure that the rest
of the world is any different in that regard. But in any
case, even that Auratone POS would leave suchlike in its
dust.

????????

The Auratone was a cheap 5" driver with no whizzer or tweeter, mounted in a
cubic box.

Ever actually hear one?

Um... the operative word here is "most". Not "all". Of course there
are exceptions to nearly any generalization. But that does not change
the basic truth of the original assertion. And to get to your question
directly:

Yep. POS... Which, if you are not acquainted with the term means Piece
Of Sh*t... But even such as that will sound better than the crap that
comes with the typical computer right out of the box (even with
impressive names on them), or the typical iPod/MP3 player right out of
the box. The characterization in the description should have conveyed
that much - but you are much given to leaping to conclusions and are
certainly challenged when it comes to reading for content as well as
having general difficulties with the English language in general and
nuance specifically.

This group represents a very tiny subset of the general population and
is distinguished by at least a pretense towards enjoying high fidelity
- further culled by also enjoying it via tubes. Whether that is
actually achievable is a matter of debate, but it should not detract
from the enjoyment of its pursuit. And that is where I find you a
particularly nasty bit of baggage. Unlike pillock (for example) who is
stupid and ignorant and therefore cannot help himself, you are very
likely not stupid nor necessarily ignorant. But you cannot seem to get
it that what is correct or measurable or accurate or precise (not
hardly the same as accurate) with or without feedback global or
otherwise is entirely irrelevant to what people *choose* to enjoy.
And, worse, you can help yourself but make the conscious decision not
to do so.

You will make no conversions. You will convince no one of the
righteousness of your position and you will educate no one as all you
have to offer appears to be bile and resentment. Lighten up, get a
life. Stay away from here for say... 72 hours and spend it amongst
people who make you light-hearted.

Come back with at least something resembling an open mind when it
comes to preferences of others. They are entitled to them after all.
It is when they dictate them as writ or received wisdom that they
invariably fail. Take issue with the dictatorial stance, not with the
message.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

I would be interested to hear of your musical experiences
as a listener.

**As well you might be. After you start treating me with a little
respect,
I may decide to tell you of my personal feeling about such things.


This was a gesture on my part to get the conversation
back to some sort of rational level.

**Rational is the discussion of accuracy, not musical experiences. FWIW: The
most intensely satisfying musical experiences I've had were all live and
(mostly) unamplified. As such, they bore no relation to SETs. push pull, CD
players or anything mechanical.

Trevor Wilson

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 22, 2:34*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.

YIKES!!!

Trevor: The statement was not that ESL speakers are not 'competent',
but that they were not "most" speakers and therefore do not conf-o-rm
to the alphabet-soup reference above.

Are you taking misreading lessons from Arny?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Yep. POS... Which, if you are not acquainted with the
term means Piece Of Sh*t... But even such as that will
sound better than the crap that comes with the typical
computer right out of the box (even with impressive names
on them), or the typical iPod/MP3 player right out of the
box.

Hmm letsee, this time you seem to have learned how to add reasonable caveats
to your claims, Peter. Maybe you can be trained, after all! ;-)

The characterization in the description should have
conveyed that much - but you are much given to leaping to
conclusions and are certainly challenged when it comes to
reading for content as well as having general
difficulties with the English language in general and
nuance specifically.

This isn't about nuance Peter, this is about unqualified generalizations
that you made. So try to play the bully boy and insult me as you will - your
hyperbole adds nothing to your credibitliy.

This group represents a very tiny subset of the general
population and is distinguished by at least a pretense
towards enjoying high fidelity - further culled by also
enjoying it via tubes.

It's not clear whether this is the culled or the chosen.

Whether that is actually
achievable is a matter of debate, but it should not
detract from the enjoyment of its pursuit. And that is
where I find you a particularly nasty bit of baggage.

Oh goody goody Peter, I've charmed you to the point where you're going to
unload another load of spew!

Unlike pillock (for example) who is stupid and ignorant
and therefore cannot help himself, you are very likely
not stupid nor necessarily ignorant.

Peter, you do grouchy old man with such utter mediocrity!

But you cannot seem
to get it that what is correct or measurable or accurate
or precise (not hardly the same as accurate) with or
without feedback global or otherwise is entirely
irrelevant to what people *choose* to enjoy.

Peter, I've long ago figured out ago that you are suffiently unsure about
science that you can't be counted on to reliablity determine the difference
between those areas were opinion should rule, and those areas where the more
reliable relevant facts should rule. No problem there, except you fancy
yourself the world's expert in the area - accountable to no other authority.

And, worse,
you can help yourself but make the conscious decision not
to do so.

No, I make the conscious decision to help all who are interested in reliable
truth, when relevant.

You will make no conversions.

Well Peter, you insult your own intelligence if you think that conversions
are my goal. If I converted you, I'd have to accept some responsibility for
the rest of your weirdness.

You will convince no one of
the righteousness of your position and you will educate
no one as all you have to offer appears to be bile and
resentment.

What bile and resentment is that Peter, other than what you are spewing all
over Usenet at this very moment with this very post?

Lighten up, get a life. Stay away from here
for say... 72 hours and spend it amongst people who make
you light-hearted.

But you make me so light-hearted Peter - you have exposed your character or
the lack of it so fully. Why, its the human comedy!

Come back with at least something resembling an open mind
when it comes to preferences of others. They are entitled
to them after all. It is when they dictate them as writ
or received wisdom that they invariably fail. Take issue
with the dictatorial stance, not with the message.

LOL!

[Eeyore]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote
"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

Unfortunately, the vast majority of "studio monitors" sound like dog
ass, and are not good for doing audio work(or listening, for that
matter)..so I purchase products aimed at the HiFi market instead, and
get better results to these ears(though I do use a single Auratone)

May I suggest you audition some PMCs ?
http://www.pmc-speakers.com/

I was most impressed.


I havent heard those, but yes, they are well regarded..

I have always wanted to check them out, ATCs too.

ATCs are OK but not a patch on the PMCs I've heard. ATCs do go loud though.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

How is this any different than an equivalent PP amplifier?

**I suggest you study up on the design and operation of SE
amplification
(it
doesn't matter if it is valve or transsistor). There is simply not
enough
space for me to explain. It is a fact, not an assertion.

In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about and
are
simply repeating a myth you heard somewhere.

**I beg your pardon? Have you studied electronics? To what level? I
don't
have the time nor the space to launch into a full dscription of what
you
need to know. At some point, in these things, you need to do your own
homework. I studied electronics for 4 years. If you expect me to
condense
several months study into a Usenet post, then you're in for a terrible
shock. It won't happen. Go buy the damned book. RDH4 is a good start
for
valves. Doug Self's book is a good start for SS.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, a few simple sentences
would be all that was needed to provide justification for your
assertion
if it were true, but you clearly didn't learn much in your 4 year study
of electronics and you are simply trying to avoid the issue.

**You need to read the following:

Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4.
Chapter 13 Section 2
Pay very careful attention to Fig. 13.14

OK, I have looked at Fig. 13.14, however I don't understand how it
relates to the question I asked you? Let's backup and be sure you
understand the question I asked. In a series of posts with Iain you
said "SET amplifiers exhibit a range of linear and non-linear (THD and
IMD) distortions. The frequency response errors are the most critically
problematical areas of SET amplifiers, UNLESS they happen to be
operating into a resistive load."

My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP
amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? I ask because you and
others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular
criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
from these frequency response errors. I am not attempting to contradict
your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you
single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
equivalent PP amplifiers?

**SET amplifiers generally employ no global NFB around the output
transformer. As a consequence, the output impedance will cause problems with
typical loudspeakers. Further, I stated that SET amplifiers exhibited
SEVERAL critical problems. The I refer to in the above diagram relates to
the ability of a SET amplifier to deliver relatively constant maximum
Voltage, regardless of load impedance. Push pull has the capability of
eliminating this artefact.


Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4" as
some sort of tube bible, it is enlightening to read the text printed
directly above Fig. 13.14 which reads as follows.

**Actually, I don't, but it is a very hadny reference. I use it along with
my 1964 RCA Recieving Tube manual.


"A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load impedance.
This is a standard condition of test for a loudspeaker, and some models
of loudspeakers are designed to operate under these conditions (see
Chapters 20 and 21). A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a
loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of view, with or
without feedback."

**It is, with the proviso that it is used in push pull. Like any decent
output stage.

Trevor Wilson




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

How is this any different than an equivalent PP amplifier?

**I suggest you study up on the design and operation of SE
amplification
(it
doesn't matter if it is valve or transsistor). There is simply not
enough
space for me to explain. It is a fact, not an assertion.

In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about and
are
simply repeating a myth you heard somewhere.

**I beg your pardon? Have you studied electronics? To what level? I
don't
have the time nor the space to launch into a full dscription of what
you
need to know. At some point, in these things, you need to do your own
homework. I studied electronics for 4 years. If you expect me to
condense
several months study into a Usenet post, then you're in for a terrible
shock. It won't happen. Go buy the damned book. RDH4 is a good start
for
valves. Doug Self's book is a good start for SS.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, a few simple sentences
would be all that was needed to provide justification for your
assertion
if it were true, but you clearly didn't learn much in your 4 year study
of electronics and you are simply trying to avoid the issue.

**You need to read the following:

Radiotron Designer's Handbook Ed. 4.
Chapter 13 Section 2
Pay very careful attention to Fig. 13.14

OK, I have looked at Fig. 13.14, however I don't understand how it
relates to the question I asked you? Let's backup and be sure you
understand the question I asked. In a series of posts with Iain you
said "SET amplifiers exhibit a range of linear and non-linear (THD and
IMD) distortions. The frequency response errors are the most critically
problematical areas of SET amplifiers, UNLESS they happen to be
operating into a resistive load."

My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP
amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? I ask because you and
others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular
criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
from these frequency response errors. I am not attempting to contradict
your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you
single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
equivalent PP amplifiers?

**SET amplifiers generally employ no global NFB around the output
transformer. As a consequence, the output impedance will cause problems with
typical loudspeakers.

Finally, that was my original point, that the sensitivity to load of the
frequency response of the typical audiophile SET is not due to the use
of the SET configuration, but is due to the fact that these amplifiers
generally don't use NFB. A similar PP amplifier without NFB is no
better than a SET with regard to the effect of load on frequency
response.

Further, I stated that SET amplifiers exhibited
SEVERAL critical problems. The I refer to in the above diagram relates to
the ability of a SET amplifier to deliver relatively constant maximum
Voltage, regardless of load impedance. Push pull has the capability of
eliminating this artefact.

While there is a kernel of truth in that claim, a PP triode amplifier is
not a solid state amplifier. A PP amplifier will only help with that
artifact if it is operating into a load greater than the optimum load
impedance for the triodes used. Assuming that condition is meet, I
believe that lowering the load impedance will cause the amplifier to
enter class AB operation, assuming no NFB in order to keep this an
apples and apples comparison, class AB operation will cause a
considerable increase in distortion, a situation not much better than
the artifact produced by the SET amplifier.

You are really talking about NFB vs. no NFB, not SET vs. PP.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Nick Gorham]

Iain Churches wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:



Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally
different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes
it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same
time.

How can it be Jazz without all the artists being in the same studio at
the same time?


Indeed:-) But where does it say that a pre-reqisite of jazz is that
all players must be present? Sometimes, especially in the case of
international bands (I am thinking of for instance the Kenny Clarke
Francy Boland Big Band, with whom I have worked) the logistics
of getting everyone in the same studio in the same city on the same
day, are sometimes not feasible.


I guess it depends on which part of the wide ranging music form we label
jazz you are talking about. But given that a large part of much of jazz
performance involves improvisional playing, and for that to progress
beyond the "solo over a backing track" level, it requires at the least
two way communication between the soloist and the rhythm section, and
hopefully communication between the creator/maintainer of the harmonic
framework.

It depends on your use of the word "all". I expect a marktree could be
added later without any major problem :-)

--
Nick

[Rudy]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
: In article ,
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
:
: "John Byrns" wrote in message
: ...
: In article ,
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
sn
:JB: My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an equivalent PP
: amplifier in terms of frequency response errors? I ask because you and
: others here seem to single out SET amplifiers for this particular
: criticism, some even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
: from these frequency response errors. I am not attempting to contradict
: your characterization of SET amplifiers, I am simply asking why you
: single out SET amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
: equivalent PP amplifiers?
:
: TW: **SET amplifiers generally employ no global NFB around the output
: transformer. As a consequence, the output impedance will cause problems
with
: typical loudspeakers.
:JB:
: Finally, that was my original point, that the sensitivity to load of the
: frequency response of the typical audiophile SET is not due to the use
: of the SET configuration, but is due to the fact that these amplifiers
: generally don't use NFB. A similar PP amplifier without NFB is no
: better than a SET with regard to the effect of load on frequency
: response.
:
: Further, I stated that SET amplifiers exhibited
: SEVERAL critical problems. The I refer to in the above diagram relates
to
: the ability of a SET amplifier to deliver relatively constant maximum
: Voltage, regardless of load impedance. Push pull has the capability of
: eliminating this artefact.
:
: While there is a kernel of truth in that claim, a PP triode amplifier is
: not a solid state amplifier. A PP amplifier will only help with that
: artifact if it is operating into a load greater than the optimum load
: impedance for the triodes used. Assuming that condition is meet, I
: believe that lowering the load impedance will cause the amplifier to
: enter class AB operation, assuming no NFB in order to keep this an
: apples and apples comparison, class AB operation will cause a
: considerable increase in distortion, a situation not much better than
: the artifact produced by the SET amplifier.
:
: You are really talking about NFB vs. no NFB, not SET vs. PP.
:
:
: Regards,
:
: John Byrns
:
: --

I agree Trevor invariably argues from some imagined implementation,
not a topology 'an sich', furthermore troubling the waters with all sorts
of imagined secondary aspects stated as 'truth' ;-)

Rudy