Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote "Iain Churches" wrote The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced. Not overpriced if you live in a country with a currency that has not been dragged to its knees-:-) MIAOW ! ;~) It has to be said though doesn't it ? I have noticed when we discuss product Arny, that you are always more concerned with cheapness than quality. That must hold you back quite a lot. His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: But there are other, less flippant tube-based mic-preamps. Care to name any you feel worthy of mention ? These are current designs. I have seen two in recent weeks. But they were both custom made, and the schematics probably kept carefully locked away. Let me mull, and make a call or two. Thanks Iain, I value your input. Graham |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. These are exactly the questions it would be interesting to discuss here. You mean the myth of 'damping factor' as popularly defined ? Did you realise it's total junk ? Anyone who can do a Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis can see that. As I said don't get me started ! So please answer my question Graham? What was Radford thinking about when he did this. I truly honesty have NO idea AT ALL. It makes no sense to me. Oh, unless it was to provide matched dB sensitivity to the other drivers without using a pad. THAT would make some sense ! Graham |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:19:15 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
mick wrote: For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length 6m) is too long So you don't think the laws of physics apply to cables under 6m long ? Is that right ? Don't be picky! Of course they obey the laws of physics. I just don't agree that the inductance and/or capacitance of speaker cables 3m long is liable to be audible in any way. Measurable, yes, but audible probably not. You'll get far more audible difference made by cleaning the connections. -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
John Byrns wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote: So please answer my question Graham? Didn't Graham already say "Heaven only knows"? I have now come up with a plausible reason. Sensitivity matching. It's not at all unknown for a speaker to mix 4, 8 or 16 ohm components. Why stop at 16 ohms ? Graham |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: Skin effect is real. But of only minor consequence at audio frequencies. Graham |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:02:58 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip **Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific with my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements which can easily be proven incorrect. Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible. **Read what I wrote. I did. Again. I completely agree that skin effect is real in any conductor carrying AC or DC with an AC component. IMHO, though, it's effect is not just minor but not relevant at all. :-) snip **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. True, it's no myth at all. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that many exotic speaker cables exhibit low INDUCTANCE figures. It is this characteristic which may be very important for many users of ESLs, as even quite short cable runs (10 Metres or even less in some cases) can benefit from low inductance cables. IMO, skin effect is not an important parameter in the vast majority of real world systems. Inductance, OTOH, may well be very important. Sorry, but I'm an unbeliever in speaker cable inductance - over any sane length anyway. For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length 6m) is too long and I just can't see that anything contributed by the cable other than resistance (which is usually swamped by the speaker impedance & amp output impedance anyway) is going to make the slightest difference to the sound. **I suggest you brush up on your electrical theory. My first experience with the effects of speaker cables was in 1978. My client had quite long cable runs (ca. 12-15 Metres) and speakers which exhibited rather difficult HF impedance. Substituting low inductance cable made a substantial improvement to the system. After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. I bet the low inductance cable had a larger CSA, so the loop resistance was lower. Shortening the cables helped again. Seriously, compared to the inductance of the voice coil the cable inductance is tiny. The difference *at audio frequencies* is going to be less than a midges d**k! ;-) IMHO 12-15m is insane for speaker cables anyway... :-) -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... What I did say, and this is something I have heard from well qualified people in broadcast, and which totally agrees with what both Mick and Arny wrote is that "SE has no real significance in a domestic audio environment" **And where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that skin effect was in any way important with a normal audio system? If you never intended to say that, then simply agree with Iain and I and it will be. **Read my words in the first response to Iain's ignorant post. It's all there. Face it: Iain is a first class clown. He denies the existence of inductive issues with speaker cables (when used with ESLs) and he vigorously supports SET amplifiers, whilst denying the obvious audible and measurable problems associated with such amplifiers. He's an idiot. Rather than being able to discuss facts, he prefers to insult and demean wherever possible. Trevor Wilson |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"mick" wrote in message news On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:19:15 +0000, Eeyore wrote: mick wrote: For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length 6m) is too long So you don't think the laws of physics apply to cables under 6m long ? Is that right ? Don't be picky! Of course they obey the laws of physics. I just don't agree that the inductance and/or capacitance of speaker cables 3m long is liable to be audible in any way. Measurable, yes, but audible probably not. You'll get far more audible difference made by cleaning the connections. **I suggest you do some listening with a pair of Quad ESLs (the old ones) and compare with regular cables and low inductance cables sometime. You may well be very surprised. I do agree that 3 Metres is a bit of a stretch, but 5 Metres is definitely noticeable. Trevor Wilson |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:19:44 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
mick wrote: On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:19:59 +0200, Iain Churches wrote: snip They can then sit in a small room at a baize-covered table (with heady incense from a bowl of finely crushed MosFets burning in one corner... snip Brilliant! LMAO! phil_mode ****WIT. /phil_mode -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"mick" wrote in message .uk... On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:02:58 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote: snip **Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific with my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements which can easily be proven incorrect. Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible. **Read what I wrote. I did. Again. I completely agree that skin effect is real in any conductor carrying AC or DC with an AC component. IMHO, though, it's effect is not just minor but not relevant at all. :-) **No argument from me. Iain claims that skin effect is a myth. It isn't. snip **For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite) transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. True, it's no myth at all. **Pre-zactly. Iain consistently claims that it is a myth. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that many exotic speaker cables exhibit low INDUCTANCE figures. It is this characteristic which may be very important for many users of ESLs, as even quite short cable runs (10 Metres or even less in some cases) can benefit from low inductance cables. IMO, skin effect is not an important parameter in the vast majority of real world systems. Inductance, OTOH, may well be very important. Sorry, but I'm an unbeliever in speaker cable inductance - over any sane length anyway. For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length 6m) is too long and I just can't see that anything contributed by the cable other than resistance (which is usually swamped by the speaker impedance & amp output impedance anyway) is going to make the slightest difference to the sound. **I suggest you brush up on your electrical theory. My first experience with the effects of speaker cables was in 1978. My client had quite long cable runs (ca. 12-15 Metres) and speakers which exhibited rather difficult HF impedance. Substituting low inductance cable made a substantial improvement to the system. After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. I bet the low inductance cable had a larger CSA, so the loop resistance was lower. **Nope. Roughly the same. In fact, the low inductance cable was slightly higher resistance. Not much though. Shortening the cables helped again. **Indeed. That was a dramatic change. Seriously, compared to the inductance of the voice coil the cable inductance is tiny. The difference *at audio frequencies* is going to be less than a midges d**k! ;-) IMHO 12-15m is insane for speaker cables anyway... :-) **The voice coil had a measured impedance peak of 120kHz (measured with MLSSA). I never actually measured the inductance, but I can assure you that it was VERY low. Much lower than a 10 Metre length of speaker cable. And there were three HF drivers in parallel. As for placement, unfortunately, clients often want what is not convenient for me. I recall one installation, where I informed the client that, for optimum sound quality, the Steinway had to go. The look of horror on he and his wife's face was priceless. Naturally, the Steinway remained exactly where it was. In another installation, the client demanded that the cables be invisible. This required that the cables be very compact and routed behind skirting boards in a concrete home unit. It was a tough and exacting job. The unit would be presently valued at in excess of AUS$5 million (nice views of the Harbour Bridge AND the Opera House). Cosmetics are everything. The cables were, therefore, at least double the length that they would otherwise be. I custom manufactured cables, using PTFE insulated wires. I did so, for two reasons: 1) I wanted to reduce inductance. 2) PTFE insulation allowed me to construct a cable which was much more compact than a commercial product, yet still retain reasonable resistivity figures for his 4 Ohm speaker system. The runs ended up at around 15-17 Metres. Trevor Wilson |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:38:47 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip **I suggest you do some listening with a pair of Quad ESLs (the old ones) and compare with regular cables and low inductance cables sometime. You may well be very surprised. I do agree that 3 Metres is a bit of a stretch, but 5 Metres is definitely noticeable. That's something I'd love to try! I've only ever heard those once, many years ago (and I loved them). I don't know anyone with any now though. :-( -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote "Iain Churches" wrote The Finnish manufacturer Genelec has a very successful range of active loudspeakers designed for both domestic and studio environments. One sees them often in the UK, and of course in Scandinavia. Been there, done that. Nice speakers, overpriced. Not overpriced if you live in a country with a currency that has not been dragged to its knees-:-) It has to be said though doesn't it ? It is something that has been mentioned, by Peter W amongst others, on this group more than once. The American people have just cause to be gravely dis-satisfied with their situation. The UKP is very strong against the dollar, as is the Swedish crown, the Euro and in particular the Norwegian crown. The Euro started out at parity with the USD. The latter stands at 1.48547 this morning:-( Smart Norwegian car dealers, imported large numbers of stockpiled American cars, at knock-down prices considerably cheaper than the Volvo, Saab, BMW Audi, Mercedes, Range Rover models which were previously in the same price-bracket. Scandinavians, the Norwegians in particular, are extremely quality conscious, and have clearly shown their lack of interest in Detroit-built cars, however cheap they are. The vast majority of these cars stand unsold, in a huge multi hectare parking lot not far from Gardermoen and Oslo airport I have noticed when we discuss product Arny, that you are always more concerned with cheapness than quality. That must hold you back quite a lot. His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Second only to his choice of microphones:-) But if you can't hear the difference, then one can save a heap of money:-) They even make semi-opaque acrylic cellos these days, with internal flourescent illumination::-) Regards Iain |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Eeyore" wrote in message ... His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and I provide honest-to-goodness lab test results. Graham then attacks the lab tests, but not on any grounds other than that he doesn't believe the results. It's really hard to work with people who don't respect themselves enough to respect others. Second only to his choice of microphones:-) Silly boy Iain, I don't have my choice of microphones. I have what the budget will support. Of course Iain, having never done live sound, and having never bought any the modern recording gear that you brag about out of your own pocket, how would you know? But if you can't hear the difference, then one can save a heap of money:-) More of the usual elitist posturing that we've all come to expect from Iain. They even make semi-opaque acrylic cellos these days, with internal flourescent illumination::-) We let our violinists play what they brung, which seem to be quite conventional. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... "mick" wrote in message news On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:19:15 +0000, Eeyore wrote: mick wrote: For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length 6m) is too long So you don't think the laws of physics apply to cables under 6m long ? Is that right ? Don't be picky! Of course they obey the laws of physics. I just don't agree that the inductance and/or capacitance of speaker cables 3m long is liable to be audible in any way. Measurable, yes, but audible probably not. You'll get far more audible difference made by cleaning the connections. **I suggest you do some listening with a pair of Quad ESLs (the old ones) and compare with regular cables and low inductance cables sometime. You may well be very surprised. I do agree that 3 Metres is a bit of a stretch, but 5 Metres is definitely noticeable. Hi Trevor. Two questions: What percentage of high end systems do you think now use first generation ESLs? Perhaps 1% ? What percentage of people use cables of 5m. with them? Perhaps 1% of that 1% ? Please come back to planet Earth:-) Iain |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote "Eeyore" wrote His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Unsubstantiated ? and I provide honest-to-goodness lab test results. In the case of the amp in questiom, a QSC, my experience of them suggests your test results are very flawed. Graham |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"John Byrns" wrote in message
... In article , Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. Assuming a so called "damping factor" of 40 with an 8 Ohm speaker, I doubt it would be anywhere near 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker because a different output transformer turns ratio would undoubtedly be used with a 24 Ohm speaker, increasing the Zo to a value well above 0.2 Ohms. Yes. Radford used a custom OPT, and the amplifier had the same serial number as the speaker with which it was matched. The BBC did this too (see Morgan Jones, Valve Amplifier 2nd Ed.page 452) I was hoping that Graham would explain why this would have been done. "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis", sounds like more name dropping without a clue as what it might actually mean with respect to "damping factor". Can you explain how "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis" might possibly help one understand why the so called "damping factor" is junk, which I agree it is? Hopefully, when Graham replies, we shall all be much wiser on this point. Best regards Iain |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: Skin effect is real. But of only minor consequence at audio frequencies. No one denies it is real. In addition to the great minds on this forum, some dozen or so people with solid engineering backgrounds, (and a couple some with doctorates in both electronics and music) whom I have consulted have stresses its insignificance in domestic audio. I would prefer to take their word in this matter than Trevor's Sorry TW:-( The only reason I can think of why Trevor wishes this to be otherwise, is that he sells cables. Iain |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Pre-zactly. Iain consistently claims that it is a myth. Trevor. There seems to be something very wrong with you reading comprehension skills. I have never stated that skin effect was a myth. We all know it to be real and measurable. I did suggest that Graham should start a thread, to elucidate upon some mis-understood and controversial topics, under the heading of Myths and Legends. You probably don't have access to it, Trevor, but there was a thread on the European Broadcasters group that used this very heading a few years ago. Skin effect was included. Sadly I missed it. Iain |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote "Eeyore" wrote His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Unsubstantiated ? Sighted evaluations, for example. and I provide honest-to-goodness lab test results. In the case of the amp in questiom, a QSC, my experience of them suggests your test results are very flawed. Right now Graham, you're trying to play a serious game, but you have no chips on the table except some old memories, gathered under questionable conditions. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "mick" wrote in message news On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:19:15 +0000, Eeyore wrote: mick wrote: For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length 6m) is too long So you don't think the laws of physics apply to cables under 6m long ? Is that right ? Don't be picky! Of course they obey the laws of physics. I just don't agree that the inductance and/or capacitance of speaker cables 3m long is liable to be audible in any way. Measurable, yes, but audible probably not. You'll get far more audible difference made by cleaning the connections. **I suggest you do some listening with a pair of Quad ESLs (the old ones) and compare with regular cables and low inductance cables sometime. You may well be very surprised. I do agree that 3 Metres is a bit of a stretch, but 5 Metres is definitely noticeable. Hi Trevor. Two questions: What percentage of high end systems do you think now use first generation ESLs? **Your strawman is duly noted. Perhaps 1% ? **Irrelevant. What percentage of people use cables of 5m. with them? **Your further strawman is duly noted. Perhaps 1% of that 1% ? **Irrelevant. Please come back to planet Earth:-) **Points: * The old Quads are not the only speakers which require the use of low inductance speaker cables. There are many others. * Not EVERY system can get by with high inductance speaker cables. * Cease making stupid, blanket statements about speaker cables and I will cease calling you out on your stupidity and lack of experience. * I NEVER suggested (nor do I now suggest) that low inductance speaker cables are required for every system. [ASIDE] Just last week, I quoted a client on a new pair of speakers. He asked about new speaker cables and what I could sell him. I promptly asked what he was using and how long they were. On hearing his answer (and, bearing in mind that his new speakers were essentially resistive @ 4 Ohms above 400 Hz and the cable run was 3 Metres), I told him not to waste time buggering about with new speaker cables. This, despite the fact that I could have made good money selling him something I felt was completely unnecessary. Had he insisted, I would certainly sell him anything he wanted. However, I believe that people pay me for good advice, not advice which will enrich me. Trevor Wilson |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Pre-zactly. Iain consistently claims that it is a myth. Trevor. There seems to be something very wrong with you reading comprehension skills. **I rea just fine. Your writing skills (as evidenced by the above) leave a considerable amount to be desired, however. I have never stated that skin effect was a myth. **Yeah, you have. Several times. We all know it to be real and measurable. **Then stop saying that it is a myth. Stop saying that it is a myth at audio frequencies. It is real and measureable at ALL frequencies above DC. I did suggest that Graham should start a thread, to elucidate upon some mis-understood and controversial topics, under the heading of Myths and Legends. You probably don't have access to it, Trevor, but there was a thread on the European Broadcasters group that used this very heading a few years ago. Skin effect was included. Sadly I missed it. **Actually, I concur. Let's start with debunking this SET nonsense. Let's expose the charlatans who claim that SET amplifiers have any place in a decent high fidelity system, for what they are - Deluded morons. Trevor Wilson |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... Hi Trevor. Please re-read carefully what I wrote. **Ok, done. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests. **I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic hi-fi installation. **Read what I wrote, liar. Trevor. You frequently claim that I insult you. (Is calling someone a salesman, when that is indeed his profession, an insult?) while you yourself use invective and call others liars. You seem to operate a dual standard here. Please try to discuss this matter in a rational and polite manner. Your previous claim that it had, seriously disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter. I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-) **You colleagues are morons. Skin effect is not a myth. Neither. I or they said it was. You seem to have this fixation. The morons to which you refer, are DipEng and above. Two have doctorates in music also. I would pick their opinion over that of a hi-fi salesman any day. Sorry Trevor, nothing personal:-( I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables, you would wish things to be otherwise. **Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to personal attack is duly noted. How is that a personal attack?. You *are* a hi-fi salesman. Just as I am a classical recording engineer. I don't jump up in a huff when people ask me "Can't you do rock'n'roll?" Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not always be in the best interest of the customer. **I note your continued attempt to sway the discussion away from facts and into personal attack. You are worse than a liar. Not at all. You have a vested (financial) interest, as does anyone else who has something to sell. It is that simple. Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not. Neither do I claim it to be so. **Yes, you did. All together now ........:-) I was talking about the musical experience from SET. **Irrelevant. SET amplifiers add distortion (measurable and audible) to the signal. It is that distortion that proponents enjoy. Not the music. Which, if you had half a brain, you would understand. It's a personal choice which people make. If this were not so, there would only be one amplifier manufacturer and one brand of speaker. It is interesting that the amplifier with the best bench performance, Halcro built in your native Australia, has only the tiniest fraction of the market. The same can be said for speakers. People do tend to choose the sound of equipment which may not necessarily have the best bench performance. It's all down to personal taste. You will have to learn to live with that. Have you ever considered that people may have totally different criteria to your own? The people who enjoy SET listen to a fairly small range of recorded material, at which SET seem to excel. When recording, some clients like the B+W 801D, others ask for JBL or Tannoy and one for Sonus Faber. To each his own. No-one who has listened to the new Russian recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional experience, Trevor. **Your point being? That the objective of any audio system is to provide musical enjoyment (that is one of the first things you learn in Recording Arts, - the psychology of music). Music of every genre is an emotional experience. Some amplifiers/speaker/rooms combinations can give you that experience - others cannot. Much depends also on the expectations of the listener. That is what people are concerned about, not how many zeroes come to the right of the decimal point. Like it or not, people with high expectations and sufficient disposable income more often than not pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET) They are usually cultured and well educated people, who make their choice after extensive periods of listening. I know many such people. **So do I. They're deluded. What's your point? How can you say they are deluded? They might wonder why you cannot hear what they can hear. You are in no position to criticise or belittle their choice, however much your own taste may vary. I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard the comments of other listeners to know the strengths of SET with the genre of music at which they excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore) is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a fraction of 1W. **So? A proper amplifier, used with sensitive speakers also operates at a fraction of a Watt. What do you mean by "proper" ? Few people use high powered amplifiers with sensitive speakers. There is no point. SETs and Lowthers make a good combination and are the choice of many discerning listeners. At this kind of level the THD is very small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are not intended for people who want to drive their neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-) **I note your deliberate avoidance of the very serious problems associated with SET amps and your sole focus on THD. This was expressly in reply to your comment about high levels of distortion. At the power at which a good SET operates (fractions of 1W) distortion is remarkably small. But, Trevor. If you don't like SET, that's fine by me. There are lots of alternative topologies by a myriad of makers. Let people choose for themselves. You must not force your opinion upon anyone. You may be fairly good at electronics but it seems you know very litle about music, musical instruments and pereceived timbre. This is what many people are looking for. I can see that Patrick's advice to me was correct regarding the futility of discussion with you. But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion. **No. You can ply your delusions anywhere you wish, without being accused of finanical bias. BIG difference. Don't you imagine, for one millisecond, that I could pad my income very nicely, if I were to flog SET amps? I could. Easily. However, I do have some integrity. I also lack your delusional nature. This is nonsense. IIRC a long time ago when I asked you on the Oz group why you did not sell SETs you replied there was only a very limited demand. So, it's once again a question of money, not integrity. I notice that Rage does not hold the franchise for Quad, Tannoy, JBL SME, CJ or B+W - just a few of the names we rate highly in the EU. You also have no SETs and no tube amps What *do* you sell, just out of interest? No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice between two products both of which he has in stock:-) It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to endorse products for which he has no franchise. This has become apparent in discussions with your good self. **You should also note that I am not deluded. You might not think so:-) I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply, but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread. **You should have posted directly to Graham, rather than engage in stupidity on a public forum. I used Graham's name in my opening line. The post was intended for all. You jumped the gun, and replied with your usual belligerent cut and paste. Please do yourself a favour, don't reply to my posts if they bring you out in verbal apoplexy. Iain |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Eeyore" wrote in message ... His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and I provide honest-to-goodness lab test results. Graham then attacks the lab tests, but not on any grounds other than that he doesn't believe the results. You can't pull the wool over Graham's eyes Arny, you should know that by now:-) It's really hard to work with people who don't respect themselves enough to respect others. Are you working with Graham? Does he know this? :-)) Second only to his choice of microphones:-) Silly boy Iain, I don't have my choice of microphones. I have what the budget will support. As you well know, that is not what I was talking about, Arny. By the way, knowing how fond you are of Behringer, have you ever checked out the ballistics of a Behringer VU meter against a proper VU? The standard was laid down in 1934. Behringer have had 74 years, and still haven't got it right. Even the scale on the meter is not correct! Compare it with a British Sifam as I have been doing. It's interesting. I got one of these meters to play with after a unit that was returned for repair under warranty was consigned to scrap. It is cheaper to give the customer a new one that repair the one he has. Hmm. Quality? Of course Iain, having never done live sound, My dear chap. Have I got news for you! I have done more live gigs than I can remember, including live jazz broadcasts as part of the Shakespeare Festival, from Southwark Cathedral in London, one of the most difficult recording locations for jazz on God's green earth. The team of which I am a partner does concert PA of all kinds regularly. and having never bought any the modern recording gear that you brag about out of your own pocket, how would you know? Sorry. No cigar there either Arny. I am a shareholder in the company which owns our team's equipment, so that means I have definately bought it:-) They even make semi-opaque acrylic cellos these days, with internal flourescent illumination::-) We let our violinists play what they brung, which seem to be quite conventional. Do you use the MIDI port? :-)) Iain |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... [ASIDE] Just last week, I quoted a client on a new pair of speakers. He asked about new speaker cables and what I could sell him. I promptly asked what he was using and how long they were. On hearing his answer (and, bearing in mind that his new speakers were essentially resistive @ 4 Ohms above 400 Hz and the cable run was 3 Metres), I told him not to waste time buggering about with new speaker cables. This, despite the fact that I could have made good money selling him something I felt was completely unnecessary. Had he insisted, I would certainly sell him anything he wanted. However, I believe that people pay me for good advice, not advice which will enrich me. Perhaps you should have ben a Buddhist, not a hi-fi salesman.Your considerably enhanced karma will be of great future benefit:-) |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Pre-zactly. Iain consistently claims that it is a myth. Trevor. There seems to be something very wrong with you reading comprehension skills. **I rea just fine. I am glad that you "rea just fine":-) I have never stated that skin effect was a myth. **Yeah, you have. Several times. I have repeated my view over and over again. It is also the view which seems to be shared by the rest of the educated world with the exception of your good self. We all know it to be real and measurable. **Then stop saying that it is a myth. Stop saying that it is a myth at audio frequencies. It is real and measureable at ALL frequencies above DC. Indeed. But the point is that it has no effect of any significance in a domestic audio system. If you choose to go on thinking that it does, you are quïte at liberty to do so. Be my guest. I did suggest that Graham should start a thread, to elucidate upon some mis-understood and controversial topics, under the heading of Myths and Legends. You probably don't have access to it, Trevor, but there was a thread on the European Broadcasters group that used this very heading a few years ago. Skin effect was included. Sadly I missed it. **Actually, I concur. Let's start with debunking this SET nonsense. Let's expose the charlatans who claim that SET amplifiers have any place in a decent high fidelity system, for what they are - Deluded morons. OK. But take a much more rational approach, come down off the ceiling. Calling people who disagree with your view deluded morons is not going to help your case one iota. Do you seriously think that any of these people even deign to discuss the subject with you, while give the impression of a foul-mouthed oaf? Iain |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... [ASIDE] Just last week, I quoted a client on a new pair of speakers. He asked about new speaker cables and what I could sell him. I promptly asked what he was using and how long they were. On hearing his answer (and, bearing in mind that his new speakers were essentially resistive @ 4 Ohms above 400 Hz and the cable run was 3 Metres), I told him not to waste time buggering about with new speaker cables. This, despite the fact that I could have made good money selling him something I felt was completely unnecessary. Had he insisted, I would certainly sell him anything he wanted. However, I believe that people pay me for good advice, not advice which will enrich me. Perhaps you should have ben a Buddhist, not a hi-fi salesman.Your considerably enhanced karma will be of great future benefit:-) **No, Iain. Unlike you, I deal in the truth and facts. I promise you this: I will NEVER extract money from clients by selling them rubbish, like SET amplifiers. That would be the ultimate hypocrisy. Well, that and exhorting people to buy SET amps, whilst not actually owning one (much like you). Trevor Wilson |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Pre-zactly. Iain consistently claims that it is a myth. Trevor. There seems to be something very wrong with you reading comprehension skills. **I rea just fine. I am glad that you "rea just fine":-) I have never stated that skin effect was a myth. **Yeah, you have. Several times. I have repeated my view over and over again. It is also the view which seems to be shared by the rest of the educated world with the exception of your good self. We all know it to be real and measurable. **Then stop saying that it is a myth. Stop saying that it is a myth at audio frequencies. It is real and measureable at ALL frequencies above DC. Indeed. But the point is that it has no effect of any significance in a domestic audio system. If you choose to go on thinking that it does, you are quïte at liberty to do so. Be my guest. I did suggest that Graham should start a thread, to elucidate upon some mis-understood and controversial topics, under the heading of Myths and Legends. You probably don't have access to it, Trevor, but there was a thread on the European Broadcasters group that used this very heading a few years ago. Skin effect was included. Sadly I missed it. **Actually, I concur. Let's start with debunking this SET nonsense. Let's expose the charlatans who claim that SET amplifiers have any place in a decent high fidelity system, for what they are - Deluded morons. OK. But take a much more rational approach, come down off the ceiling. Calling people who disagree with your view deluded morons is not going to help your case one iota. **I don't call people who dissagree with me deluded morons. I call people who imagine that SET amplifiers are high fidelity deluded morons. Do you seriously think that any of these people even deign to discuss the subject with you, while give the impression of a foul-mouthed oaf? **People who argue that SET amplifiers have any place in a high fidelity system are already arguing from a position of extreme ignorance. So, no. Trevor Wilson |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... Hi Trevor. Please re-read carefully what I wrote. **Ok, done. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests. **I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a myth. It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic hi-fi installation. **Read what I wrote, liar. Trevor. You frequently claim that I insult you. **You belittle and demean me at every opportunity. (Is calling someone a salesman, when that is indeed his profession, an insult?) **My skills lie in a broad range in the audio area. ONE of my (lesser) skills is sales. I am, first and foremost, a tech. It is what I spent 4 years training for and more than 30 years actually doing. You continually lord your alleged skills over others (including me), claiming that my only skill is selling stuff to unsuspecting punters. while you yourself use invective and call others liars. **No, Iain. I call YOU a liar. No one else. Just you. You seem to operate a dual standard here. Please try to discuss this matter in a rational and polite manner. **As soon as you cease speaking beyond your abilities to understand and when you cease acting like a hypocrite. Until then, I will call you on every single hypocritical statement and wrong-headed technical comment you make. Your previous claim that it had, seriously disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter. I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-) **You colleagues are morons. Skin effect is not a myth. Neither. I or they said it was. **YOU said it was. Several times. Even in this very thread. You seem to have this fixation. The morons to which you refer, are DipEng and above. **If they agree with you, then they are morons. Let me tell you that an alleged DipEng does nothing for me. In my first job, as a trainee tech, I had cause to correct my boss (thrice removed and km away in head office) how to correctly design a piece of equipment. My superior asked me to fix a piece of equipment which had been designed by a DipEng. It had not worked since the day it was installed. Truth be told, my boss asked me to fix it, because I was driving him mad, asking for work to do (trainee techs, being thought of as essetially useless). I examined the equipment, requested the schematics and set to work. 2 hours later, I presented the STO with a piece of funtional equipment. I then asked if I could speak to the engineer, so I could explain to him how he made his fundamental design error. My request was politely declined. Apparently, it was not desirable for a trainee tech to teach an engineer how to do his job. Don't talk to me about engineers. I judge people on their acheivements, not which university they obtained a piece of paper from. Trevor Wilson Two have doctorates in music also. I would pick their opinion over that of a hi-fi salesman any day. Sorry Trevor, nothing personal:-( **See, there you go again. A doctorate in music has zero to do with listening to music through a sound reproduction system. It would be like me claiming that, because I've built dozens of amplifiers and even more speaker systems, that I have some magical ability to judge a sound system. I don't. Nor do I claim to. I do know how they work though. I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables, you would wish things to be otherwise. **Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to personal attack is duly noted. How is that a personal attack?.. **Read your words. You don't actually know what I do. You make assumptions. You *are* a hi-fi salesman. Just as I am a classical recording engineer. I don't jump up in a huff when people ask me "Can't you do rock'n'roll?" **I am far more than a "hi fi salesman". And you know it. Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not always be in the best interest of the customer. **I note your continued attempt to sway the discussion away from facts and into personal attack. You are worse than a liar. Not at all. You have a vested (financial) interest, as does anyone else who has something to sell. It is that simple. **No. You are moving the topic away from the facts and into the area of personal attack. It is, after all, the only thing you can do, since you lack any sort of ability to discuss technical matters. Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not. Neither do I claim it to be so. **Yes, you did. All together now ........:-) I was talking about the musical experience from SET. **Irrelevant. SET amplifiers add distortion (measurable and audible) to the signal. It is that distortion that proponents enjoy. Not the music. Which, if you had half a brain, you would understand. It's a personal choice which people make. **Indeed. I don't argue with peoples' delusions. If this were not so, there would only be one amplifier manufacturer and one brand of speaker. **Wrong. People buy different speakers for a range of different reasons. Room size, loudness requirements, musical tastes, neighbours, etc. Different amplifiers are chosen for similar reasons, plus a few more. In the final analysis, however, when we are discussing high fidelity, we are discussing the closest approach to reality that is possible. It is interesting that the amplifier with the best bench performance, Halcro built in your native Australia, has only the tiniest fraction of the market. **Sure. It is the most expensive amp in the country. That will have a lot to do with it. The same can be said for speakers. People do tend to choose the sound of equipment which may not necessarily have the best bench performance. It's all down to personal taste. You will have to learn to live with that. Have you ever considered that people may have totally different criteria to your own? The people who enjoy SET listen to a fairly small range of recorded material, at which SET seem to excel. **SETs excel at nothing. Except distorting the signal they are presented with. That, they do better than most amplifiers. When recording, some clients like the B+W 801D, others ask for JBL or Tannoy and one for Sonus Faber. To each his own. **I rarely argue with speaker choice, since speakers are a personal issue. SETs distort. People wo like SET amps like distortion and abhor reality. IOW: They don't want a high fidelity system. No-one who has listened to the new Russian recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional experience, Trevor. **Your point being? That the objective of any audio system is to provide musical enjoyment (that is one of the first things you learn in Recording Arts, - the psychology of music). Music of every genre is an emotional experience. Some amplifiers/speaker/rooms combinations can give you that experience - others cannot. Much depends also on the expectations of the listener. That is what people are concerned about, not how many zeroes come to the right of the decimal point. **Ever listened to Musique Concrete? How about punk rock? Janis Joplin? James Morrison on trumpet? The list goes on. The better the system, the more objectionable the above music styles become. Music IS an emotional experience. However, a high fidelity system is designed to reproduce EXACTLY what is fed into it. Warts and all. That includes the horror of the Sex Pistols, of Janis' gravelly voice, or the truely awesome and really annoying (to me) sound of James Morrison on trumpet. _I_ will not deign to alter the ideals and objectives of the performer. A high fidelity system must reproduce precisely what is asked of it, without adding, nor subtracting anything. SET amps add stuff of their own and subtract other stuff. They are the antithesis of high fidelity. Like it or not, people with high expectations and sufficient disposable income more often than not pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET) They are usually cultured and well educated people, who make their choice after extensive periods of listening. I know many such people. **So do I. They're deluded. What's your point? How can you say they are deluded? **I do so, based on logic. They might wonder why you cannot hear what they can hear. **Why do you think I cannot hear what they hear? I've heard many SET amps. Some reasonable, some terrible. None are what I would call high fidelity however. Some sound very nice. None sound real. You are in no position to criticise or belittle their choice, however much your own taste may vary. **I am commenting on SET amps from a logical standpoint. If a person desires to use such an amplifier, after listening to a range of alternatives and enjoys the result, then that's fine by me. Claiming that SET amps are in any way high fidelity is just deluded. I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard the comments of other listeners to know the strengths of SET with the genre of music at which they excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore) is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a fraction of 1W. **So? A proper amplifier, used with sensitive speakers also operates at a fraction of a Watt. What do you mean by "proper" ? **Push pull. Few people use high powered amplifiers with sensitive speakers. There is no point. SETs and Lowthers make a good combination and are the choice of many discerning listeners. **Lowthers are not a choice of discerning listeners. Lowthers posses truely bad frequency response figures. Bass performance is abysmal and HF response is barely there. They have no place in a modern high fidelity system. Having said that, there is no reason why a proper amplifier cannot be used with Lowthers (or any other high efficiency speaker system). You seem to be under the delusion that if a system only requires a couple of Watts, then it should be partenered with a 2 Watt amp. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I have in my top drawer a proper amplifier which is rated at 1 Watt, with low levels of distortion, an excellent frequency response and good load tolerance, combined with a good dmapkng factor. The cost of such an amp is a few Dollars. At this kind of level the THD is very small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are not intended for people who want to drive their neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-) **I note your deliberate avoidance of the very serious problems associated with SET amps and your sole focus on THD. This was expressly in reply to your comment about high levels of distortion. At the power at which a good SET operates (fractions of 1W) distortion is remarkably small. **THD is ONE aspect of the performance of an amplifier. ONE. SET amps generally exhibit poor frequency response figures (when driving real-world speakers), poor damping factors and appalling load tolerance. But, Trevor. If you don't like SET, that's fine by me. **What I don't like are hypocrites who promote SET amps, without admitting their serious drawbacks. What I don't like are hypocrites who promote SET amps, but don't actually own one. What I don't like are hypocrites who lord their musical background over others, to suggest that they know best, because they sit in a little room and listen to studio speakers all day. There are lots of alternative topologies by a myriad of makers. Let people choose for themselves. **I do. I will challenge the notion that SETs belong n high fidelity however. You must not force your opinion upon anyone. You may be fairly good at electronics but it seems you know very litle about music, musical instruments and pereceived timbre. This is what many people are looking for. **SETs cannot provide the kind of accuracy required for what you suggest. I can see that Patrick's advice to me was correct regarding the futility of discussion with you. **Patrick is not a promoter of SET amps. But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion. **No. You can ply your delusions anywhere you wish, without being accused of finanical bias. BIG difference. Don't you imagine, for one millisecond, that I could pad my income very nicely, if I were to flog SET amps? I could. Easily. However, I do have some integrity. I also lack your delusional nature. This is nonsense. IIRC a long time ago when I asked you on the Oz group why you did not sell SETs you replied there was only a very limited demand. **True. There is. HOwever, that limitied demand, combined with high profit margins can generate a nice little earner. So, it's once again a question of money, not integrity. I notice that Rage does not hold the franchise for Quad, Tannoy, JBL SME, CJ or B+W - just a few of the names we rate highly in the EU. **So? I am on record as stating that I like and respect Quad, SME CJ and B&W. You can stick Tannoy up your arse. JBL is variable. Some good, some bad. You also have no SETs and no tube amps What *do* you sell, just out of interest? **Not much at present. Technicianing takes up most of my time. No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice between two products both of which he has in stock:-) It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to endorse products for which he has no franchise. This has become apparent in discussions with your good self. **You should also note that I am not deluded. You might not think so:-) **That I feel that SET amps are poor, makes me realistic, not deluded. I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply, but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread. **You should have posted directly to Graham, rather than engage in stupidity on a public forum. I used Graham's name in my opening line. The post was intended for all. You jumped the gun, and replied with your usual belligerent cut and paste. Please do yourself a favour, don't reply to my posts if they bring you out in verbal apoplexy. **You just don't like being challenged when you stray into areas you have little ability in. If you don't understand technical things, don't try to discuss them. Trevor Wilson |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more pronounced. If only more people would accept the concept of 'active speakers' the nonsense with speaker cables could be entirely eliminated. Graham Perhaps not too practical with tube amps. But there are firms that make speaker stands with a bottom shelf for the a monbloc, which keep the speaker leads to about 50cms. But, it's nothing new, both Radford and the BBC were doing this in the 1960s. That's equally effective for all practical purposes. In addition, Radford used a speaker element (custom Kef IIRC) of 24 Ohms impedance, in his matched speaker/amp combinations. Was this to get improved damping, you do think? I actually didn't even know that. No, it wouldn't be damping. Don't get me started on that myth too right now ! So why did he do it? Heaven only knows. If the STA 100 had Zo of 0.2 Ohms, that gives a DF of 40 with an 8 Ohm unit, but 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker. Assuming a so called "damping factor" of 40 with an 8 Ohm speaker, I doubt it would be anywhere near 120 with a 24 Ohm speaker because a different output transformer turns ratio would undoubtedly be used with a 24 Ohm speaker, increasing the Zo to a value well above 0.2 Ohms. Yes. Radford used a custom OPT, and the amplifier had the same serial number as the speaker with which it was matched. The BBC did this too (see Morgan Jones, Valve Amplifier 2nd Ed.page 452) I was hoping that Graham would explain why this would have been done. Did the BBC prefer this impedance level for speakers? For example I see that the LS3/4 monitoring speaker is 25 Ohms. "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis", sounds like more name dropping without a clue as what it might actually mean with respect to "damping factor". Can you explain how "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis" might possibly help one understand why the so called "damping factor" is junk, which I agree it is? Hopefully, when Graham replies, we shall all be much wiser on this point. I doubt it, this is simply an example of Graham opening his mouth before putting his brain fully in gear. "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit analyis" is of little relevance in understanding the reality of speaker damping and the so called "damping factor. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote "Eeyore" wrote His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Unsubstantiated ? Sighted evaluations, for example. Oh for heaven's sake. That's a convenient way to dismiss real observed differences but it doesn't hold water. A sighted evaluation should only dismissed if it conflicts with the science. Graham |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: I call people who imagine that SET amplifiers are high fidelity deluded morons. That much is reasonable. There is no way an SET has any 'fidelity' any more than a tubed guitat amp has fidelity. The tubed guitar amp is used for its deliberate distortion that adds colour to the sound. That's a perfectly reasonable use. I iminagine that SET listeners crave the same. Adding 'colour' is the opposite of fidelity. Graham |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote The morons to which you refer, are DipEng and above. **If they agree with you, then they are morons. Let me tell you that an alleged DipEng does nothing for me. In my first job, as a trainee tech, I had cause to correct my boss (thrice removed and km away in head office) how to correctly design a piece of equipment. My superior asked me to fix a piece of equipment which had been designed by a DipEng. It had not worked since the day it was installed. Truth be told, my boss asked me to fix it, because I was driving him mad, asking for work to do (trainee techs, being thought of as essetially useless). I examined the equipment, requested the schematics and set to work. 2 hours later, I presented the STO with a piece of funtional equipment. I then asked if I could speak to the engineer, so I could explain to him how he made his fundamental design error. My request was politely declined. Apparently, it was not desirable for a trainee tech to teach an engineer how to do his job. Been there, done that after a fashion. I was also truly shocked at the inability to teach of some of the professors at University College London (of all places) when I was there. A couple of friends on the same Electronic Engineering course neatly summed it up as follows "we've been here a year and we still don't understand how a transistor works". Fortunately I was very largely self-taught and didn't suffer the same fate. Mediocrity and wholesale incompetence is EVERYWHERE. Even more shocking is the level to which these idiots manage to advance, through being devious and manipulative most likely. Graham |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Iain Churches wrote: Hopefully, when Graham replies, we shall all be much wiser on this point. My conclusion is that it may well have been done to match sensitivity without requiring a pad. It's the only explanation that makes sense to me. The use of mixed impedance drivers in speaker system is hardly new or unknown. Graham |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote "Eeyore" wrote His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Unsubstantiated ? Sighted evaluations, for example. Oh for heaven's sake. That's a convenient way to dismiss real observed differences but it doesn't hold water. A sighted evaluation should only dismissed if it conflicts with the science. The sighted evaluation seems to conflict with science, as evidenced by performance measurements made in a scientific way. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Silly boy Iain, I don't have my choice of microphones. I have what the budget will support. As you well know, that is not what I was talking about, Arny. ???????????// By the way, knowing how fond you are of Behringer, have you ever checked out the ballistics of a Behringer VU meter against a proper VU? I don't have any equipment with VU meters. None at all. Why would someone have equipment with VU meters in this day and age? |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: I call people who imagine that SET amplifiers are high fidelity deluded morons. That much is reasonable. There is no way an SET has any 'fidelity' any more than a tubed guitat amp has fidelity. The tubed guitar amp is used for its deliberate distortion that adds colour to the sound. That's a perfectly reasonable use. I iminagine that SET listeners crave the same. Adding 'colour' is the opposite of fidelity. **Indeed. SET amplifiers are exactly the type of amplifier that Iain praises so highly. But wait: It gets worse. Much worse. Iain also claims that Lowthers are capable of serious high fidelity reproduction. His hypocrisy is simply breath-taking. On one side, he claims that speaker cables have no effect on *any* system (despite clear proof that it can and does), yet he also claims that Lowthers and SETs are capable of high fidelity performance and that it is not the clear and obvious problems associated with such equipment that SOME listeners focus on. Trevor Wilson |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote The morons to which you refer, are DipEng and above. **If they agree with you, then they are morons. Let me tell you that an alleged DipEng does nothing for me. In my first job, as a trainee tech, I had cause to correct my boss (thrice removed and km away in head office) how to correctly design a piece of equipment. My superior asked me to fix a piece of equipment which had been designed by a DipEng. It had not worked since the day it was installed. Truth be told, my boss asked me to fix it, because I was driving him mad, asking for work to do (trainee techs, being thought of as essetially useless). I examined the equipment, requested the schematics and set to work. 2 hours later, I presented the STO with a piece of funtional equipment. I then asked if I could speak to the engineer, so I could explain to him how he made his fundamental design error. My request was politely declined. Apparently, it was not desirable for a trainee tech to teach an engineer how to do his job. Been there, done that after a fashion. I was also truly shocked at the inability to teach of some of the professors at University College London (of all places) when I was there. A couple of friends on the same Electronic Engineering course neatly summed it up as follows "we've been here a year and we still don't understand how a transistor works". Fortunately I was very largely self-taught and didn't suffer the same fate. Mediocrity and wholesale incompetence is EVERYWHERE. Even more shocking is the level to which these idiots manage to advance, through being devious and manipulative most likely. **A couple of years ago, a 4th year electronic engineering student called me up and asked about purchasing some transistors for an amp he had designed and was constructing. He was proud of his product and told me how he had the PNP and NPN devices on separate heatsinks. I asked how he managed his thermal feedback. The line went quiet for awhile. Then he said: "Well, it works just fine." and he hung up. I'd hate to see his amps in the real world. And, just so Iain understands fully: I do not disrespect anyone who has a degree in electrical engineering. It's just that, like ANY profession, he/she needs to earn that respect, by putting runs on the board. A piece of paper from a university is not the answer. [ASIDE] Many years ago, I worked on a horrible design from Tapco (US). Each output stage was constructed on a large PCB, with each transistor mounted with it's own individual 'pin-fin' heat sink. A fan blew across the PCBs to cool the thing. It was rated at 250 Watts/ch and was a BJT design. When I saw the first one on the bench, I informed the importer that he had a disaster in the making. I then listed a whole host of mods, which might make the thing reliable (larger value Emitter resistors, matching output devices and linking heat sinks together). Tapco informed the importer that there was no problem and my mods were not necessary. Six months passed and several dozen blown up amps later, the importer called me in. He presented me with a modification sheet and the necessary components to stop the amps failing. You guessed it: Larger value Emitter resistors, selecting transistors for specific gains, to be placed strategically on the PCB, but no heat sink linking. Dickheads. Trevor Wilson |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote "Eeyore" wrote His choice of amplifier truly worries even me. Graham's thinking ability worries me. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Unsubstantiated ? Sighted evaluations, for example. Oh for heaven's sake. That's a convenient way to dismiss real observed differences but it doesn't hold water. A sighted evaluation should only dismissed if it conflicts with the science. The sighted evaluation seems to conflict with science, Pure nonsense. as evidenced by performance measurements made in a scientific way. Your claim that a QSC USA 850 ? has 0.01% THD @ 1W is not a scientifically credible assertion, hence I'm not impressed by your claims to use science rigourously. Graham |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another proposal
Trevor Wilson wrote: Iain also claims that Lowthers are capable of serious high fidelity reproduction. I imagined these to be indifferent antiques. However there does seem to a tendency I've observed as the years pass by for those familiar with kit they've owned for ages to become dogmatic about them. It's unfortunate. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proposal for D.M. | Audio Opinions |