Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?

Bipoloar transistors do exihibit secondary breakdown and current
hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both
issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability
should be no worse than a MOSFET amp.

The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost
and availability.



  #42   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?

Bipoloar transistors do exihibit secondary breakdown and current
hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both
issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability
should be no worse than a MOSFET amp.

The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost
and availability.



  #43   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?

Bipoloar transistors do exihibit secondary breakdown and current
hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both
issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability
should be no worse than a MOSFET amp.

The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost
and availability.



  #44   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They
can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably
lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now
ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's
ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


It is true that MOSFET devices sometimes have greater inherent durability,
while BJT devices MUST be used with carefully-engineered protection
circuitry.

Bipoloar transistors do exhibit secondary breakdown and current
hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both
issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability
should be no worse than a MOSFET amp.


Agreed. Morein doesn't seem to understand the kind of tough use and abuse
that well-engineered BJT amps routinely tolerate and even thrive on, with
appropriate circuit design. It took a while for engineers to figure out how
to protect BJT output stages from use and abuse, but that was all over
decades ago.

The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost
and availability.


Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the
reasons right - cost and availability.


  #45   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They
can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably
lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now
ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's
ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


It is true that MOSFET devices sometimes have greater inherent durability,
while BJT devices MUST be used with carefully-engineered protection
circuitry.

Bipoloar transistors do exhibit secondary breakdown and current
hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both
issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability
should be no worse than a MOSFET amp.


Agreed. Morein doesn't seem to understand the kind of tough use and abuse
that well-engineered BJT amps routinely tolerate and even thrive on, with
appropriate circuit design. It took a while for engineers to figure out how
to protect BJT output stages from use and abuse, but that was all over
decades ago.

The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost
and availability.


Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the
reasons right - cost and availability.




  #46   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They
can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably
lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now
ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's
ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


It is true that MOSFET devices sometimes have greater inherent durability,
while BJT devices MUST be used with carefully-engineered protection
circuitry.

Bipoloar transistors do exhibit secondary breakdown and current
hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both
issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability
should be no worse than a MOSFET amp.


Agreed. Morein doesn't seem to understand the kind of tough use and abuse
that well-engineered BJT amps routinely tolerate and even thrive on, with
appropriate circuit design. It took a while for engineers to figure out how
to protect BJT output stages from use and abuse, but that was all over
decades ago.

The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost
and availability.


Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the
reasons right - cost and availability.


  #47   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater


"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.


Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.


"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?


Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you’ve not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you’re not
even well read on the subject.


Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.


True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.

How would you know?


I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.


Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.


Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?


See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".

So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.
You need a bigger shovel, Arny.


RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.


So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.

You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.

Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.


It is only one factor of many to consider.


Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.

Top Ten of important factors to consider:
1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.
2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.
3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.
4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.
5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.
6. Budget.
7. Quality and fit-and-finish.
8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?
9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?
10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.


I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.


Quack, quack, quack...


So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?

The meters on the TFM line are very good,
mr. meter reader .




  #48   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater


"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.


Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.


"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?


Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you’ve not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you’re not
even well read on the subject.


Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.


True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.

How would you know?


I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.


Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.


Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?


See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".

So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.
You need a bigger shovel, Arny.


RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.


So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.

You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.

Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.


It is only one factor of many to consider.


Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.

Top Ten of important factors to consider:
1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.
2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.
3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.
4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.
5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.
6. Budget.
7. Quality and fit-and-finish.
8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?
9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?
10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.


I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.


Quack, quack, quack...


So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?

The meters on the TFM line are very good,
mr. meter reader .




  #49   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater


"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.


Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.


"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?


Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you’ve not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you’re not
even well read on the subject.


Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.


True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.

How would you know?


I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.


Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.


Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?


See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".

So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.
You need a bigger shovel, Arny.


RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.


So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.

You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.

Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.


It is only one factor of many to consider.


Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.

Top Ten of important factors to consider:
1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.
2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.
3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.
4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.
5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.
6. Budget.
7. Quality and fit-and-finish.
8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?
9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?
10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.


I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.


Quack, quack, quack...


So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?

The meters on the TFM line are very good,
mr. meter reader .




  #50   Report Post  
gregs
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar
output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness
in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new
solid state amps have MOSFET outputs.

greg


  #51   Report Post  
gregs
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar
output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness
in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new
solid state amps have MOSFET outputs.

greg
  #52   Report Post  
gregs
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar
output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness
in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new
solid state amps have MOSFET outputs.

greg
  #53   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is

cost
and availability.


Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've

got the
reasons right - cost and availability.


Obviously, you're correct. I meant BJT but had MOSFET on the
brain. My bad.


  #54   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is

cost
and availability.


Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've

got the
reasons right - cost and availability.


Obviously, you're correct. I meant BJT but had MOSFET on the
brain. My bad.


  #55   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is

cost
and availability.


Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've

got the
reasons right - cost and availability.


Obviously, you're correct. I meant BJT but had MOSFET on the
brain. My bad.




  #56   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Powell" wrote in message
...
Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless. By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag. Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.


  #57   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Powell" wrote in message
...
Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless. By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag. Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.


  #58   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Powell" wrote in message
...
Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless. By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag. Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.


  #59   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler


"gregs" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Rusty Boudreaux"

wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar
output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness
in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new
solid state amps have MOSFET outputs.

greg


Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous in power
switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power converters,
inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications for power
control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However, thermal
runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against by feedback or
any linear network. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail
when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to
thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the
semiconductor. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted
for the above mentioned industrial apps.


  #60   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler


"gregs" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Rusty Boudreaux"

wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar
output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness
in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new
solid state amps have MOSFET outputs.

greg


Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous in power
switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power converters,
inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications for power
control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However, thermal
runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against by feedback or
any linear network. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail
when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to
thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the
semiconductor. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted
for the above mentioned industrial apps.




  #61   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler


"gregs" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Rusty Boudreaux"

wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers.

They can
drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably

lucky, they
will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now

ubiquitous in power
switching applications because of it's ruggedness.


Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs
amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp?


Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar
output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness
in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new
solid state amps have MOSFET outputs.

greg


Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous in power
switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power converters,
inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications for power
control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However, thermal
runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against by feedback or
any linear network. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail
when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to
thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the
semiconductor. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted
for the above mentioned industrial apps.


  #62   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar
amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's.

Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced
rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled
listening test.

Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing.


Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachible, Morein.

You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements.
The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates
to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is
simply missing. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or
neural processing.

The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.

Tell us why you shower with a firehose.


  #63   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar
amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's.

Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced
rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled
listening test.

Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing.


Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachible, Morein.

You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements.
The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates
to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is
simply missing. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or
neural processing.

The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.

Tell us why you shower with a firehose.


  #64   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar
amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's.

Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced
rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled
listening test.

Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing.


Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachible, Morein.

You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements.
The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates
to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is
simply missing. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or
neural processing.

The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.

Tell us why you shower with a firehose.


  #65   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #66   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #67   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #68   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.


Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.


"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.


Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it
comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna, Alesis,
Yamaha, etc.

We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience.

Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.


True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.


How would you know?


Been there, done that.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.


Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.


Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?


See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".


So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.


As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or
may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he may
want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his
choice on.

You need a bigger shovel, Arny.


Been there, done that.

RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.


So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.


You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.


Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look
"loose" and "half cocked".

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.


Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.


No problem.

It is only one factor of many to consider.


Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.


Top Ten of important factors to consider:


1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

6. Budget.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

7. Quality and fit-and-finish.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.


Too obvious.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.


I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.


Quack, quack, quack...


So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?


The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader .


Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children?

Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond properly
to even the simplest of questions.



  #69   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.


Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.


"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.


Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it
comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna, Alesis,
Yamaha, etc.

We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience.

Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.


True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.


How would you know?


Been there, done that.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.


Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.


Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?


See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".


So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.


As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or
may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he may
want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his
choice on.

You need a bigger shovel, Arny.


Been there, done that.

RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.


So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.


You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.


Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look
"loose" and "half cocked".

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.


Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.


No problem.

It is only one factor of many to consider.


Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.


Top Ten of important factors to consider:


1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

6. Budget.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

7. Quality and fit-and-finish.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.


Too obvious.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.


I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.


Quack, quack, quack...


So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?


The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader .


Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children?

Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond properly
to even the simplest of questions.



  #70   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.


Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.


"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.


Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it
comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna, Alesis,
Yamaha, etc.

We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience.

Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.


True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.


How would you know?


Been there, done that.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.


Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.


Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?


See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".


So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.


As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or
may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he may
want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his
choice on.

You need a bigger shovel, Arny.


Been there, done that.

RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.


So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.


You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.


Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look
"loose" and "half cocked".

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.


Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.


No problem.

It is only one factor of many to consider.


Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.


Top Ten of important factors to consider:


1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

6. Budget.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

7. Quality and fit-and-finish.


Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?


Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.


Too obvious.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.


I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.


Quack, quack, quack...


So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?


The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader .


Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children?

Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond properly
to even the simplest of questions.





  #71   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar
amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's.

Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced
rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled
listening test.

Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing.


Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachable, Morein.

You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements.


Your inability to see simple logic is quite revealing, Morein. You complain
that my hearing is questionable, but you apparently can't even understand
the need to consider whether your hearing is any less questionable.

You're belaboring the obvious - of course my hearing is questionable, and so
is yours and that of everybody else on the group.

The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it,
indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory
ability that is simply missing.


Yes, I'm arguably less biased and prejudiced based on intangibles, then you
are.

I do not know whether this is due to
physical impairment or neural processing.


OK, which means that your hearing is just as questionable as mine. Therefore
your attack on me based on the questionable nature of my hearing indicts you
as well. In short, it is a self-defeating thing for you to do.

The QSC is a piece of junk.


OSAF.

It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give

it a wide berth.

Please give whatever unqualified advice you wish to, Morein. It's a free
country and you can make yourself look as silly as you would like to.

Tell us why you shower with a firehose.


Inefficient speakers - less than 85 dB/watt. Relatively large room. Desire
for realistic sound levels.


  #72   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar
amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's.

Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced
rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled
listening test.

Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing.


Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachable, Morein.

You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements.


Your inability to see simple logic is quite revealing, Morein. You complain
that my hearing is questionable, but you apparently can't even understand
the need to consider whether your hearing is any less questionable.

You're belaboring the obvious - of course my hearing is questionable, and so
is yours and that of everybody else on the group.

The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it,
indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory
ability that is simply missing.


Yes, I'm arguably less biased and prejudiced based on intangibles, then you
are.

I do not know whether this is due to
physical impairment or neural processing.


OK, which means that your hearing is just as questionable as mine. Therefore
your attack on me based on the questionable nature of my hearing indicts you
as well. In short, it is a self-defeating thing for you to do.

The QSC is a piece of junk.


OSAF.

It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give

it a wide berth.

Please give whatever unqualified advice you wish to, Morein. It's a free
country and you can make yourself look as silly as you would like to.

Tell us why you shower with a firehose.


Inefficient speakers - less than 85 dB/watt. Relatively large room. Desire
for realistic sound levels.


  #73   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar
amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's.

Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced
rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled
listening test.

Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing.


Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachable, Morein.

You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements.


Your inability to see simple logic is quite revealing, Morein. You complain
that my hearing is questionable, but you apparently can't even understand
the need to consider whether your hearing is any less questionable.

You're belaboring the obvious - of course my hearing is questionable, and so
is yours and that of everybody else on the group.

The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it,
indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory
ability that is simply missing.


Yes, I'm arguably less biased and prejudiced based on intangibles, then you
are.

I do not know whether this is due to
physical impairment or neural processing.


OK, which means that your hearing is just as questionable as mine. Therefore
your attack on me based on the questionable nature of my hearing indicts you
as well. In short, it is a self-defeating thing for you to do.

The QSC is a piece of junk.


OSAF.

It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give

it a wide berth.

Please give whatever unqualified advice you wish to, Morein. It's a free
country and you can make yourself look as silly as you would like to.

Tell us why you shower with a firehose.


Inefficient speakers - less than 85 dB/watt. Relatively large room. Desire
for realistic sound levels.


  #74   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous
in power switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power
converters, inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial
applications for power control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT
apps.


This has a much to do with the need for high speed at ultrasonic
frequencies, as anything else. Probably more so.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However,
thermal runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against
by feedback or any linear network.


The predominant means for protecting BJTs against thermal runaway is exactly
feedback, feedback of a nonlinear nature.

Practical protective circuits
exist, but they DO fail when pushed to the limit.


Nonsense.

By contrast, a
MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the
physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. It is for this
reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned
industrial apps.


That's not right, either. There are tons of BJTs in industrial power
switching apps.


  #75   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous
in power switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power
converters, inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial
applications for power control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT
apps.


This has a much to do with the need for high speed at ultrasonic
frequencies, as anything else. Probably more so.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However,
thermal runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against
by feedback or any linear network.


The predominant means for protecting BJTs against thermal runaway is exactly
feedback, feedback of a nonlinear nature.

Practical protective circuits
exist, but they DO fail when pushed to the limit.


Nonsense.

By contrast, a
MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the
physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. It is for this
reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned
industrial apps.


That's not right, either. There are tons of BJTs in industrial power
switching apps.




  #76   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous
in power switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power
converters, inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial
applications for power control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT
apps.


This has a much to do with the need for high speed at ultrasonic
frequencies, as anything else. Probably more so.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However,
thermal runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against
by feedback or any linear network.


The predominant means for protecting BJTs against thermal runaway is exactly
feedback, feedback of a nonlinear nature.

Practical protective circuits
exist, but they DO fail when pushed to the limit.


Nonsense.

By contrast, a
MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the
physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. It is for this
reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned
industrial apps.


That's not right, either. There are tons of BJTs in industrial power
switching apps.


  #77   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".


I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads about
amplifiers, LOTS!

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless.


Case in point TAS, which I was a charter subscriber to in my more gullible
days.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.


Ever since you started surfing the web?

Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago.


That's how it happened with me.

My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month.


Indeed.

For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.


Agreed.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will
languish and eventually die out; and that extreme portable audio is back as
the hottest new thing after languishing for years due to the commoditization
of the Walkman.


  #78   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".


I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads about
amplifiers, LOTS!

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless.


Case in point TAS, which I was a charter subscriber to in my more gullible
days.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.


Ever since you started surfing the web?

Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago.


That's how it happened with me.

My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month.


Indeed.

For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.


Agreed.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will
languish and eventually die out; and that extreme portable audio is back as
the hottest new thing after languishing for years due to the commoditization
of the Walkman.


  #79   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".


I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads about
amplifiers, LOTS!

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless.


Case in point TAS, which I was a charter subscriber to in my more gullible
days.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.


Ever since you started surfing the web?

Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago.


That's how it happened with me.

My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month.


Indeed.

For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.


Agreed.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will
languish and eventually die out; and that extreme portable audio is back as
the hottest new thing after languishing for years due to the commoditization
of the Walkman.


  #80   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means
are used to judge.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Book Review: Home Theater For Everyone: A Practical Guide ; Harley, Holman Paul General 0 June 20th 04 05:26 AM
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater bsguidry Audio Opinions 309 January 18th 04 08:23 AM
Home Theater "Junkyard Wars" Blipvert Audio Opinions 17 October 28th 03 08:01 PM
Home theater recommandation please [email protected] General 0 August 21st 03 08:53 PM
Home Theater Upgrade Path Charles Epstein High End Audio 9 August 15th 03 04:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"