(Mkuller) wrote in message news:oLvqb.130290$Tr4.336834@attbi_s03...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Rubbish. It is the purpose of an amplifier to increase the amplitude
of the input signal, and to have *no* other effect on that signal.
This is *not* a subjective measure. Within the bounds of audibility,
many SS amps are able to do this, but no SETs are able to do this. Any
other criteria for amplifier performance come under the heading of EQ.

In real world of audio, which is different from an E lab, the actual
purpose of an amplifier is to increase the amplitude of the input
signal 'while maintaining it's "musicality"'. Some feel SET amps
accomplish that goal very well.

Really?

How can an amplifier maintain ANYTHING, much less "musicality,"
if it substantially changes the signal in ways other than simple
linear gain? How is this possible?

If you assert that the amplifier's output is "musical," and the
output is substantially different than the input in matters other
than amplitude, as SETs do, then are you thus asserting that the
input to the amplfiier is "unMusical?" It is certainly different,
that's not a subjective call: SET amplifier DO change the signal
in a non-linear fashion, in both the amplitude and frequency
domains.

Let's consider the "logic" here, starting form the "conclusion"
and working backwards:

1. The output of SET amplifiers is "musical."

2. In order to "maintain" something, that something cannot be
changed.

3. SET amplifiers change the signal because of large nonlinearities
in both the amplitude and frequency domain.

Q.E.D. well, there ain't no Q.E.D. because these statements are
incompatible, logically. Okay, then which do you want to throw out?
SETs are NOT musical? SET amplifiers have NO nonlinearites at all?
Or one can change a property of a signal and still maintain it?

Who are you to say they are wrong in their preference?

Where did Mr Pinkerton say ANYTHING AT ALL about preference?
Why do you accuse him of saying something he never did? He
NEVER did say ANYTHING about preference, did he? Thus, it is
illogical to bring it up. He never did, why did you? He never
said ANYTHING about a preference being wrong, did he?

Actually, he need not say the input is unmusical. Only that
it may be less musical than the output. Meaning the right
kind of distortion might make it more musical subjectively.

Nothing illogical about that.

I guess if all components sound
the same, and any that don't are broken as a philosophy
then you have a point. But then again, such a philosophy
seems rather illogical. Of course you didn't say that did you?
Though it seems the likely conclusion many get from you.

Dennis

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:Kairb.109517$9E1.542759@attbi_s52...
(Mkuller) wrote in message
news:oLvqb.130290$Tr4.336834@attbi_s03...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Rubbish. It is the purpose of an amplifier to increase the amplitude
of the input signal, and to have *no* other effect on that signal.
This is *not* a subjective measure. Within the bounds of audibility,
many SS amps are able to do this, but no SETs are able to do this. Any
other criteria for amplifier performance come under the heading of EQ.

In real world of audio, which is different from an E lab, the actual
purpose of an amplifier is to increase the amplitude of the input
signal 'while maintaining it's "musicality"'. Some feel SET amps
accomplish that goal very well.

Really?

How can an amplifier maintain ANYTHING, much less "musicality,"
if it substantially changes the signal in ways other than simple
linear gain? How is this possible?

If you assert that the amplifier's output is "musical," and the
output is substantially different than the input in matters other
than amplitude, as SETs do, then are you thus asserting that the
input to the amplfiier is "unMusical?" It is certainly different,
that's not a subjective call: SET amplifier DO change the signal
in a non-linear fashion, in both the amplitude and frequency
domains.

Let's consider the "logic" here, starting form the "conclusion"
and working backwards:

1. The output of SET amplifiers is "musical."

2. In order to "maintain" something, that something cannot be
changed.

3. SET amplifiers change the signal because of large nonlinearities
in both the amplitude and frequency domain.

Q.E.D. well, there ain't no Q.E.D. because these statements are
incompatible, logically. Okay, then which do you want to throw out?
SETs are NOT musical? SET amplifiers have NO nonlinearites at all?
Or one can change a property of a signal and still maintain it?

Who are you to say they are wrong in their preference?

Where did Mr Pinkerton say ANYTHING AT ALL about preference?
Why do you accuse him of saying something he never did? He
NEVER did say ANYTHING about preference, did he? Thus, it is
illogical to bring it up. He never did, why did you? He never
said ANYTHING about a preference being wrong, did he?

wrote in message
news:%ohrb.105801$mZ5.715469@attbi_s54...
Harry Lavo wrote:

The custom output power graph accompanying my VTL ST-85 shows a power
bandwidth of between 85 and 90 watts on both channels from 20hz to just
short of 30khz, falling slowly to 70watts at 50khz.

That's about what the one I tested did.

I don't recall the Dynaco power amps of the time as being greatly
superior.

I didn't mean to say they were. What I did say was that the Citation II
was. The McIntosh amps were also superior.

I tested an unnamed $20K+ (retail) amp that had ripples in the frequency
response large enough to be considered audible down into the midrange
region.
That's abominable performance. Many tube amps made today fall somewhere
in between that and your VTL's. Quite mediocre.


I think a fairer comparison might be with a modern day ARC or BAT. Both HK
and McIntosh were pretty well established, engineering oriented companies in
their heyday as I believe ARC and BAT are in today's high end.

I've done a pricing analysis (which I'll comment on in another post) that
shows that today's VTL ST-85 is the dollar per watt equivalent of 1960's
Dynaco Mk III and Eico HF89, so that is the appropriate comparison for the
ST-85's iron, and as you say, it and the Dynaco are similar. I'd take a
look at the more expensive ARC's and BAT's and see if your conclusion holds
up.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:13:15 GMT, wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

The custom output power graph accompanying my VTL ST-85 shows a power
bandwidth of between 85 and 90 watts on both channels from 20hz to just
short of 30khz, falling slowly to 70watts at 50khz.

That's about what the one I tested did.

I don't recall the Dynaco power amps of the time as being greatly
superior.

I didn't mean to say they were. What I did say was that the Citation II
was. The McIntosh amps were also superior.

I tested an unnamed $20K+ (retail) amp that had ripples in the frequency
response large enough to be considered audible down into the midrange region.
That's abominable performance. Many tube amps made today fall somewhere
in between that and your VTL's. Quite mediocre.

Some do, and of course some don't. I agree that the majority are
under-designed, but there *are* a few excellent examples, notably from
ARC and C-J.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

When Pinkerton accused ARC of bad engineering, I wrote:

The company still services every product its ever built,
and does so to a very high standard. That the equipment is so
serviceable is a definite sign of good engineering.

he now answers:
No, that is a sign of *over* engineering, in a commercial product.

Sez you. I'm very pleased to enjoy long-term use of high quality
products - in the case of ARC, I've had some of their stuff for over a
decade - and know that it's readily serviceable to the original spec.
There's been no recent revolution in amplifier design, so no reason to
upgrade what were excellent products to begin with.

Commercial success is not related to engineering ability, otherwise
you would be recommending Bose, would you not?

It's practical success, not just commercial success, that shows the good
design and engineering of ARC products, in my opinion.

"chung" wrote in message
news:qrhrb.108003$275.311073@attbi_s53...
S888Wheel wrote:

snip, been repeated enough

Hmmm, you posted the 5X number quite a bit later than Stewart's original
post. Stewart said that he believed the price of the AR gear is not
priced against parts cost. Even if we take your 5X number to mean retail
price, the majority of the price paid is not on parts cost. And if the
5X is dealer cost, then Stewart has an even stronger point.


I'd simply point out that 20% food cost is the standard in the fast food
business - that's 5x. Does that mean that McDonalds is ripping people off
when it comes to food?

Even in the grocery business, which has one of the most efficient
manufacturing and distribution businesses (thanks to volume) in the world it
is not unusual for retail price to be 4-5x the cost of raw materials.

So IMO 5X is not excessive for limited production audio gear, even if it
applies to wholesale.

snip, not relevant

I said


OK let me be perfectly clear. Bill Johnson said that Audio research
products
are quite consitantly priced at about five times the cost of parts.



Chung said


To be perfectly clear, you should find out whether the dealer cost or
the retail price is 5X parts cost.


I said


If you don't believe Bill Johnson then maybe you should.


Chung said


It's not that I don't believe him; otherwise I wouldn't ask you to call
him to find out. You seem to have spoken to him already, so it makes
much more sense for you to get that info from him. This is interesting
and useful info, IMO.

The 5X, if he was talking about dealer cost, could easily become 8X if
you look at retail price.






Sorry about my misunderstanding. he was clearly refering to retail price.

I said


OK let me be perfectly clear. Bill Johnson said that Audio research
products
are quite consitantly priced at about five times the cost of parts.


Chung said


To be perfectly clear, you should find out whether the dealer cost or
the retail price is 5X parts cost.


Retail price.

I said


OK let me be perfectly clear. Bill Johnson said that Audio research
products
are quite consitantly priced at about five times the cost of parts.


Chung said

Even if the price is 100X the production cost, the former is still a
reflection of the cost.

I said


Well no one has to wildly speculate or draw overblown analogies now that
i
have
clarified what Bill Johnson has said about the cost of his products.


Chung said


The 5X is a multiplier based on what the market will bear for that
label, so I don't really see what your objection with Stewart's comment
was about. The Yamaha integrated amp may be 3X.

I said

Maybe you should look again at what was posted.
"Indeed so - and the SS gear is not priced against parts cost, but against
what
the market will pay for the ARC badge. Good commerce, but no indication of
good
engineering!" Looks to me that Stewart is saying that Bill Johnson's claim
that
Audio research products are priced generally five times the cost of parts
is
not true.

Chung said


Hmmm, you posted the 5X number quite a bit later than Stewart's original
post. Stewart said that he believed the price of the AR gear is not
priced against parts cost.

Yes that is what he said. Bill Johnson told me and others that they are. But
clearly Stewart is willing to call that claim "Bull****." I think it is
fortunate for him that ARC probably doesn't think his oinions matter.

Chung said

Even if we take your 5X number to mean retail
price, the majority of the price paid is not on parts cost. And if the
5X is dealer cost, then Stewart has an even stronger point.

No he doesn't. His claim is simply wrong if the price is based on parts cost
period. Lets be clear though about what Bill Johnson said. he told me and
others that the *retail* price of Audio Research gear is generally 5X Audio
Research's cost of parts.

Chung said


Because you said that 100X was an overblown analogy, and I wanted to
tell you that it is not as overblown in the high-end as you thought? In
any event, I used the 100X to drive home the point the meaningless word
"reflection". I am glad that you then provided a real number of 5X,
which is what I wanted to know.

I am glad we are now talking about specifics. The bottom line is that Stewart's
claim was in conflict with Bill Johnson's claim regardless of the ratios of
cost of parts to retail price.

Chung said


Check Stewart's post again, the one that you specifically responded to.
He said "Good commerce, but no indication of good engineering!"



I said


I have posted it here and no that isn't what I was responding to. I was
responding to this.
"Indeed so - and the SS gear is not priced against parts cost, but against
what
the market will pay for the ARC badge." I suggest you reread my direct
response
to that and it should be clear. This is what I said.

" I'm not sure what you are saying here but bill Johnson has said quite
clearly
that the cost of Audio research products is a reflection of the cost of
making
them." Do I mention engineering at all in that post? No. I only address
pricing
based on costs. he made a claim that ARC products are not based on costs
and I
told him Bill Johnson says otherwise. Nothing more nothing less.


Chung said



And I was simply supporting that last part of Stewart's number, no more,
no less.

Then why post it in response to me taking issue to something unrelated to that
part of his post?

Chung said

Seems like you don't have any objection to "Good commerce, but
no indication of good engineering", which is certainly OK with me.



I don't have any issue with that claim. I agree with it. I think other factors
such as marketing affect commerce as well. Unlike some others on RAHE I have
never pointed to commercial success as proof of quality.

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:03:39 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

....snip......
You have no clue
what is similar in terms of manufacturer's cost unless you cost out each
part.
There is a good reason ARC is more expensive (parts cost), regardless of
your
opinion of their merit.

I have been a professional electronics engineer for 30 years, and I am
*very* well aware of the cost of parts and chassis work. I agree there
is a reason that ARC *sells* for more than other brands - the market
will bear it! There is however no reason why ARC SS amps are
significantly expensive than equivalents from Adcom, Parasound and
Rotel, based purely on parts cost.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Perhaps the logical conclusion may be that ARC pays more for its parts than
those manufacuturers. IMO "more" would imply "too much."

Dennis Moore wrote:

Actually, he need not say the input is unmusical. Only that
it may be less musical than the output. Meaning the right
kind of distortion might make it more musical subjectively.

Nothing illogical about that.

I think that was Dick's point. You can't say the amp "maintains the
musicality", if it adds distortion, euphonice or otherwise, or if it's
output is more "musical" than its inputs.

Think about it. You can't make the output more musical than the input,
and at the same time "maintaining" the signal (meaning keeping accuracy).

I guess if all components sound
the same, and any that don't are broken as a philosophy
then you have a point. But then again, such a philosophy
seems rather illogical. Of course you didn't say that did you?
Though it seems the likely conclusion many get from you.

I did not get that conclusion at all. The conclusion I got was that
MKuller's statement that the amp is "maintaining" its musicality, given
the objective distortions and frequency response errors, is simply
illogical.


Dennis

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:Kairb.109517$9E1.542759@attbi_s52...
(Mkuller) wrote in message
news:oLvqb.130290$Tr4.336834@attbi_s03...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Rubbish. It is the purpose of an amplifier to increase the amplitude
of the input signal, and to have *no* other effect on that signal.
This is *not* a subjective measure. Within the bounds of audibility,
many SS amps are able to do this, but no SETs are able to do this. Any
other criteria for amplifier performance come under the heading of EQ.

In real world of audio, which is different from an E lab, the actual
purpose of an amplifier is to increase the amplitude of the input
signal 'while maintaining it's "musicality"'. Some feel SET amps
accomplish that goal very well.

Really?

How can an amplifier maintain ANYTHING, much less "musicality,"
if it substantially changes the signal in ways other than simple
linear gain? How is this possible?

If you assert that the amplifier's output is "musical," and the
output is substantially different than the input in matters other
than amplitude, as SETs do, then are you thus asserting that the
input to the amplfiier is "unMusical?" It is certainly different,
that's not a subjective call: SET amplifier DO change the signal
in a non-linear fashion, in both the amplitude and frequency
domains.

Let's consider the "logic" here, starting form the "conclusion"
and working backwards:

1. The output of SET amplifiers is "musical."

2. In order to "maintain" something, that something cannot be
changed.

3. SET amplifiers change the signal because of large nonlinearities
in both the amplitude and frequency domain.

Q.E.D. well, there ain't no Q.E.D. because these statements are
incompatible, logically. Okay, then which do you want to throw out?
SETs are NOT musical? SET amplifiers have NO nonlinearites at all?
Or one can change a property of a signal and still maintain it?

Who are you to say they are wrong in their preference?

Where did Mr Pinkerton say ANYTHING AT ALL about preference?
Why do you accuse him of saying something he never did? He
NEVER did say ANYTHING about preference, did he? Thus, it is
illogical to bring it up. He never did, why did you? He never
said ANYTHING about a preference being wrong, did he?

S888Wheel wrote:
I said


OK let me be perfectly clear. Bill Johnson said that Audio research
products
are quite consitantly priced at about five times the cost of parts.



Chung said


To be perfectly clear, you should find out whether the dealer cost or
the retail price is 5X parts cost.


I said


If you don't believe Bill Johnson then maybe you should.


Chung said


It's not that I don't believe him; otherwise I wouldn't ask you to call
him to find out. You seem to have spoken to him already, so it makes
much more sense for you to get that info from him. This is interesting
and useful info, IMO.

The 5X, if he was talking about dealer cost, could easily become 8X if
you look at retail price.






Sorry about my misunderstanding. he was clearly refering to retail price.


So, how much are the ARC solid state amps selling for?

No Chung, think about it some more.

One easy example. Suppose some mastering genius for some
reason knocked down the bass some. And you have a com-
ponent that is a little bass heavy. Hmmm, it might sound more
'musical' with the bass heavy component than the accurate
one. And it would quite possibly be more musical. And true
to the original source.

I think just such a similar thing explained why many preferred
moving coil cartridges despite the fact most had an ultrasonic
resonance and a tipped up top octave. Most albums were
recording on tape. Likely went through a few generations of
tape. Which likely resulted in rolled off top octaves. Certainly
many albums sounded 'tapelike' on good flat moving magnets.
But play them with a moving coil with a slight lift, I think it
accidentally compensated at least in the right direction for
many albums. And the result was truly better for it.

Dennis

"chung" wrote in message
news:UaArb.156565$Fm2.138517@attbi_s04...
Dennis Moore wrote:

Actually, he need not say the input is unmusical. Only that
it may be less musical than the output. Meaning the right
kind of distortion might make it more musical subjectively.

Nothing illogical about that.

I think that was Dick's point. You can't say the amp "maintains the
musicality", if it adds distortion, euphonice or otherwise, or if it's
output is more "musical" than its inputs.

Think about it. You can't make the output more musical than the input,
and at the same time "maintaining" the signal (meaning keeping accuracy).