Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
mick mick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Another proposal



Trevor Wilson wrote:

Skin effect is real.


But of only minor consequence at audio frequencies.

Graham

  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
mick mick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
mick mick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
mick mick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposal for D.M. Bruce J. Richman Audio Opinions 143 January 13th 05 06:31 PM


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