[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

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, you are not answering the question Iain was referring to at that
point, the actual question was about the "Norton/Thevenin equivalent
ciruit analyis" you were saying would tell us something about the so
called "damping factor", is it too much trouble to answer the actual
question, or might that lead to embarrassment?


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

I can SO believe that, not least becasue the 'profs' are almost invariably
useless at teaching 'real world design'.

There was a chap at Neve on the digital team I got on well with who told me
about the mic amp he'd built. Once again he was really pleased with it. Then he
told me it used an inverting configuration with a 2kohm input R and a TL072. I
had to explain that the 2kohms would add to the input noise resistance and the
the TL07x op-amps weren't really quiet enough for such a job. To his credit I
think he got it but it does show how poorly educated or informed many degree
level 'engineers' are in matters of *basic science* !.


At the other college I attended (it was the UK's first specialist audio
electronics course IIRC) we had a great part-time lecturer called Tim (forget
the surname now but he used to write articles for the likes of Practical
Electronics, Elektor etc and some of his designs were sold as kits by Maplin)
who taught us about making real circuits that work in the real world with real
design decisions (and compromises).

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

I could hardly agree more. I've always been a hands on - let's do it kind of guy
myself and that's made me pretty damn expert in building reliable circuits that
work day in day out AND perform well.

Mind you, these days, I'll often resort to mathematic modelling and simulation
rather than build breadboard prototyes for no good reason.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

[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.

Yes.

It never fails to amaze me how the same mistakes get repeated time and time
again by 'newbies' who are too proud to accept that may have got some details
wrong.

Got a 'clone' of a QSC style amplifier made by Sekaku for evalution some years
back. It was almost an exact copy of an RMX2450. My colleague put it on soak
test into only a 4 ohm load and it 'went bang' after about only 25-30 mins. Why
? They'd reversed the cooling airflow direction and the temp compensating parts
were now at the COLD end of the heatsink ! Idiots !

As for the emitter resistor thing I even once wrote to Sinclair about their
crazy practice of NOT FITTING ANY AT ALL in the Z30 and Z50 amplifiers. I'd
ended up repairing so many I'd got fed up with it. I did receive a reply IIRC
but they pooh-poohed my suggestion. About a year later they started fitting
them. It's NUTS, any competent designer KNOWS what's going to happen if you do
stupid stuff like that.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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, you are not answering the question Iain was referring to at that
point

Iain was asking why a driver might have 24 ohms impedance. That doesn't require any
*circuit analysis*.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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, you are not answering the question Iain was referring to at that
point

Iain was asking why a driver might have 24 ohms impedance. That doesn't
require any
*circuit analysis*.

Go back and read the thread again, paying careful attention to what you
were actually replying to. Iain did originally ask about the 24 Ohm
impedance which then lead to his making a comment about "DF" which in
turn lead to your comment that "Norton/Thevenin equivalent ciruit
analyis" might help understanding the "DF" issue.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Prove it.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

[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.

Yes.

It never fails to amaze me how the same mistakes get repeated time and
time
again by 'newbies' who are too proud to accept that may have got some
details
wrong.

Got a 'clone' of a QSC style amplifier made by Sekaku for evalution some
years
back. It was almost an exact copy of an RMX2450. My colleague put it on
soak
test into only a 4 ohm load and it 'went bang' after about only 25-30
mins. Why
? They'd reversed the cooling airflow direction and the temp compensating
parts
were now at the COLD end of the heatsink ! Idiots !

As for the emitter resistor thing I even once wrote to Sinclair about
their
crazy practice of NOT FITTING ANY AT ALL in the Z30 and Z50 amplifiers.
I'd
ended up repairing so many I'd got fed up with it. I did receive a reply
IIRC
but they pooh-poohed my suggestion. About a year later they started
fitting
them. It's NUTS, any competent designer KNOWS what's going to happen if
you do
stupid stuff like that.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"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?
I don't. Behringer has.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

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

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.

Yes it seems so. I am interested to know why.
I made the erroneous (?) assumption that better
damping was the objective.

One simtimes sees BBC spec Leak amps for sale, which have
become separated from the speakers they were designed to drive.
People buy them in auction without realising that they have custom
OPTs.

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.

Still, it would be of interest to have some discussionon this
point. It seems to be one of the stumbling blocks of understanding
in tube amps. I get the impression that Graham seems to think it
is unimportant in the greater scheme of things. He may well be right.
But if so, why do SS designers seem to attch so much importance
to Zo, and criticise poor damping factor as being one of the major
short comings of SET?


Regards to all
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

OK., That's the first plausible answer so far.
But does it make sense? Why go to the trouble, when
stock 8 Ohm drivers from Kef were readily vailable,
and Radford could and did wind 8 Ohm xformers?

Yours faitfhully,
Baffled of Billingsgate

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

Iain also claims that Lowthers are capable of serious high fidelity
reproduction.

I imagined these to be indifferent antiques.

No Lowther is still going strong. Andre, and also Dave L who
reads but does not post on RAT know much more about them
that I do.

http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.com/

I went to a Lowther convention a couple of years ago.
I took with me a CD of various pieces of music. Some
of what I heard was very much to my taste.

One has to understand that people are looking for a musical
experience. This has nothing really to do with high fidelity in
the strictest sense of the term.

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.

Yes. That is probably true. It's called brand loyalty.
It also extends to classical recording labels. People buy the
Decca, or the EMI or the CBS version of a particular work.

But, as people have more and more disposable income, the
interest in, how shall we call them, "exotic" audio systems
is increasing. This is born out by the growing numbers of
bespoke tube amp builders turning out superbly crafted
products which cost a great deal of money. There seem to
be no shortage of customers for these.

I for one, am very interested in the psychology behind the
purchase of a new "hi-end" audio system. Maybe Trevor
can tell us sonething about this, even though he does not
sell tube amplifiers.

A dealer whom I know told me that what he calls
"cosmetics" account for 40% of the purchasing
decision, especially when choosing between two
amplifiers in a similar price range with similar performance
A tube amp certainly "looks" the part, if it meets the
criteria in other ways.

Regards to all
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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



**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.

Precisely. These are people with whom you are in mutual
disagreement on the subject of SET.

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.


They may wonder why you cannot enjoy the emotional
musical experience that they do. Have you considered that?

I greatly prefer the sound of the Decca style of recording to
that of say Sony Classical, as I find the Decca acoustical
interpretation, if I can call it that, to be more to my taste.
However, what I do not say is: "Decca is better, more
accurate. Those who don't agree are morons" Such an
attitude can never lead to rational discussion"

I respect you right to your opinion, but sadly, as long
as you insist on behaving like a pre-adolescent child,
I wouldthink that the chances of anyone coming
forward to discuss this matter with you are slim
to none.

In contrast, in the last few days there has been quite a
lot of interesting e-mail discussion, based on what has
been written here.

Cordially,
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"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.

No you don't. You sell audio to a gullible public
You are neither Stephen Hawkin nor Mother Theresa.

I promise you this: I
will NEVER extract money from clients by selling them rubbish, like SET
amplifiers. That would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

Do as you see fit.
You mentioned a while back that business was
not too good. I think I am beginning to see why:-)

Well, that and exhorting people to buy SET amps, whilst not actually
owning one (much like you).

I never exhort anyone to buy anything. I simply
speak of my personal impressions and experiences.
People must be alowed to make up their own mind.
Calling them morons, is not a constructive part of that
decision process.

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

why do SS designers seem to attch so much importance
to Zo, and criticise poor damping factor as being one of the major
short comings of SET?

It's not so much the damping factor as that the output impedance interacts with
the complex reactive load impedance to form a filter network that has a
distinctly non-flat frequency response. Same holds true for long speaker cables
of inadequate gauge too fwiw.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

OK., That's the first plausible answer so far.
But does it make sense? Why go to the trouble, when
stock 8 Ohm drivers from Kef were readily vailable,

Because they would have higher (voltage) sensitivity.


and Radford could and did wind 8 Ohm xformers?

Transformers are expensive and add FR and distortion issues.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

OK., That's the first plausible answer so far.
But does it make sense? Why go to the trouble, when
stock 8 Ohm drivers from Kef were readily vailable,
and Radford could and did wind 8 Ohm xformers?

There are two different issues here, the impedance level of the complete
speaker system, and the impedance level of the individual drivers within
the system. Graham appears to be referring to the latter situation. I
believe the BBC used tapped transformers in some of their speaker system
designs to deal with the differing sensitivities of the low and high
frequency drivers, eliminating the need for particular ratios of driver
impedance, or the use of pads and their side effects.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

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

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.

Yes it seems so. I am interested to know why.
I made the erroneous (?) assumption that better
damping was the objective.

Assuming that it was an erroneous assumption, only you can tell us why
you made it? Another thought is that" in the thinking of the time it
may have had to do with minimizing the interaction between the speakers
and the speaker "cables.

One simtimes sees BBC spec Leak amps for sale, which have
become separated from the speakers they were designed to drive.
People buy them in auction without realising that they have custom
OPTs.

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.

Still, it would be of interest to have some discussionon this
point. It seems to be one of the stumbling blocks of understanding
in tube amps. I get the impression that Graham seems to think it
is unimportant in the greater scheme of things. He may well be right.
But if so, why do SS designers seem to attch so much importance
to Zo, and criticise poor damping factor as being one of the major
short comings of SET?

I don't have a clue why SS designers attach such importance to the so
called "damping factor", I assume it is because it is a simple number
that has been sold to the public and makes for good advertising copy.
With any reasonable "damping factor", of say 10 or better, the DC
resistance of the speaker voice coil completely dominates in determining
the electrical damping of the speaker, but this is a subtle point that
people don't' easily understand.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[mick]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:52:32 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:

snip

I greatly prefer the sound of the Decca style of recording to that of
say Sony Classical, as I find the Decca acoustical interpretation, if I
can call it that, to be more to my taste. However, what I do not say is:
"Decca is better, more accurate. Those who don't agree are morons"
Such an attitude can never lead to rational discussion"



This brings us back to the question of just what is "hi-fi"? To be
pedantic about it, you can only justify that term when comparing the
played back sound with the original performance, but in these days of
sound treatments during recording/mixing the term seems rather
superfluous. There just isn't any accuracy in recordings now (unless you
record live performances personally).

As you point out, there are different "flavours" of sound which appeal to
different people. So what's wrong with calling *almost anything*
(including SET) "hi-fi"? After all, it's just another "flavour" and is
just as close to reality as the performance that was finally recorded.
Compared to what was done to the original performance (in some cases
anyway), the addition of a bit of distortion is virtually nothing! ;-)

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Arny Krueger]

"mick" wrote in message
.uk

As you point out, there are different "flavours" of sound
which appeal to different people. So what's wrong with
calling *almost anything* (including SET) "hi-fi"? After
all, it's just another "flavour"

Yes, let's face it - the prototypical 1950s 5-tube AC-DC radio with hot
chassis and cheap 4" speaker in a resonant plastic box is just another
"flavour". ;-)

and is just as close to
reality as the performance that was finally recorded.

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

Compared to what was done to the original performance (in
some cases anyway), the addition of a bit of distortion
is virtually nothing! ;-)

Simply not true in general. Sure, there's some horrible things being done to
some recordings. But, that was true in the 50s and 60s. Only then there was
not as many viable choices to do things right.

[mick]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:08:14 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

"mick" wrote in message
.uk

As you point out, there are different "flavours" of sound which appeal
to different people. So what's wrong with calling *almost anything*
(including SET) "hi-fi"? After all, it's just another "flavour"

Yes, let's face it - the prototypical 1950s 5-tube AC-DC radio with hot
chassis and cheap 4" speaker in a resonant plastic box is just another
"flavour". ;-)


Well, some people like it... A lot of people seem happy enough with the
tweeters built into mobile phones too! :-)


and is just as close to
reality as the performance that was finally recorded.

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


But we have no concept of the original sound, only what was finally
recorded. I'm arguing (with my best devil's advocate hat on) that the
original live performance is actually irrelevant when listening to the
majority of recordings. As such, what we hear can never be authenticated
as "hi-fi" so making further changes to it is like adding 100 to infinity.


Compared to what was done to the original performance (in some cases
anyway), the addition of a bit of distortion is virtually nothing! ;-)

Simply not true in general. Sure, there's some horrible things being
done to some recordings. But, that was true in the 50s and 60s. Only
then there was not as many viable choices to do things right.

Please note the wink. I'm not suggesting that recording studios
deliberately mess things up. It's just that, simply because there are so
many other things that go into the final recording apart from the
recording artists' contribution, the end result is something that doesn't
sound like the original performance anyway. The changes may be subtle (we
like to think so, anyway) but there is no way that we can tell. We get a
recorded image of an idealised performance, much like a touched-up
photograph.

Completely accurate reproduction of a recording like this doesn't make
the final sound "lifelike" in any way, it just reproduces the final
recording mix more accurately - warts and all.

Further modification of this performance to make it sound more appealing
to someone doesn't necessarily make it any less "true to life" as it
wasn't in the first place. Adding a bit of 2H distortion is only the same
as slightly tweaking the tone controls really. It makes the listening
experience "better" for the listener.

Listening to the sound is the whole point of the thing anyway, isn't it?
If you really insist on listening to truly accurate music then there is
no substitute for live performances at any price.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Arny Krueger]

"mick" wrote in message
.uk
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:08:14 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

"mick" wrote in message
.uk

As you point out, there are different "flavours" of
sound which appeal to different people. So what's wrong
with calling *almost anything* (including SET) "hi-fi"?
After all, it's just another "flavour"

Yes, let's face it - the prototypical 1950s 5-tube AC-DC
radio with hot chassis and cheap 4" speaker in a
resonant plastic box is just another "flavour". ;-)


Well, some people like it... A lot of people seem happy
enough with the tweeters built into mobile phones too!
:-)


and is just as close to
reality as the performance that was finally recorded.

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


But we have no concept of the original sound,

Speak for yourself, not some presumed we. I do a lot of live recording,
which means that I was at the live performance that goes with many of the
recordings that I have. Furthermore, the nature of my involvement means that
I can walk freely among the performers and sit anywhere in the room that I
wish during rehearsals.

only what was finally recorded.

In the area of realism of the illusion, I'm prone to use the rating scheme
that Mythbusters uses, namely confirmed, plausable, and busted. Some place
between plausable and confirmed is about as good as it gets. However, there
is a lot of reproduced sound that is busted.

I'm arguing (with my best devil's
advocate hat on) that the original live performance is
actually irrelevant when listening to the majority of
recordings.

Majority? Maybe majority of the recordings that you choose to listen to.

As such, what we hear can never be
authenticated as "hi-fi" so making further changes to it
is like adding 100 to infinity.

Again please don't compare your state to that of everybody.


Compared to what was done to the original performance
(in some cases anyway), the addition of a bit of
distortion is virtually nothing! ;-)

Simply not true in general. Sure, there's some horrible
things being done to some recordings. But, that was true
in the 50s and 60s. Only then there was not as many
viable choices to do things right.

Please note the wink. I'm not suggesting that recording
studios deliberately mess things up.

I would suggest that in some cases, what they do is deliberate, and they
probabaly know that as far as high fidelity goes, what they are doing is a
mess-up. Remember that pro audio gear pretty much all starts out with
someone's interpretation of the sonic accuracy model. On the worst day of
its life a lot of studio equipment is sonically accurate, despite what's
being done intentionally with other equipment in the same production
facility.

It's just that,
simply because there are so many other things that go
into the final recording apart from the recording
artists' contribution, the end result is something that
doesn't sound like the original performance anyway.

That is often a conscious choice that is made.

The
changes may be subtle (we like to think so, anyway) but
there is no way that we can tell. We get a recorded image
of an idealised performance, much like a touched-up
photograph.

IME some recordings are more like cartoons than an airbrushed photograph.

Completely accurate reproduction of a recording like this
doesn't make the final sound "lifelike" in any way, it
just reproduces the final recording mix more accurately -
warts and all.

What completely accurate recording does to highly produced or overproduced
recordings is give you a better reproduction of what the producers intended.
That is still in some sense doing more justice to the intended art than just
trashing it on the grounds that it is somehow unworthy of better treatment.

And again, lets talk about intentionality versus randomness. If I turn up
the bass because I want more bass, that's not the same as passively mixing
and matching amplifiers in the futile hopes of doing the same thing by guess
and by golly.

[mick]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:03:41 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

snip
But we have no concept of the original sound,

Speak for yourself, not some presumed we.

Sorry, Arny, but most people never have your experience in recording. As
such I feel justified in using the "royal we" on behalf of the vast,
silent majority.


I do a lot of live recording,

See above - most people don't. :-)


which means that I was at the live performance that goes with many of
the recordings that I have. Furthermore, the nature of my involvement
means that I can walk freely among the performers and sit anywhere in
the room that I wish during rehearsals.


You are, indeed, very fortunate and in a tiny minority.


only what was finally recorded.

In the area of realism of the illusion, I'm prone to use the rating
scheme that Mythbusters uses, namely confirmed, plausable, and busted.
Some place between plausable and confirmed is about as good as it gets.
However, there is a lot of reproduced sound that is busted.

I'm arguing (with my best devil's
advocate hat on) that the original live performance is actually
irrelevant when listening to the majority of recordings.

Majority? Maybe majority of the recordings that you choose to listen to.


It's very difficult to judge though. The labels don't give information on
how much the original sound has been interfered with prior to the final
issuing of the CD. ;-) It's always safe to assume that the recording
and/or production is bad or at best mediocre - that way we (yep - it's
that "we" again) aren't disappointed!


As such, what we hear can never be
authenticated as "hi-fi" so making further changes to it is like adding
100 to infinity.

Again please don't compare your state to that of everybody.


I'm not - just 99% of the music-buying public... ;-)

snip
Please note the wink. I'm not suggesting that recording studios
deliberately mess things up.

I would suggest that in some cases, what they do is deliberate, and they
probabaly know that as far as high fidelity goes, what they are doing is
a mess-up. Remember that pro audio gear pretty much all starts out with
someone's interpretation of the sonic accuracy model. On the worst day
of its life a lot of studio equipment is sonically accurate, despite
what's being done intentionally with other equipment in the same
production facility.


Agreed. I'm convinced that some stuff is processed on "advice" of the
record company with a view to make it more saleable. I trust the
equipment, but not necessarily the way in which it is used.

The artist(s) produce music, but the version that is eventually pressed
may not sound the same. This is my argument - you can't apply the term
"hi-fi" to the complete path from artist to listener in most cases. The
source is already compromised prior to entering the listener's playback
device, so anything (apart from *really* stupid things) that happens
after that is irrelevant. Unless you can guarantee the recording as
accurate it is just petty squabbling to worry about how it is reproduced.


snip
The
changes may be subtle (we like to think so, anyway) but there is no way
that we can tell. We get a recorded image of an idealised performance,
much like a touched-up photograph.

IME some recordings are more like cartoons than an airbrushed
photograph.


grin


Completely accurate reproduction of a recording like this doesn't make
the final sound "lifelike" in any way, it just reproduces the final
recording mix more accurately - warts and all.

What completely accurate recording does to highly produced or
overproduced recordings is give you a better reproduction of what the
producers intended. That is still in some sense doing more justice to
the intended art than just trashing it on the grounds that it is somehow
unworthy of better treatment.


I see what you mean. It still rather clobbers the idea of calling it High
Fidelity - close to the truth.


And again, lets talk about intentionality versus randomness. If I turn
up the bass because I want more bass, that's not the same as passively
mixing and matching amplifiers in the futile hopes of doing the same
thing by guess and by golly.

But that "passively mixing and matching amplifiers" makes the music sound
"better" to some. In that respect I think it's a bit unfair to condemn
them for their preference. I'm not arguing that SETs are the perfect way
to listen to music, but they are a perfectly acceptable way for quite a
lot of people. The music that they hear from them is reproduced in a
manner which *they* feel is "real". OK, that "reality" may be due to
introduced noise and distortion but it isn't really any different from
the process taking place in the recording studio, where the original
sound is modified to suit the marketplace. That could be construed as
"distortion" too, but of a more fundamental type.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Arny Krueger]

"mick" wrote in message
.uk
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:03:41 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

snip
But we have no concept of the original sound,

Speak for yourself, not some presumed we.

Sorry, Arny, but most people never have your experience
in recording. As such I feel justified in using the
"royal we" on behalf of the vast, silent majority.

I do a lot of live recording,

I don't believe it because you're changing your story late in the game.

[mick]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:14:29 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

"mick" wrote in message
.uk
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:03:41 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

snip
But we have no concept of the original sound,

Speak for yourself, not some presumed we.

Sorry, Arny, but most people never have your experience in recording.
As such I feel justified in using the "royal we" on behalf of the vast,
silent majority.

I do a lot of live recording,

I don't believe it because you're changing your story late in the game.


Sorry? I'm not...
Or perhaps you don't agree that you do a lot of live recording? grin

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"mick" wrote in message
.uk...

Arny wrote
Simply not true in general. Sure, there's some horrible things being
done to some recordings.

Yes. I have heard some of your work Arny :-)))


But, that was true in the 50s and 60s. Only
then there was not as many viable choices to do things right.


Mick replied
Please note the wink. I'm not suggesting that recording studios
deliberately mess things up.

No they certainly don't do that, I can assure you.
The artist, producer and studio are working very
hard indeed to give the public what they (think they) want.

The travesties that happen in CD mastering are not the
result of incompetence, or ignorance as some would claim.
CD's are deliberately over compressed and clipped to
suit the listening taste of the majority, who play their
music in the car, on computer speakers, and iPods.

Iain

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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



**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.

Precisely. These are people with whom you are in mutual
disagreement on the subject of SET.

**Yep. And I'll state it again: I do not call people who dissagree with me
deluded morons. Just SET proponents.


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.


They may wonder why you cannot enjoy the emotional
musical experience that they do.

**Non-sequitur. You do not know that I do not enjoy music.

Have you considered that?

**Have you considered that you are an idiot, for asking a stupid question,
without ascertaining the facts first?


I greatly prefer the sound of the Decca style of recording to
that of say Sony Classical, as I find the Decca acoustical
interpretation, if I can call it that, to be more to my taste.
However, what I do not say is: "Decca is better, more
accurate. Those who don't agree are morons" Such an
attitude can never lead to rational discussion"

**The production style of a recording is part of the artistic side of the
music. I do not quibble with matters of artistry. I have my opinions. I like
my Decca version of Also Sprach Zarathustra (Zubin Mehta), but find the
Deutsche Grammophon version (Von Karajan) unlistenable. Others may dispute
this and they are entitled to their opinion. However, we are not discussing
matters of artistic variety. We are discussing a music REPRODUCTION system.
It is not a music PRODUCTION system. Much of the music I listen to has made
it's way through equipment which exhibits high levels of distortion. That is
the choice of the artists. Who am I to decide how their music should be
listened to? Using deliberate distortion-creating products (like SETs)
perverts the intent of the artist/s.


I respect you right to your opinion,

**No, you do not. This would be yet, another, of your long list of lies. You
have continually challenged both my opinions and the facts, when I have
stated them. I am not challenging opinion. I am challenging the notion that
the introduction of deliberate distortion (linear and non-linear) into a
high fidelity system is the antithesis of what hi fi is all about.

but sadly, as long
as you insist on behaving like a pre-adolescent child,

**I respond precisely to your contuned insults in the way you deserve.

I wouldthink that the chances of anyone coming
forward to discuss this matter with you are slim
to none.

**Of course. There is no place for SETs in a high fidelity system. They are
indefensible.


In contrast, in the last few days there has been quite a
lot of interesting e-mail discussion, based on what has
been written here.

**So?

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"mick" wrote in message
.uk...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:52:32 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:

snip

I greatly prefer the sound of the Decca style of recording to that of
say Sony Classical, as I find the Decca acoustical interpretation, if I
can call it that, to be more to my taste. However, what I do not say is:
"Decca is better, more accurate. Those who don't agree are morons"
Such an attitude can never lead to rational discussion"



This brings us back to the question of just what is "hi-fi"? To be
pedantic about it, you can only justify that term when comparing the
played back sound with the original performance, but in these days of
sound treatments during recording/mixing the term seems rather
superfluous. There just isn't any accuracy in recordings now (unless you
record live performances personally).

As you point out, there are different "flavours" of sound which appeal to
different people. So what's wrong with calling *almost anything*
(including SET) "hi-fi"?

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

After all, it's just another "flavour" and is
just as close to reality as the performance that was finally recorded.
Compared to what was done to the original performance (in some cases
anyway), the addition of a bit of distortion is virtually nothing! ;-)

**That would an opinion you are entitled to. Adding distortion is not
desirable for many listeners.

Trevor Wilson

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"mick" wrote in message

As you point out, there are different "flavours" of sound which appeal to
different people.

No argument there. Most rock guitar would sound very unappealing if played
through 'hi-fi' equipment. The hi-fi sound seems to suit 'jazz guitar' though.


So what's wrong with calling *almost anything*
(including SET) "hi-fi"?

Because the word fidelity has a specific meaning.

" Audio, Video. the degree of accuracy with which sound or images are recorded
or reproduced. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fidelity

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


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

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

Graham

[West]

I expect Wiecked to now leave this group forever because he is a man of his
word. I promise to place no impediment along his journey and wish him a fond
farewell as he sails off into the sunset. Goodbye Peter.

Cordially,
west


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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!

****WIT.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

--
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor. People who work in broadcast "put their runs
on the board" as you call it on a daily basis. They work
hard, and carry responsibility commeasurate with their
very respectable salaries.

I have noticed before how the mention of these
people with qualifications and practical expertise far
greater than you own seem to bring you out in spots.

A bit like the cocky diminutive Lance Corporal, in the
ORs canteen, his belly full of beer, pork pie and
pickled onions, trying to convince a group of disinterested
squaddies how much better he is than "all them hi-falutin'
Staff Officers, who don't know sod all."

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


Precisely. These are people with whom you are in mutual
disagreement on the subject of SET.

**Yep. And I'll state it again: I do not call people who dissagree with me
deluded morons. Just SET proponents.

One and the same thing.

**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.


People don't seem to concerned about what can or cannot
be termed hi-fidelity. What they are concerned about is the
emotional experience, the degree of listening pleasure if you
like, which they get from a particular system. This becomes
the main criterion for their choice.

They may wonder why you cannot enjoy the emotional
musical experience that they do.

**Non-sequitur. You do not know that I do not enjoy music.

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

Have you considered that?

**Have you considered that you are an idiot, for asking a stupid question,
without ascertaining the facts first?

There you go again, and you accuse *me* of being
insulting:-)


I greatly prefer the sound of the Decca style of recording to
that of say Sony Classical, as I find the Decca acoustical
interpretation, if I can call it that, to be more to my taste.
However, what I do not say is: "Decca is better, more
accurate. Those who don't agree are morons" Such an
attitude can never lead to rational discussion"

**The production style of a recording is part of the artistic side of the
music. I do not quibble with matters of artistry.

Read my paragraph again. I did not once use the word
"production" I talk about recording style and acoustical
interpretation, which is solely to do with the choice of
recording location, and the choice and placement of
microphone etc Perhaps these are not areas of
expertise which are familiar to you. They are my
speciality.


I have my opinions. I like
my Decca version of Also Sprach Zarathustra (Zubin Mehta), but find the
Deutsche Grammophon version (Von Karajan) unlistenable. Others may
dispute this and they are entitled to their opinion. However, we are not
discussing matters of artistic variety.

Indeed we are not. You have completely missed the point.

We are discussing a music REPRODUCTION system. It is not a music
PRODUCTION system. Much of the music I listen to has made it's way through
equipment which exhibits high levels of distortion. That is the choice of
the artists. Who am I to decide how their music should be listened to?
Using deliberate distortion-creating products (like SETs) perverts the
intent of the artist/s.

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

I respect you right to your opinion,

**No, you do not. This would be yet, another, of your long list of lies.

Try, Trevor, just for once, to have some sense of decorum
and discuss this like a rational adult.


but sadly, as long
as you insist on behaving like a pre-adolescent child,

**I respond precisely to your contuned insults in the way you deserve.


I wouldthink that the chances of anyone coming
forward to discuss this matter with you are slim
to none.

**Of course. There is no place for SETs in a high fidelity system. They
are indefensible.

Once again, I respect your opinion. Some would not agree
with you. You must allow them the freedom of their views.

In contrast, in the last few days there has been quite a
lot of interesting e-mail discussion, based on what has
been written here.

**So?

The fact that you have not been included in this could
perhaps indicate how little your opinion is valued.
There is no discussing with your kind of immature
adamancy. People must be allowed the freedom of
choice. It is them interesting to discuss with them the
criteria involved in that choice.

Iain

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"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

[Patrick Turner]

Snip a pile of uninformative bickering.............................

Then Iain mentioned....
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.

Hmm, then some real BS.

Trevor, you'll never win on this subject.

Anyway, I just got one SET amp up and running and it has
2 x 845 within and only a complete audio-dunderhead would say the music
heard through this amp was distorted, or that thr artifacts are what ppl
enjoy,
or that they were not listening to the music.

The amp has a 55 watt ability, and distortion lower than many PP amps.
Always less than 0.1% at all loads above 3 ohms at several watts and
enough to cover
95% of listeners' needs.
BW 10Hz to 68kHz, unconditional stability, only 8 dB GNB, but Rout =
0.32 ohms.
Noise is so low that when I hold my ear against my speakers I hear
nothing.

Weight is 42 Kg per channel though. Great, because thieves won't hurry
away with these babies...


It's a personal choice which people make.

**Indeed. I don't argue with peoples' delusions.

So SET users are deluded? I think its you who is deluded....


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.

Hahso, Halcro, it like 300B, but go louder....

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.

he he, youse talking through that thing again.....


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, all the people who treasure their SET and SEP and parallel SET and
SEP amps
all tell me the opposite' the SE amp is the only type that brings them
their reality.

They all do have a very hi-fidelity system.

You sould listen to yourself some more.....




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 emotions are best conveyed by SE amps and tubes.
Its part of the reality for many people, emotion, maybe you are
anti emotional because you cannot handle the lack of logic in emotional
concerns,
and you only can listen if the numbers are better than they need to be.


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.

The only real concrete is in that part of your mind which objects to a
single
ended design.

There is no accounting for taste, either good or bad, and the fans of
James Morrison
et all above would be hurt and insulted by what you say.

But whatever someone does NOT like will remain unlikeable with a decent
SE triode amp.

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.

Nope. Based on your own delusions....



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.

Unfortunately, I have had to draw the world's attewntion to Trevor's
much repeated BS and lies
about SE amps and their use.

Usually any mention of the conditions of listening tests are omitted by
Trevor.

So TW leaves us uninformed and we could assume a typical comparison is
valid for TW when the SET amp has a lone 300B
powering insensitive speakers and the SS PP amp or other PP tube type is
a 100W concoction.

Only when ther SE amp has been built to clip at 100 watts like the
larger amp
is the comparison valid, or if the SS or PP tube amp has a power at
clipping
equal to that of the lone 300B.

Trevor is saying a cherry is no good nutritionally compared to a
pumpkin.
Well, both are vegetables, sure, but TW really isn't saying anything
more
that is worth reading.....



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.

Not for those who make informed purchasing decisions based on logic AND
their fine sense of hearing.

Everyone knows any tube amp measures worse than a Halcro.

So darn what?


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.

This is generic BS from TW.

Lowthers are often built by diyers, and of course some make woodwork
mistakes,
and other technical mistakes which ruins any chance of a fine flat
response.
But not everyone stuffs up when the make a pair of horns.




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.

So what?

For highly sensitive horn speakers the SET amp is ideal.
I know ppl with very fine horn systems.
Ive measured a few as well, and the good ones are quite flat and very
nice sounding.

There may be cheaper ways to make a watt than use a 300B.

If you want as drink, a glass of water is all you really need.
But people do buy expensive bottles of wine now don't they,
so are they deluded?
Maybe they'd find you socially boring at the dinner party...

Maybe you'd hate have paintings hung on your house walls because
the pictures ain't accurate enough. All those brush strokes...
And Picasso, how dreadful.....




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.

All techical aspects of SE amplifiers can be fully addressed to provide
enough power, low Rout, low N&D, and wide BW, ie, hi-fi.

TW NEVER aknowledges that anyone does address all the relevant issues.



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.

And we don't like one eyed cretins who refuse to accept that for many
the SE amp is
all they'd ever want. And we don't like cretins on tube groups rabitting
on about
SE amps as if ALL of them are sonically poisenous, and that its
impossible
for an SE amp to measure well as it needs to measure.


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.

I quite like SET amps and have built a range of them for discerning
customers.

I promote them CONDITIONALLY. Its not one bit intelligent to tell a guy
who likes to raise the roof tiles with
horrendous levels of acid rock that he should have an SE amp with a lone
300B for his insensitive speakers.
There is already a double digit amount of N&D within such music, ie,
more than 10% of
utter crap, and bottles won't make it sound much better, although many
would indeed say they
do improve such crude sources of musical energy.

I'd tell the guy go buy a second hand ME 550, or some other PP SS amp.

OR if he wanted, I could build him a large enough SE amp which would
give him the right power ceiling wanted.
But I don't encourage such ppl.

I have nothing against SS amps and have designed and built a few, along
with a wide variety of SE amps
mainly using beam tetrodes as the main devices.

My recent experience of completeing the first monobloc using a pair of
845 in parallel SET
leads me to believe I ain't wasting my time; the sound is utterly
sublime, detailed,
and simply right, without being coloured, and like the real event.
Thunderously loud levels are available if wanted, but most of my
customers ain't deaf,
and actually need no more than 20 watts, ever.
Having up to 55W on tap means the music is much more within the
sweetzone
of the SET amp's power range. Sure they fall apart if you over drive
them.

If you had an 8 watt SE transistor amp, would it not sound bloody awful
when you cranked it
up beyond its capabilities?






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.

There is nothing wrong with selling any kind of amplifier.

But when you speak ill about a genre of amps and place ALL samples of
this genre
all in the same reject basket, then the world will just laugh at you.

You could be more successful if you were more understanding of the SE
amp basics,
but nobody is waiting for you to learn. several years have gone by
without
any change to your inconsistent and ill-informed position.





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.

But you don't say anything that really can challenge the castle of SET
amplification.

Nobody I know is much convinced by anything TW says about SE amps.

People tend to belive their ears rather than anything Trevor says about
SE amps.

You'd think such hot, heavy, greenhouse wrong, inefficient amps which
are
always in pure class A and which occasionally blow up a tube or two
would have faded out like wind up gramophones and shellac records.

But no, they remain because of the hi-fi they help to produce.

Patrick Turner.







Trevor Wilson

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

--
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor. People who work in broadcast "put their runs
on the board" as you call it on a daily basis. They work
hard, and carry responsibility commeasurate with their
very respectable salaries.

I have noticed before how the mention of these
people with qualifications and practical expertise far
greater than you own seem to bring you out in spots.

A bit like the cocky diminutive Lance Corporal, in the
ORs canteen, his belly full of beer, pork pie and
pickled onions, trying to convince a group of disinterested
squaddies how much better he is than "all them hi-falutin'
Staff Officers, who don't know sod all."

Iain

The archives of aus.hi-fi and rec.audio.tubes will have repeats of the
same tired old arguments
between many ppl and TW about SE amps.

Everyone who has been around here for longer than 10 minutes knows
how silly it is to argue with TW in dreary long drawn out threads
where the same old tired TW arguments are trotted out.

AFAIK, TW has not deigned or built any amp for fun, or to sell during
the last
20 years at least. We all have our limitations, including those relating
to
knowledge about tube amps. He has been quite helpful to me when I had to
service samples of
his favourite amp brand, ME, which ceased large scale production a
couple of years ago.
TW would seem to be more at home servicing SS amps,
and trading second hand varieties. He's a very nice guy, but just has
this
slight mental problem when someone mentions SET amps, and then that
person becomes
condemnable just because they admit to liking SET amps.

I've even heard passable digital amps. By that I don't mean I'd ever
want to buy one
yet, but that yes, they work when you turn them on, and it looks like
they could make a lot of class B PP SS amps obsolete.
And I doubt I will ever try to make a digital amp.
Digital means tiny boards with short tracks for speed of counting, 1, 2,
3, ....... etc.
I'll never bother trying to make a cd player either....
I don't plan to out-do Dan Lavery at building DA converters....


Tubes will remain the choice of some audiophiles for amplifiers while
ever there are tubes made,
or NOS available.



Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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


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

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

What is the relevance of "High fidelity" in today's audio scene? Most,
if not all, current recordings fail the "High fidelity" test because of
all the equalization, compression, clipping, and etc. applied to them,
along with the microphone techniques used.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

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

Apparently NONE in your case.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

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

Only a total IDIOT could post such complete garbage.

Graham

[mick]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:56:04 +0000, John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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


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

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

What is the relevance of "High fidelity" in today's audio scene? Most,
if not all, current recordings fail the "High fidelity" test because of
all the equalization, compression, clipping, and etc. applied to them,
along with the microphone techniques used.



The term "high fidelity" really means "a high degree of truthfulness".

If you compare the final sound with the original performance (case 1)
then I completely agree, current recordings already fail the test before
the listener gets them. Alternatively, if you compare the recorded CD
with the final sound (case 2), then it passes - as the aim is to
reproduce the *cd's content* accurately.

IMHO only case 1 can be construed to be a test of "high fidelity".
Case 2 is really a test of accuracy of the reproducing equipment.

In case 1, when listening to most recordings, I can't see anything wrong
with modifying the final sound to suit the preferences of the listener.
As any pretence of "fidelity" has already been removed at the early
stages it no longer matters. This, for me, is the realm of SETs.

Case 2 requires accurate equipment. I couldn't really agree with anyone
who suggested SETs here. You really need "a piece of wire with gain" -
and no tone controls or anything else that would change the original
recording characteristics - even if they were a mess. I think TW and
Graham only recognise class2... ;-)

Perhaps the term "hi-fi" is indeed now redundant?

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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