A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

mp

michael wrote:
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to
get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did
subscribing to TAC.

bob

michael wrote:
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

mp

Do you mean that he used a screwdriver to take the amp apart??
Were there nice pictures of the "guts" published?
Did he provide a schematic and in depth circuit analysis?

Surely he did not find any technical flaws in the amp??
Were not the distortion levels sufficient low?

Merely puzzled...


_-_-bear

bob wrote:

michael wrote:

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to
get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did
subscribing to TAC.


First, there was never any "publication schedule". Where did you get
that idea? The issues just showed up when they showed up. It was the
Orson Welles-Paul Masson theory of journalism. Except you could never
count on Audio Critic being on the shelves when you needed one. On the
other hand, when one did show up, it was like getting a bottle of
Chateau Lafite Rothschild instead of the usual jug of Red.

Dr. Rich actually did quite a bit for them. With a Web format there is
no intrinsic reason material cannot be put up quickly, unlike problems
associated with printing. Who knows? Maybe he had a falling out with
Mr. Aczel. Maybe equipment makers told the editor they were not going
to send TAC anymore gear if Rich was allowed to look on the inside.
Maybe he was disappointed in his lack of exposure and the folks at SS
made him an offer he just couldn't refuse. Whatever the reason, I am
not happy since his contributions fit in nicely within the editorial
format of Audio Critic. But I'm sure the editor can find someone of
equal technical insight to replace him should he so desire. Still, it
was always fun to read his loaded machine-gun, take no prisoners, kick
'em when they're down style.

mp

bob wrote:
michael wrote:
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to
get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did
subscribing to TAC.

bob

Rich has been technical editor at $$ for quite some time now....more than a year
I think. THere was overlap with onling TAC for that time. But his $$ output has up until
recently been sporadic. It looks that that is ramping up, which is a Good Thing, even if it
ends up being at the expense of TAC.

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:

A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently
"took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp...

Do you mean that he used a screwdriver to take the amp apart??
Were there nice pictures of the "guts" published?
Did he provide a schematic and in depth circuit analysis?

Surely he did not find any technical flaws in the amp??
Were not the distortion levels sufficient low?

Merely puzzled...


Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.

No need for puzzlement. There was an in depth discussion of the
circuit; in depth given the constraints of an article format. And, as
he notes, the schematics are published.

You should subscribe and then you wouldn't have to rely on my comments.
It's probably not more expensive than a music CD. Not much in the
scheme of things, I guess.

But, if you are interested, I can say that he was of the opinion it did
not represent good value considering alternatives in the Bryston line,
and considering similar products from other manufacturers.

mp

michael wrote:
BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:


snip

Merely puzzled...



Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.

On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik,
none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very
perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and
French somehow manage to get this included in their articles.


No need for puzzlement. There was an in depth discussion of the
circuit; in depth given the constraints of an article format. And, as
he notes, the schematics are published.

Do tell? Where are the schematics published? I may wish to build one for
myself...


You should subscribe and then you wouldn't have to rely on my comments.
It's probably not more expensive than a music CD. Not much in the
scheme of things, I guess.

Ummm... I should "subscribe"? I see.
Well, since your post brought up the publication and a specific article,
perhaps you might wish to not be quite so reticent to discuss the
relative merits of the information presented? Especially what the
specific "issues" that the erstwhile Dr. Rich (Risch?)found in the
Bryston amp he evaluated?

Otherwise it comes off as a shill for the publisher...


But, if you are interested, I can say that he was of the opinion it did
not represent good value considering alternatives in the Bryston line,
and considering similar products from other manufacturers.

Nothing factual then, just his "opinion"?
It sounded the same as the others?
Tested as well?

Not much of a "taking apart" then?


mp

Please excuse my cynicism on this sort of topic... I find that any
publication that claims technical exertise and objectively based
findings which does not fully deliver within a range that is quite
reasonable to achieve to be suspect, imho.

_-_-bear

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:

Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.


On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik,
none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very
perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and
French somehow manage to get this included in their articles.


I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that the
overseas press usually does a technical analysis of circuit design?
That is what Rich does.



Do tell? Where are the schematics published? I may wish to build one for
myself...


The Bryston Web site. Who else would have the rights to publish them?


Ummm... I should "subscribe"? I see.
Well, since your post brought up the publication and a specific article,
perhaps you might wish to not be quite so reticent to discuss the
relative merits of the information presented? Especially what the
specific "issues" that the erstwhile Dr. Rich (Risch?)found in the
Bryston amp he evaluated?


If you subscribed then your comments would make more sense to the topic.
I certainly do not feel compelled to paraphrase a review for someone
who will not subscribe.


Otherwise it comes off as a shill for the publisher...


You really sound a bit angry in all of this. Do you hold some personal
grudge against Dr. Rich? Why would you intentionally mock the spelling
of his name? I'm guessing that there is something you really want to
say, but, for some reason, cannot, or will not be open about it?


Nothing factual then, just his "opinion"?


There are opinions based on nothing but hidden agendas, and then there
are opinions based on reasoned arguments. I can only suggest that you
read the the article and then comment. Otherwise, your statement is, at
best, an opinion of the first kind. It was clear to me from the article
in question that Dr Rich's opinion, as you call it, was based upon the
second criteria. But you will never know unless you check it out, yourself.


It sounded the same as the others?
Tested as well?

Not much of a "taking apart" then?


Again, you comment on something you have no first, or, apparently, even
second hand knowledge of.


Please excuse my cynicism on this sort of topic... I find that any
publication that claims technical exertise and objectively based
findings which does not fully deliver within a range that is quite
reasonable to achieve to be suspect, imho.


Again, how would you know unless you read the article?


This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or
not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the
comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the
review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of
gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical
expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he
said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the
Usenet Twilight Zone.

mp

BEAR wrote:
michael wrote:
BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:


snip

Merely puzzled...



Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.

On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik,
none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very
perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and
French somehow manage to get this included in their articles.

Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things
apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

michael wrote:
This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or
not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the
comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the
review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of
gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical
expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he
said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the
Usenet Twilight Zone.

Actually, it's been rather amusing watching you try to reason with this
guy. What you apparently don't know is that he is notorious here as a
purveyor of tube amps and high-priced cables. Hence his reflexive and
uninformed negative reaction to someone like David Rich, who can see
through the smoke.

bob

michael wrote:
bob wrote:

michael wrote:

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

Given their relative publication schedules, I'd say you're likely to
get far more David Rich subscribing to T$S now than you ever did
subscribing to TAC.


First, there was never any "publication schedule".

But Aczel always promised to do better. And he just kept getting worse.

Where did you get
that idea? The issues just showed up when they showed up. It was the
Orson Welles-Paul Masson theory of journalism. Except you could never
count on Audio Critic being on the shelves when you needed one. On the
other hand, when one did show up, it was like getting a bottle of
Chateau Lafite Rothschild instead of the usual jug of Red.

Dr. Rich actually did quite a bit for them. With a Web format there is
no intrinsic reason material cannot be put up quickly, unlike problems
associated with printing. Who knows? Maybe he had a falling out with
Mr. Aczel.

Then why is he still writing for Mr. Aczel?

Maybe equipment makers told the editor they were not going
to send TAC anymore gear if Rich was allowed to look on the inside.
Maybe he was disappointed in his lack of exposure and the folks at SS
made him an offer he just couldn't refuse. Whatever the reason, I am
not happy since his contributions fit in nicely within the editorial
format of Audio Critic. But I'm sure the editor can find someone of
equal technical insight to replace him should he so desire. Still, it
was always fun to read his loaded machine-gun, take no prisoners, kick
'em when they're down style.

I think you've misunderstood. David Rich is still doing technical
reviews for TAC, now that it's a webzine. What is "erstwhile" is the
dead-tree edition, not Dr. Rich's association with it.

bob

BEAR wrote:
michael wrote:
A while ago someone wrote that Dr. Rich was now reviewing for Sensible
Sound. I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.

But more interesting is Mr. Aczel's comment that Dr. Rich is now their
"erstwhile" technical editor. If this is true I will miss his comments
for TAC.

mp

Do you mean that he used a screwdriver to take the amp apart??
Were there nice pictures of the "guts" published?
Did he provide a schematic and in depth circuit analysis?

Surely he did not find any technical flaws in the amp??
Were not the distortion levels sufficient low?

Merely puzzled...

You can satisfy your curiosity he

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index...Id=21&blogId=1

Rich's comments start about halfway down the page.

(You are a subscriber, aren't you?)

bob

michael wrote:
snip



This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or
not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the
comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the
review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of
gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical
expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he
said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the
Usenet Twilight Zone.

mp

Ummm... that's not what I recall reading.

You cited an article available by subscription only wherein you claimed
that Dr. Rich to quote your post:

"recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical
Rich...to the point and pulling no punches"

When queried as to the nature of the taking apart - you dodged the question.

In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to
subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going
to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the
publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz,
that's called a "tease."

As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way
to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this
amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in
fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from
his writing?

You did not merely post that you enjoyed publication XYZ nor did you
merely state that you enjoy Dr. Rich's writings.

Ok?

_-_-bear

Steven Sullivan wrote:

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:

BEAR wrote:


michael wrote:


snip

Merely puzzled...



Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.


On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik,
none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very
perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and
French somehow manage to get this included in their articles.


Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things
apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way.




I have no quarrel with in depth technical analysis and/or reverse
engineering. I rather enjoy and prefer that sort of look "under the hood."

An interesting comparison is that many auto mags seem to do the same
sort of thing even when they are proporting to be "technical" - usually
the DIY/hotrod/offroad etc. ones - where you see a whole lot of parts
and steps to do XYZ. That's interesting and often helpful - but I find
that once you know or figure out the basics of doing "ABC" that these
articles lack specifics, depth and insights that really *tell the true
story*. You usually only find out the *real deal* once you do it
yourself, make mistakes, learn who makes what the right way, and what
works in what application, what the trade-offs are... this sort of thing
is not in any auto mag I've found.

Similarly, I have yet to read an audio review anywhere where the writer
actually provided this sort of depth, insight and view of the "ins and
outs" of a given design... Dr. Rich's reviews, when I have had the
occasion to read them in the *past* are quite cursory in this respect.
If that has changed I would like to be informed.

The foreign pubs often do a better job in this respect, as I said - the
Japanese, German and French mags that I have seen, and even some Italian
mags seem to look more closely at both the construction and the
circuitry, depending of course on which mags we're looking at (not ALL
of them...).

Curiosly, you do find this sort of in-depth discussion audio design
& tradeoffs on some internet forums. Rather insightful discussion of
specific brands, specific types of circuits, tradeoffs, application,
design, simulations and other matters that unless you'd actually tested,
built or simulated one whole heck of a lot of circuits you'd never catch
on to... and some that you'd still not come in contact with!

So, it's not only possible, it's done daily.

People like Dr. Rich present themselves, as far as I can see, as
"experts" in the field. They present their opinions/writings as
dispositive, for the most part. They may well be. But the writing that I
have read or seen falls far short of presenting insight, detail or
sufficient information to truly accept or deny the conclusions drawn.

In the case of the two big mags, TAC & SP, we know *a priori* that what
is presented is opinion. Different case.

_-_-bear

bob wrote:


I think you've misunderstood. David Rich is still doing technical
reviews for TAC, now that it's a webzine. What is "erstwhile" is the
dead-tree edition, not Dr. Rich's association with it.


If you are correct then this is good news.


michael

BEAR wrote:

Ummm... that's not what I recall reading.

You cited an article available by subscription only wherein you claimed
that Dr. Rich to quote your post:

"recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical
Rich...to the point and pulling no punches"

When queried as to the nature of the taking apart - you dodged the
question.


No. I didn't dodge your question. I just said I wasn't going to
paraphrase for you what he wrote. But someone else actually copied the
link for you, which is more than I would have done. So now you can read
it and make your own conclusions. Then, at least any further opinions
you have will at least be based on the source material.


In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to
subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going
to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the
publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz,
that's called a "tease."


I'm not in the business, but if you want to call me a shill that's OK
with me. I have no desire to hide my admiration for the work Dr. Rich does.


As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way
to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this
amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in
fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from
his writing?


Who said there was no way to encapsulate the thrust of his
dissatisfaction? I just said I wasn't going to do it. After all, I was
really only concerned about whether he was still going to be writing for
them. But now that you have the opportunity to read the article thanks
to the efforts of someone else, you will understand that he simply
thought the amplifier was overpriced considering other alternatives out
there. And that's what I meant when I told you that he didn't think it
was good value.


michael

bob wrote:

First, there was never any "publication schedule".

But Aczel always promised to do better. And he just kept getting worse.


What started out as an embarrassment became an inside (to subscribers)
joke. After a while no one expected anything other than something
around Christmas time.


Dr. Rich actually did quite a bit for them. With a Web format there is
no intrinsic reason material cannot be put up quickly, unlike problems
associated with printing. Who knows? Maybe he had a falling out with
Mr. Aczel.

Then why is he still writing for Mr. Aczel?


I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with
them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of
the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is
one way, and there have been no editorial discussions about what is
going on. One has to read between the lines and that only leads to idle
speculation, like mine.

With the actual magazine there were always plenty of "philosophical"
debates discussed. I'd personally like to see more discussion about the
audio scene in addition to mere equipment reviews.

For instance, in the letters section of the magazine there were always
several interesting things going on. It would be good, in my view, for
them to publish letters with commentary.


michael

BEAR wrote:
michael wrote:
snip

=20
=20
This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether =
or=20
not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the=20
comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the=20
review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of=20
gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical=20
expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what=
he=20
said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the=20
Usenet Twilight Zone.
=20
mp

Ummm... that's not what I recall reading.

You cited an article available by subscription only wherein you claimed
that Dr. Rich to quote your post:

"recently "took apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical=20
Rich...to the point and pulling no punches"

When queried as to the nature of the taking apart - you dodged the ques=
tion.

In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to=20
subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going=20
to or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the=20
publisher, even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz,=
=20
that's called a "tease."

As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way=20
to encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this=20
amplifier then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in=20
fact other than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from=
=20
his writing?

You did not merely post that you enjoyed publication XYZ nor did you=20
merely state that you enjoy Dr. Rich's writings.

Ok?


Heres's how the Rich part of the review starts:


"Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the We=
b=20
so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long=20
time since I looked at a Bryston, let=E2=80=99s have a brief review of=20
what=E2=80=99inside all their offerings."

He then goes on to offer a *detailed* (and laudatory) overview of=20
previous Bryston philosophy, incorporating notes on how the 875HT=20
represents a break from it, e.g.,

"In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound=20
transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in=20
the 875HT. Putting voltage gain in the output stage allows the preceding=20
stages, which provide the bulk of the open-loop voltage gain of the=20
amplifier, to be run from regulated power supplies. The regulated rails=20
are at a lower voltage than the unregulated power rails connected to the=20
output stages (they need to swing only 25% of the output voltage). In a=20
normal amplifier, with the output current-gain stage having a gain of onl=
y=20
1, the preceding stages would have to be run off the power supply that=20
supplies the output rails, lest the amplifier clip at a lower voltage set=
=20
by the clipping point of the voltage-gain stages."


Here is the first sentence of the concluding paragraph.

"Should the Bryston 875HT be part of your home theater? I really do not=20
think so. It is overpriced for home applications. Instead consider=20
multiple Bryston 4B SST=E2=80=99s (full Bryston topology with an FCC rati=
ng of=20
500 watts per channel into 4 ohms and a much lower price per watt), drive=
n=20
by multiple 15-amp lines. "

I trust I have remained within 'fair use' quoting limts here. There's=20
LOTS more to the review, not even counting Aczel's long review too.=20
Since you are *so* interested in what Rich actually wrote, I have to=20
wonder, are you short the $13 it would require for you to subscribe to=20
the webzine? If so I can spot you for it.=20

Or would you much rather 'critique' someone who is merely *praising* the=20
copyrighted review?


--=20
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stu=
pidity of religious=20
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:

BEAR wrote:


michael wrote:


snip

Merely puzzled...



Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.


On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik,
none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very
perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans and
French somehow manage to get this included in their articles.


Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes things
apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that way.




I have no quarrel with in depth technical analysis and/or reverse
engineering. I rather enjoy and prefer that sort of look "under the hood."

An interesting comparison is that many auto mags seem to do the same
sort of thing even when they are proporting to be "technical" - usually
the DIY/hotrod/offroad etc. ones - where you see a whole lot of parts
and steps to do XYZ. That's interesting and often helpful - but I find
that once you know or figure out the basics of doing "ABC" that these
articles lack specifics, depth and insights that really *tell the true
story*. You usually only find out the *real deal* once you do it
yourself, make mistakes, learn who makes what the right way, and what
works in what application, what the trade-offs are... this sort of thing
is not in any auto mag I've found.

Similarly, I have yet to read an audio review anywhere where the writer
actually provided this sort of depth, insight and view of the "ins and
outs" of a given design... Dr. Rich's reviews, when I have had the
occasion to read them in the *past* are quite cursory in this respect.
If that has changed I would like to be informed.


As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's
what's stopping you.


Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me.


The foreign pubs often do a better job in this respect, as I said - the
Japanese, German and French mags that I have seen, and even some Italian
mags seem to look more closely at both the construction and the
circuitry, depending of course on which mags we're looking at (not ALL
of them...).

Rich has certainly looked at both constuction and circuitry in some
reviews I've seen.

People like Dr. Rich present themselves, as far as I can see, as
"experts" in the field. They present their opinions/writings as
dispositive, for the most part. They may well be. But the writing that I
have read or seen falls far short of presenting insight, detail or
sufficient information to truly accept or deny the conclusions drawn.


What writings of his have you read?





--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

michael wrote:
I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with
them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of
the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is
one way,

Not technically true. TAC is now structured as a blog, so it is
possible to post comments in response to any review or other article.
No one's done it yet, but the links are there.

and there have been no editorial discussions about what is
going on. One has to read between the lines and that only leads to idle
speculation, like mine.

With the actual magazine there were always plenty of "philosophical"
debates discussed. I'd personally like to see more discussion about the
audio scene in addition to mere equipment reviews.

Plenty of philosphical discussions right here. If you want Aczel's
take, just keep reading "Ten Myths" over and over and over again.
Nothing changes.

For instance, in the letters section of the magazine there were always
several interesting things going on. It would be good, in my view, for
them to publish letters with commentary.

As I said, you can post a "letter" in response to a review at any time.

bob

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:

BEAR wrote:


michael wrote:


snip

Merely puzzled...



Not funny. Obviously he took it apart in a less literal way.


On the contrary, quite funny. It is odd (and funny) to me that afaik,
none of the US publications do more than an occasional and very
perfunctory look "under the hood" of any gear. The Japanese, Germans
and
French somehow manage to get this included in their articles.


Actually, Rich almost always looks under the hood, and sometimes takes
things
apart, literally. His reviews tend to be exhaustingly thorough that
way.




I have no quarrel with in depth technical analysis and/or reverse
engineering. I rather enjoy and prefer that sort of look "under the
hood."

An interesting comparison is that many auto mags seem to do the same
sort of thing even when they are proporting to be "technical" - usually
the DIY/hotrod/offroad etc. ones - where you see a whole lot of parts
and steps to do XYZ. That's interesting and often helpful - but I find
that once you know or figure out the basics of doing "ABC" that these
articles lack specifics, depth and insights that really *tell the true
story*. You usually only find out the *real deal* once you do it
yourself, make mistakes, learn who makes what the right way, and what
works in what application, what the trade-offs are... this sort of thing
is not in any auto mag I've found.

Similarly, I have yet to read an audio review anywhere where the writer
actually provided this sort of depth, insight and view of the "ins and
outs" of a given design... Dr. Rich's reviews, when I have had the
occasion to read them in the *past* are quite cursory in this respect.
If that has changed I would like to be informed.


As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's
what's stopping you.


Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me.


The foreign pubs often do a better job in this respect, as I said - the
Japanese, German and French mags that I have seen, and even some Italian
mags seem to look more closely at both the construction and the
circuitry, depending of course on which mags we're looking at (not ALL
of them...).

Rich has certainly looked at both constuction and circuitry in some
reviews I've seen.

People like Dr. Rich present themselves, as far as I can see, as
"experts" in the field. They present their opinions/writings as
dispositive, for the most part. They may well be. But the writing that I
have read or seen falls far short of presenting insight, detail or
sufficient information to truly accept or deny the conclusions drawn.


What writings of his have you read?


He certainly seems to be going into much detail in his writeup from issue
no.21 from Spring of 1994, when he wrote about the HK PA2400 or Krell KRC-2
from the same issue, or the Parasound HCA-2200II, from the same issue.

His and Aczel's pieces on CD players,DA processors, and transports are also
very detailed.

I think it somewhat nasty to imply that Rich is anything other than an
expert in the field.





--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"michael" wrote in message
...
Snip for brevity

In response you said that readers of this newsgroup would need to
subscribe to the publication to know more, and that you were not going to
or able to say more. Sounds like a thinly veiled shill for the publisher,
even if that is not your true intent. Btw, in the media biz, that's
called a "tease."


I'm not in the business, but if you want to call me a shill that's OK with
me. I have no desire to hide my admiration for the work Dr. Rich does.


As far as the schematics, the technical discussion, if there is no way to
encapsulate the thrust of Dr. Rich's dissatisfaction with this amplifier
then one would have to presume that there is/was no basis in fact other
than his opinion, or else you were unable to glean this from his writing?


Who said there was no way to encapsulate the thrust of his
dissatisfaction? I just said I wasn't going to do it. After all, I was
really only concerned about whether he was still going to be writing for
them. But now that you have the opportunity to read the article thanks to
the efforts of someone else, you will understand that he simply thought
the amplifier was overpriced considering other alternatives out there.
And that's what I meant when I told you that he didn't think it was good
value.


I found the following quote to be very telling: The PowerCube of one
channel of the Bryston 875HT is shown in Fig. 6. Interestingly enough, it is
not even as good as that of the dirt-cheap Behringer A500 (see the December
2005 review on this website).

I think using 4 A500's would likely offer tge same level of performance
(albeit with a slightly more rolled of high frequency) for a much better
price.

bob wrote:

michael wrote:

I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with
them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of
the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is
one way,


Not technically true. TAC is now structured as a blog, so it is
possible to post comments in response to any review or other article.
No one's done it yet, but the links are there.


The links are there, as you say, however I tried one tonight; it did not
work with my Browser (Mozilla Firefox on Linux). You should try and see
if they work for you and then let us know. I have an idea this function
is not set up on the AC Website.

michael

bob wrote:
michael wrote:
I presumed the "erstwhile" meant that he was no longer associated with
them. I have no idea what the actual circumstances are. That is one of
the problems with the present Audio Critic format. The information is
one way,

Not technically true. TAC is now structured as a blog, so it is
possible to post comments in response to any review or other article.
No one's done it yet, but the links are there.

Looks like I spoke too soon here. Each article has a link to a comments
page, but there is no way to actually post a comment there. Aczel must
have that feature turned off. (Maybe to avoid flames.)

Anayway, my apologies to anyone who's already tried to do this.

bob

Steven Sullivan wrote:



As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's
what's stopping you.


Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me.


If you would like to send me a gift subscription for a year, please feel
free to do so.

You can find my mailing address on my website http://www.bearlabs.com in
the How To Order section, or you can email me from the site and I will
be more than happy to supply it.

What writings of his have you read?

In the mag(s) that he has written for, at other persons homes and/or at
the bookstore where said mags may be present... I believe I have also
seen something by him online, but nothing specific stands out in my mind.

I still do not know what exactly was his problem with the Bryston unit.
Can you tell us?

_-_-bear

Steven Sullivan wrote:

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:
snip


snip

Heres's how the Rich part of the review starts:


"Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web
so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long
time since I looked at a Bryston, lets have a brief review of
whatinside all their offerings."

Afaik Rane puts schematics online, and a few others do as well...
but that's not a consumer audio company...

snip

"In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound
transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in
the 875HT.

I am unaware that Bryston does anything "novel" in their circuits. For
many years their circuit and Krells circuit were effectively identical,
fyi. Generally, these were both rather normal and pedestrian topologies
- ie. nothing special. Perhaps things have changed, as well they should
over a period of some decades...


snip



Or would you much rather 'critique' someone who is merely *praising* the
copyrighted review?



Horespucky - my comments were fairly made. The original poster cited
what seemed like a "bash" at Bryston, albiet via citing Rich as the
source, and indicated that there was some basis for the problem with
this Bryston unit... is it unfair to ask for more information??
(Rhetorical question, to be sure).

So the answer, encapsulated, is something like:

'Bryston used a different topology for this amp compared to their other
amps, whereing the output stage provides gain. In Rich's opinion this is
not as good as otherwise and is less cost effective than some other
similar commercially available units.'

Gee... that was difficult?

FYI, the online site requires a paid subscription to view.

_-_-bear

bob wrote:

michael wrote:

This is really bizarre. I was originally only commenting on whether or
not Rich was still associated with Audio Critic. Then I made the
comment that I liked what he does. You asked a question about the
review, and I told you that he did not think the particular piece of
gear was good value. Now you make the claim that his technical
expertise does not deliver the goods, when you haven't even read what he
said. After reading your last post I kind of feel like I'm in the
Usenet Twilight Zone.


Actually, it's been rather amusing watching you try to reason with this
guy. What you apparently don't know is that he is notorious here as a
purveyor of tube amps and high-priced cables. Hence his reflexive and
uninformed negative reaction to someone like David Rich, who can see
through the smoke.

bob


Say WHAT??

Notorious? TUBE AMPS??

obviously, it is you who is ignorant and incorrect.
take a few seconds to determine what I actually do or don't do.
look at my site: http://www.bearlabs.com

You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS. Ones that will trounce 99% of all
amps that exist on the market. My cables are actually rather middle of
the road priced, thank you. Represent a good value, and perform
technically very well, thank you.

So, please don't attack me or my products with false accusations, who
ever you are. And, I don't think I know who you are.

_-_-bear

bear wrote:
bob wrote:

Actually, it's been rather amusing watching you try to reason with this
guy. What you apparently don't know is that he is notorious here as a
purveyor of tube amps and high-priced cables. Hence his reflexive and
uninformed negative reaction to someone like David Rich, who can see
through the smoke.

bob


Say WHAT??

Notorious? TUBE AMPS??

obviously, it is you who is ignorant and incorrect.
take a few seconds to determine what I actually do or don't do.
look at my site: http://www.bearlabs.com

You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS.

No kidding? Gee, I've always had you pegged as a tube guy. Can't say
what gave me that impression. Maybe it was what you say on your home
page:

"TUBES our SPECIALTY!"

That might have misled me into thinking that your specialty was tubes.
My apologies.

But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David
Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why
you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review
you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding.

Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13
bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review
is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect
person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do.

bob

In article , says...

I still do not know what exactly was his problem with the Bryston unit.
Can you tell us?

_-_-bear

Yeah - he considers it overpriced, even compared to other Bryston amps.
Hence the comment that it's not a good value for HT use.

--
Bill

bob wrote:
bear wrote:

bob wrote:

snip

You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS.


No kidding? Gee, I've always had you pegged as a tube guy. Can't say
what gave me that impression. Maybe it was what you say on your home
page:

"TUBES our SPECIALTY!"

That might have misled me into thinking that your specialty was tubes.
My apologies.

But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David
Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why
you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review
you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding.

Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13
bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review
is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect
person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do.

bob


I am sure.
Have you bothered to look at my Amplifier pages YET??

(Although I can do tubes as well as solid state. Is that ok?)


But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David
Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why
you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review
you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding.


Ummm... I did not do any "trashing (of) a review..." I asked whomever
posted the first post & comments which were unsolicited, saying that Dr.
Rich had in effect "trashed" a Bryston amp, WHAT precisely was the
nature of the complaint.

Which now turns out to be in effect a simple circuit change, and the
idea that his *opinion* appears to be that it is not a cost effective
unit.

Big deal. Not a trashing review at all! And, fwiw, one could make a good
case that Bryston's warranty is far superior to Behringer's so it STILL
makes sense to buy the Bryston, IF those were your only two choices. Eh?

I stated my opinion of what I have read from Dr. Rich in the past, and
asked some specific questions, right?

Dr. Rich's opinions have nil effect on my business and are "not bad for
business." I encourage understanding of technical matters.


Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13
bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review
is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect
person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do.


I think not. But thanks for the encouragement.

As I have said before, I have read some of Dr. Rich's work and Peter
Aczel's writings and find that they both take a particular point of
view, aimed at a particular niche audience, and do little to illuminate
those ideas, points, issues, technological things that I find myself
interested in.

I suggest that IF one wants to discuss something here on rahe (or
elsewhere for that matter, that:

1. Do not place a statement that is provocative and/or an overstatement
for effect (ie. 'Rich trashes Bryston...'), or controversial without
necessity, about something that people can not read or see without
paying for.

2. Be prepared to back up one's assertion, albeit about someone else's
writing or opinions with at least some fact or paraphrase of the matter.
Especially if the cited article is in a paid-to-view only publication
(like JAES, for example...)

3. Expect a response questioning statements that have the ring of item
1. above questioning your assertion(s)and/or asking for more
information. Be prepared to respond appropriately.

No one expects anyone to be an "expert" or to be perfect when one does
this.

Without providing some basis for the discussion, the discussion is
extremely limited. And, as we have seen, some others had no difficulty
encapsulating Dr. Rich's main concerns regarding this Bryston.

Perhaps you care to explain that?

bob

_-_-bear

bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

BEAR wrote:

michael wrote:
snip


snip

Heres's how the Rich part of the review starts:


"Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web
so you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long
time since I looked at a Bryston, let???s have a brief review of
what???inside all their offerings."

Afaik Rane puts schematics online, and a few others do as well...
but that's not a consumer audio company...

snip

"In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound
transistor circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in
the 875HT.

I am unaware that Bryston does anything "novel" in their circuits. For
many years their circuit and Krells circuit were effectively identical,
fyi. Generally, these were both rather normal and pedestrian topologies
- ie. nothing special. Perhaps things have changed, as well they should
over a period of some decades...


snip



Or would you much rather 'critique' someone who is merely *praising* the
copyrighted review?



Horespucky - my comments were fairly made. The original poster cited
what seemed like a "bash" at Bryston, albiet via citing Rich as the
source, and indicated that there was some basis for the problem with
this Bryston unit... is it unfair to ask for more information??
(Rhetorical question, to be sure).

So the answer, encapsulated, is something like:

'Bryston used a different topology for this amp compared to their other
amps, whereing the output stage provides gain. In Rich's opinion this is
not as good as otherwise and is less cost effective than some other
similar commercially available units.'

Gee... that was difficult?

Not nearly as difficult as you admitting you were wrong, apparently.


FYI, the online site requires a paid subscription to view.

Right -- I've already offered to spot you the *thirteen dollars* it costs
for a subscription.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:



As I've said, I'll loan you $13 for hte Audio Critic review, if that's
what's stopping you.


Rich's in-depth reviews seem anything but *cursory* to me.


If you would like to send me a gift subscription for a year, please feel
free to do so.

What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be
honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too.

You can find my mailing address on my website http://www.bearlabs.com in
the How To Order section, or you can email me from the site and I will
be more than happy to supply it.

What writings of his have you read?

In the mag(s) that he has written for, at other persons homes and/or at
the bookstore where said mags may be present... I believe I have also
seen something by him online, but nothing specific stands out in my mind.

I still do not know what exactly was his problem with the Bryston unit.
Can you tell us?


Yes. But if you want to know so badly
*exactly* what his problem with the Bryston is, I have to wonder why you're
so reticent to spring for $13 measly bucks.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

On 17 Jan 2006 04:10:40 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you would like to send me a gift subscription for a year, please feel
free to do so.

What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be
honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too.

BTW, the subscription cost for the webzine is not $13/year - it's $13
for a "permanent" sub, whatevever that turns out to mean :-)

--
Steve Maki

"BEAR" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
bear wrote:

bob wrote:

snip

You'll see LARGE SOLID STATE AMPS.


No kidding? Gee, I've always had you pegged as a tube guy. Can't say
what gave me that impression. Maybe it was what you say on your home
page:

"TUBES our SPECIALTY!"

That might have misled me into thinking that your specialty was tubes.
My apologies.

But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David
Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why
you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review
you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding.

Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13
bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review
is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect
person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do.

bob


I am sure.
Have you bothered to look at my Amplifier pages YET??

(Although I can do tubes as well as solid state. Is that ok?)


But whatever you sell, it's pretty obvious what your beef with David
Rich is. Ideas like his are bad for business. That would explain why
you've devoted numerous posts in this thread to trashing a review
you've neither read nor shown any interest in understanding.


Ummm... I did not do any "trashing (of) a review..." I asked whomever
posted the first post & comments which were unsolicited, saying that Dr.
Rich had in effect "trashed" a Bryston amp, WHAT precisely was the nature
of the complaint.

Which now turns out to be in effect a simple circuit change, and the idea
that his *opinion* appears to be that it is not a cost effective
unit.

Big deal. Not a trashing review at all! And, fwiw, one could make a good
case that Bryston's warranty is far superior to Behringer's so it STILL
makes sense to buy the Bryston, IF those were your only two choices. Eh?

The recomendation was not for Behringer over Bryston, but for ATI or B&K.

From the review: The only thing wrong in this case is the price-the 875HT
is a wonderful amplifier but not very good value at $5195. There are, for
example, 12-channel power amps by B&K, ATI, and others in the $1500 to $2000
range that may not quite equal the Bryston in specs but aren't functionally
inferior and have four more channels.


I stated my opinion of what I have read from Dr. Rich in the past, and
asked some specific questions, right?

Dr. Rich's opinions have nil effect on my business and are "not bad for
business." I encourage understanding of technical matters.


Now, why don't you do yourself and us a favor, and spring for the 13
bucks and read the thing, and then tell us how good or bad the review
is. Your experience with amps (of whatever kind) makes you the perfect
person to contribute constructively to this discussion. Please do.


I think not. But thanks for the encouragement.

As I have said before, I have read some of Dr. Rich's work and Peter
Aczel's writings and find that they both take a particular point of
view, aimed at a particular niche audience, and do little to illuminate
those ideas, points, issues, technological things that I find myself
interested in.

By niche audience, it would seem to me to imply that they aim their reviews
at people who want to know the most objective point of view there is. If
you want to know if something sounds different or better, Rich and Aczel are
the guys to read.

As to thorough here's another excerpt that seems to be to be very thourough:

Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web so
you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long time
since I looked at a Bryston, let's have a brief review of what's inside all
their offerings.

Bryston amps are fully discrete, including the balanced-to-single-ended
converter (one per channel) that precedes the main power amplifier. In
bridged mode they use one of the discrete amplifiers for the
balanced-to-single-ended conversion and the other for the phase inversion
needed to create the bridged outputs. Please do not confuse a bridged
amplifier with a fully balanced amplifier, which has many advantages over a
bridged amp. The only fully balanced amplifiers known to me are the products
of Spread Spectrum Technologies (James Bongiorno's company).

Each Bryston amp is unique in that the stages that provide current gain also
supply voltage gain. The voltage gain is to 4.75, set by a nested feedback
loop. The closed-loop voltage gain is possible because transistor stages
inside the feedback loop are not emitter followers. Recall that the emitter
followers used in the back end of a standard amplifier supply no voltage
gain.

What is the topology Bryston uses to provide voltage gain? In the first
stage, it is a common emitter amplifier. This drives a composite Darlington,
with the collectors of the Darlington tied to the amplifier's output. For
those of you into such things, the nested feedback loop is taken at the
speaker output and returned to the emitter of the common-emitter amplifier.
In other words, current feedback.

In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound transistor
circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in the 875HT.
Putting voltage gain in the output stage allows the preceding stages, which
provide the bulk of the open-loop voltage gain of the amplifier, to be run
from regulated power supplies. The regulated rails are at a lower voltage
than the unregulated power rails connected to the output stages (they need
to swing only 25% of the output voltage). In a normal amplifier, with the
output current-gain stage having a gain of only 1, the preceding stages
would have to be run off the power supply that supplies the output rails,
lest the amplifier clip at a lower voltage set by the clipping point of the
voltage-gain stages.

Gain in the output stage and the nested feedback loop reduce distortion in
two ways:

(1) the nested feedback loop, which has a wider bandwidth than the complete
feedback loop;

(2) the voltage-gain stages ahead of the nested feedback loop only need to
swing at 20% of the output voltage swing. Since distortion is the result of
nonlinearity, the less an amplifier signal moves the less distortion occurs.

So why doesn't everybody do this? I believe the primary reason is that the
Bryston topology could oscillate into some loads and when clipped, unless
the engineering talent behind the amplifier really understood all the
third-order issues that could bring about the oscillations. I am convinced
the Bryston engineers have that understanding.

The Bryston voltage amplifier stages are less complex than those of other
amplifiers we have looked at that produce very low distortion at 20 kHz.
First, no circuit to linearize the second voltage-gain stage is included in
the Bryston. Douglas Self has written extensively on distortion mechanisms
in traditional power amplifier designs. (2002. Audio Power Amplifier Design
Handbook. 3rd ed. Newnes.) He identifies the need for an emitter follower
before the second gain stage, or the use of a cascode transistor as part of
the second gain stage, as key circuit elements to reduce distortion.

Second, the differential pairs are biased by resistors, not an active
current source. This can result in a reduced power-supply rejection ratio,
but this is less of a problem with the regulated supply rails of the
Bryston. We have a remaining problem, however, that is more subtle-the
common-mode signal at the differential-pair input is suppressed less than if
the current source were in place. A reduced common-mode rejection ratio of
the differential pair can lead to distortion. Are these two circuit
simplifications the source of distortion we see in the Audio Precision
curves? Probably not, since the same circuits are used in the Brystons with
higher power, which yielded some of the lowest numbers we have seen. The
regulated rails and reduced signal swings that are unique to the Bryston
appear to overcome the downside of the simplified front-end circuits. So why
does this amplifier have more distortion than a typical Bryston amplifier?
(They specify this amp will distort by a factor of two over the more
powerful Bryston models.) The answer is most probably that the number of
amplifier stages inside the nested feedback loop is reduced by one, and the
stage eliminated is an interesting topology proprietary to Bryston. I also
note that the amplifier's noise is not state of the art. Noise dominantly
comes from the differential stage. Spread Spectrum Technologies again
appears to be in the lead here.

The output stage uses a foldback current limiter. This can cause trouble
with early activation of this limiter into an inductive or capacitive load.
The PowerCube shows this amp does not have that problem. Modern amplifiers
for home applications use IV sensor circuitry which is independent of the
amplifier itself. Complicated versions of these circuits can almost
calculate if the output transistors are in their safe operating region. If
you refer to the spec sheet of a power transistor, you may see multiple Safe
Operating Area (SOA) curves. One will be for dc operation and the remaining
ones, which allow more power to be dissipated, are only for short periods of
operation. Complex external protection may allow the amp to deliver more
current for a short sine-wave burst (what the PowerCube generator drives
into the amp) before the amp is shut down for exceeding the dc SOA. Some
amplifier manufactures are taking advantage of this and are bring back the
dynamic power spec, although current FCC regulations were designed to
prevent this sort of thing.

The problem with external current- and voltage-limit protection is that when
the protection is activated, relays in series with the speaker terminals
open (the Bryston approach does not need the relays, which could cause a
slight decrease in amplifier reliability) and the amp shuts down. You have
to power-cycle it or press a reset button to bring it back to life. Fine for
home use but unacceptable for a rock concert. The amplifier also includes
clipping indicators, again as a warning to the pros that the amp could be
getting ready to cut out because of the IV current limiter or, worse, come
to a thermal shutdown (cycle time on this fault would be longer).

The unit has two power transformers (one for four channels). Each
transformer has two 33,000 ?F primary filter capacitors. In low-priced AV
receivers rated at similar power output, we see much less primary
capacitance. This is one reason we do not see FCC power ratings for all six
or seven channels driven on these receivers, the other reasons being the
transformer's ability to supply current and the size of the heat sinks to
dissipate the energy lost in the class B amplifiers. On the other hand,
Bryston does not specify an FCC rating for this amplifier driven into 4
ohms. It does so for its other products.

Also, I note that Bryston specifies a maximum current rating for the ac line
coming into the unit at 14 amps, which is just under the rating for a
standard wall outlet (leaving 1 amp to supply everything else on the same ac
loop that may serve several rooms in your house). This is an indication that
the amplifier can drive significant current to the speaker load. Look at the
back of some other 7-channel amplifiers and see what they give as a maximum
current spec. A final point on the same subject is that UL would not
approve an amplifier that can draw much more current. 125 watts into 4 ohms
times 8 channels is about it. Amplifier manufacturers selling 300-watt
channels times 7 will not pass UL, and you can see the absence of the label
on these amplifiers. In reality, you would need to hang a 30-amp 220-volt
fuse on these amplifiers to prevent them from popping a fuse. These giant
amplifiers do not do this in real life because they never go near full
power, at least not simultaneously on all channels. Why has no multichannel
power amp been offered with the correct power cable-you guessed it, the
high-end dealers would go crazy with thoughts of reduced sales. Imagine them
having to say, first call your electrician and then come back. These same
high-end dealers will of course happily sell you power conditioners that do
nothing for well-designed amplifiers. The Bryston is especially
well-designed with respect to the ability to reject power-supply noise,
since the voltage-gain stages are regulated. (No, tweaks, the last thing you
want to do is regulate the output stage, which would only limit the voltage
that the amplifier can swing under dynamic conditions.)

Seems pretty thourough to me.

wrote:
snip

The recomendation was not for Behringer over Bryston, but for ATI or B&K.

From the review: The only thing wrong in this case is the price-the 875HT
is a wonderful amplifier but not very good value at $5195. There are, for
example, 12-channel power amps by B&K, ATI, and others in the $1500 to $2000
range that may not quite equal the Bryston in specs but aren't functionally
inferior and have four more channels.

Thanks for the clarification.
But, again hardly a review of the type indicated in the original post?

snip


By niche audience, it would seem to me to imply that they aim their reviews
at people who want to know the most objective point of view there is. If
you want to know if something sounds different or better, Rich and Aczel are
the guys to read.

It seems like they target their work somewhat differently than your
assessment, at least imho...


As to thorough here's another excerpt that seems to be to be very thourough:

Bryston is the only company I know of that puts its schematics on the Web so
you can see the full schematic of each unit. Since it has been a long time
since I looked at a Bryston, let's have a brief review of what's inside all
their offerings.

I have not looked at the latest, current Bryston schematics, if I have a
bit more time, I will. But here are some comments on what you posted:


snip

Each Bryston amp is unique in that the stages that provide current gain also
supply voltage gain.

This confuses me, since almost all power amps have current gain in every
stage. Some have *only* current gain in a given stage, not voltage gain.


The voltage gain is to 4.75, set by a nested feedback
loop. The closed-loop voltage gain is possible because transistor stages
inside the feedback loop are not emitter followers. Recall that the emitter
followers used in the back end of a standard amplifier supply no voltage
gain.

Ok...


What is the topology Bryston uses to provide voltage gain? In the first
stage, it is a common emitter amplifier. This drives a composite Darlington,
with the collectors of the Darlington tied to the amplifier's output. For
those of you into such things, the nested feedback loop is taken at the
speaker output and returned to the emitter of the common-emitter amplifier.
In other words, current feedback.

Is this current feedback? Does it reduce the voltage gain? Is the stage
it is fed back to a current gain only stage? Where is the current gain
converted to voltage gain? Dunno from this description.


In larger Bryston amplifiers, an additional very novel compound transistor
circuit follows the Darlington, but that stage is missing in the 875HT.
Putting voltage gain in the output stage allows the preceding stages, which
provide the bulk of the open-loop voltage gain of the amplifier, to be run
from regulated power supplies.

Ok, but at the expense of output device linearity and with a lower
output impedance than a follower stage?

And, actually in a "standard" output stage all the preceeding stages
with the possible exception of the *last* voltage amplification stage
can be regulated - and even the last VAS can be regulated, but you need
to have a separate voltage source to *regulate* back DOWN to the rail
voltage (or above in some cases). What's the problem with that? Ummm, it
costs a little more...

So the comment ought to be that if you need to keep your price at a bare
bones and also don't want/need to add any complexity then this is one
way to use a regulator for the driver stages...

The regulated rails are at a lower voltage
than the unregulated power rails connected to the output stages (they need
to swing only 25% of the output voltage). In a normal amplifier, with the
output current-gain stage having a gain of only 1, the preceding stages
would have to be run off the power supply that supplies the output rails,
lest the amplifier clip at a lower voltage set by the clipping point of the
voltage-gain stages.

Gain in the output stage and the nested feedback loop reduce distortion in
two ways:

(1) the nested feedback loop, which has a wider bandwidth than the complete
feedback loop;

Maybe this is needed because of the added distortion in the "gain"
output stage?


(2) the voltage-gain stages ahead of the nested feedback loop only need to
swing at 20% of the output voltage swing. Since distortion is the result of
nonlinearity, the less an amplifier signal moves the less distortion occurs.

Say what??
What is the meaning of the second sentance above?

In the case of reduced voltage rails, a given amplifier's distortion as
power delivered rises is not apriori automatically reduced no matter what...


So why doesn't everybody do this? I believe the primary reason is that the
Bryston topology could oscillate into some loads and when clipped, unless
the engineering talent behind the amplifier really understood all the
third-order issues that could bring about the oscillations. I am convinced
the Bryston engineers have that understanding.

In otherwords, it is a marginally stable topology?
Being convinced is not the same as describing or illustrating why or how
it is stable!


The Bryston voltage amplifier stages are less complex than those of other
amplifiers we have looked at that produce very low distortion at 20 kHz.
First, no circuit to linearize the second voltage-gain stage is included in
the Bryston. Douglas Self has written extensively on distortion mechanisms
in traditional power amplifier designs. (2002. Audio Power Amplifier Design
Handbook. 3rd ed. Newnes.) He identifies the need for an emitter follower
before the second gain stage, or the use of a cascode transistor as part of
the second gain stage, as key circuit elements to reduce distortion.

Does Bryston do this - he does not say?
Self specifies, does Bryston do?


Second, the differential pairs are biased by resistors, not an active
current source. This can result in a reduced power-supply rejection ratio,
but this is less of a problem with the regulated supply rails of the
Bryston. We have a remaining problem, however, that is more subtle-the
common-mode signal at the differential-pair input is suppressed less than if
the current source were in place. A reduced common-mode rejection ratio of
the differential pair can lead to distortion. Are these two circuit
simplifications the source of distortion we see in the Audio Precision
curves? Probably not, since the same circuits are used in the Brystons with
higher power, which yielded some of the lowest numbers we have seen. The
regulated rails and reduced signal swings that are unique to the Bryston
appear to overcome the downside of the simplified front-end circuits. So why
does this amplifier have more distortion than a typical Bryston amplifier?
(They specify this amp will distort by a factor of two over the more
powerful Bryston models.) The answer is most probably that the number of
amplifier stages inside the nested feedback loop is reduced by one, and the
stage eliminated is an interesting topology proprietary to Bryston. I also
note that the amplifier's noise is not state of the art. Noise dominantly
comes from the differential stage. Spread Spectrum Technologies again
appears to be in the lead here.

Nested feedback loops are not a new idea.
They do some things very well. Yet, they are not a panacea and suffer
from some problems/issues...

It might be instructive to look at the Halcro patent which shows nested
feedback loops *and* feed forward... yet even that amp has its own problems.


The output stage uses a foldback current limiter. This can cause trouble
with early activation of this limiter into an inductive or capacitive load.
The PowerCube shows this amp does not have that problem. Modern amplifiers
for home applications use IV sensor circuitry which is independent of the
amplifier itself. Complicated versions of these circuits can almost
calculate if the output transistors are in their safe operating region. If
you refer to the spec sheet of a power transistor, you may see multiple Safe
Operating Area (SOA) curves. One will be for dc operation and the remaining
ones, which allow more power to be dissipated, are only for short periods of
operation. Complex external protection may allow the amp to deliver more
current for a short sine-wave burst (what the PowerCube generator drives
into the amp) before the amp is shut down for exceeding the dc SOA. Some
amplifier manufactures are taking advantage of this and are bring back the
dynamic power spec, although current FCC regulations were designed to
prevent this sort of thing.

The problem with external current- and voltage-limit protection is that when
the protection is activated, relays in series with the speaker terminals
open (the Bryston approach does not need the relays, which could cause a
slight decrease in amplifier reliability) and the amp shuts down. You have
to power-cycle it or press a reset button to bring it back to life. Fine for
home use but unacceptable for a rock concert. The amplifier also includes
clipping indicators, again as a warning to the pros that the amp could be
getting ready to cut out because of the IV current limiter or, worse, come
to a thermal shutdown (cycle time on this fault would be longer).

Yet, we are not instructed how Bryston avoids the use of relays??

snip

snip

Seems pretty thourough to me.

But not to me. Which is why I am not interested in paying to subscribe.
Gift subscriptions to any audio or electronics publications will be
gratefully accepted. One may be inclined to provide them with the idea
that I may thus 'converted' to another point-of-view?? :-)

_-_-bear

Steven Sullivan wrote:



What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be
honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too.

Feel free.
I will gratefully accept the gift.





Yes. But if you want to know so badly
*exactly* what his problem with the Bryston is, I have to wonder why you're
so reticent to spring for $13 measly bucks.

No, you miss the point - someone got up in the proverbial theater and
shouted "look a double headed fire breathing dragon..." and I said,
(proverbially, now) "ok, where is it?"

As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was,
let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I
thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in
the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply
*have to know*!! Right?

Ok then.

_-_-bear

BEAR wrote:

As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was,
let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I
thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in
the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply
*have to know*!! Right?


Provocative hyperbole? This is from my original post:


I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.


You subsequently wanted to know whether he took a screwdriver to it? I
thought you were just being funny since I presumed that my quotes around
the words in question would clue you in to my meaning. I didn't
understand that you were taking my words literally.


Sorry to have misled you in thinking that Rich disassembled the amp and
then had a lot of criticisms. Really, I was merely commenting on his
reviewing style, not so much the amp. With this in mind I could have
cited any of his reviews, but the one I did cite was in keeping with my
actual topic--that is, I wondered if Dr. Rich was going to be writing
for Mr. Aczel in the future; it was my impression from Aczel's words
that the Bryston review was likely a swan song.


mp

BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:



What, is $13 too rich for your blood? I thought a loan would be
honorble for you, but hey, if you need the freebie, I can do that too.

Feel free.
I will gratefully accept the gift.

OK. I'm emailing you your login and password



Yes. But if you want to know so badly
*exactly* what his problem with the Bryston is, I have to wonder why you're
so reticent to spring for $13 measly bucks.

No, you miss the point - someone got up in the proverbial theater and
shouted "look a double headed fire breathing dragon..." and I said,
(proverbially, now) "ok, where is it?"

As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was,
let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I
thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich in
the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would simply
*have to know*!! Right?

Ok then.


Odd how prominent your animus towards Dr. Rich seemed, if this was all that
concerned you.

michael wrote:

BEAR wrote:

As we now learn, the original post made a provocative claim that was,
let us say, "hyperbole". Which, is what I wanted to know, since I
thought Bryston amps were always found to be without flaw by Dr. Rich
in the past!! So, obviously one reading that original post would
simply *have to know*!! Right?



Provocative hyperbole? This is from my original post:


I note that in The Audio Critic Webzine Dr. Rich recently "took
apart" a current Bryston multi channel amp. Typical Rich...to the point
and pulling no punches.

The hyperbole in question is the "took apart" quote. As far as I can see
he did nothing of the sort. Other than to say that his opinion was that
it was overpriced, there was nothing negative that I could find in that
review - ergo, hyperbole.


You subsequently wanted to know whether he took a screwdriver to it? I
thought you were just being funny since I presumed that my quotes around
the words in question would clue you in to my meaning. I didn't
understand that you were taking my words literally.

No - you misunderstand. My point is/was that the "review" is cursory and
would BENEFIT from a deeper look at the product, including a 'look under
the hood.'




mp


_-_-bear

bear wrote:

The hyperbole in question is the "took apart" quote. As far as I can see
he did nothing of the sort. Other than to say that his opinion was that
it was overpriced, there was nothing negative that I could find in that
review - ergo, hyperbole.


That is why I placed "took apart" in quotes. My statement was not meant
to be literal. Also, I never implied there was anything negative in the
review. That you would think such a thing from what I wrote is
something I cannot understand.



No - you misunderstand. My point is/was that the "review" is cursory and
would BENEFIT from a deeper look at the product, including a 'look under
the hood.'


Cursory? It is not "long" like some of the material I have read in
other magazines. But it is concise, and to the point. Coming from an
historical perspective (previous Bryston reviews in TAC) there is a
continuity which allows deeper understanding. TAC has always been
appreciative of the engineering of the Bryston company going back to
their early days when (if I remember the name correctly?) Chris Russell
wrote an editorial piece for them. This must have been in the mid to
late 70's.


michael