Mid-fi with little explanation

This is an extension of Slone's earlier book and it is a little
better, but not a lot. He reiterates everything he said
earlier-ranging from opinion to nonsense-and then as before launches
into his pet designs with little good explanation.

If you want to build a Class B semi-serious amplifier for instrument
or PA or non-serious-listening use this will probably work, although
there are a lot of old 70s and 80s designs readily available at your
local library in old electronics and audio magazines.

If understanding the trends in serious audio work today is your goal,
start with the "horses mouth" JAES paper "Tubes vs. Transistors: Is
There A Difference?". This was hugely important because it was the
first published paper in professional reviewed circles that addressed
the possibility that traditional metrics such as THD,frequency range,
and S/N might not fully address problems in professional audio.

"Paul" wrote in message
m
Mid-fi with little explanation

This is an extension of Slone's earlier book and it is a little
better, but not a lot. He reiterates everything he said
earlier-ranging from opinion to nonsense-and then as before launches
into his pet designs with little good explanation.

If you want to build a Class B semi-serious amplifier for instrument
or PA or non-serious-listening use this will probably work, although
there are a lot of old 70s and 80s designs readily available at your
local library in old electronics and audio magazines.

Far better to check out Doug Self's writings on the topic, especially given
that the price is *right*.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/ampins.htm

If understanding the trends in serious audio work today is your goal,
start with the "horses mouth" JAES paper "Tubes vs. Transistors: Is
There A Difference?".

Surely you jest. It was a joke when it was first written, its an obsolete
joke now.

This was hugely important because it was the
first published paper in professional reviewed circles that addressed
the possibility that traditional metrics such as THD,frequency range,
and S/N might not fully address problems in professional audio.

Not at all. Questions about THD as a metric are about as old as THD as a
metric.

If understanding the trends in serious audio work today is your goal,
start with the "horses mouth" JAES paper "Tubes vs. Transistors: Is
There A Difference?".

Surely you jest. It was a joke when it was first written, its an obsolete
joke now.

I'm sure you have written an opposing paper and submitted it to
AES...I'd be interested in reading it. If Hamm's a fraud he's
hoodwined a big bunch of big names, if I remember right he was a high
ranking officer of AES in the nineties...

"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om
If understanding the trends in serious audio work today is your
goal, start with the "horses mouth" JAES paper "Tubes vs.
Transistors: Is There A Difference?".

Surely you jest. It was a joke when it was first written, its an
obsolete joke now.

I'm sure you have written an opposing paper and submitted it to
AES...

There's no need. It's quite obvious that the people who read Hamms negative
comments about solid state audio, went right out and converted just about
the entire world of audio to solid state anyway.

At this point, tubes have very little relevance to high fidelity. They are
still used to get sonic effects, such as in guitar amplifiers.

I'd be interested in reading it. If Hamm's a fraud he's
hoodwined a big bunch of big names,

Not really, given that tube audio is a tiny niche today.

if I remember right he was a high ranking officer of AES in the
nineties...

Being an officer in the AES relates to politics as much as anything.

I doubt that Hamm would write the same paper today. Look at the date on the
paper - 1972, were you even alive then?

"Arny Krueger" ((snip))


There's no need. It's quite obvious that the people who read Hamms negative
comments about solid state audio, went right out and converted just about
the entire world of audio to solid state anyway.

They brought in a lot of solid state but the real pros never got rid
of all the tubes. In Walter Sear's piece in Tape Op you see a
rackmounted Mac 2100 power amp, a solid state piece to be sure, but he
goes on to say he's still mostly a tube facility.


At this point, tubes have very little relevance to high fidelity. They are
still used to get sonic effects, such as in guitar amplifiers.

I'd be interested in reading it. If Hamm's a fraud he's
hoodwined a big bunch of big names,

Not really, given that tube audio is a tiny niche today.

They don't sell them at Wal-Mart, but all high end saloons, and
commercial recording studios and pro equipment vendors have tube
equipment galore. It's probably a $20 to $50 million dollar business
all told.

I don't buy audio at Wal-Mart, only underwear, socks, rubbers and
motor oil (except for my Corvair, they don't stock Aeroshell).


((snip))

I doubt that Hamm would write the same paper today. Look at the date on the
paper - 1972, were you even alive then?

I was a Cub Scout building regen receivers out of the old "Radio and
Electronics for Boys" books. Stood me in good stead when tubes came
back.

I'm sorry, but I'm very skeptical of people who trash the Hamm paper.
If it's wrong, and if you read it you realize it doesn't exactly
decimate solid state, it in fact says its problems are largely at the
electromechanical interfaces such as mics , voice coils, and cutter
heads, the onus is on you to write a rebuttal. Not on Usenet but in
JAES or some similar venue. Until that's done I'm going to use this
paper because it makes a lot of sense and its conclusions appear to
agree with my ears' perceptions.

"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om

I'm sorry, but I'm very skeptical of people who trash the Hamm paper.

Of course, and that's because you're a tubie. That's what tubies do - deny
reality.

It's 2004, and it is a solid-state world.

If it's wrong, and if you read it you realize it doesn't exactly
decimate solid state, it in fact says its problems are largely at the
electromechanical interfaces such as mics , voice coils, and cutter
heads, the onus is on you to write a rebuttal.

Not at all. It's full of knowledge that is obsolete now, much of which was
obsolete when it was first published.

Not on Usenet but in JAES or some similar venue.

The AES has far better things to do than to publish critiques saying that
ancient papers are full of obsolete knowledge.

Until that's done I'm going to use this
paper because it makes a lot of sense and its conclusions appear to
agree with my ears' perceptions.

Sure, why should I waste time trying to confuse you with well-known obvious
facts. You know the TRVTH, and that's all that matters to you.

Have a great day!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om

I'm sorry, but I'm very skeptical of people who trash the Hamm paper.

Of course, and that's because you're a tubie. That's what tubies do - deny
reality.

It's 2004, and it is a solid-state world.

As I write this I'm listening to a home built _solid state_ amp-one
of Nelson Pass' early Audio Amateur designs. It's the best sounding
amp I own, although I do think a lot of tube amps sound better than a
lot of solid state ones.

If you will pick up a current Full Compass or Swee****er catalog you
will find it chock full of TUBE, PRO mics, mic pres, compressors, EQ,
fx boxes, et al. You will also find plenty-probably not a majority,
but more than a few-of tube amps for monitoring and mixdown in those
few facilities genuinely considered professional that home studios
with Pro Tools and NS10's nearfield on the bridge haven't killed. Plus
of those houses still mastering vinyl, that is driving cutter heads,
probably half are tube driven to this day.

So AES has a big interest in this.

Tell me-and them-just what is it about the Hamm paper that is no
longer relevant because of what new devices, techniques, circuits, or
laws of physics?

I'll concede there are better devices, particularly FET's today. I'll
concede that modern passives, and their materials, are better. I'll
concede there has been some refinement in 30+ years in circuit
topologies....but the laws of physics haven't changed. The people who
matter-the really serious listeners and the artiss, producers, and
engineers that are doing the work that matters-no one gives a royal
roger about Shania Twain and N'Sync-are using a lot of tubes and not
just in guitars.

"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om

I'm sorry, but I'm very skeptical of people who trash the Hamm
paper.

Of course, and that's because you're a tubie. That's what tubies do
- deny reality.

It's 2004, and it is a solid-state world.

As I write this I'm listening to a home built _solid state_ amp-one
of Nelson Pass' early Audio Amateur designs. It's the best sounding
amp I own, although I do think a lot of tube amps sound better than a
lot of solid state ones.

Shows that you lack discernement and think that good solid state amplifiers
as a rule sound distinctly different.

If you will pick up a current Full Compass or Swee****er catalog you
will find it chock full of TUBE, PRO mics, mic pres, compressors, EQ,
fx boxes, et al.

No they aren't chock full of tube equipment. They have a few tubed items,
but the tubed products are vastly outnumbered by SS items.

Shows that you are so full of tube bigotry that you can't count.

Furhtermore, tubed equipment is provided for audio production purposes as FX
boxes. Think of a tubed whatever as a whatever with a built in EFX feature,
and you've got the correct idea.

You will also find plenty-probably not a majority,

LOL! It's a minority and often a small minority. If you look at sales
volume in many of these product categories, its a tiny minority.

but more than a few-of tube amps for monitoring and mixdown in those
few facilities genuinely considered professional that home studios
with Pro Tools and NS10's nearfield on the bridge haven't killed. Plus
of those houses still mastering vinyl, that is driving cutter heads,
probably half are tube driven to this day.

I seriously doubt that as well, but now we're talking tiny niches within
tiny niches.

So AES has a big interest in this.

No they don't. I suggest you chart articles related to tube technology by
year from 1946 through today and get back to us with the results.

Tell me-and them-just what is it about the Hamm paper that is no
longer relevant because of what new devices, techniques, circuits, or
laws of physics?

The Hamm article understated the performance of SS equipment that was in
wide use on the day it was first published.

I'll concede there are better devices, particularly FET's today. I'll
concede that modern passives, and their materials, are better. I'll
concede there has been some refinement in 30+ years in circuit
topologies....but the laws of physics haven't changed.

Agreed, but you clearly underestimate SS technology 30 years ago, as did
Hamms article.

The people who
matter-the really serious listeners and the artiss, producers, and
engineers that are doing the work that matters-no one gives a royal
roger about Shania Twain and N'Sync-are using a lot of tubes and not
just in guitars.

Thanks Cal for showing yet another way that you don't think you live in the
modern world, and have no clue about current market trends.

I'm not exactly a N'Synch fan, but I know what sells and what my childern
(who are all legally adults to say the least, all highly educated, all
professionals) like to listen to. I suggest you look outside your figurative
door on occasion.