Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Fred Collins" wrote in message om... Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... Since the music has already been through a compressor and limiter before it got onto disk, neither a limiter or 10kW amplifier is necessary in the home. Nor can you obtain 90+ dB dynamic range in any normal house, regardless of amplifier size, without certain damage to your hearing. Nor will many (any?) speakers handle 10kW, no matter how short the duration, but most especially with those cannon shots! TonyP. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely. I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this thread. I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I wish to toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress. Jeff |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely. I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this thread. I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I wish to toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress. Jeff |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely. I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this thread. I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I wish to toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress. Jeff |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely. I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks, backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the opinions you hold! I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand some of the subjectivism in this hobby. If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's assertions. I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please? My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my hand at a couple of his designs. Regards, Adam Drake. Fred Collins wrote: A large poor book written around a small fair one High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility. His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should get any statements they make in writing! If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which many project-oriented hobbyists will lack. However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O. Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge this document anywhere in this book, or in any other. It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders each year. I have built both and had success with both, and surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book, ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more confrontational position, which does no one any good. Was this review helpful to you? I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this thread. I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I wish to toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress. Jeff |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope, Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at 12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C. *A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering, but I'm not going to split hairs. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope, Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at 12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C. *A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering, but I'm not going to split hairs. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope, Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at 12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C. *A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering, but I'm not going to split hairs. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Karl Uppiano wrote: "Fred Collins" wrote in message om... snip Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway... I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material. Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power amplifier output terminals. That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope, Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at 12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C. *A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering, but I'm not going to split hairs. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) TonyP. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) TonyP. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) TonyP. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) TonyP. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other expensive tube amps used. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other expensive tube amps used. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other expensive tube amps used. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Book Review: High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual
"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them. Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to worry about. Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!! That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-) Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other expensive tube amps used. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bose 901 Review | General | |||
My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
FS: SOUNDSTREAM CLOSEOUTS AND MORE!! | Car Audio | |||
FS: 3000 watt amp $179!! 900 watt woofers $36!! new- free shipping | General |