"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Pooh Bear"
wrote
in message

So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
*unimportant* ?

It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that
it is an odd way to express the underlying physical
parameter which is amplifier source impedance.

For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier
parameter, its a parameter that is also strongly
dependent on load impedance. Unfortunately the
underlying physical parameter remains pretty much
unchanged, regardless of load impedance.

With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor
is generally so high that it gets swamped by all sorts
of things including voice coil DCR and speaker wire
DCR. It means a lot more with tubed amps.


Which is probably why it was ever expressed as a value
at all. When they came up with it, tubes were
dominant, then came good more accurate, less volatile,
transistors. :-)

Whether tube ( valve ) or transistor - damping factor (
a reciprocal measure of amplifer output impedance ) is
important.

A low damping factor means that an amplifier cannot
adequately control speaker resonances or the back emf
caused by transients.

This would be a common misconception.

When one designs a speaker system, the source impedance
of the amplifier is simply part of the design of the
speaker. For example, if you *know* that the amp has a
source
impedance of one ohm, you simply design for that
operational condition. You plug one ohm into the
Thiel/small parameters for the woofer, and you plug one
ohm into the design of the crossovers.

But that's the problem, Arny, you don't know, unless you
are perhaps a broadcast engineer specifying a complete
audio chain.

Exactly, hence the charm of building speakers that are
designed to work with low source impedances, and amplifiers
that provide low source impedances.

People expect their new amp to work with their existing
speakers, and vice versa. If these speakers present a
difficult load, or do not comply with the recommendations
of IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 they may find themselves sadly
disappointed.

Agreed.

SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with
an ELS.

I've heard SETs at lowist levels with full range horns, and
I'm still not charmed.

Do the designing right, and you end up with a speaker
that is no more (or less) resonant.

Few if any of us design our own speakers.

Hence the charm of speakers that are designed to work with
low source impedances, and amplifiers that provide low
source impedances.

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and
speaker affects damping
factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in
isolation* is misleading
perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in
series with the amplifier output impedance. This is why
speaker wiring should be of the largest
practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.

Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to
have better damping factor than say ~ 15-20. Translating
to an output impedance of maybe a few hundred milliohms
to an ohm. Likely the cable resistance made little
difference.

A DF of 24 @ 8 ohms corresponds to an amp with Zo of about
1/3 of an ohm.

If you have speaker modeling software you can plug that
resistance into the speaker's design to obtain the size of
the frequency response variation that will result. If you
have the impedance curve of the speaker, you can calculate
the frequency response that the DF increase will cause.

Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low
as in the tens of milliohm region. This makes cable
resistance much more critical in comparing one
with another

Yes, the cable's impedance is added to the Zo of the amp.

( along with bi-wiring etc... ).

If you bi-wire with two identical cables, there is no effect
outside of the range where the crossover is providing
overlapping drive for the high and low range drivers,
because in either case the low and high frequency sides of
the speaker are being driven with the identical same
impedances.

In the overlap range, the source impedance for the tweeter
is decreased by the combination of the amp plus cable
series impedance in parallel with the impedance of the
woofer. However, if the cable and amplfier provide a very
low impedance source, they overwhelm any effects of the
woofer part of the load since the woofer provides a far
higher impedance load.

To put this into perspective, at the crossover point
(usually the worst case) a woofer plus the amp and cable in
an 8 ohm system provides an source impedance to the tweeter
that is the source impedance of the amp and cable, in
parallel with 8 ohms. The source impedance of the cable and
amp together might be a tenth of an ohm. Adding the 8 ohm
woofer in parallel with a tenth of an ohm has a vanishing
effect since its impedance is about 80 times higher. The
variation is about 80/81 or about 1.25%. This might change
the frequency response by about 0.1 dB, or less.


Yes. That's as I understand it.
The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur
Radford, produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio
use with a DF of 60. He did state however that above a
figure or 15 or so, the
increase in DF had negligible effect.

With most speakers the different in speaker frequency due to
a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared to an ideal
amp with a Zo of zero.

I have also seen this stated
by Norman Cowhurst and by Howard Tremaine in his
broadcast industry training manual from the 1970s, the
Audio Cyclopedia.

As they say, do the math

-or-

do the measurements! ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with
an ELS.

I've heard SETs at lowist levels with full range horns, and I'm still not
charmed.

I have been a recording professional for many years, and for
some reason have never taken SET seriously. Just recently
a friend who is a professional cellist, Russian born, invited
me to listen to some new recordings of the Shostakovich
Quartets. It was an unforgettable musical experience.

Iain

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with
an ELS.

I've heard SETs at lowist levels with full range horns,
and I'm still not charmed.

I have been a recording professional for many years, and
for some reason have never taken SET seriously. Just
recently a friend who is a professional cellist, Russian
born,
invited me to listen to some new recordings of the
Shostakovich Quartets. It was an unforgettable musical
experience.

I heard a number of SETs with a number of different speakers
at HE2005 and the experience was as you say, unforgettable.
I almost lost my lunch on the floor of any number of
listening rooms that centerpieced glowing bottles.

Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did not
raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing bottles were
in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!

Arny Krueger wrote:
With most speakers the different in speaker frequency due to
a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared to an ideal
amp with a Zo of zero.


Speaker frequency is measured in Hertz in the countries where
Iain and Myself come from.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and
speaker affects damping
factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in
isolation* is misleading
perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in
series with the amplifier output impedance. This is why
speaker wiring should be of the largest
practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.

Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to
have better damping factor than say ~ 15-20. Translating
to an output impedance of maybe a few hundred milliohms
to an ohm. Likely the cable resistance made little
difference.

Hey Arny. You have been too enthusiastic in pruning the
headers. I did not write any of the above.

A DF of 24 @ 8 ohms corresponds to an amp with Zo of about 1/3 of an ohm.

If you have speaker modeling software you can plug that resistance into
the speaker's design to obtain the size of the frequency response
variation that will result. If you have the impedance curve of the
speaker, you can calculate the frequency response that the DF increase
will cause.

Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low
as in the tens of milliohm region. This makes cable
resistance much more critical in comparing one
with another

Yes, the cable's impedance is added to the Zo of the amp.

( along with bi-wiring etc... ).

If you bi-wire with two identical cables, there is no effect outside of
the range where the crossover is providing overlapping drive for the high
and low range drivers, because in either case the low and high frequency
sides of the speaker are being driven with the identical same impedances.

In the overlap range, the source impedance for the tweeter is decreased by
the combination of the amp plus cable series impedance in parallel with
the impedance of the woofer. However, if the cable and amplfier provide a
very low impedance source, they overwhelm any effects of the woofer part
of the load since the woofer provides a far higher impedance load.

To put this into perspective, at the crossover point (usually the worst
case) a woofer plus the amp and cable in an 8 ohm system provides an
source impedance to the tweeter that is the source impedance of the amp
and cable, in parallel with 8 ohms. The source impedance of the cable and
amp together might be a tenth of an ohm. Adding the 8 ohm woofer in
parallel with a tenth of an ohm has a vanishing effect since its impedance
is about 80 times higher. The variation is about 80/81 or about 1.25%.
This might change the frequency response by about 0.1 dB, or less.


Yes. That's as I understand it.
The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur
Radford, produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio
use with a DF of 60. He did state however that above a figure or 15 or
so, the
increase in DF had negligible effect.

With most speakers the different in speaker frequency due to a DF of 15 is
about 0.5 dB or less, as compared to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.

I have also seen this stated
by Norman Cowhurst and by Howard Tremaine in his
broadcast industry training manual from the 1970s, the Audio Cyclopedia.

As they say, do the math -or- do the measurements! ;-)

What you write above tends to confirm what Arthur Radford,
Norman Crowhurst and Howard Tremaine have all stated that a
DF above 15 produces no audible improvement.

Iain

"Mark Harriss" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

With most speakers the different in speaker frequency
due to a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared
to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.


Speaker frequency is measured in Hertz in the countries
where Iain and Myself come from.

Of course. What's your point?

When I mention frequency, I use Hz, KHz, etc.

There are a couple typos above - the correct sentence is:

With most speakers the difference in speaker frequency
response
due to a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared
to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and
speaker affects damping
factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in
isolation* is misleading
perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in
series with the amplifier output impedance. This is why
speaker wiring should be of the largest
practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.

Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to
have better damping factor than say ~ 15-20.
Translating to an output impedance of maybe a few
hundred milliohms to an ohm. Likely the cable
resistance made little difference.

Hey Arny. You have been too enthusiastic in pruning the
headers. I did not write any of the above.

A DF of 24 @ 8 ohms corresponds to an amp with Zo of
about 1/3 of an ohm. If you have speaker modeling
software you can plug that
resistance into the speaker's design to obtain the size
of the frequency response variation that will result. If
you have the impedance curve of the speaker, you can
calculate the frequency response that the DF increase
will cause.
Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low
as in the tens of milliohm region. This makes cable
resistance much more critical in comparing one
with another

Yes, the cable's impedance is added to the Zo of the amp.

( along with bi-wiring etc... ).

If you bi-wire with two identical cables, there is no
effect outside of the range where the crossover is
providing overlapping drive for the high and low range
drivers, because in either case the low and high
frequency sides of the speaker are being driven with the
identical same impedances. In the overlap range, the
source impedance for the
tweeter is decreased by the combination of the amp plus
cable series impedance in parallel with the impedance of
the woofer. However, if the cable and amplfier provide a
very low impedance source, they overwhelm any effects of
the woofer part of the load since the woofer provides a
far higher impedance load. To put this into perspective,
at the crossover point
(usually the worst case) a woofer plus the amp and cable
in an 8 ohm system provides an source impedance to the
tweeter that is the source impedance of the amp and
cable, in parallel with 8 ohms. The source impedance of
the cable and amp together might be a tenth of an ohm.
Adding the 8 ohm woofer in parallel with a tenth of an
ohm has a vanishing effect since its impedance is about
80 times higher. The variation is about 80/81 or about
1.25%. This might change the frequency response by about
0.1 dB, or less.
Yes. That's as I understand it.
The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur
Radford, produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio
use with a DF of 60. He did state however that above a
figure or 15 or so, the
increase in DF had negligible effect.

With most speakers the different in speaker frequency
due to a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared
to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.
I have also seen this stated
by Norman Cowhurst and by Howard Tremaine in his
broadcast industry training manual from the 1970s, the
Audio Cyclopedia.

As they say, do the math -or- do the measurements! ;-)

What you write above tends to confirm what Arthur Radford,
Norman Crowhurst and Howard Tremaine have all stated that
a DF above 15 produces no audible improvement.

I would say "minimal improvement" or 'barely audible
improvement", but clearly we're all on the same page.

I have a great deal of respect for Crowhurst and Tremaine.
I just don't know a lot about Radford, other than that some
really pretty good UK audio gear bore his name some years
ago.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did not
raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing bottles were
in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!


"Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did
not raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing
bottles were in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!


"Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)

That would be the penny-ante consumer version. Real men used
211s. Of course this was all true in 1936, and totally
obsolete by 1950.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did
not raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing
bottles were in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!


"Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)


That would be the penny-ante consumer version. Real men used
211s. Of course this was all true in 1936, and totally
obsolete by 1950.


Crowhurst et al didn't seem to think it was a problem to use 2A3s in
an audio amplifier in the '50s.

Amazing they were able to build such good amplifiers 50 years ago!

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles
did not raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing
bottles were in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!


"Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)


That would be the penny-ante consumer version. Real men
used 211s. Of course this was all true in 1936, and
totally obsolete by 1950.


Crowhurst et al didn't seem to think it was a problem to
use 2A3s in an audio amplifier in the '50s.

That's no doubt because Crowhurst knew that his mission was
to build the penny-ante consumer version.

Amazing they were able to build such good amplifiers 50
years ago!

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
later, they were building far better amps with SS.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


What you write above tends to confirm what Arthur Radford,
Norman Crowhurst and Howard Tremaine have all stated that
a DF above 15 produces no audible improvement.

I would say "minimal improvement" or 'barely audible improvement", but
clearly we're all on the same page.

Good. That's interesting, which brings me to the question
of discernible distortion. Maybe a new thread?

I have a great deal of respect for Crowhurst and Tremaine. I just don't
know a lot about Radford, other than that some really pretty good UK audio
gear bore his name some years ago.

Yes the Crowhurst books and articles are very good indeed.
The Tremaine book "Audio Cyclopedia" (all 1757 pages of it!)
was one of the training manuals when I started at Decca.

Arthur Radford was actually a designer of test equipment.
but begain to produce audio amplifiers from the early 60s
up until his death in 1981.

His distortion test equipment is very sought after, and anything
that comes up for sale is bought by the Japanese. He
did not have the same commercial flair as Peter Walker, but
all the same built some excellent equipment. In the early
sixties, so the story goes, he was shown a Dynaco amp, and
claimed it could be done a lot better. His STA25 and STA100
amplifiers were used in many music studios and broadcast
facilities in the UK. The company had four factories,
at Ashton Vale in Bristol UK.
Everything was manufactured in house. AR himself
was a highly regarded transformer designer.

Iain

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
later, they were building far better amps with SS.


They were superior in all respects except sound, and repairability.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
later, they were building far better amps with SS.


They were superior in all respects except sound, and
repairability.

Please explain

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
later, they were building far better amps with SS.


They were superior in all respects except sound, and
repairability.

Please explain

Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they use DC
coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot, and easy to fix.
Solid state amps can be challenging even to experienced technicians at
times.

Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human listeners." The
consensus view overwhelmingly affirms that for a given output power
rating and measured performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound
preferred by human listeners over that produced by solid-state
amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that sound, but
more people do than don't.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human listeners." The
consensus view overwhelmingly affirms that for a given output power
rating and measured performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound
preferred by human listeners over that produced by solid-state
amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that sound, but
more people do than don't.

Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
controlled, listening study.

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
snip


Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople. They readily
admit everyone would prefer the tube sound but they sell more solid
state because people are afraid of tube maintenance and availability.
People with the skills (such as they modestly are) to maintain tube
amps tend to buy used or build their own.

Bret Ludwig said:

People with the skills (such as they modestly are) to maintain tube
amps tend to buy used or build their own.

Maybe, but those people don't buy used underwear.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
snip


Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.

You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Cheers,

Margaret

Margaret von B. wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
snip


Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.

You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Not as remarkably so as your remarkably odiferous vagina.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific,
bias
controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople. They readily
admit everyone would prefer the tube sound but they sell more solid
state because people are afraid of tube maintenance and availability.

sarcasm mode on
I see you have such an unimpeachable reference study to back up your claims
:-)

MrT.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:30:27 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
roups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
snip


Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.

You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Hey, this "you're stupid" thing is catching! Now let's see, who can I
use it on...?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Margaret von B. wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
snip


Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific,
bias
controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.

You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Not as remarkably so as your remarkably odiferous vagina.


Your impotence seems to be really painful to bear. I enjoy witnessing your
suffering, Cal.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30
years later, they were building far better amps with
SS.


They were superior in all respects except sound, and
repairability.

Please explain

Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they
use DC coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot,
and easy to fix. Solid state amps can be challenging even
to experienced technicians at times.

Trouble is, tubed amps are constantly in a state of
degradation. They need biasing, balancing, and new tubes.
Because of the heat they generate, parts like electrolytic
caps are under more stress. While the individual repair
operations might be more conceptually simple, there's no
winning with a tubed amp. You can't run one 24/7 for a
decade and reasonably expect it to still be at its peak
performance. Tubed amps are harder to keep repaired because
they need so much more service.


Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human
listeners." The consensus view overwhelmingly affirms
that for a given output power rating and measured
performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound preferred by
human listeners over that produced by solid-state
amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that
sound, but more people do than don't.

This is absoutlely false. The world of audio, except for a
few iconoclastic throwbacks, ran away from tubes at the
first opportunity and never looked back. The reason for
abandonment of tubes were manifold. Tubed amps are very poor
cost-performers, especially for critical listeners. There's
no amount of money that can be spent to build a tubed amp
whose performance equals a average solid state amp. The
audible failings of tubes are especially noticable with the
more inefficient speakers, and at larger SPLs, which many
modern listeners prefer,

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
later, they were building far better amps with SS.


They were superior in all respects except sound, and
repairability.

Please explain

Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they use DC
coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot, and easy to fix.
Solid state amps can be challenging even to experienced technicians at
times.

Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human listeners." The
consensus view overwhelmingly affirms that for a given output power
rating and measured performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound
preferred by human listeners over that produced by solid-state
amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that sound, but
more people do than don't.


Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
eloquently if I had tried:-)

Iain

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30
years later, they were building far better amps with
SS.


They were superior in all respects except sound, and
repairability.

Please explain

Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they
use DC coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot,
and easy to fix. Solid state amps can be challenging even
to experienced technicians at times.

Trouble is, tubed amps are constantly in a state of degradation. They need
biasing, balancing, and new tubes. Because of the heat they generate,
parts like electrolytic caps are under more stress. While the individual
repair operations might be more conceptually simple, there's no winning
with a tubed amp. You can't run one 24/7 for a decade and reasonably
expect it to still be at its peak performance. Tubed amps are harder to
keep repaired because they need so much more service.

Most people who own tube amps are happy to give them the
attention service they need. Tweaking the bias every three
months or so (a job that takes 5 mins) is not too much to ask..
Output tubes last 3 000 hrs, and pre-tubes maybe
10 000 hrs.

Don't try to make owning tube amp sound like a chore - it
isn't.


Iain

"kkantor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Over the years, I've done some updating of the circuits I use to
simulate loudspeaker loads. I just uploaded a couple for you to take
at look at:

http://aural.org/klk_share/dummy_load/.

These pertain to a 2-way, sealed system, and a 12" sealed subwoofer.

-k

www.tymphany.com


I tried to look at these, but they download as screens full of
alphanumeric characters.

Would you be so kind as to send them to me by e-mail?

Best regards
Iain Churches

Ian,

Your full email address is not visible to me. If you need me to send
you the files, drop me a line at

.

However, I have uploaded a ZIP of all the files to
http://aural.org/klk_share/dummy_load/. This should take care of the
situation where one's browser is not correctly identifying the CKT and
VSD extensions.

-k

www.tymphany.com

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
eloquently if I had tried:-)

As long as neither of you has to provide actual data to support your
assertion that is.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
eloquently if I had tried:-)

As long as neither of you has to provide actual data to
support your assertion that is.

Right, eloquence is not a reliable indicator of truth. In
fact, its often a counter-indicator.

The fact is that at this time, only a small percentage of
all music lovers have ever heard a vacuum tube amp-based
reproduction system playing. Far fewer have actually done a
bias-controlled comparison. So, any claims that the majority
of music lovers prefer listening to tubed gear are purely
imaginary.

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
droves, and at their personal expense. So did the rest of
the audio industry. One major justification for making the
switch was improved sound quality.

Arnii, it's now Monday. Sermons are for Sundays.

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
droves, and at their personal expense.

Same thing for automatic transmission in cars and bland, watery, mass-market
lager in place of local and regional beers.

So did the rest of
the audio industry. One major justification for making the
switch was improved sound quality.

Can you please keep your religious incantations to yourself? TIA.


..
..
..

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:07:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
droves, and at their personal expense. So did the rest of
the audio industry. One major justification for making the
switch was improved sound quality.

Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in it sounded
lousy. The novelty was what sold it, and the fact that most people
didn't care about sound quality (just like now really). But it sounded
lousy. Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
technology developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
ear-ache. Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
amp of all time, but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it. If this
is not true, if SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s,
why was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared but the
average punter? Even today they fetch as much as when new. Anybody who
can remember the intro of SS will remember the widespread grumbling
about sound quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years, appear
to have conveniently forgotten.

On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
wrote:


Same thing for automatic transmission in cars


And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
eloquently if I had tried:-)

As long as neither of you has to provide actual data to
support your assertion that is.

Right, eloquence is not a reliable indicator of truth. In
fact, its often a counter-indicator.

The fact is that at this time, only a small percentage of
all music lovers have ever heard a vacuum tube amp-based
reproduction system playing. Far fewer have actually done a
bias-controlled comparison. So, any claims that the majority
of music lovers prefer listening to tubed gear are purely
imaginary.

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
droves, and at their personal expense. So did the rest of
the audio industry. One major justification for making the
switch was improved sound quality.

Anyone who has been in any of the high end retailers' stores, or
"saloons" if you will, has at least a 75% chance of having heard a
vacuum tube system playing, based on the fact that at least
three-quarters of high end retailers sell at least one tube line which
they will at least occasionally have playing and will demo on request.
While it is true there are some people alive today who have managed to
have never heard a tube system, I cannot believe they are a
supermajority. Not among audiophiles. And not among recording
professionals either.

Actually, it's the "bias-controlled comparison" that is peculiar to a
superminority of audio hobbyists. (Most "music lovers" are not
seriously versed in audio or even seriously interested in it: they are
perfectly happy with mid-fi systems, solid state or otherwise.)

When solid state debuted in the serious audio field, it rapidly went
through several phases, and became dominant when Asian equipment,
brought to American attention by Vietnam War era military personnel
overseas, started coming in at reasonable prices, offering high
convenience and good measured specs and offering the no-maintenance,
no-tube-hassle promise in a Playboy-approved form factor. Because
measured performance was much better than similarly priced tube gear
the tube equipment was considered socially backward and embarassing,
and was traded off for a pittance....to be resold to the Japanese for
substantial sums, who recognized before anyone here that tube equipment
was often sonically superior.

While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.

paul packer wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
wrote:


Same thing for automatic transmission in cars


And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs. The automatic
transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the way Detroit
pushed them onto everyone. The manufacturers and dealers forced them on
buyers whenever possible.

George Middius wrote:
Arnii, it's now Monday. Sermons are for Sundays.

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
droves, and at their personal expense.

Same thing for automatic transmission in cars and bland, watery, mass-market
lager in place of local and regional beers.

So did the rest of
the audio industry. One major justification for making the
switch was improved sound quality.

Can you please keep your religious incantations to yourself? TIA.


.Don't forget supermarket bread- all fluff and no substance- and supermarket breakfast sausage- all grease and gristle.Both great commercial successes
Ludovic Mirabel
.
.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...
And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs. The automatic
transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the way Detroit
pushed them onto everyone. The manufacturers and dealers forced them on
buyers whenever possible.

The buyers were happy to pay the large premium for very crappy sludge boxes
in the early days. Real drivers stuck to manual transmissions, but the
simple fact is that most people wanted to get from A to B with as little
involvement as possible. AT's were high on their shopping list. Since most
new car buyers never keep the car long enough to need transmission repairs,
it's not something they would even consider.

The worst car I ever drove though was a hire car, Toyota Corolla 1100cc with
TWO speed auto and air conditioning!!!!!!!!!!!
However a new BMW or even Ford Falcon with six speed auto would be a
different animal altogether. Or how about a Merc with 7 speed auto?

MrT.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in it sounded
lousy. The novelty was what sold it, and the fact that most people
didn't care about sound quality (just like now really). But it sounded
lousy. Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
technology developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
ear-ache.

What crap, there were good and bad valve amps, and good and bad SS amps then
as now. However the price difference was a *lot* less in those days for
similar performance. Yet most people bought SS for it's *huge* increase in
reliability.

Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
amp of all time,

That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I can
see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.

but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However the
NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well promoted.

If this is not true, if SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s,
why was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared but the
average punter?

Sucked in I guess.

Even today they fetch as much as when new.

Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform it.

Anybody who
can remember the intro of SS will remember the widespread grumbling
about sound quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years, appear
to have conveniently forgotten.

By the early 70's the problems were gone, except for the real crap. (yes
there was plenty of that, just as with valve models) Quasi complementary
stages etc. were consigned to history, and SS was outperforming vacuum tube
in every respect, except for adding that "warm" layer of distortion that
some people require. Not a real problem since many recording engineers
continued to use valve mics to do that job for you.

MrT.

In , paul packer wrote :

And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Just because, up to now, that's not the automatic transmission which hold
the steering wheel. :-)