[Audio Empire]

We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's true
with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as
are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics? Of
course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
smug conviction badly shaken recently.

An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somewhat
amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integrated
amplifiers from the 1950s. My friend had recently bought these from disparate
sources. He had run across one of them about a year ago at a garage sale and
was so impressed with it that he bought it and then started looking for a
mate (for stereo). Well, he recently found the mate to the unit and so
equipped he started their "resurrection". The hardest part was replacing the
multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no longer
available), which he did with modern tubular capacitors from Rubicon mounted
under the chassis (where there was plenty of room). He then cleaned the
controls, replaced the tubes, and fired them up. They both sounded fine, It
was then that he called me.

Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybrids.
I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls , but was
willing to try. After making two-pairs of spade-lug-to-banana-jack adapters
(the old Eicos had those phenolic strip screw terminal speaker connections on
the back which won't accommodate today's spade-lugs (screws are too close to
one another), much less a pair of banana plugs), we fired the amps up after
connecting them to my Sony XA777-ES SACD/CD player.

The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. The amps
sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) but
these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
those! Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs were
clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. This really
surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz.

The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or when I
pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well past
the noon position. At that point things started to get a little thick
sounding. I get the general idea that with more efficient loudspeakers, these
little amps would equate themselves very handsomely at all volume levels with
any kind of music. I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
No, we don't all assume that.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago.
No. Newer is not always better.
Certainly that's true
with speakers,
Hmmmm, not necessarily.
today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's,
How do you know this?
Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as
are arms,
And how do you know this?
Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic
hybrids.
I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls...
The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock).

That doesn't mean anything t all. A volume control's taper can be set so
that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. You're a
former audio equipment reviewer and don't understand this stuff?

[jwvm]

On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

snip


The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr=
ong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo=
ut
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps
sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b=
ut
these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w=
ere
clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real=
ly
surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz=
..

Amplifier technology was reasonably advanced in the 1950's. The
requirements for linear amplification were well understood and with
some care it was possible to obtain good results. Careful measurements
will reveal a number of deficiencies compared to modern amplifiers but
they may not be easily heard. The low impedance of your speakers at 20
KHz is unlikely to be an issue since there is very little energy at
that frequency and lower frequencies mask this part of the spectrum.
Many people cannot hear that high anyway.

The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh=
en I
pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas=
t
the noon position.

Modern technology makes it easy to design low-cost high-power high-
quality amplifiers to avoid this limitation.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:54:50 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

snip


The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr=
ong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo=
ut
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps
sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b=
ut
these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w=
ere
clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real=
ly
surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz=
.

Amplifier technology was reasonably advanced in the 1950's. The
requirements for linear amplification were well understood and with
some care it was possible to obtain good results. Careful measurements
will reveal a number of deficiencies compared to modern amplifiers but
they may not be easily heard. The low impedance of your speakers at 20
KHz is unlikely to be an issue since there is very little energy at
that frequency and lower frequencies mask this part of the spectrum.
Many people cannot hear that high anyway.

The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh=
en I
pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas=
t
the noon position.

Modern technology makes it easy to design low-cost high-power high-
quality amplifiers to avoid this limitation.

Of course they do. I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a new
set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than
yesterday's.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to
give
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's
true
with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday,
as
are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics?
Of
course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
smug conviction badly shaken recently.

An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was
somewhat
amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20
integrated
amplifiers from the 1950s.

snip

I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me
through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with
an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than
yesterday's.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to
give
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's
true
with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday,
as
are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics?
Of
course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
smug conviction badly shaken recently.

An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was
somewhat
amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20
integrated
amplifiers from the 1950s.

snip

I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me
through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with
an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.


Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine was
a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner (HFT-90)
and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet it
didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I
lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC.
And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than they
are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth
(designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition of
a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance. That
tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I
probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my career
( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this
tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point (!)
when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was clever.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire wrote:

We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better
than yesterday's.

And how do you know this? Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and
electronic engineers in the world? What does "We all" even mean in
this context? Everyone in the world? Just the audiophiles? Some
particular subgroup of human beings.

Have you done a random sample survey? I know you didn't ask me and I
don't assume that at all. Someone else has posted that he, too,
doesn't assume that. And I know personally several other's who don't
assume that either.

On the other hand I know nothing at all about what "all" audiophiles
know or assume and make no claims about it.

Maybe you and your friends assume this, but you and your friends are
not "we all".

I am not in any way accusing you of lying, or even suggesting that you
are. But maybe you would take a little more care when stating things
that you cannot possibly know for certain in a context whose grammar
suggests that you do. Exaggeration does not improve one's
credibility.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:40:56 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
No, we don't all assume that.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago.
No. Newer is not always better.
Certainly that's true
with speakers,
Hmmmm, not necessarily.
today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's,
How do you know this?
Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as
are arms,
And how do you know this?
Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic
hybrids.
I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls...
The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite
wrong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock).

That doesn't mean anything t all.

What it means, when one reads for CONTENT rather than for contrarian reasons,
is that while my expectation was that I'd have to run the amplifier near it's
limit to get enough drive to power my speakers, such turned out to not be the
case. Other than the control position, there is no way on this amp to get
even a rough idea at how hard the amplifier is being driven. It's not like it
has a VU meter on it or anything. Sheesh!

A volume control's taper can be set so
that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. You're a
former audio equipment reviewer and don't understand this stuff?

Since when have you ever seen a volume control on an amplifier that wasn't a
standard logarithmic or "audio" taper? While it IS possible, in 1955, it
would have been unlikely in the extreme. And you wonder that I don't
understand this stuff!

Can't you just enjoy the anecdote in the spirit in which it was presented?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n=
ew
set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.

I don't know why you would be surprised since this has been know for
decades. Tube amps that were essentially transparent were
designed back in the 1940's I believe, and some were in production in
the 1950's if my memory serves me. Maybe it was the sixties but
somewhere around then the Leak .01 amplifier was sold in England. It
was +- 1 db from 20-20000 hz and had less than 0.1 percent distortion.

And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.

These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
that came
to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
that old home built Wharfedale speaker.

We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
pretty well had to have to make things work.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


snip


I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays
them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage
Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got
me
through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled
with
an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.


Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine
was
a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner
(HFT-90)
and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet
it
didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I
lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington
DC.
And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than
they
are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth
(designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition
of
a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance.
That
tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I
probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my
career
( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this
tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point
(!)
when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was
clever.

That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo
came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area
outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And
the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my
first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases
me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a
few weeks afterward. :-( ).

As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less
expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I
still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still
runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the
mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:27:25 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire wrote:

We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better
than yesterday's.

And how do you know this? Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and
electronic engineers in the world? What does "We all" even mean in
this context? Everyone in the world? Just the audiophiles? Some
particular subgroup of human beings.

Have you done a random sample survey? I know you didn't ask me and I
don't assume that at all. Someone else has posted that he, too,
doesn't assume that. And I know personally several other's who don't
assume that either.

On the other hand I know nothing at all about what "all" audiophiles
know or assume and make no claims about it.

Maybe you and your friends assume this, but you and your friends are
not "we all".

I am not in any way accusing you of lying, or even suggesting that you
are. But maybe you would take a little more care when stating things
that you cannot possibly know for certain in a context whose grammar
suggests that you do. Exaggeration does not improve one's
credibility.


Seedhouse. Get a life. the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant
to be taken literally, and, thankfully, most people understand this and
don't. So, If you have nothing more constructive to add than this, you can
COUNT on my not responding to you any more. Life's just too short, my friend.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


We all assume that today's new equipment is so much
better than yesterday's.

In general, it is.

New materials, improved
technology, better components; all conspire to give us
levels of performance unheard of a generation ago.

Not only that, but we get that performance in a far more convenient package
and for far less money.

Certainly that's true with speakers, today's CD players
certainly outperform those of the mid '80's,

I guess you're not keeping up. CD players are now obsolete artifacts of a
decade or more back. Aside from overpriced high end audio jewelry, you can
barely even buy new CD players any more.

Today's
phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday,

Actually not, since the best of them are virtually unchanged technology-wise
from the days of vinyl.


as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables.

No.

But what about electronics? Of course they're better, they
just have to be.

The basic design principles of audio are completely changed. The canonical
design for a modern piece of signal processing audio gear is a computer with
some DACs wrapped around it. Active filters have long been supplanted by
DSPs. FM radios are now based on a wideband RF stage that drives a digital
converter and the rest of the unit runs in the digital domain. More audio is
being distributed via general purpose digital networks (IOW, the internet)
than on physical media. Power amps don't have heavy power transformers or
output transformers any more. Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered,
low efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way
things are now being done. A huge fraction of all music listening is being
done via earphones and headphones that completely bypass the old school
world of rooms and speakers.

Special purpose audio media is simply going away. Even hard drives are being
replaced with flash or network downloads. This is true for both audio and
video.


Better circuits, better capacitors,
better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had
that smug conviction badly shaken recently.

Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs, capacitors
and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For example even the
coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being replaced with
servo-reference voltage sources because the size and performance of coupling
capacitors need not be tolerated.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls...
The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite
wrong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to
about
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock).

I answered:

That doesn't mean anything t all. A volume control's taper can be set so
that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation.

on 3/26/2011 9:28 PM now Audio Empire sez:

What it means, when one reads for CONTENT rather than for contrarian reasons...

I do read for content, and I read critically. Using critical thinking
doesn't make a reader a contrarian. If you don't want your beliefs
subject to evaluation, don't post them in a public discussion group.

is that while my expectation was that I'd have to run the amplifier near it's
limit to get enough drive to power my speakers, such turned out to not be the
case. Other than the control position, there is no way on this amp to get
even a rough idea at how hard the amplifier is being driven.

Again: the position of the control reveals nothing - absolutely nothing
at all - about "how hard the amplifier is being driven." A volume
control taper can be set so that maximum output is reached anyplace
along its rotation.

Can't you just enjoy the anecdote in the spirit in which it was presented?

If the "spirit" you intend is that we must accept your opinions as fact
and your mistaken conclusions as valid, then the answer is no. Sorry.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n=
ew
set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.

I don't know why you would be surprised since this has been know for
decades. Tube amps that were essentially transparent were
designed back in the 1940's I believe, and some were in production in
the 1950's if my memory serves me. Maybe it was the sixties but
somewhere around then the Leak .01 amplifier was sold in England. It
was +- 1 db from 20-20000 hz and had less than 0.1 percent distortion.

Yes, The Leak did have the published specs you quote. AT ONE WATT! That was a
common ploy in the 1950's and 1960's to publish spectacular specs, then
follow them with an asterisk. When you find the asterisk's foot-note (usually
in tiny print) it would say "at one Watt".

Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some
sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little Eicos
to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were, clearly,
not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to
efficiency). That is what surprised me the most.

And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.

You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's VISIBLE
crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic
oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order
distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh SS
deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded dreadful?
Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness, were
essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or
the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
2N3055 output devices...).

These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
that came
to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
that old home built Wharfedale speaker.

We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
pretty well had to have to make things work.

I grew up in that era, and I can tell you that the nostalgia is almost as
colored as much of the equipment from those days. While tube amps like
Mcintosh and Marantz Model 9s and to a lesser extent, Dynacos, were pretty
good, there were lots more that were simply mediocre (mostly due to cheap
output transformers). They measured OK at 1 Watt, as I said above, but as the
power went up, they sounded worse and worse. I have a friend who, until a
couple of years ago, had a stereo system consisting of a pair of Heathkit
WA-P2 preamps and a pair of Heathkit Willaimson power amps playing through a
pair of 2-way speakers consisting of Electrovoice 15" woofers, and
Electrovoice horn tweeters and crossovers mounted in huge "Karlson Kabinet"
enclosures. In spite of the huge woofer, and the imposingly big cabinets, the
system had no real bass below about 50 Hz and the horn tweeters were beamy
and overly bright and edgy. His electronics sounded OK at low levels, but
anything above that and they became pretty colored. I'll say this for the
system, it would play LOUD. Those Williamson amps were only 25 Watts/channel
but they would play those very efficient speakers very loudly. Too bad you
didn't want to listen listen to them "loud"

OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec Lansing
speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by 30-inch
enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)! I've
never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does. The
bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've ever
heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those huge
speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble horns"
take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating these
terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I guess
they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help them
for music).

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:43:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


snip


I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays
them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage
Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got
me
through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled
with
an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.


Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine
was
a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner
(HFT-90)
and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet
it
didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I
lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington
DC.
And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than
they
are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth
(designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition
of
a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance.
That
tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I
probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my
career
( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this
tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point
(!)
when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was
clever.

That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo
came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area
outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And
the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my
first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases
me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a
few weeks afterward. :-( ).

Was the Eico stereo amp as good as the little HF-20? I think that the
latter's main strong point was the fact that it had such a HUGE output
transformer for it's power output.

As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less
expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I
still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still
runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the
mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time.

I remember the AT-6. It had a "dynamically balanced" tone-arm with a square
weight on the back. It was certainly better than the previous generation of
Garrads for sure which had molded phenolic tone arms and used a spring to
pull "up" on the arm to provide stylus pressure. They did have plug-in shells
though, as I recall. Most seemed to come equipped with the almost ubiquitous
General Electric VR-II magnetic cartridge, the one with the red knob that
stuck through the top of the tone-arm head shell. You changed from the 78 RPM
stylus to the LP stylus by pushing down on that knob and rotating it 180
degrees! I think they even made a stereo version of that puppy. What I always
wanted as a kid was either a Garrard 301 or a Thorens TD-124. Then later when
the Empire 298 "Troubadour" came out, I switched allegiance to those. I still
want one (I had a gorgeous 598 once and for some reason, let it foolishly
slip through my fingers).

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Mar 27, 7:43=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better
than yesterday's.

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

And how do you know this? =A0Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and
electronic engineers in the world? =A0What does "We all" even mean in
this context? =A0Everyone in the world? =A0Just the audiophiles? =A0Som=
e
particular subgroup of human beings.

On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Seedhouse. Get a life. the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. =A0It's not=
meant
to be taken literally, and, thankfully, most people understand this and
don't. =A0So, If you have nothing more constructive to add than this, you=
can
COUNT on my not responding to you any more. Life's just too short, my fri=
end.

So are you a journalist then? But this forum is not a newspaper or
magazine, but a *discussion* forum. If you don't want to be
criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. It isn't really
all that hard to do. I am no journalist and when I read statements
that exaggerate obviously in newspapers and magazines I draw
conclusions about how interesting or worthwhile they are likely to be.

Now there are several audio journals that (it seems to me) specialize
in this kind of thing, so perhaps you should submit your articles to
them and see if they'll publish them.and pay you. And good luck to
you.

But if you want to be a "journalist" this is not the place for it so
far as I can see. It is a discussion group and one expects, or should
be expecting at any rate, criticism, which is what you have received
here from more than one source on exactly the same point. I am pretty
happy with the life I already have, but it certainly not perfect and
could possibly be improved if someone were to send me, say, a couple
of million dollars. I have heard wealth does not improve happiness
but am willing to serve as an experimental subject.

But when I get told to "get a life" simply because I make a mild
criticism it always seems to me that it is the person who is making
this insulting response (un-moderated for some reason) is likely the
one who needs to consider following his own advice.

If you post un sourced claims and exaggerations in a usenet discussion
forum, expect criticism. If you can't stand that you might try
posting elsewhere. Better still would be to keep posting here but to
be a little more careful of making unsubstantiated claims.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 27, 12:08=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

So are you a journalist then? =A0But this forum is not a newspaper or
magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =A0If you don't want to be
criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =A0

I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....


The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a
n=
ew
set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.


snip


Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some
sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little
Eicos
to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were,
clearly,
not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to
efficiency). That is what surprised me the most.

And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.

You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's
VISIBLE
crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic
oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order
distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh
SS
deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded
dreadful?
Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness,
were
essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos
or
the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
2N3055 output devices...).

Amen, brother, amen. Had experience (either by owning or helping friends)
with all of those. Any wonder I ended up with an ARC D90B?

These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
that came
to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
that old home built Wharfedale speaker.

We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
pretty well had to have to make things work.

snip

OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec
Lansing
speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by
30-inch
enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)!
I've
never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does.
The
bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've
ever
heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those
huge
speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble
horns"
take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating
these
terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I
guess
they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help
them
for music).

I was lucky enough to have a dad who was in the business. So we had a big
mono JBL corner horn with two 15" woofers and a propriatary mid-range/treble
horn that sufficed up to about 15k. It did a pretty good job of sounding
"real" driven by a 25watt Newcomb power amp, especially on the audiophile
pressings of the day (I still recall the sound of the old Audiophile Label
12" red vinyl LP's featuring Red Nichols and the Five Pennies...."in the
room" sound. And then there were Emory Cook's "Sounds of Our Times"
recordings. One in particular, "Speed the Parting Guest" was a favorite in
our house. And of course the ubiquitous "Railroad Sounds". :/) ).

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:05:56 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a
n=
ew
set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.


snip


Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some
sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little
Eicos
to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were,
clearly,
not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to
efficiency). That is what surprised me the most.

And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.

You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's
VISIBLE
crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic
oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order
distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh
SS
deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded
dreadful?
Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness,
were
essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos
or
the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
2N3055 output devices...).

Amen, brother, amen. Had experience (either by owning or helping friends)
with all of those. Any wonder I ended up with an ARC D90B?

These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
that came
to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
that old home built Wharfedale speaker.

We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
pretty well had to have to make things work.

snip

OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec
Lansing
speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by
30-inch
enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)!
I've
never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does.
The
bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've
ever
heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those
huge
speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble
horns"
take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating
these
terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I
guess
they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help
them
for music).

I was lucky enough to have a dad who was in the business. So we had a big
mono JBL corner horn with two 15" woofers and a propriatary mid-range/treble
horn that sufficed up to about 15k. It did a pretty good job of sounding
"real" driven by a 25watt Newcomb power amp, especially on the audiophile
pressings of the day (I still recall the sound of the old Audiophile Label
12" red vinyl LP's featuring Red Nichols and the Five Pennies...."in the
room" sound. And then there were Emory Cook's "Sounds of Our Times"
recordings. One in particular, "Speed the Parting Guest" was a favorite in
our house. And of course the ubiquitous "Railroad Sounds". :/) ).

Emory Cook was quite innovative. I recall his Arthur Lyman releases. When on
the turntable, they looked normal enough, but when you picked them up, you
could see light through them. Cook called his process "Microfusion" groove
technology. I don't know how it actually differed from regular vinyl pressing
(if it all) but the records sounded excellent. All mono of course.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:43:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


snip


I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays
them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage
Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll
bet
the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got
me
through my last year of high school and four years of college. In
those
days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled
with
an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.


Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine
was
a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner
(HFT-90)
and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and
yet
it
didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because
I
lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of
Washington
DC.
And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than
they
are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide
bandwidth
(designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the
addition
of
a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance.
That
tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and
I
probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my
career
( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember
this
tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point
(!)
when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was
clever.

That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when
stereo
came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area
outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine.
And
the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my
first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife
teases
me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within
a
few weeks afterward. :-( ).

Was the Eico stereo amp as good as the little HF-20? I think that the
latter's main strong point was the fact that it had such a HUGE output
transformer for it's power output.

No, the transformers were not as good....and the compromises needed for
one-chassis stereo were already in evidence. But the transformers were
bigger than the Scotts and Fishers of the day, and it was a pretty good unit
nonetheless. These old guys are still sought after and being refurbed by
hobbyists today.



As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less
expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards.
I
still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it
still
runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than
the
mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time.

I remember the AT-6. It had a "dynamically balanced" tone-arm with a
square
weight on the back. It was certainly better than the previous generation
of
Garrads for sure which had molded phenolic tone arms and used a spring to
pull "up" on the arm to provide stylus pressure. They did have plug-in
shells
though, as I recall. Most seemed to come equipped with the almost
ubiquitous
General Electric VR-II magnetic cartridge, the one with the red knob that
stuck through the top of the tone-arm head shell. You changed from the 78
RPM
stylus to the LP stylus by pushing down on that knob and rotating it 180
degrees! I think they even made a stereo version of that puppy. What I
always
wanted as a kid was either a Garrard 301 or a Thorens TD-124. Then later
when
the Empire 298 "Troubadour" came out, I switched allegiance to those. I
still
want one (I had a gorgeous 598 once and for some reason, let it foolishly
slip through my fingers).

Well, my AT-6 yielded to a Dual 1019, then to a Rek-O-Kut with a Pritchard
wooden arm, then to a Dual 701 auto-manual (which I use still today), and
eventually to a Linn Sondek with Syrinx PU-2 arm, teamed with an Accuphase
AC-2 cartridge. I still use the Dual 701 and the Accuphase driving a
modified Marcof headamp in the system today.....the Linn was sacrificed in
the name of financing the five channel analog surround system I listen to
today.

[Kele]

Attack!

I understand you, Empire.

I think there is some built in "life expectancy" more now than in the
past... the way light bulbs are produced to function for a determined
number of hours/power-cycles before failing so that the consumer must
re-purchase periodically. They can make a 100 year bulb if they
wanted too.

Main thing is that, with electronics, we get more for the same money
compared to predicessors. More what?! My first 1983 CD player was a
22 lb tank, but kinda sounded brittle compared to even the 5 lb
slimline mas-market cheapos sold today. However, the 1983 model is
still in use with a nephew.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 27, 12:08=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

So are you a journalist then? =A0But this forum is not a newspaper or
magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =A0If you don't want to be
criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =A0

I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....


The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.


I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that
readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, in
the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance
lecturer in a beer hall - NOT!

Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly
suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant
to be taken literally...

Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole.
Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other
statements you expect us to accept as factual.

Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
reviewer?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?

I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all sort of schemes to
measure or hear any such thing.

AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened in equipment that
needed maintenance, but it was not a standard feature of properly-operating
equipment.

Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and service manuals can be
found he http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no McIntosh
SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you can find some?

Driver transformers were widely used in the early days of the evolution of
SS power amps, with surprisingly good results. Manufacturers that used them
included Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc. These parts
were called on to handle relatively small amounts of power and therefore
were easily overdesigned and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and
relatively rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They were
eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate (complementary - similar
transistors that were available as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely
available at low cost.

McIntosh used autoformers as output devices in order to improve the
impedance matching between the limited output devices of the day and
real-world speakers. But these are neither for interastage coupling nor are
they transformers as they maintain a DC path between their inputs and
outputs.

beOr the
early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in
fairness, were essentially bulletproof.


The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA protection circuits
that contributed to their longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon
Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
2N3055 output devices...).

The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its output devices were
RCA 40636's which were similar, but then so were very many other silicon
power transistors of the day.

The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output devices but they were
quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My
Dyna 120 appears to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772 output devices.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low efficiency speakers
that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way things are now being
done.

Persumably, this means that the big problem now is cooling the voice
coils of the low efficiency speakers.

Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs,
capacitors and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For
example even the coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being
replaced with servo-reference voltage sources because the size and
performance of coupling capacitors need not be tolerated.

Ah, thanks. That answers a question that was mystifying me: why
bother with all these servo designs I keep seeing whjen all you need
is a little cap? :-)

Andrew.

[bob]

On Mar 28, 6:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
reviewer?

Don't they all? :-)

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low
efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size
are the way things are now being done.

Persumably, this means that the big problem now is
cooling the voice coils of the low efficiency speakers.

Not the problem or even the most intractable problem. High temperature
voice coils are commonplace.

Traditional room acoustics are the still the major problem that remains to
be overcome.

For example a large audio system that I recently help set up used 4 18"
woofers, each with 30 mm linear travel. Each of the two 2 ohm voice coils
for each driver were attached to a channel output of a 1250 wpc/2 ohm stereo
power amplifier. This system measures flat to well below 10 Hz, and can
generate SPLs at that frequency well in excess of 115 dB with low
distortion. In actual use I saw about 1/3 of the available linear travel
being exercised.

Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers
and DSPs, capacitors and resistors are vanishing from
signal paths. For example even the coupling capacitors
on headphone amps are being replaced with
servo-reference voltage sources because the size and
performance of coupling capacitors need not be
tolerated.

Ah, thanks. That answers a question that was mystifying
me: why bother with all these servo designs I keep seeing
whjen all you need is a little cap? :-)

The coupling caps for a headphone amp seem small enough until one tries to
fit an entire stereo receiver, music library, and music player into
something with the approximate footprint of a comemerative stamp and maybe
1/4" thick. In this day and age high performance op amps can be so small
and take so little power that one or more of them form a less costly and
more effective alternative to two audio coupling capacitors for a 16 ohm
headphone load.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Mar 27, 12:08=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

So are you a journalist then? =3DA0But this forum is not a newspaper o=
r
magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =3DA0If you don't want to be
criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =3DA0

I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....

The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.

I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that
readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, i=
n
the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance
lecturer in a beer hall - NOT!

Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly
suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved.

I was making a joke though. Guess the parody was to close to reality.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. =A0It's n=
ot meant
to be taken literally...

Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole.
Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other
statements you expect us to accept as factual.

Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
reviewer?

I hope he did. Hyperbole is a pretty common device in critical review
of any and all things subjective. It's on the readers to understand
this commonly used device. If one wishes to be boring as a reviewer
hyperbole should be avoided at all costs.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:12:11 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Mar 27, 12:08=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

So are you a journalist then? =3DA0But this forum is not a newspaper o=
r
magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =3DA0If you don't want to be
criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =3DA0

I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....

The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.

I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that
readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, i=
n
the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance
lecturer in a beer hall - NOT!

Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly
suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved.

I was making a joke though. Guess the parody was to close to reality.


I know you were, and I was just expanding upon that joke with a mock apology.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:22:35 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 28, 6:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
reviewer?

Don't they all? :-)

bob


It's pretty much de-riguer.

Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAINMENT,
first and foremost. If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the
reader won't read his stuff. Of course, it's nice if one's reviews also
convey useful information and even better if it causes the reader to add the
component that the writer just reviewed to his short-list of components to
consider. But the overwhelming requirement remains entertainment.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?

I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all sort of schemes to
measure or hear any such thing.

AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened in equipment that
needed maintenance, but it was not a standard feature of properly-operating
equipment.

We've been down this road before. Dyna eventually fixed the problem and it
one point, they even offered a kit of parts for doing so. I even posted a
list of those parts for you. If you have a later ST-120, they don't exhibit
the problem, if you have one made before they finally fixed it, they did.

Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and service manuals can be
found he http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no McIntosh
SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you can find some?

They were sold under the name "Mac" to differentiate between the tube
(McIntosh) and the transistor (Mac) gear. They abandoned the "Mac" name in
the early Seventies,

Driver transformers were widely used in the early days of the evolution of
SS power amps, with surprisingly good results. Manufacturers that used them
included Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc. These parts
were called on to handle relatively small amounts of power and therefore
were easily overdesigned and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and
relatively rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They were
eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate (complementary - similar
transistors that were available as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely
available at low cost.

Dynaco (ST-120, ST-80) and H-K (Citation 12) used complementary drivers to
drive their output transistors. It worked fine, but when one 2N3055 "went" it
usually took the two driver transistors with it (and often the other 2N3055,
as well).

McIntosh used autoformers as output devices in order to improve the
impedance matching between the limited output devices of the day and
real-world speakers. But these are neither for interastage coupling nor are
they transformers as they maintain a DC path between their inputs and
outputs.

beOr the
early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in
fairness, were essentially bulletproof.


The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA protection circuits
that contributed to their longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150 or the D300 sounded
"fine".

Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon
Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
2N3055 output devices...).

The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its output devices were
RCA 40636's which were similar, but then so were very many other silicon
power transistors of the day.

The kit I built certainly used 2N3055s,

The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output devices but they were
quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My
Dyna 120 appears to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772 output devices.

And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class 'B' biasing, and thus
no crossover notch. Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover notch,
It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a sine wave test tone. By the time
Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the audiophiles that I knew (including
myself) had moved-on.

IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He came up with a
re-biasing scheme which was similar to Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as
well). The problem with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't just
replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts. Dyna selected the 2N3055s
for V-sub-BE (I believe) and you had to buy your replacements from the
factory (they weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the goddamn
thing blowing first one channel and then the other, so I moved on to a used
Citation two, (which was pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better
than that of the ST-120, as well.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:50:49 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not
meant
to be taken literally...

Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole.
Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other
statements you expect us to accept as factual.

Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
reviewer?


I'm surprised that I have to explain these things to someone who''s
ostensibly, an adult.

Look, here's an analogy.

Someone is going to write a criticism of something Congress has done with
which he doesn't agree. He might open his criticism with:

"We all know that Congress has the best interests of the American people at
heart, but in its last session it passed a law......"

First of all, we all DON'T know that Congress has the best interests of the
American people at heart. The person writing this knows that's the case, the
persons reading it knows that's the case . We certainly hope it's true, and
many people even assume it's true, but others suspect it's not and some are
even convinced that it's not true. But it establishes a "community" of the
writer and the reader for the duration of the written piece. It becomes a
"peg", if you will, for the writer to hang his arguments from.

In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles
DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business model
of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many
audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than older
stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of this
widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject, My suggestion, which I will now
reiterate, is that if you don't like what or how I write, don't read what I
write. Believe me, it won't insult me in the least if you skip my meager
contributions to this august body. 8^)

Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've
been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?

I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all
sort of schemes to measure or hear any such thing.

AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened
in equipment that needed maintenance, but it was not a
standard feature of properly-operating equipment.

We've been down this road before.

The facts you present actually support my experiences.

Dyna eventually fixed the problem and it one point, they even offered a
kit of
parts for doing so. I even posted a list of those parts
for you.

No need since that information has been on the internet for a long time.

If you have a later ST-120, they don't exhibit
the problem,

You ought to be clear about this before you make those global statements.

if you have one made before they finally fixed it, they did.

I've tried to get one of those in my possesion, and have failed. IME they
are unobtanium.

Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
service manuals can be found he
http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you
can find some?

They were sold under the name "Mac" to differentiate
between the tube (McIntosh) and the transistor (Mac)
gear. They abandoned the "Mac" name in the early
Seventies,

Irrelevant. There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS amps at the cited
location, and none of them have coupling transformers.

Driver transformers were widely used in the early days
of the evolution of SS power amps, with surprisingly
good results. Manufacturers that used them included
Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc.
These parts were called on to handle relatively small
amounts of power and therefore were easily overdesigned
and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and relatively
rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They
were eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate
(complementary - similar transistors that were available
as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely available at
low cost.

Dynaco (ST-120, ST-80) and H-K (Citation 12) used
complementary drivers to drive their output transistors.

That became the standard way to do things, once complmentary drivers became
cheap and readily avaialble. The only signficant change since then has been
the use of true complementary output devices instead of compound pairs where
only the low-powered devices were complementary.

It worked fine, but when one 2N3055 "went" it usually
took the two driver transistors with it (and often the
other 2N3055, as well).

If one fixes a lot of blown output stages one finds that this pattern
continues to this day. If you blow an output device, it often takes the
direct-coupled driver with it. Some output devices seem to have built-in
fuses, which fail in open circuits instead of shorts. This tends to make
failures less catastrophic.

The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
protection circuits that contributed to their
longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150 or
the D300 sounded "fine".

It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the relevant equipment to
dispel many of these audiophile myths.

Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the
Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60
Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...).

The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its
output devices were RCA 40636's which were similar, but
then so were very many other silicon power transistors
of the day.

The kit I built certainly used 2N3055s,


Last-minute parts substitutions at the factory are possibe 40636s are
pin-compatible with 2N3055s. In fact these devices were highly variable
when produced and selected by testing on the production line. The specified
tolerances were broad enough that type number substitutions, or remarking of
devices was often an option.


The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772
types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120 appears
to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772
output devices.

And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.

Except that there was no offical later model, just the simple fact that the
parts in the boxes changed from time to time.

Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover notch, It's easy to
see on the oscilloscope with a sine wave test tone. By
the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.

The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine and High Fidelity
magazine in 1966-67 lacked these alleged obvious faults.

IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).

The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably because it involved
upgrading some transistors with parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for
TI Plastic).

The problem
with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
that of the ST-120, as well.

I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible differences would
disappear were proper DBT listening producedures actually be used. There's
an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where someone started scouting up
the details of the TIP mod to address audible distortion, but the person
asking the questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening the
speaker cables.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:07:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?

I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all
sort of schemes to measure or hear any such thing.

AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened
in equipment that needed maintenance, but it was not a
standard feature of properly-operating equipment.

We've been down this road before.

The facts you present actually support my experiences.

Dyna eventually fixed the problem and it one point, they even offered a
kit of
parts for doing so. I even posted a list of those parts
for you.

No need since that information has been on the internet for a long time.

The "need" is irrelevant, the point is that I did list those parts for your
more than a years ago, IOW, the last time this subject came up here.


If you have a later ST-120, they don't exhibit
the problem,

You ought to be clear about this before you make those global statements.

Since I mentioned it the last time this subject came up, I didn't feel the
need.

if you have one made before they finally fixed it, they did.

I've tried to get one of those in my possesion, and have failed. IME they
are unobtanium.

Well, I suspect that most have been discarded by now. After all, they were
pretty fragile. Not like today's very robust amps.

Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
service manuals can be found he
http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you
can find some?

They were sold under the name "Mac" to differentiate
between the tube (McIntosh) and the transistor (Mac)
gear. They abandoned the "Mac" name in the early
Seventies,

Irrelevant. There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS amps at the cited
location, and none of them have coupling transformers.

That's your problem, not mine. After all, I'm not looking for them.

Driver transformers were widely used in the early days
of the evolution of SS power amps, with surprisingly
good results. Manufacturers that used them included
Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc.
These parts were called on to handle relatively small
amounts of power and therefore were easily overdesigned
and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and relatively
rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They
were eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate
(complementary - similar transistors that were available
as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely available at
low cost.

Dynaco (ST-120, ST-80) and H-K (Citation 12) used
complementary drivers to drive their output transistors.

That became the standard way to do things, once complmentary drivers became
cheap and readily avaialble. The only signficant change since then has been
the use of true complementary output devices instead of compound pairs where
only the low-powered devices were complementary.

It worked fine, but when one 2N3055 "went" it usually
took the two driver transistors with it (and often the
other 2N3055, as well).

If one fixes a lot of blown output stages one finds that this pattern
continues to this day. If you blow an output device, it often takes the
direct-coupled driver with it. Some output devices seem to have built-in
fuses, which fail in open circuits instead of shorts. This tends to make
failures less catastrophic.

The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
protection circuits that contributed to their
longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150 or
the D300 sounded "fine".

It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the relevant equipment to
dispel many of these audiophile myths.

There is emerging evidence that DBT might not be a very reliable way of
discerning differences in audio components due to a myriad of human factors:
lack of system familiarity among the listeners, the anxiety of having to
"perform", listening fatigue among the listeners, etc. I don't pretend to
know about this, but a friend of mine who is a psychologist/audiophile has
been privy to some research along these lines. He says that the results of
this study will be published when the study is concluded . Of course, if DBT
isn't applicable to this audio, I don't know what would be.

Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the
Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60
Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...).

The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its
output devices were RCA 40636's which were similar, but
then so were very many other silicon power transistors
of the day.

The kit I built certainly used 2N3055s,


Last-minute parts substitutions at the factory are possibe 40636s are
pin-compatible with 2N3055s. In fact these devices were highly variable
when produced and selected by testing on the production line. The specified
tolerances were broad enough that type number substitutions, or remarking of
devices was often an option.


The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772
types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120 appears
to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772
output devices.

And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.

Except that there was no offical later model, just the simple fact that the
parts in the boxes changed from time to time.

No, you just have to go by manufacturing date, apparently.

Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover notch, It's easy to
see on the oscilloscope with a sine wave test tone. By
the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.

The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine and High Fidelity
magazine in 1966-67 lacked these alleged obvious faults.

They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had noticed it. Those magazines
were a direct PR outlet for the industry.

IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).

The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably because it involved
upgrading some transistors with parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for
TI Plastic).

Didn't know the what they called it. Thanks.

The problem
with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
that of the ST-120, as well.

I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible differences would
disappear were proper DBT listening producedures actually be used.

Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era when most audio
circuits are good enough to be truly transparent isn't that old. I'd say this
has only been true for the last 8-10 years.


There's an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where someone started
scouting up
the details of the TIP mod to address audible distortion, but the person
asking the questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening the
speaker cables.

So he never made the modification? Too bad, It would be interesting to hear
about what differences were noted in light of todays essentially colorless
amplifiers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:07:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
service manuals can be found he
http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps
you can find some?

There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS
amps at the cited location, and none of them have
coupling transformers.

That's your problem, not mine. After all, I'm not looking
for them.

You seem to be comfortable making and sticking to claims that fail any
reasonble documentation search.
The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
protection circuits that contributed to their
longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150
or the D300 sounded "fine".

It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the
relevant equipment to dispel many of these audiophile
myths.

There is emerging evidence that DBT might not be a very
reliable way of discerning differences in audio
components due to a myriad of human factors: lack of
system familiarity among the listeners, the anxiety of
having to "perform", listening fatigue among the
listeners, etc.

This is all very old news, and it has been rebutted quite effectively with
no response other than the next repetition of teh same old news.

When some people are faced with evidence that disagrees with their cherished
beliefs, many go into denial. For many it is not sufficient to stick to the
demonstrable facts, which is that it was possible to make the early Crown
amplifiers misbehave with some speakers. It was necessary to paint them
forever with the blackest possible brush. That's one difference between
non-productive hyperbole-ridden audiophile myth and true science.

I don't pretend to know about this, but a
friend of mine who is a psychologist/audiophile has been
privy to some research along these lines. He says that
the results of this study will be published when the
study is concluded . Of course, if DBT isn't applicable
to this audio, I don't know what would be.

This is common red herring that we hear. Some mysterious as-yet undocumented
research that will finally pull the audiophile myths out of the fire they
have been deservedly been roasted in.


The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to
2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120
appears to have been factory built and shows no signs
of parts replacements or other maintenance. It came
with 2N3772 output devices.

And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.

Except that there was no offical later model, just the
simple fact that the parts in the boxes changed from
time to time.

No, you just have to go by manufacturing date, apparently.

Since the equipment has serial numbers, that would be a logical choice.


Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a sine
wave test tone. By
the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.

The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine
and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked these
alleged obvious faults.

They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had noticed it.

I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars or at least forcably
bend the truth in ways that are detrimental to their readers. Strange.

Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
industry.

Not necessarily a problem as long as they are constrained by the truth.


IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).

The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably
because it involved upgrading some transistors with
parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for TI Plastic).

Didn't know the what they called it. Thanks.

The problem
with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
that of the ST-120, as well.

I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible
differences would disappear were proper DBT listening
producedures actually be used.

Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era
when most audio circuits are good enough to be truly
transparent isn't that old. I'd say this has only been
true for the last 8-10 years.

I don't know what reliable basis you have for making that claim. It is
clearly one that has financial benefits for the high end audio industry.

Are those the words of a reviewer who accepts bending the truth in the form
of hyperbole?

There's an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where
someone started scouting up the details of the TIP mod
to address audible distortion, but the person asking the
questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening
the speaker cables.

So he never made the modification?

So it seems. He was very pragmatic - he was able to get good sound without
doing violence to the equipment. I suspect that a lot of high end
audiophiles damn good equipment when the fault is in their own sloppy work.

Too bad, It would be
interesting to hear about what differences were noted in
light of todays essentially colorless amplifiers.

In order to properly comment on colorless amplifiers, you need colorless
listening tests, not the bias-ridden sighted evaluations that the high end
press has staked their credibility on.

I would love to have someone come up with a more effective means for doing
listening evaluations than DBTs. Of course for that to happen, the high end
rumor mill would be forced to come up with a viable alternative that
addressed the egregious bias problems that are inherent in sighted
evaluations.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:49:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:07:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
service manuals can be found he
http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps
you can find some?

There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS
amps at the cited location, and none of them have
coupling transformers.

That's your problem, not mine. After all, I'm not looking
for them.

You seem to be comfortable making and sticking to claims that fail any
reasonble documentation search.
The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
protection circuits that contributed to their
longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150
or the D300 sounded "fine".

It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the
relevant equipment to dispel many of these audiophile
myths.

There is emerging evidence that DBT might not be a very
reliable way of discerning differences in audio
components due to a myriad of human factors: lack of
system familiarity among the listeners, the anxiety of
having to "perform", listening fatigue among the
listeners, etc.

This is all very old news, and it has been rebutted quite effectively with
no response other than the next repetition of teh same old news.

When some people are faced with evidence that disagrees with their cherished
beliefs, many go into denial. For many it is not sufficient to stick to the
demonstrable facts, which is that it was possible to make the early Crown
amplifiers misbehave with some speakers. It was necessary to paint them
forever with the blackest possible brush. That's one difference between
non-productive hyperbole-ridden audiophile myth and true science.

I don't pretend to know about this, but a
friend of mine who is a psychologist/audiophile has been
privy to some research along these lines. He says that
the results of this study will be published when the
study is concluded . Of course, if DBT isn't applicable
to this audio, I don't know what would be.

This is common red herring that we hear. Some mysterious as-yet undocumented
research that will finally pull the audiophile myths out of the fire they
have been deservedly been roasted in.

I think you're overlooking something. In most scientific DBT tests, the
purpose of the test is not to form some consensus of opinion, but is, rather,
to ascertain facts that might be otherwise hidden by false positives, placebo
effect, etc. For instance, drug tests are not looking for an opinion about
the efficacy of the drug they are looking for real physical results from that
drug. Control subjects with the condition that the drug is supposed to treat
are given placebos, other subjects are given the drug under test. The purpose
is to find out if the drug is effective and this is ascertained by physicians
examining the subjects. Of course the subjects don't know which group they're
in and neither do their attending physicians. But the fact is that the test
is not looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for improvements in a
medical condition. Either the drugs improve the patients' condition or they
don't. The subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or not). In an audio
DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion and is mentally participating .
Quite a different thing.

The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to
2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120
appears to have been factory built and shows no signs
of parts replacements or other maintenance. It came
with 2N3772 output devices.

And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.

Except that there was no offical later model, just the
simple fact that the parts in the boxes changed from
time to time.

No, you just have to go by manufacturing date, apparently.

Since the equipment has serial numbers, that would be a logical choice.


Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a sine
wave test tone. By
the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.

The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine
and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked these
alleged obvious faults.

They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had noticed it.

I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars or at least forcably
bend the truth in ways that are detrimental to their readers. Strange.

I'm saying nothing of the kind, please don't undertake to put words in my
mouth.

There are two types of "buff" publications: The first type owes it's first
allegiance to its advertisers. The second type owes its first allegiance to
its readers. Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were both the first type.
That's why the second type (Stereophile and The Absolute Sound) were founded.
For a long time neither of the latter two carried any advertising at all. I
remember more than once, either harry Pearson or Gordon Holt coming right out
and saying that such-and-such was a piece of s__t.

Of course, today, SR and HF are long gone, and now Stereophile and TAS are
THE mainstream US hi-fi publications and both are owned by different people
than those who started them and their editorial policies are much different.
Since both carry advertising now, I cannot say for sure that they too haven't
become the first type that I outlined above.

Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
industry.

Not necessarily a problem as long as they are constrained by the truth.

By definition, it is a big problem. Have you ever seen a PR release for a
product that extolled that product's mediocrity? Of course not. To my
knowledge, Dynaco never released any PR information or any specifications
which stated that "Our new ST-120 runs in hard class 'B' and has a new
feature called 'crossover notch distortion' which we think improves the
sound." And neither SR or HF would EVER report anything that might put an
advertiser's (or possible advertisers') products in a bad light. HF,
initially, had a policy that they wouldn't publish the reviews of any piece
of equipment that didn't meet the manufacturer's specs. Later, they changed
their policy to simply not mentioning any shortfalls in performance that they
encountered (it was mostly this policy, according to Gordon Holt, that caused
him to quit HF and eventually found Stereophile).. Then there was Julian
Hirsch. Mr. Hirsch, who "reviewed" equipment for Stereo Review for more than
30 years, apparently never met an audio component that he didn't like. His
tag line, which summed-up almost every review he ever wrote: "Of course, the
(name and model of unit under test goes here) like all modern (preamps,
amplifiers, receivers, CD players, tuners, you name it) has no sound of it's
own...", became somewhat of a audiophile joke for years. His reviews were so
uncritical that they weren't worth reading by anybody except the
manufacturer, their PR firm, and their dealers.

IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).

The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably
because it involved upgrading some transistors with
parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for TI Plastic).

Didn't know the what they called it. Thanks.

The problem
with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
that of the ST-120, as well.

I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible
differences would disappear were proper DBT listening
producedures actually be used.

Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era
when most audio circuits are good enough to be truly
transparent isn't that old. I'd say this has only been
true for the last 8-10 years.

I don't know what reliable basis you have for making that claim.

The reliable basis is that without the computer-based design tools employed
by modern circuit designers, it was difficult to make amplifying circuits
perfect. Each had its own character, which reflected the tastes of its
designer(s). Nowdays, most amps converge on being extremely neutral and do so
because the tools allow them to do that easily. It's a lot like any other
engineering problem. Computers have made what was difficult, very easy. For
instance, optics. It used to be that lenses were designed on a formula, and
once a formula was accepted everybody used the same one. When the Tessar
formula was found to yield a fairly well color-corrected 4-element camera
lens, everybody used it. Leica called it an Elmar, Schnieder called it a
Xenar, Kodak called it a 4-element Ektar, etc., Zoom lenses used to be
expensive because they were cut and try. With computers, lenses generally
design themselves. The designer enters the specs, the computer program does
the rest. The result is that today's modern lenses are very color correct,
have almost no pincushion or barrel distortion, are all highly antistigmatic
and many are achromatic (all three colors focus at the same point). These
things were difficult to do before computers, and in fact, exceptional lens
formulas were generally hit upon by accident (that's why everybody used a
good one once it was found). Now they routinely outperform the very best
lenses of just 20 or 30 years ago.

Car suspensions have undergone a similar revolution due to computers. At one
time a designer had basically two choices: Optimize the suspension for
handling, or optimize it for a smooth ride. Today computers can give the
designer BOTH without seriously compromising either.

The same seems to be true of modern computer tools for analog audio design.
Transparency is something that is relatively easy for the modern designer to
achieve, but this is a relatively recent thing and the tools just keep
getting better. There is far less difference between amplifiers these days
than there ever was in the past. The audiophile can no longer count on a
corporate "sound" to tune his system for him. They all sound very much alike,
and what differences there are aren't really worth splitting hairs over
(although some will still try).


It is
clearly one that has financial benefits for the high end audio industry.

I'd say not. The high end audio industry is based, largely, on the upgrade
model. Any admission on their part of transparency, basically says to the
marketplace that everything sounds so much alike that there really isn't any
reason to upgrade unless your current equipment breaks. They have a vested
interest in maintaining the stance that there are vast differences between
components and, of course, theirs sound "best".

Are those the words of a reviewer who accepts bending the truth in the form
of hyperbole?

I don't know any reviewer that does bend the truth.

There's an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where
someone started scouting up the details of the TIP mod
to address audible distortion, but the person asking the
questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening
the speaker cables.

So he never made the modification?

So it seems. He was very pragmatic - he was able to get good sound without
doing violence to the equipment. I suspect that a lot of high end
audiophiles damn good equipment when the fault is in their own sloppy work.

Very possible. I am big proponent of the contact enhancer Stabilant 22 (used
to be sold to the audiophile market as "Tweek"). Use it on all connections,
make certain that your connections are gas-tight, and you shouldn't have any
problems on that score.

I'm sure that you think that the use of Stabilant 22 contact enhancer is
another of your audiophile myths. If so, I invite you to think again.
Stabilant 22 has a Mil-Spec number, a NASA spec number and an automotive SAE
spec number. Every connection on the space shuttle uses it, many connections
in car manufacturing use it.

As an example of its effectiveness, my classic Alfa Romeo is getting pretty
old, and I was having no luck at keeping the tail-lights working. Then I got
a brain storm. If Stabilant works so well on audio equipment, maybe it will
work on my tail-lights So I went through the system once again, this time
applying Stabilant 22 to the bulb-bases, the edge connector for each
tail-light assembly, etc. That was three years ago. I' haven't had a
tail-light problem since!

It's expensive, a 50 ML bottle costs about $70 these days, but it lasts for
years (the bottle I'm now on was only $45 when I bought it) and works like a
champ. It's the best. most effective "system tweak" an audiophile can buy.
and, unlike myrtle wood blocks, green pens, and speaker cable elevators, it
works. You can buy it from micro-tools:

http://tinyurl.com/4onn387

Again, I have no interest in Micro-tools, Stabilant or it's makers, Just
passing along info on a real system enhancement.

Too bad, It would be
interesting to hear about what differences were noted in
light of todays essentially colorless amplifiers.

In order to properly comment on colorless amplifiers, you need colorless
listening tests, not the bias-ridden sighted evaluations that the high end
press has staked their credibility on.

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure that I agree that DBT IS that
colorless listening test. I'm not 100% convinced that DBT is as bias-free as
its advocates insist. It might be free of sighted bias and expectational bias
on an equipment level, but there are other kinds of biases, the human kind,
that don't yield so easily to the scientific method. Like I said earlier,
however, if DBT does turn out to be a flawed methodology for audio, then I
couldn't begin to tell you what an alternative could be. At any rate, I'm
not religiously tied to any theory or methodology, and remain ambivalent
about the efficacy of DBT. While I tend to support it when it comes to cables
and interconnects (because electronics theory and measurements say that there
CAN'T be any difference). I'm not so sure about active devices such as
amplifiers DACs CD players and the like, because my experience with them and
the DBTs I've been involved with to test them is at such variance with the
conventional wisdom (and yours).


I would love to have someone come up with a more effective means for doing
listening evaluations than DBTs.

You and me both, brother!

Of course for that to happen, the high end
rumor mill would be forced to come up with a viable alternative that
addressed the egregious bias problems that are inherent in sighted
evaluations.

That's a tall order, and I think it's ultimately, too tall.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

In most scientific DBT tests, the purpose of the test is not to form
some consensus of opinion, but is, rather, to ascertain facts that
might be otherwise hidden by false positives, placebo effect,
etc. For instance, drug tests are not looking for an opinion about
the efficacy of the drug they are looking for real physical results
from that drug. Control subjects with the condition that the drug is
supposed to treat are given placebos, other subjects are given the
drug under test. The purpose is to find out if the drug is effective
and this is ascertained by physicians examining the subjects. Of
course the subjects don't know which group they're in and neither do
their attending physicians. But the fact is that the test is not
looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for improvements in a
medical condition. Either the drugs improve the patients' condition
or they don't. The subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or
not). In an audio DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion and
is mentally participating . Quite a different thing.

How is that any different from saying "On a scale of 0 to 10, how bad
is the pain today?" Sound is subjective; pain is subjective.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 29, 6:49=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

When some people are faced with evidence that disagrees with their cheris=
hed
beliefs, many go into denial. For many it is not sufficient to stick to t=
he
demonstrable facts, which is that it was possible to make the early Crown
amplifiers misbehave with some speakers. It was necessary to paint them
forever with the blackest possible brush. That's one difference between
non-productive hyperbole-ridden audiophile myth and true science.


Ah the "science" flag has been waved. 'True science" no less. Well
show us the "true science" that supports your positions Arny? You
opened the door now lest see you walk the walk. In case you need a
little refresher course on what is veiwed by the sicentific community
as true science in such matters here you go
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to
decide which research results should be published in a scientific
journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers
to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers)
before they are made public.

More than one million scientific research papers are published in
scientific journals worldwide every year. Despite its extensive use
and recognition among scientists in assessing the plausibility of
research claims, in the rest of society very little is known about the
existence of the peer-review process or what it involves.

Sense About Science believes that peer review is an essential arbiter
of scientific quality and that information about the status of
research results is as important as the findings themselves. We have a
very serious commitment to popularising an understanding of how
scientific quality is assessed."

Nice little review no?

So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published studies that
support your assertions on audibility and inaudibility of various
electronics in the audio chain. If you can't I suggest you put away
that science flag.

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday=
's.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to gi=
ve
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. =A0Certainly that's=
true
with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, =
as
are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics=
? Of
course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
smug conviction badly shaken recently.

An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somew=
hat
amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integr=
ated
amplifiers from the 1950s. My friend had recently bought these from dispa=
rate
sources. He had run across one of them about a year ago at a garage sale =
and
was so impressed with it that he bought it and then started looking for a
mate (for stereo). Well, he recently found =A0the mate to the unit and so
equipped he started their "resurrection". The hardest part was replacing =
the
multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no lo=
nger
available), which he did with modern tubular capacitors from Rubicon moun=
ted
under the chassis (where there was plenty of room). He then cleaned the
controls, replaced the tubes, and fired them up. They both sounded fine, =
It
was then that he called me.

Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybr=
ids.
I was skeptical that a pair of =A020-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls , but=
was
willing to try. After making two-pairs of spade-lug-to-banana-jack adapte=
rs
(the old Eicos had those phenolic strip screw terminal speaker connection=
s on
the back which won't accommodate today's spade-lugs (screws are too close=
to
one another), much less a pair of banana plugs), we fired the amps up aft=
er
connecting them to my Sony XA777-ES SACD/CD player.

The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr=
ong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo=
ut
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps
sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b=
ut
these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w=
ere
clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real=
ly
surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz=
..

The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh=
en I
pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas=
t
the noon position. At that point things started to get a little thick
sounding. I get the general idea that with more efficient loudspeakers, t=
hese
little amps would equate themselves very handsomely at all volume levels =
with
any kind of music. =A0I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays the=
m
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thoren=
s
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet =
the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Aw, fer crissakes!

Guys and gals - this is a hobby - And this forum exists to support
that hobby. There are cutting edge technologies out there, there are
vintage technologies out there and they all have their place in the
choir. Permit some 'observations' i.e.: Opinions that I hold. Not holy
writ by any means.

1. It is impossible to get the same performance out of a pair of
earbuds, computer-speakers or even very good headphones as out of a
pair of even moderately decent full-range speakers. These smaller
items simply cannot move enough air to permit any sort of ambience
outside of the skull. I do have a pair of rather good headphones - and
they are used _only_ when courtesy requires, never by preference.

2. I would never argue that tubes are better than solid-state. However
I would argue that as-applied-in-real-life, many good tube amplifiers
sound better than many solid-state amplifiers of the same approximate
power rating. Much of that has to do with behavior at the margins as
most (but not all) tube equipment clips softly whereas most (but not
all) solid state equipment does not. And some ears prefer the
colorations of tube equipment.

3. Very good speakers driven by very good electronics are incredibly
revealing. And that is not always a 'good' thing. With well-recorded,
well engineered, well played music it mostly is. Otherwise, the mud &
fudge added by inherent limitations hides other defects.

4. Vinyl shares the same general characteristics of tubes. Some prefer
its colorations, and very good vinyl systems sound very good indeed.
Is it necessarily exactly what was recorded in the same way as with a
CD or other digital source? No. But neither is that the point.

5. Headroom will do more for a conventional/traditional stereo system
than any other single user-operable input. All other things being
equal, a 500 watt amp will sound better (more revealing) than a 10
watt amp. Although a 100 watt amp might not. So ultra-clean high-
wattage power amps are a definite addition to the hobby - although by
accident of being so revealing that may not necessarily be
appreciated. Too often I have seen defects in the recording process
attributed to 'brittle' amplification.

6. Audio is much like wine - a matter of preference, experience,
availability and the moment. Our audio memory is generally wretched,
inaccurate and wildly distorted such that even 24 hours after an
experience there will be _NO_ reliable memory for it. Much as a wine
one day enjoyed with tacos the next day is nasty with fresh fish - but
we remember it as good from the previous day and therefore blame the
fish.

Just recently, I almost entirely reconfigured the "main" system. The
only two items from the previous configuration are the CD changer and
the tuner/pre-amp. Changed out were the speakers (MGAs replaced by MG-
IIIs) and the power-amp (Revox A722 replaced by a Citation 16). Sound
pretty wonderful. Also pretty ancient given that the newest item on
the table is the changer at 6. Tuner/pre-amp at 37, power-amp at 35,
speakers at 30+. The previous system was more-or-less unchanged for 3
years - and the change was driven by the opportunity to obtain a very-
nearly-perfect set of MG-IIIs for sparrow-feed. Cosmetics being the
only-and-very-minor issue. I expect I am getting more fun and pleasure
out of $2,000 worth of stuff than many here get out of their much
more costly equipment. Opinion based on some of the discussions here,
not a judgment.

In any case, ENJOY fer crissakes.....

Been lurking for over a year - and then saw this... Yikes!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA