Hello everyone,

I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've
pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't
really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments
regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300
wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo).

One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of
the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.02%. This is compared to
new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD.

Can anyone really hear distortion from a mega-amp like the 2300?
Should I just be using my ears, and not be worrying about the specs?


Thanks very much for your input,

Adam

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello everyone,

I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've
pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't
really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments
regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300
wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo).

One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of
the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.02%. This is compared to
new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD.

Can anyone really hear distortion from a mega-amp like the 2300?
Should I just be using my ears, and not be worrying about the specs?

**Yes, you should, but you should also be including one of the many other
fine products available, apart from the grossly over-priced and over-hyped
McIntosh products.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello everyone,

I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've
pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't
really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments
regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300
wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo).

One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of
the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.02%. This is compared to
new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD.

This is specsmanship, not an indicator of distortion under typical use.

A modern SS power amp can have any amount of distortion you want it to from
0.005 to 1% and more. All you have to do is push it closer to clipping or
into clipping to get more distortion.

At say 10 watts, the 2002, the 2300, the 40 wpc amp in my van, and my QSC
USA 400 all have something like 0.01% or less distortion.

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear it.

Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

Graham

The problem with McIntosh solid state amps (and to a lesser extent
their tube ones too) is not with their performance, measured or sonic,
at full or even 20% power. It's with the sound at very low levels. Mac
amps sound okay, even good, with inefficient speakers or at high SPLs
with high duty cycle music. Through good efficient speakers in a quiet
livijng room quiet classical passages will make you wish you had
something else.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a Mac amp because it looks cool
and has prestiege,i.e. virtual penis size, value. Just be honest about
it.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear
it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

What sort of deviation are you talking about?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
The problem with McIntosh solid state amps (and to a lesser extent
their tube ones too) is not with their performance, measured or sonic,
at full or even 20% power. It's with the sound at very low levels. Mac
amps sound okay, even good, with inefficient speakers or at high SPLs
with high duty cycle music. Through good efficient speakers in a quiet
livijng room quiet classical passages will make you wish you had
something else.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a Mac amp because it looks cool
and has prestiege,i.e. virtual penis size, value. Just be honest about
it.


For such it big penis, it comes with such small balls.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear
it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

What sort of deviation are you talking about?

Deviation ? Funny word to describe it.

Say, an amplifier's thd is measured @100W yet typical listening level may be
~ 1W. The data sheet thd is essentially useless. For many amplifiers the 1W
region is just about the worst possible listening level on account of
crossover issues.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear
it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

What sort of deviation are you talking about?

Deviation ? Funny word to describe it.

Say, an amplifier's thd is measured @100W yet typical listening level may be
~ 1W. The data sheet thd is essentially useless. For many amplifiers the 1W
region is just about the worst possible listening level on account of
crossover issues.

McIntosh amplifiers in the solid state era-and some of the tube ones
too- are harsh sounding at very low levels. There are a lot of things
that are ridiculous about the way Mc builds amps today, but their
buyers like them that way.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear
it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

What sort of deviation are you talking about?

Deviation ? Funny word to describe it.

Say, an amplifier's thd is measured @100W yet typical listening level may
be
~ 1W. The data sheet thd is essentially useless. For many amplifiers the
1W
region is just about the worst possible listening level on account of
crossover issues.

It's been maybe 30 years since I've seen a SS amp in good repair that
demonstrated crossover distortion. Sure, simple measurements show THD+N
increasing at low levels, but it is the hum and noise that drives the
measurements up. This includes cheap IC chips, cheap receivers, and cheap
autosound amps.

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

McIntosh amplifiers in the solid state era-and some of the tube ones
too- are harsh sounding at very low levels. There are a lot of things
that are ridiculous about the way Mc builds amps today, but their
buyers like them that way.

More than likely Bret is actually complaining about the fact that these amps
have good frequency response and low noise and distortion. Golden ears also
complain this way about CD players. Tubed amps are generally noisier and
have poorer frequency response. The extra noise shows up in low level
listening.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to hear
it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

What sort of deviation are you talking about?

Deviation ? Funny word to describe it.

Say, an amplifier's thd is measured @100W yet typical listening level may
be
~ 1W. The data sheet thd is essentially useless. For many amplifiers the
1W
region is just about the worst possible listening level on account of
crossover issues.

It's been maybe 30 years since I've seen a SS amp in good repair that
demonstrated crossover distortion.

You need to look at the distortion analyser output.

Sure, simple measurements show THD+N
increasing at low levels, but it is the hum and noise that drives the
measurements up.

Forget hum - it shouldn't be there in any decent modern design.

Yes - noise does drive up the figure but simple examination of the analyser
output on a scope wil show shedloads of crossover on most 'run of the mill'
amplifiers.

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather well.

The only circuitry I've seen that's effectively free of the effect is a mosfet
output stage - optimally biased.


This includes cheap IC chips, cheap receivers, and cheap
autosound amps.

The IC chips are frequently the worst examples.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

When distortion is below about 0.08%, there just isn't any way to
hear
it.

I used to think you could read a spec sheet that way too.

Unfortunately most thd specs are measured at power levels that are
unrepresentative of normal listening.

What sort of deviation are you talking about?

Deviation ? Funny word to describe it.

Say, an amplifier's thd is measured @100W yet typical listening level
may
be
~ 1W. The data sheet thd is essentially useless. For many amplifiers
the
1W
region is just about the worst possible listening level on account of
crossover issues.

It's been maybe 30 years since I've seen a SS amp in good repair that
demonstrated crossover distortion.

You need to look at the distortion analyser output.

Sure, simple measurements show THD+N
increasing at low levels, but it is the hum and noise that drives the
measurements up.

Forget hum - it shouldn't be there in any decent modern design.

Yes - noise does drive up the figure but simple examination of the
analyser
output on a scope wil show shedloads of crossover on most 'run of the
mill'
amplifiers.

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather
well.

Look Graham I was probably looking at crossover distortion from SS before
you were born. ;-)

Furthermore, crossover distortion shows up like a sore thumb on a spectrum
analyzer - all the high order garbage.

The only circuitry I've seen that's effectively free of the effect is a
mosfet
output stage - optimally biased.

I just don't know what srt of amps you've been looking at.

This includes cheap IC chips, cheap receivers, and cheap
autosound amps.

The IC chips are frequently the worst examples.

Please name a readily available modern chip that is offensive. I'll run
right out and buy one and test it.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Yes - noise does drive up the figure but simple examination of the
analyser
output on a scope wil show shedloads of crossover on most 'run of the
mill'
amplifiers.

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather
well.

Look Graham I was probably looking at crossover distortion from SS before
you were born. ;-)

I rather doubt that actually.

Furthermore, crossover distortion shows up like a sore thumb on a spectrum
analyzer - all the high order garbage.

The 'order' varies with design actually.

You're very mistaken to think it's all high-order.

The only circuitry I've seen that's effectively free of the effect is a
mosfet
output stage - optimally biased.

I just don't know what srt of amps you've been looking at.

Well........... If you want one of the worst examples I can think of - think
QSC !

The RMX is better than the MX but it's still pretty rubbish. I'd expect the
USAs to be even worse. The 'criminally' deficient biasing method deosn't help !

This includes cheap IC chips, cheap receivers, and cheap
autosound amps.

The IC chips are frequently the worst examples.

Please name a readily available modern chip that is offensive. I'll run
right out and buy one and test it.

LM386 !

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Yes - noise does drive up the figure but simple examination of the
analyser
output on a scope wil show shedloads of crossover on most 'run of the
mill'
amplifiers.

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather
well.

Look Graham I was probably looking at crossover distortion from SS before
you were born. ;-)

I rather doubt that actually.

Name a date.

I'll name one: 1962.

Furthermore, crossover distortion shows up like a sore thumb on a
spectrum
analyzer - all the high order garbage.

The 'order' varies with design actually.

Of course, but its there.

You're very mistaken to think it's all high-order.

I never said it was *all* high order. I simply said that the presence of
high order distortion is a common indicator.

The only circuitry I've seen that's effectively free of the effect is a
mosfet
output stage - optimally biased.

I just don't know what srt of amps you've been looking at.

Well........... If you want one of the worst examples I can think of -
think
QSC !

It was obviously a different QSC than the three I've measured.

The RMX is better than the MX but it's still pretty rubbish. I'd expect
the
USAs to be even worse. The 'criminally' deficient biasing method deosn't
help !

Interestingly enough our experience does not overlap. I've only measured
QSCs from the small end of the USA series.

This includes cheap IC chips, cheap receivers, and cheap
autosound amps.

The IC chips are frequently the worst examples.

Please name a readily available modern chip that is offensive. I'll run
right out and buy one and test it.

LM386 !

Fails the criteria of being "modern". My best info suggests that the 386 is
a 1982 design. In fact I've never tested a LM386. I started testing chip
amps with the LM 2002. The LM2002 was far from being fault-free but it was
OK for crossover distortion. This was the late-1980s.

I would consider the LM1875 to be a modern chip.

Arny Krueger wrote:

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather
well.

This is bull**** incidentally. Oscilloscopy is not the tool to track
down non-gross distortions, at least not directly.


Look Graham I was probably looking at crossover distortion from SS before
you were born. ;-)

I rather doubt that actually.

Name a date.

I'll name one: 1962.

1962 was probably the high point, give or take a couple of years, of
commercially manufactured hi-fi equipment. After that they learned how
to make then cheaper, and also more sophisticated designs-primarily
though not exclusively solid state- started being able to generate good
measurements across the procedures Hirsch-Houck and others implemented
while increasingly more often sounding like ****. The technology needed
to do that was nascent in 1962, and the better class of customer was
still willing to pay for quality whilst the manufacturers were willing
to put substantial build cost into the products. The illusory magical
qualities of solid-state, transformerless equipment and the then-low
Japanese manufacturing costs would by 1966 have made the descent to
zero look pretty attractive.

If one could beam back down to November 1962 one could buy, if one had
the funds, a wholly decent system for music listening which if beamed
back could be simply connected to a modern optical player and be a very
good system. (One could also buy up a lot of old WE gear and sell it
for a major fortune to the Ollies today....) In November 1968 or 1972
or 1978 that would not be possible, not with new gear in mainstream
hi-fi stores.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather
well.

This is bull**** incidentally. Oscilloscopy is not the tool to track
down non-gross distortions, at least not directly.

You incorrectly attributed that comment.

It was mine ! And I stand by it ! Very much so in fact.

Examination of the distortion analyser output waveform shape is highly valuable
with regard to getting a feel for the harmonic content and indeed any specific
linearity issues. Crossover artefacts are very obvious too. You simply 'get an
eye' for it.

You *could* use a spectrum analyser to get the numbers but a waveform on a scope
take some beating for instant 'readability'.

I guess 25+ yrs of doing this for real as a design professional gives me the
advantage over the casual newsgroup junkie !

Graham

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform
rather
well.

This is bull**** incidentally. Oscilloscopy is not the tool to track
down non-gross distortions, at least not directly.


Look Graham I was probably looking at crossover distortion from SS
before
you were born. ;-)

I rather doubt that actually.

Name a date.

I'll name one: 1962.

OK, Bret that means I can ignore the rest of your post on the grounds of
irrelevance.

For future reference Bret, its currently 2006.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Bret Ludwig wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform
rather
well.

This is bull**** incidentally. Oscilloscopy is not the tool to track
down non-gross distortions, at least not directly.

You incorrectly attributed that comment.

It was mine ! And I stand by it ! Very much so in fact.

And, I agree with the idea that looking at the output of a THD analyzer with
a scope is a good way to look at *all* forms of distortion, not just
crossover distortion.

Examination of the distortion analyser output waveform shape is highly
valuable
with regard to getting a feel for the harmonic content and indeed any
specific
linearity issues. Crossover artefacts are very obvious too. You simply
'get an
eye' for it.

Agreed. The THD analyzer's output is pure distortion, with the fundamental
removed. This greatly enhances the sensivity of the 'scope as a distortion
analysis tool.

That's the whole point of a THD analyzer - remove the fundamental.
Operating a THD analyzer is composed of setting levels and nulling out the
fundamental with a frequency control and a balance control. With some
practice one develops a natural ability to turn the right knob in the right
direction by simply glancing at the scope.

BTW Graham, it looks like Bret just admitted what a complete ignoramous he
is about audio testing. Using a THD analyzer is a canonical tool - if you
haven't been there, you haven't been!

You *could* use a spectrum analyser to get the numbers but a waveform on a
scope
take some beating for instant 'readability'.

Looking at nonlinear distortion with a spectrum analyzer is a completely
different experience. It's probably more of an intellectual experience as
opposed to the hand-and-eye coordination that one develops while using a THD
analyzer with a 'scope.

I guess 25+ yrs of doing this for real as a design professional gives me
the
advantage over the casual newsgroup junkie !

Exactly. I first obtained hands-on experience with a THD analyzer in the
mid-1960s, which is now about 40 years ago. It was the Heath vacuum tube
model, and I was as an undergraduate engineering student. The object of my
measurements was a RIAA phono preamp that I designed as a junior-year
project. After the Army I returned to school and found they had upgraded to
a HP 331 with auto-nulling. The auto-nulling was slower than the trained
hand, but it could speed the process, nevertheless.

Pooh Bear wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform rather
well.

This is bull**** incidentally. Oscilloscopy is not the tool to track
down non-gross distortions, at least not directly.

You incorrectly attributed that comment.

It was mine ! And I stand by it ! Very much so in fact.

Examination of the distortion analyser output waveform shape is highly valuable
with regard to getting a feel for the harmonic content and indeed any specific
linearity issues. Crossover artefacts are very obvious too. You simply 'get an
eye' for it.

You *could* use a spectrum analyser to get the numbers but a waveform on a scope
take some beating for instant 'readability'.

I guess 25+ yrs of doing this for real as a design professional gives me the
advantage over the casual newsgroup junkie !

You must have a really big scope tube and some hellacious deflection
amplifiers to drive it or else eyesight far beyond mortal
man....Viewing the residual distortion from a spec an or a tuned filter
can be very useful, but raw waveforms have to be fairly gross before
much can be seen of them. I would say that the dynamic changes from a
signal changing in amplitude or pitch might be useful, but generally
you see generator artifacts more than anything else.

Oldtimers did everything with scopes in x-y mode or free running
y-time because that's all they had. The availability of good triggered
sweep two channel scopes and now distortion and spectrum analyzers at
relatively hobbyist-friendly prices has made us all lazy. But a scope
can tell you if you have 20% or one percent thd: much beyond that it's
hopeless.

Not that thd means that much....

I've used HP, Potomac, Sound Technology, Audio Precision and other
distortion boxes with and without scopes to view the nulled output. And
I was the one who implied the use of the scope to view residuals from
the box.

Arny, it is you and not we, the hobbyists and builders, that lives in
the past.

The fact is, you have the early-60s belief that what is new is
necessarily good and the old is necessarily bad. It is _you_ who live
in the JFK/MM fantasy era of turbine cars and atomic coffee-pots. Not
so much the hardware, the mentality.

A lot of times, the old one _is_ basically better, at least for common
purposes.

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

I've used HP, Potomac, Sound Technology, Audio Precision and other
distortion boxes with and without scopes to view the nulled output. And
I was the one who implied the use of the scope to view residuals from
the box.

Didn't sound that way. Not at all. Graham and I both noticed it.

Hey Bret, you can say that you used the origional THD analyzer that Bell
Labs built back in the 1930s, and who could prove you wrong? Say whatever
you want - Usenet is a proof-free zone!

Arny, it is you and not we, the hobbyists and builders, that lives in
the past.

LOL!

The fact is, you have the early-60s belief that what is new is
necessarily good and the old is necessarily bad.

Horsefeathers!

It is _you_ who live
in the JFK/MM fantasy era of turbine cars and atomic coffee-pots. Not
so much the hardware, the mentality.

Just words. Prove it. I'm not the guy who made a fuss over Graham using a
scope to look for crossover distortion, and of course neither is Graham.
Nahh, we caught you straight-out wrong and there's a very good chance you're
lying your little sockpuppet's butt off trying to cover your tracks.

A lot of times, the old one _is_ basically better, at least for common
purposes.

It all depends on the nature of the job at hand. I never ditched my old IM
5258 which as modded had very low residuals. Anytime I want to, I can use
it. I just noticed that I pretty much stopped using it once computer-based
measurement hardware and software reached a certain point of refinement.

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

Pooh Bear wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

An experienced eye ( such as mine ) can interpret the waveform
rather
well.

This is bull**** incidentally. Oscilloscopy is not the tool to track
down non-gross distortions, at least not directly.

You incorrectly attributed that comment.

It was mine ! And I stand by it ! Very much so in fact.

Examination of the distortion analyser output waveform shape is highly
valuable
with regard to getting a feel for the harmonic content and indeed any
specific
linearity issues. Crossover artefacts are very obvious too. You simply
'get an
eye' for it.

You *could* use a spectrum analyser to get the numbers but a waveform on
a scope
take some beating for instant 'readability'.

I guess 25+ yrs of doing this for real as a design professional gives me
the
advantage over the casual newsgroup junkie !

You must have a really big scope tube and some hellacious deflection
amplifiers to drive it or else eyesight far beyond mortal
man....

Thanks for admitting again Bret that you haven't got a clue about what one
sees in the output of a distortion analyzer.

Viewing the residual distortion from a spec an or a tuned filter
can be very useful, but raw waveforms have to be fairly gross before
much can be seen of them.

That's *not* what Graham was talking about, and anybody who can read should
know it.

I would say that the dynamic changes from a
signal changing in amplitude or pitch might be useful, but generally
you see generator artifacts more than anything else.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Oldtimers did everything with scopes in x-y mode or free running
y-time because that's all they had.

Thanks for admitting again Bret that you haven't got a clue about how to set
up a scope to view the output of a distortion analyzer.

The availability of good triggered
sweep two channel scopes and now distortion and spectrum analyzers at
relatively hobbyist-friendly prices has made us all lazy. But a scope
can tell you if you have 20% or one percent thd: much beyond that it's
hopeless.

That's *not* what Graham was talking about, and anybody who can read should
know it.


Not that thd means that much....

Thanks for admitting again Bret that you haven't got a clue about how to
analyze the display on a scope that is viewing the output of a distortion
analyzer.

To summarize:

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?\

Silly me.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Thanks.

Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.
If you were to take it private rather than initiating entire threads on
the subject, things would be even more peaceful. Soon enough Mr. McCoy
& the Fulminating Dung Beetle will join in, and the cycle will start
all over again, God help us!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.

Huh?

Interesting. The Krueger method of building up his self-image is by
comparison to anyone he can denigrate.

After his recent reverses -- being publicly manipulated by the oldest
trick in the book, being forced to admit publicly that he spoke in
ignorance, and so on -- Krueger is now pulling himself up by the
bootstraps of the thief Bret Ludwig. Considering that the thief Ludwig
is himself considered lower than snake**** by almost everyone in audio,
Krueger must be at the bottom of the slimepit.

Who would have thought Krueger could fall that low, just for trying to
**** with me?

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Andre Jute


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

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Thanks.

Why are you adding to the body count in this thread, Vicky Baby? Do you
have something again the Krooborg or the thief Bret Ludwig? Or do you
merely want to let us know your little rosebud mouth is petulantly
pursed?

BTW, after you report Arny to his pastor for un-Christian activities,
will you still be claiming it was your duty to do so?

Andre Jute
Bring on the Real McCoy!

wrote:
Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.
If you were to take it private rather than initiating entire threads on
the subject, things would be even more peaceful. Soon enough Mr. McCoy
& the Fulminating Dung Beetle will join in, and the cycle will start
all over again, God help us!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

In rec.audio.tech wrote:
Bret/Arnie:

This place has been relatively peaceful without the personal bickering.
If you were to take it private rather than initiating entire threads on
the subject, things would be even more peaceful. Soon enough Mr. McCoy
& the Fulminating Dung Beetle will join in, and the cycle will start
all over again, God help us!

Peaceful? rec.audio.tech? Hmm. I guess I've been reading a different group.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Interesting. The Krueger method of building up his self-image is by
comparison to anyone he can denigrate.

As if this doesn't exactly describe your behavior, sockpuppet Jute.

After his recent reverses -- being publicly manipulated by the oldest
trick in the book, being forced to admit publicly that he spoke in
ignorance, and so on -- Krueger is now pulling himself up by the
bootstraps of the thief Bret Ludwig.

Unlike you Jute, I don't consider occasionally making mistakes to be a
personal threat. As someone just posted in another forum, if you don't make
an occasional mistake, you're obviously not trying hard enough.

Considering that the thief Ludwig
is himself considered lower than snake**** by almost everyone in audio,
Krueger must be at the bottom of the slimepit.

No, just really taken aback by Ludwig's piling of error on error and lie
upon lie.

Who would have thought Krueger could fall that low, just for trying to
**** with me?

Huh?

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Jute, you're really twisted and weird.

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Bull****. If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope
will trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

Andre Jute wrote:
Why are you adding to the body count in this thread, Vicky Baby? Do you
have something again the Krooborg or the thief Bret Ludwig? Or do you
merely want to let us know your little rosebud mouth is petulantly
pursed?


You are a moron and a charlatan, Jute. Arny is merely a disillusioned
college kid of 1962 who still lusts after a Marantz 9 pair , a 7C, a
10B and a pro Ampex deck but can't admit it.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

Examination of the distortion analyser output waveform shape is highly valuable
with regard to getting a feel for the harmonic content and indeed any specific
linearity issues. Crossover artefacts are very obvious too. You simply 'get an
eye' for it.

You *could* use a spectrum analyser to get the numbers but a waveform on a scope
take some beating for instant 'readability'.

I guess 25+ yrs of doing this for real as a design professional gives me the
advantage over the casual newsgroup junkie !

You must have a really big scope tube and some hellacious deflection
amplifiers to drive it or else eyesight far beyond mortal
man....Viewing the residual distortion from a spec an or a tuned filter
can be very useful, but raw waveforms have to be fairly gross before
much can be seen of them.

NO !

You clealry haven't seen the output of a modern distortion analyser.

As for viewing it conveniently - you just adjust the scope's vertical deflection as
required. Typically around 0.5V/div seems to work fine with an AP test set.

http://www.audioprecision.com/index.php

I would say that the dynamic changes from a
signal changing in amplitude or pitch might be useful,

How is pitch going to change. Have you invented a time machine ?

but generally
you see generator artifacts more than anything else.

You're talking utter nonsense ! THD residual on an AP is ~ 0.0007% ( -103dB )

Oldtimers did everything with scopes in x-y mode or free running
y-time because that's all they had. The availability of good triggered
sweep two channel scopes and now distortion and spectrum analyzers at
relatively hobbyist-friendly prices has made us all lazy. But a scope
can tell you if you have 20% or one percent thd: much beyond that it's
hopeless.

For reading the percentage THD, the analyser's display tells you that. I'm talking
about the importance of the waveform *shape*.

Not that thd means that much....

Oh Lord !

Graham

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Bull****. If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope
will trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

Actually, the correct method is to sync the timebase to the oscillator output ! No
triggering issues at all.

Graham

Bret Ludwig wrote:
If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope will
trigger properly, although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

An old trick, that I can't remember when I was first told about,
is to trigger the scope from the clean sinewave. You thus
get consistent triggering and can view the THD+N residual
without it jumping about. This is most useful with storage
'scopes, and is how I produce the traces that you can
see, for example, in figs.9 & 10 at
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepower...tl/index4.html

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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

Andre Jute wrote:
Why are you adding to the body count in this thread, Vicky Baby? Do you
have something again the Krooborg or the thief Bret Ludwig? Or do you
merely want to let us know your little rosebud mouth is petulantly
pursed?

You are a moron and a charlatan, Jute. Arny is merely a disillusioned
college kid of 1962 who still lusts after a Marantz 9 pair , a 7C, a
10B and a pro Ampex deck but can't admit it.

Bret is outdoing himself today.

Every fact about me in this post is wrong!

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

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

(1) Bret doesn't seem to know how to set up a scope that views the
output
of
a distortion analyzer
(2) Bret doesn't seem to know what to expect to see on a scope that
views
the output of a distortion analyzer
(3) Bret doesn't seem to know how to analyze what one sees on a scope
that
views the output of a distortion analyzer.

How clear does it have to be?

Silly me.

No, inexperienced you, Bret.

BTW, watching skilled techs run a THD analyzer, or reading magazine ads
which is all you've provided evidence of Bret, isn't what Graham and I
are
talking about.

Here I thought you hooked a BNC cable from the residual out of the
distortion box to a channel input of the scope and set the time/div
knob so each bump took a graticule or so and the volts/div to where the
height was about right. GOD, how STUPID could I have been?!

Arny, please educate us on your SUPERIOR method!

BTW, it's not my method. It's how it is done by everybody with a clue.

Two words: X/Y mode.

BTW, X/Y mode does not change the vertical calibration of the 'scope, so
you
can still estimate the peak distortion from the 'scope.

What X/Y mode does do is cause the 'scope's display to remain stable
without
further adjustment as you change the test frequency. Just another little
convenience that anybody who actually has significant hands-on time with
a
THD analyzer knows.

Wow Bret, when you expose yourself to be a poser, you really do a bang-up
job!

Bull****. If there is any amplitude to the signal at all the scope
will trigger properly,

Of course but that isn't the same as "no further adjustment as you change
the test frequency", is it?

although you will have to adjust to keep the
display size of the waveform to a sensible figure.

Bret, thanks for conceding that your alternative is on the face of it,
highly suboptimal.

One other benefit if the X/Y approach is that it can be used to determine
the order of the predominant distortion. The magic word is "Lissajou".

Here's a simulation:

http://galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu/~milosr/ja...u/Lissajou.htm

Hands up those who feel sorry for Arny so I can put them on my
****list.

Mr. McCoy:

I will not write for Arny, but I do formally request a place on your
list. Given your hypocrisy, general whining and severly limited though
painfully repetitive repertoire, one must conclude that you, as was
Dickens, were originally paid by the word. However, and unlike Dickens,
you have yet to find something to write about. As predicted, you did
join it.... can't resist, can you? So, where is the Dung Beetle to make
the trio complete?

Go someplace and chase your "utility".

Oh, and as a bit of historical aside: The "REAL McCoy" was an oiling
device, one of the few that really worked, cf:
______________________________________
When you buy a collectable item, you always want to know that your
oiler is authentic, in other words, "the real McCoy".

The man most often credited for inventing the drip oiler was the
original "real McCoy", that is Elijah McCoy born in Canada (1843-1929)
and educated in Scotland. He is credited with over 50 patented
inventions. An early drip oiler patent U.S. 129,843 was issued to him
July 12, 1872 and at least one other oiler patent is credited to him in
1898.

He observed a need for lubrication of machinery in operation while
working in railroads. His oilers became a standard of the day, a
desired thing to have and the expression "real McCoy" was American
slang for a genuine item of quality and this expression is still in
common usage.
___________________________________

Mr. "Andrew Jute McCoy", you don't come near this standard of quality.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Bret Ludwig said:

Arny is merely a disillusioned

I'm sure this is a typo. The correct term is "delusional", or, more to
the point, "insane".