It is definitely visual language: as if sounds come from far away. Explanation is simple: an air when transfers sounds adds distortions of low order, and longer it travels, higher are distortions. The same with loudness. But with increased distance higher frequencies decay more than with increased loudness.
Sounds like measurement vs sound ......laid back would mean to me a "lack " of life , soft, pleasant but dead ....
Yes, like a sick person laying back on a bed in hospital. That's why it is hard to understand something from audiophile terminology. The same words may have different meaning.
That was the nature that naturalize the sounds.
Unpleasant sounds will be more pleasant from distance. Actually it is the loudspeaker that distort the nature, not the nature distort the sounds.
From J.Gordon Holt's 1990 book "The Audio Glossary"
tube sound
That combination of audible qualities characteristic of devices which use tubes for amplification. These qualities include: Richness and warmth, midbass and lower-midrange exaggeration, deficiency of deep bass, outstanding rendition of depth, forward and bright upper mid-range, softly sweet extreme- high end.
tube sound
That combination of audible qualities characteristic of devices which use tubes for amplification. These qualities include: Richness and warmth, midbass and lower-midrange exaggeration, deficiency of deep bass, outstanding rendition of depth, forward and bright upper mid-range, softly sweet extreme- high end.
SY, it IS a PENTODE or it is a BEAM TETRODE.
I am saying that the mere presence of the screen grid changes the way it sounds.
And, give me a list of commercially available DHT (or even 6B4) amps that would have been reviewed by Mr. Holt? I find it hard to believe that there were any! The game in the 60s was mo powah, mo powah and 20cycles to 20kc, no matter how you had to get it. Which was always substantial global loop feedback, with a few minor exceptions...
Admittedly a 60 or 75watt amp was considered "big" but there were no DHT PP amps and certainly no SE DHT amps as commercial offerings. There were some SE amps, but using small 7 or 9 pin tubes in things like console radios, and maybe a Grundig?
I think ur walkin' on thin ice with this one...
_-_-bear
PS. and no, I have personally never read a negative review in Stereo Review, or any other "glossy" USA hifi magazine...
Reviewed or listened to? Seriously, you're talking about Gordon Holt here, not some internet cowboy. And really, tube sound is only valid for DHTs? All of the "tube sound" discussion and reviews in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, whoosh, swept away?
Puh-leez.
So, that amp is single ended source follower with bootstrap (tracking rail right?), and you minimize nonlinearity by modulating CCS with error of source follower. That's good idea.
You right, smooth is better.
I am applying small input filter and it is more smoothness, and more again with bigger filter, but I don't like this stage getting slow.
It has 83dB current gain and not reaching 90dB with filter, while it reach 95dB without filter.
Edit: not 83dB current gain, but 83dB -18dB = 65dB, because output measured is voltage into 8 ohm resistor
Attachments
Last edited:
But this nowadays 2000era, there is some really good SS amps starts appeared, when people starts to learning what is wrong with SS, and seems that they starts to find them one by one.
While in the past, audio amplifiers is more designed with radical experiment without knowing what really happened, with nowadays equipment supports to do many thing that not supported in 80s, like copmuters helping to do some modelling find out what is really happened.
Last edited:
No. Audio amplifiers were always designed with knowledge. And always designers were absolutely convinced that they know what and why they were doing that. And there were even wars between them, who knows better.
...but nothing changed. We still know what we are doing, even if the knowledge had changed many times. While we are alive we are learning. If not learning, we are not alive.
Computers are not helping me to see what really happened. They help me to communicate, save schematics in files, share files, ...
No. Audio amplifiers were always designed with knowledge. And always designers were absolutely convinced that they know what and why they were doing that. And there were even wars between them, who knows better.
...but nothing changed. We still know what we are doing, even if the knowledge had changed many times. While we are alive we are learning. If not learning, we are not alive.
Computers are not helping me to see what really happened. They help me to communicate, save schematics in files, share files, ...
Well unless you are as old as dirt ......
This is a direct quote from JGH from his 'As We See it... The Missing Spec' 'Stereophile, 1, 1971.
"... It was soon observed, though, that all solid-state components had THEIR own characteristic sound. They were sharp, crisp, and quite Brittle-sounding -- fine for reproducing 'hard' transients like triangles and xylophones, but not so fine for massed violins, which became annoyingly shrill. By comparison, most tube equipment was rather 'sweet' and slightly veiled, which made strings sound fine, but took the edge off harder sounds. After the initial infatuation with 'solid state' wore off, it became obvious that the 'crispness' of transistors was just as much a form of distortion as the softness of tubes, only different. ..."
This seems about right, in my opinion.
"... It was soon observed, though, that all solid-state components had THEIR own characteristic sound. They were sharp, crisp, and quite Brittle-sounding -- fine for reproducing 'hard' transients like triangles and xylophones, but not so fine for massed violins, which became annoyingly shrill. By comparison, most tube equipment was rather 'sweet' and slightly veiled, which made strings sound fine, but took the edge off harder sounds. After the initial infatuation with 'solid state' wore off, it became obvious that the 'crispness' of transistors was just as much a form of distortion as the softness of tubes, only different. ..."
This seems about right, in my opinion.
Yes, sounds about right. Except I've heard DHT (811) amps that sounded sharp and crisp while a transistor amp was sweet, slightly veiled, darker. After the infatuation with the "in your face" large breasted triode wore off, the transistor amp was chosen as "The girl you want to live with".
Generalities are fine, but there are many exceptions.
Generalities are fine, but there are many exceptions.
Again, GO START YOUR OWN THREAD ON ******* GORDON HOLT and TUBES vs. TRANSISTORS. Degenerating this thread into that old circular and BS conversation is a waste of everyone's time.
Let's re-read the two part Electronic Design article and comment on that??
This thread is about what ONE person said in an ARTICLE, and what you think about what HE said.
Pano, you being a moderator should know better, imo. Very OT.
_-_-bear
Let's re-read the two part Electronic Design article and comment on that??
This thread is about what ONE person said in an ARTICLE, and what you think about what HE said.
Pano, you being a moderator should know better, imo. Very OT.
_-_-bear
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.