I guess I should clarify when I say "tube sound" and "SS sound" I was speaking in generalities. Of course, there is a whole continuum of sound qualities, with many, many different axes.
I've never heard the Electroacompaniets; I unfortunately don't know of a dealer in this area. I've also only been in the hobby a few years, so anything "old" I've probably not come across...
As for the whole SS that sounds like tubes and vice versa, I'd be very curious to hear one. In my (admittedly limited) experience, these monikers are often used as synonyms for "good sounding SS" and "bad sounding tubes." I find "tube sound" is often used to describe MOSFET amps, but I think there are some subtle but definite differences.
I've heard SS gear with tube like qualities -- one of the reasons I bought my Plinius is that it was the only amp in my budget that had the smoothness I heard with tubes, while not have many of their shortcomings (mainly frequency extension). Many people say Plinius sounds like tubes, but I really can't agree.
I've never heard tubes with the flaws of bad SS, but no doubt it'd be possible to build one. On some of the way-over-my-budget VAC and VTL amps I've listened to, there were very few of the problems of cheaper tube gear, but at that level, most of the equipment, tube or solid state, sounded very refined. I probably couldn't tell the difference between "excellent" tube and SS gear, mainly because the characteristic problems that lead to the stereotypical sound will be lacking from such products. But if it's truly excellent, who cares?
When in this same debate with a friend of mine who is into tubes, I pointed out that it's easy to design an OK amp, either tube or solid state, but that the design flaws in mediocre tube amps (rolled off highs, 2nd harmonic distortion, etc) are a lot more listenable than the flaws in poorly designed SS amps (crossover distortion, harsh clipping, etc). But, at the end of the day, neither are really good amps. However, making a truly excellent circuit in either technology is very difficult, and based on the few examples I've heard, the results will sound good whether made of sand or glass.
So, I should apologize for trying to cram audio into "tube" and "SS" boxes, when in reality it won't all fit. In fact, all of the gear that I've heard and liked, be it tube or SS, was sonically not obviously from either camp. However, all of the really good tube gear was way out of my budget, while some SS was just in range.
I guess what really gets my goat is that there are a lot of people who have developed a taste for tubes and now feel the need to convert the masses. They tend to characterize any other equipment where someone else may find sonic bliss as "hateful". (N.B. I am definitely not accusing you, Grey, of being in this camp) Since I come from the opposite point of view -- I tried very hard to like my friends' tubes before settling on a SS amp -- I sometimes feel I need to spread the word that there is very musical SS gear, too, that might appeal to other's tastes. However, in my zeal I suppose I can be just as dogmatic.
Anyway, it's time to go home and actually use my music machines instead of just talking about them. Enjoy your music however you choose to reproduce it -- that is what this hobby is all about, after all.
-Jon
I've never heard the Electroacompaniets; I unfortunately don't know of a dealer in this area. I've also only been in the hobby a few years, so anything "old" I've probably not come across...
As for the whole SS that sounds like tubes and vice versa, I'd be very curious to hear one. In my (admittedly limited) experience, these monikers are often used as synonyms for "good sounding SS" and "bad sounding tubes." I find "tube sound" is often used to describe MOSFET amps, but I think there are some subtle but definite differences.
I've heard SS gear with tube like qualities -- one of the reasons I bought my Plinius is that it was the only amp in my budget that had the smoothness I heard with tubes, while not have many of their shortcomings (mainly frequency extension). Many people say Plinius sounds like tubes, but I really can't agree.
I've never heard tubes with the flaws of bad SS, but no doubt it'd be possible to build one. On some of the way-over-my-budget VAC and VTL amps I've listened to, there were very few of the problems of cheaper tube gear, but at that level, most of the equipment, tube or solid state, sounded very refined. I probably couldn't tell the difference between "excellent" tube and SS gear, mainly because the characteristic problems that lead to the stereotypical sound will be lacking from such products. But if it's truly excellent, who cares?
When in this same debate with a friend of mine who is into tubes, I pointed out that it's easy to design an OK amp, either tube or solid state, but that the design flaws in mediocre tube amps (rolled off highs, 2nd harmonic distortion, etc) are a lot more listenable than the flaws in poorly designed SS amps (crossover distortion, harsh clipping, etc). But, at the end of the day, neither are really good amps. However, making a truly excellent circuit in either technology is very difficult, and based on the few examples I've heard, the results will sound good whether made of sand or glass.
So, I should apologize for trying to cram audio into "tube" and "SS" boxes, when in reality it won't all fit. In fact, all of the gear that I've heard and liked, be it tube or SS, was sonically not obviously from either camp. However, all of the really good tube gear was way out of my budget, while some SS was just in range.
I guess what really gets my goat is that there are a lot of people who have developed a taste for tubes and now feel the need to convert the masses. They tend to characterize any other equipment where someone else may find sonic bliss as "hateful". (N.B. I am definitely not accusing you, Grey, of being in this camp) Since I come from the opposite point of view -- I tried very hard to like my friends' tubes before settling on a SS amp -- I sometimes feel I need to spread the word that there is very musical SS gear, too, that might appeal to other's tastes. However, in my zeal I suppose I can be just as dogmatic.
Anyway, it's time to go home and actually use my music machines instead of just talking about them. Enjoy your music however you choose to reproduce it -- that is what this hobby is all about, after all.
-Jon
Jon, you are the voice of reason...all is forgiven.
Mark, I fully sympathize with Pixie in flying blind on amp purchase. The problem is not limited to kits, though. I mean, how often can you find the latest Krell, Conrad Johnson, Audio Research, Mark Levinson, et. al. within any reasonable driving distance? I'm in the hinterlands, here, with very little access to high end equipment of any sort. Like I said, I'd love to hear the Plinius. Dream on. But to buy on specifications alone? That way madness lies. Might as well buy based on the cosmetics. (Speaking of which, Pixie, I used to own McIntosh myself. Sexiest looking equipment in the world. The sound? Well...I don't regret selling it, let's put it that way.)
Re: Jazz...details, buddy, details! Which album? What label? (Columbia or one of the repress houses?) How's it sound? Have you heard the Jane Monheit album? Music--good to excellent. Sonics well above average, however it isn't going to be a reference. Overall, I'd rate it as well worth having.
For what it's worth, I'm cooking a batch of IRF644s even as we speak. I'm going to attempt an Aleph 2, modified in at least two aspects: graft the input network from a Volksamp onto the front end for higher input Z, and instead of 6 pairs on the output, I'm planning on 7 so as not to current limit at 4 ohms (Assuming that I did the math properly--I think it will only take the one extra pair.) And I've got something unusual planned for the heat sinks...
By the way, nice work on that Aleph 4.
Another tip of the hat to Nelson Pass.
Grey
Mark, I fully sympathize with Pixie in flying blind on amp purchase. The problem is not limited to kits, though. I mean, how often can you find the latest Krell, Conrad Johnson, Audio Research, Mark Levinson, et. al. within any reasonable driving distance? I'm in the hinterlands, here, with very little access to high end equipment of any sort. Like I said, I'd love to hear the Plinius. Dream on. But to buy on specifications alone? That way madness lies. Might as well buy based on the cosmetics. (Speaking of which, Pixie, I used to own McIntosh myself. Sexiest looking equipment in the world. The sound? Well...I don't regret selling it, let's put it that way.)
Re: Jazz...details, buddy, details! Which album? What label? (Columbia or one of the repress houses?) How's it sound? Have you heard the Jane Monheit album? Music--good to excellent. Sonics well above average, however it isn't going to be a reference. Overall, I'd rate it as well worth having.
For what it's worth, I'm cooking a batch of IRF644s even as we speak. I'm going to attempt an Aleph 2, modified in at least two aspects: graft the input network from a Volksamp onto the front end for higher input Z, and instead of 6 pairs on the output, I'm planning on 7 so as not to current limit at 4 ohms (Assuming that I did the math properly--I think it will only take the one extra pair.) And I've got something unusual planned for the heat sinks...
By the way, nice work on that Aleph 4.
Another tip of the hat to Nelson Pass.
Grey
Hi Pixie and others,
I was travelling and I've just read this big thread about GRollins' faith.
There is a strange situation here. He fights against objective measurements and say there is no meaning on doing them (distortion, for example, means almost nothing, so, why measure it?).
How do he knows? First of all he puts his personnal experiences over all other things to state it in a general way, not considering these experiences like something good just for him, based on his opinions. After this he
tries to reduce Mr. Slone's assestments to meaningless things too. Sometimes he accepts opinions from others like truth and, of course these opinions are identical or very similar to his own.
Mr. Slones states things based on Mr. Self's book. There is a strong engineering base over circuit theory and electronic devices behaviour to sustain his technical statements about distortion, feedback, damping factor etc. Mr. Slone's book could have wrong statements, but nobody (and no technical book) is perfect and I think he didn't try to define himself or his work as the ultimate word about audio theory. He just wrote a very good book on power amps construction and said there was no scientific basis on many subjetive
assestments.
About these standards I can say they are general and used
firstly to tell us how "constant" is the gain on amplification equation. They mean very much, specially if you are talking about just one piece of this very long chain wich the sound signal must pass through to achieve your ears. Just consider high or even moderate distortion levels over each component of the whole audio chain and try to hear the result. By the way, there are many electronic areas ds where distortion and feedback are normally used to design devices and as far as I know nobody says less (or more) distortion or feedback in video line amplifiers means nothing, for example...
A good way to hear a good sound is to avoid saturation at
listening levels and to achieve low levels of THD and any other "D"s. An home amplifier is not a fuzz box. I prefer to leave this kind of sound shapping to musicians and enjoy the results without modify or add nothing more to these works. If it has something more than the known
parameters added to the sound chain by amplifiers over all audio chain, there are no evidences until now to prove its existence. Lets make more research to try to define these parameters or accept them like a religious truth. The second option is, in my opinion, personal and any attempt to make this a universal truth for everybody will fail, like many religions today and in the past. Many scientific truths change all the time, but each change defines another scientific truth or starts strong research work, not just opinions.
But, at least, I think he reduced his criticism and accepted some signification in audio measurements. We also have very reasonable positions here from many people and its debate is very good for everybody. I understand GRollins personal statements, but I think it's not fair to disdain Pixie's opinions or Mr. Slone's works.
Many times here in this forum I didn't agree with some personal statements here but I like very much to help the people here on these designs, I learn a lot and I have a lot of fun reading and writing here.
Mr. Webmaster, sorry about this big post.
Regards
I was travelling and I've just read this big thread about GRollins' faith.
There is a strange situation here. He fights against objective measurements and say there is no meaning on doing them (distortion, for example, means almost nothing, so, why measure it?).
How do he knows? First of all he puts his personnal experiences over all other things to state it in a general way, not considering these experiences like something good just for him, based on his opinions. After this he
tries to reduce Mr. Slone's assestments to meaningless things too. Sometimes he accepts opinions from others like truth and, of course these opinions are identical or very similar to his own.
Mr. Slones states things based on Mr. Self's book. There is a strong engineering base over circuit theory and electronic devices behaviour to sustain his technical statements about distortion, feedback, damping factor etc. Mr. Slone's book could have wrong statements, but nobody (and no technical book) is perfect and I think he didn't try to define himself or his work as the ultimate word about audio theory. He just wrote a very good book on power amps construction and said there was no scientific basis on many subjetive
assestments.
About these standards I can say they are general and used
firstly to tell us how "constant" is the gain on amplification equation. They mean very much, specially if you are talking about just one piece of this very long chain wich the sound signal must pass through to achieve your ears. Just consider high or even moderate distortion levels over each component of the whole audio chain and try to hear the result. By the way, there are many electronic areas ds where distortion and feedback are normally used to design devices and as far as I know nobody says less (or more) distortion or feedback in video line amplifiers means nothing, for example...
A good way to hear a good sound is to avoid saturation at
listening levels and to achieve low levels of THD and any other "D"s. An home amplifier is not a fuzz box. I prefer to leave this kind of sound shapping to musicians and enjoy the results without modify or add nothing more to these works. If it has something more than the known
parameters added to the sound chain by amplifiers over all audio chain, there are no evidences until now to prove its existence. Lets make more research to try to define these parameters or accept them like a religious truth. The second option is, in my opinion, personal and any attempt to make this a universal truth for everybody will fail, like many religions today and in the past. Many scientific truths change all the time, but each change defines another scientific truth or starts strong research work, not just opinions.
But, at least, I think he reduced his criticism and accepted some signification in audio measurements. We also have very reasonable positions here from many people and its debate is very good for everybody. I understand GRollins personal statements, but I think it's not fair to disdain Pixie's opinions or Mr. Slone's works.
Many times here in this forum I didn't agree with some personal statements here but I like very much to help the people here on these designs, I learn a lot and I have a lot of fun reading and writing here.
Mr. Webmaster, sorry about this big post.
Regards
Hi blmn, wondered where you'd gotten to...
Your points are well stated. I'm going to try to flip up and down the screen and address them in order.
(Jason sez,"Oh, God, here he goes again...writing as if he's being paid by the word...")
Well, confound it, where'd blmn's comments go? Jason, we need our previous posts back, please.
(Jason sez,"Ha! Figured out a way to slow that boy down!")
Bear with me a moment, I'm going to have to back out and take notes...
Grey
Your points are well stated. I'm going to try to flip up and down the screen and address them in order.
(Jason sez,"Oh, God, here he goes again...writing as if he's being paid by the word...")
Well, confound it, where'd blmn's comments go? Jason, we need our previous posts back, please.
(Jason sez,"Ha! Figured out a way to slow that boy down!")
Bear with me a moment, I'm going to have to back out and take notes...
Grey
Okay...take two...
blmn, several times in your post you used or implied the terms faith or religion. I take it--may be misinterpreting--that you mean that I, in my muzzy-headed, ignorant, willful, contrary way, am denying some greater Truth, specifically in this case to mean Science. (Note the capitals beginning both words.)
Some background: I have two degrees, both in science; one in geology (which involves a lot of chemistry and physics as well), the other in psychology (so I'm very familiar with statistics and how to set up a study). Trust me...I Believe (note capital B) in science. Big time. But to accept the status quo as the one and only truth is to court stagnation. My position is that there are still things to be learned in audio. The beginning of all science and understanding is observation...you seem to confuse my observations with opinion. I observe things, then I try to find out what causes them. This is how science is done. In the beginning, someone spoted cultures dying in a petrie dish (the observation) and wondered why. Fleming discovered penicillin is this manner. It was not his 'opinion' that the cultures were dying, it was something that he observed. I observe image, I observe absolute phase, and I observe that passive components (caps for instance) can make a difference. Note that the last two have been 'validated' by Science: see previous posts.
It is my observation that distortion measurements below, say, 1% (subject to some variation) are meaningless as a predictor of the sound quality of an amp. Have you ever sat down with two amps with nearly identical specs yet heard vast differences in sound quality? I have. Clearly, there is more here than meets the eye. Do amps with lower distortion always sound better? No. Set tube amps and questions of 2nd order 'euphonic' distortion aside. I'm talking two solid state amps with similar specs, yet one sounds better. Try it sometime. It'll set you to scratching your head, trying to figure out what's missing.
To assume that what you know now is all there is to know is the height of arrogance. That, not observation and investigation, is the way of religion.
Distortion is not the one and only answer. Is it important? To an extent, yes. But further progress in audio must be based on explaining observations such as why two (solid state) amps with nearly identical specs sound so different. I repeat...try it sometime. Or try listening to two amps and trying to guess which has the lower distortion (no cheating by looking at spec sheets ahead of time). I use the word guess because in the end, if you try it enough times, your results will not be much better than chance.
Galileo said,"Nevertheless, it moves..."
And all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't keep it from being so.
Why measure distortion? The cynical answer is: marketing--the numbers game. Or, as I've said before, it's a useful tool...up to a point.
How do I know what I know? Personal experience. Lots of it. Some of it (very) painful to my ego. Note that I dropped huge sums of money on equipment that looked good on paper. I had a motive to defend those purchases. My ego was at stake. Which was more important, my ego or my future musical happiness? I was wrong. I admit it.
Why did I say things about Slone? He condemns himself with his own illogic. His book is public record. Anyone can read it. Anyone who wishes may check it out from the library or buy it and verify that I have not mis-stated his positions nor have I misquoted him. (Subject to my seeing what he has to say throughout the rest of his book--I'm not done yet. I've discovered yet more whoppers, but there is little point in beating a dead horse.) To make progress, one must consider the possibility that one's present position is faulty. To take, as (I may be overstating the case, here) you and Pixie appear to do, what Slone says as gospel may, just may keep you from considering the possibility that there is more to be learned. Slone's position is that distortion is the one and only indicator. Period. You and Pixie seem to agree with that. Okay. But have you ever tested that assumption? Really tested it? Be honest. What if...just what if it isn't correct?
I repeat, take two amps with similar specs and explain the difference in sound...if lower distortion is the one and only path to a straight wire with gain.
Why do I sometimes accept others' views? It's like movie reviewers. Find one that you generally agree with, and use their advice to winnow out the movies you don't want to waste your money on. Whether you *always* agree with them on the movies that you do go see remains to be seen. But, as I said in an earlier post replying to Mark, you can't always find everything you want to hear within easy distance (not around here, anyway), so you find someone who, from experience, you think you can trust, and use their reviews and/or observations (opinions, if you insist) as a guide to plan a long distance trip to an audio salon that carries Brand X that you think might be a contender. How do you find someone whose ears you can trust? Frankly, that gets tricky, just like finding a movie reviewer that you trust.
You made a point something to the effect that Slone offers a strong engineering base in his book. I (mostly) agree with that. It's a start, in exactly the same way that distortion figures are a start. But *only* a start. It's not the be-all, end-all. For instance, if you take Slone's word for it, there is one and only one topology to use when designing an amp. It's a classic one, no doubt, but is it the one and only? That way stifles innovation. No new topologies will ever be invented by people who adhere closely to Slone's viewpoints. And, actually, he does repeatedly pat himself on the back for having designed a circuit that cannot be bettered in any way. Not an exact quote, but close:"Any further reductions in distortion are pointless, because they would be lost in the noise floor." Considering that he feels that distortion is the only meaningful indicator of sound quality, then clearly he has designed the best amp that mortals can design. My view: Possible...but not probable.
You said something about 'how constant is the gain.' I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what you were getting at. Try again, please.
Regarding video distortion. Close your eyes. Use only your ears. Listen to your music. A sudden hit on the drum can make you jump. If you have a system that images well, you can tell where the musician is. The illusion is pretty good. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But pretty good. Watch a movie, either on TV at home, or in a theater. No matter how big the explosion, your eyes don't believe it. Not yet. The distortion, so to speak, is too high. What's happening is all out there in front of you, more detached than the sound. 2D, not 3D. When you react to a movie, it's nearly always to the sound more than the image. (Don't believe me? Try watching a movie with the sound turned off. It's hard to even get involved, much less be afraid or happy or sad. All those people walking around seem faintly ridiculous without the sound to help the illusion.) Video is in such a primitive state that distortion specifications are still of use. What is really needed are totally new technologies. Audio (thankfully) is in somewhat better shape. We can look for other factors.
Lastly, I have nothing against Pixie (or you). I don't know either of you on a personal basis. My 'crime' was to point out the illogic in some things that Slone wrote. To the extent that Pixie (and possibly you) identify with what Slone has written, he took it as an attack on him personally. I've always felt that people should have more...let me say, self-reliance than that. After all, Pixie invited debate himself (see his postings), then got angry when I didn't immediately succumb to the overwhelming 'logic' of his 'scientific' position.
I'm sorry that Pixie's feelings were hurt.
One further note, not on a point that you raised. I find myself between Pixie's position on Slone's religious beliefs, and the other posting pointing out the illogic of a fundamentalist professing to be scientific when it suited him. In an ideal world, I'd be entirely on Pixie's side; it shouldn't matter. In the real world in which we live, I'm afraid that I place great value on intellectual honesty. I'm not so certain that it would be easy to reconcile those two extremes.
blmn, if there was a specific point of yours that I missed, let me know. I'll be glad to try again.
Grey
blmn, several times in your post you used or implied the terms faith or religion. I take it--may be misinterpreting--that you mean that I, in my muzzy-headed, ignorant, willful, contrary way, am denying some greater Truth, specifically in this case to mean Science. (Note the capitals beginning both words.)
Some background: I have two degrees, both in science; one in geology (which involves a lot of chemistry and physics as well), the other in psychology (so I'm very familiar with statistics and how to set up a study). Trust me...I Believe (note capital B) in science. Big time. But to accept the status quo as the one and only truth is to court stagnation. My position is that there are still things to be learned in audio. The beginning of all science and understanding is observation...you seem to confuse my observations with opinion. I observe things, then I try to find out what causes them. This is how science is done. In the beginning, someone spoted cultures dying in a petrie dish (the observation) and wondered why. Fleming discovered penicillin is this manner. It was not his 'opinion' that the cultures were dying, it was something that he observed. I observe image, I observe absolute phase, and I observe that passive components (caps for instance) can make a difference. Note that the last two have been 'validated' by Science: see previous posts.
It is my observation that distortion measurements below, say, 1% (subject to some variation) are meaningless as a predictor of the sound quality of an amp. Have you ever sat down with two amps with nearly identical specs yet heard vast differences in sound quality? I have. Clearly, there is more here than meets the eye. Do amps with lower distortion always sound better? No. Set tube amps and questions of 2nd order 'euphonic' distortion aside. I'm talking two solid state amps with similar specs, yet one sounds better. Try it sometime. It'll set you to scratching your head, trying to figure out what's missing.
To assume that what you know now is all there is to know is the height of arrogance. That, not observation and investigation, is the way of religion.
Distortion is not the one and only answer. Is it important? To an extent, yes. But further progress in audio must be based on explaining observations such as why two (solid state) amps with nearly identical specs sound so different. I repeat...try it sometime. Or try listening to two amps and trying to guess which has the lower distortion (no cheating by looking at spec sheets ahead of time). I use the word guess because in the end, if you try it enough times, your results will not be much better than chance.
Galileo said,"Nevertheless, it moves..."
And all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't keep it from being so.
Why measure distortion? The cynical answer is: marketing--the numbers game. Or, as I've said before, it's a useful tool...up to a point.
How do I know what I know? Personal experience. Lots of it. Some of it (very) painful to my ego. Note that I dropped huge sums of money on equipment that looked good on paper. I had a motive to defend those purchases. My ego was at stake. Which was more important, my ego or my future musical happiness? I was wrong. I admit it.
Why did I say things about Slone? He condemns himself with his own illogic. His book is public record. Anyone can read it. Anyone who wishes may check it out from the library or buy it and verify that I have not mis-stated his positions nor have I misquoted him. (Subject to my seeing what he has to say throughout the rest of his book--I'm not done yet. I've discovered yet more whoppers, but there is little point in beating a dead horse.) To make progress, one must consider the possibility that one's present position is faulty. To take, as (I may be overstating the case, here) you and Pixie appear to do, what Slone says as gospel may, just may keep you from considering the possibility that there is more to be learned. Slone's position is that distortion is the one and only indicator. Period. You and Pixie seem to agree with that. Okay. But have you ever tested that assumption? Really tested it? Be honest. What if...just what if it isn't correct?
I repeat, take two amps with similar specs and explain the difference in sound...if lower distortion is the one and only path to a straight wire with gain.
Why do I sometimes accept others' views? It's like movie reviewers. Find one that you generally agree with, and use their advice to winnow out the movies you don't want to waste your money on. Whether you *always* agree with them on the movies that you do go see remains to be seen. But, as I said in an earlier post replying to Mark, you can't always find everything you want to hear within easy distance (not around here, anyway), so you find someone who, from experience, you think you can trust, and use their reviews and/or observations (opinions, if you insist) as a guide to plan a long distance trip to an audio salon that carries Brand X that you think might be a contender. How do you find someone whose ears you can trust? Frankly, that gets tricky, just like finding a movie reviewer that you trust.
You made a point something to the effect that Slone offers a strong engineering base in his book. I (mostly) agree with that. It's a start, in exactly the same way that distortion figures are a start. But *only* a start. It's not the be-all, end-all. For instance, if you take Slone's word for it, there is one and only one topology to use when designing an amp. It's a classic one, no doubt, but is it the one and only? That way stifles innovation. No new topologies will ever be invented by people who adhere closely to Slone's viewpoints. And, actually, he does repeatedly pat himself on the back for having designed a circuit that cannot be bettered in any way. Not an exact quote, but close:"Any further reductions in distortion are pointless, because they would be lost in the noise floor." Considering that he feels that distortion is the only meaningful indicator of sound quality, then clearly he has designed the best amp that mortals can design. My view: Possible...but not probable.
You said something about 'how constant is the gain.' I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what you were getting at. Try again, please.
Regarding video distortion. Close your eyes. Use only your ears. Listen to your music. A sudden hit on the drum can make you jump. If you have a system that images well, you can tell where the musician is. The illusion is pretty good. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But pretty good. Watch a movie, either on TV at home, or in a theater. No matter how big the explosion, your eyes don't believe it. Not yet. The distortion, so to speak, is too high. What's happening is all out there in front of you, more detached than the sound. 2D, not 3D. When you react to a movie, it's nearly always to the sound more than the image. (Don't believe me? Try watching a movie with the sound turned off. It's hard to even get involved, much less be afraid or happy or sad. All those people walking around seem faintly ridiculous without the sound to help the illusion.) Video is in such a primitive state that distortion specifications are still of use. What is really needed are totally new technologies. Audio (thankfully) is in somewhat better shape. We can look for other factors.
Lastly, I have nothing against Pixie (or you). I don't know either of you on a personal basis. My 'crime' was to point out the illogic in some things that Slone wrote. To the extent that Pixie (and possibly you) identify with what Slone has written, he took it as an attack on him personally. I've always felt that people should have more...let me say, self-reliance than that. After all, Pixie invited debate himself (see his postings), then got angry when I didn't immediately succumb to the overwhelming 'logic' of his 'scientific' position.
I'm sorry that Pixie's feelings were hurt.
One further note, not on a point that you raised. I find myself between Pixie's position on Slone's religious beliefs, and the other posting pointing out the illogic of a fundamentalist professing to be scientific when it suited him. In an ideal world, I'd be entirely on Pixie's side; it shouldn't matter. In the real world in which we live, I'm afraid that I place great value on intellectual honesty. I'm not so certain that it would be easy to reconcile those two extremes.
blmn, if there was a specific point of yours that I missed, let me know. I'll be glad to try again.
Grey
To GRollins
Hey, GRollins.
I like your views on audio gear and science and measurements. I come to same conclusions every day. You come across very authorative and that is just fine when your statements hold up their weight. I'm a recording studio owner and your statement on the state of recording industry is plain false.
"He mentions the recording (aka 'pro') industry as being well supplied with 'high-end' gear, and holds it up as an 'example' in the sense of someting to emulate. Whew! That's a good one. In reality, much studio gear is not even up to the standards of an ordinary mid-fi system. When he said,"Their livelihood [recording enginneers] depends on the highest quality sound obtainable at any price," I nearly fell out of my chair. In fact, the recording industry is, like everyone else, obsessed with the bottom line, and even in the cases where the folks in the studio want better quality gear, the brass won't let them have the budget to buy it. The product they're putting out is selling just dandy, so why spend more money to improve it? That's on page 30, by the way. Hysterical. "
If you consider studios that serve the major labels you are way off in your asesements. The guys who own and run them are audio fanatics and gear sluts just like DIY crowd except those guys have millions of $'s in equipment an facilities. One single channel of microphone amplification can cost $2000.00 (justifiably) and some studios own 40 such units in addition to the mic pre's in their $500,000.00 recording consoles. They go out of their way to keep that vintage Neve or API gear running because it is all class A, all discrete gear and it sounds soo sweet, just like the Pass amps you love. They use some cheesy gear as well but for other reasons (more, different crayons in artists box).
I don't know when was the last time you visited a real recording facility . Maybe the ones you saw were of the new wave of studios that sprung up in the 90's (just like mine) because of cost of gear coming down. Yes there are plenty of those that use Mackie (and similar) consoles and hard disk recording workstations. That gear is not bad. It measures great, sounds not so great. Those would be studios that have gear of mid-fi quality. But the big boys? look out! The recording world is somewhat smaller than consumer electronics industry but a little bigger than DIY world. And there is tons of technology that spilled over from recording gear to consumer gear.
So, in order to stay a respected personality on this board please post facts that you are 100% sure of.
Hey, GRollins.
I like your views on audio gear and science and measurements. I come to same conclusions every day. You come across very authorative and that is just fine when your statements hold up their weight. I'm a recording studio owner and your statement on the state of recording industry is plain false.
"He mentions the recording (aka 'pro') industry as being well supplied with 'high-end' gear, and holds it up as an 'example' in the sense of someting to emulate. Whew! That's a good one. In reality, much studio gear is not even up to the standards of an ordinary mid-fi system. When he said,"Their livelihood [recording enginneers] depends on the highest quality sound obtainable at any price," I nearly fell out of my chair. In fact, the recording industry is, like everyone else, obsessed with the bottom line, and even in the cases where the folks in the studio want better quality gear, the brass won't let them have the budget to buy it. The product they're putting out is selling just dandy, so why spend more money to improve it? That's on page 30, by the way. Hysterical. "
If you consider studios that serve the major labels you are way off in your asesements. The guys who own and run them are audio fanatics and gear sluts just like DIY crowd except those guys have millions of $'s in equipment an facilities. One single channel of microphone amplification can cost $2000.00 (justifiably) and some studios own 40 such units in addition to the mic pre's in their $500,000.00 recording consoles. They go out of their way to keep that vintage Neve or API gear running because it is all class A, all discrete gear and it sounds soo sweet, just like the Pass amps you love. They use some cheesy gear as well but for other reasons (more, different crayons in artists box).
I don't know when was the last time you visited a real recording facility . Maybe the ones you saw were of the new wave of studios that sprung up in the 90's (just like mine) because of cost of gear coming down. Yes there are plenty of those that use Mackie (and similar) consoles and hard disk recording workstations. That gear is not bad. It measures great, sounds not so great. Those would be studios that have gear of mid-fi quality. But the big boys? look out! The recording world is somewhat smaller than consumer electronics industry but a little bigger than DIY world. And there is tons of technology that spilled over from recording gear to consumer gear.
So, in order to stay a respected personality on this board please post facts that you are 100% sure of.
Jan,
Last studio I was in was, perhaps, five years ago. Mid-sized local outfit. Curiously, they had something like what you describe, lotsa money up front, i.e. microphones. Then a fair amount in the board. The thing is, the equipment got cheaper and cheaper as you got further along through the signal chain.
Speakers? Those big boxes down at the far end of the chain? When's the last time a 'pro' speaker made it big time in high end circles? (LS3/5A, for instance, and that was quite the exception.) Loud...yes, frequently. Flat response? Many of them. Good at imaging and nuance, etc.? Ahem.
There's a fellow here who records the Philharmonic. Same pattern. Loads of bucks up front in Earthworks mics. Then, the rapid taper off.
Now, there are comapnies like Telarc. Telarc got its start as a boutique high end company (although they want to be known as mainstream now, I hear). Used to use Threshold amps, as I recall, back in the days when Nelson was there. Speakers? ADS 15-somethings. 1520's? I forget. At any rate, an agressively mid fi speaker. And that was a high end company. In other words, the same pattern, barring that they were the exception for having anything as good as Threshold in the lineup.
I'm sure you probably can find an example or two for companies who have one or this, or two of that, but as a whole, the industry isn't into what I'd call high end gear. Maybe JBL qualifies with some, but not in my book.
Since the latter portion of the studio chain (i.e. amps and speakers) is the only thing that we have in common, I'm not real convinced that having gigabucks invested in mics and consoles really impresses me all that much. At least, not as an audiophile.
Now, speaking as a musician, that might be a different thing...but I'm not playing with anyone at the moment, so I'm not wearing that hat.
In short, I stand by what I said.
Grey
Last studio I was in was, perhaps, five years ago. Mid-sized local outfit. Curiously, they had something like what you describe, lotsa money up front, i.e. microphones. Then a fair amount in the board. The thing is, the equipment got cheaper and cheaper as you got further along through the signal chain.
Speakers? Those big boxes down at the far end of the chain? When's the last time a 'pro' speaker made it big time in high end circles? (LS3/5A, for instance, and that was quite the exception.) Loud...yes, frequently. Flat response? Many of them. Good at imaging and nuance, etc.? Ahem.
There's a fellow here who records the Philharmonic. Same pattern. Loads of bucks up front in Earthworks mics. Then, the rapid taper off.
Now, there are comapnies like Telarc. Telarc got its start as a boutique high end company (although they want to be known as mainstream now, I hear). Used to use Threshold amps, as I recall, back in the days when Nelson was there. Speakers? ADS 15-somethings. 1520's? I forget. At any rate, an agressively mid fi speaker. And that was a high end company. In other words, the same pattern, barring that they were the exception for having anything as good as Threshold in the lineup.
I'm sure you probably can find an example or two for companies who have one or this, or two of that, but as a whole, the industry isn't into what I'd call high end gear. Maybe JBL qualifies with some, but not in my book.
Since the latter portion of the studio chain (i.e. amps and speakers) is the only thing that we have in common, I'm not real convinced that having gigabucks invested in mics and consoles really impresses me all that much. At least, not as an audiophile.
Now, speaking as a musician, that might be a different thing...but I'm not playing with anyone at the moment, so I'm not wearing that hat.
In short, I stand by what I said.
Grey
Well...Since you put it on this way, OK, lets go. There are many specific points that you missed, for sure.
Lets start from your first statement about your necessity of saying yourself someone in the world. Very good for you if you have a degree in Geology. Maybe you have some doubt about your own capacity so that you mention it. It's not the question here and I will ignore it. At least you believe in Science and some formal education is always good. About your degree in Psy...Sorry, it's not my fault.
I'm not trying to correlate your faith in something mysterious or unknown in the AUDIO field with your
formal education. Since you have made a lot of statements without scientific basis in the AUDIO field I just thought about it that you must have faith on them, based as you said, in your auditive impressions (some people "see" Jesus, UFOs and little green men and develop theories about these impressions, so they must have faith in their visions). I have my own opinions about Geology, Economy, Astronomy etc, but they are just my opinions and I like to learn with the experts from these areas. It has nothing to do with Fleming's observation about penicilin, and, don't worry, you aren't as good as Fleming was - translating this to the audio field - for sure. Lets quote something about my other post to make my view of scientific truths clear:
"Many scientific truths change all the time, but each change defines another scientific truth or starts strong research work, not just opinions"
For sure Fleming had worked on the matter a lot before his observation and much more after. After you discover what creates the sonic differences that you figured out, please, tell us.
Yes, I already have sat down in front of many audio systems since 70's to make comparations, built and designed a lot of amps, preamps, loudspeakers, listened tube amps, SS ones and I have gone to many theatres to listen to orchestras, singers, electronic music to find out the differences between electronic reproduction and live sound and I prefer put this in my personal questions, it's not relevant here. I found a lot of amps with similar specifications and different sound qualities. Many times I discovered why those things had happened and always the problems were not mysterious, just bad design or mounting, different impedance load behaviour, room interactions, power supplies design etc. For sure there are a lot of other possibilities, but, again, it has nothing to do with my personal opinions, it is just engineering.
So, lets put it in the correct way: is you the person here that is putting your personal opinions over the known theories about audio, not me telling the only truth are the current theories, right? The first position shows for sure a kind of arrogance when not well developed.
Again, lets quote your opinions here to make clear how strange and variable is your position about distortion:
"Don't get too besotted with distortion specifications. They mean virtually nothing...."
"Distortion is not the one and only answer. Is it important? To an extent, yes...."
Distortion has importance, in any context. For sure its not the only important factor here, but many problems in audio designs create distortion effects and if you read Mr. Self's Book you will see many of them related with distortion measurements and other quality standards.
Distortion measurement and other standards are not created for marketing purposes only, even in audio. There are international rules defining them. They are very usefull for engineerings to compare and to match designs and systems. They put some order in marketing chaos, for sure, but your statement (opinion) seems just something like "if one egg in the basket is bad all of them are bad too". It's a simplist approach to a very complicated question.
About your waste of money believing in paper specs, please, I must tell you even in my childhood I always tested things before I bought them. So, don't put again your personal experience here like a truth for those that believe in technical parameters to buy audio equipments. For sure very good specifications from a reliable amplifier designer are a good start point to BUILD good amplifiers, so that I think if Pixie had received bad comments about this specific amplifier he would have considered them before mounting it. It was not the case.
The problem for me was your trying to disdain Mr. Slone's book with no scientific basis. Actually it seems you was seeing, after first Pixie's reply, a kind of "ignorance" about sound design being transmitted by someone that wrote an incorrect book and tried to open up our eyes to see the truth from your relevant experience. This is a kind of Gospel, not the oposite way.
About ?mistakes? that you found out in Mr. Slone´s books, lets see just above the post from Thunau about your opinion (I don't know very much about studios, but I'm just asking myself what kind of technology this people were using in their studios in the 50's and even 60's - I think was tube equipment. Very funny. Of course it is just my opinion, not the truth). It is enough, because your statement about the ?trade secret? has no meaning and, please, don't try to explain it again.
Again, about my ?point? (slow down with your ego, please), at least you are seeing a meaning in a meaningless standard. Like in your opinion about capacitor test in Self's book. It's distortion in that chart in the Y axis, right, that meaningless thing. So, that difference means nothing...
I think there is a difference between a handbook and a theory book. Mr. Slone's book is a handbook, or a construction manual, but, even in this case your statement
?For instance, if you take Slone's word for it, there is one and only one topology to use when designing an amp. It's a classic one, no doubt, but is it the one and only? That way stifles innovation. No new topologies will ever be invented by people who adhere closely to Slone's viewpoints. And, actually, he does repeatedly pat himself on the back for having designed a circuit that cannot be bettered in any way.?
Is wrong because he explains other topologies and offers Class A and B circuits for the readers. Please, see the chapters 6 e 11. If you know new topologies, OK, it's time to write a new theory book and to ask someone about gain characteristics in frequency and amplitude for linear devices, because I don't want to try again
Your statement about video impressions has nothing to do with design of video line amps, but it's simplist and again you are trying to show me your truths even in audiovisual experiences. Video technology is a large field and has very much research done. Don't considering your opinion about how good or how bad video is nowadays, please, change your TV connections from S-VHS output to RF output and see the results. Distortion means something for video but nothing for audio. Funny...
I think it's clear now why I said is not fair to disdain Pixie's opinions or Mr. Slone's work, specially in your case. I think it was just your big ego working here. I suppose Pixie is not a child and it is just a technical debate (nothing personal here), so, don't worry about his or my feelings. Your concern and crimminal atitude are not important for me.
About your further note, my further note (personal) about this is the following: it's just gossip.
I agree with Mefinnis, this debate is not productive, these posts are bigger than necessary and I don't want to reply your opinions anymore. If you want to talk about circuits, polarization, topologies etc - it will be good in my opinion and I will help you if you want and if I can - put your questions in the correct foruns. I will do the same.
Regards
Lets start from your first statement about your necessity of saying yourself someone in the world. Very good for you if you have a degree in Geology. Maybe you have some doubt about your own capacity so that you mention it. It's not the question here and I will ignore it. At least you believe in Science and some formal education is always good. About your degree in Psy...Sorry, it's not my fault.
I'm not trying to correlate your faith in something mysterious or unknown in the AUDIO field with your
formal education. Since you have made a lot of statements without scientific basis in the AUDIO field I just thought about it that you must have faith on them, based as you said, in your auditive impressions (some people "see" Jesus, UFOs and little green men and develop theories about these impressions, so they must have faith in their visions). I have my own opinions about Geology, Economy, Astronomy etc, but they are just my opinions and I like to learn with the experts from these areas. It has nothing to do with Fleming's observation about penicilin, and, don't worry, you aren't as good as Fleming was - translating this to the audio field - for sure. Lets quote something about my other post to make my view of scientific truths clear:
"Many scientific truths change all the time, but each change defines another scientific truth or starts strong research work, not just opinions"
For sure Fleming had worked on the matter a lot before his observation and much more after. After you discover what creates the sonic differences that you figured out, please, tell us.
Yes, I already have sat down in front of many audio systems since 70's to make comparations, built and designed a lot of amps, preamps, loudspeakers, listened tube amps, SS ones and I have gone to many theatres to listen to orchestras, singers, electronic music to find out the differences between electronic reproduction and live sound and I prefer put this in my personal questions, it's not relevant here. I found a lot of amps with similar specifications and different sound qualities. Many times I discovered why those things had happened and always the problems were not mysterious, just bad design or mounting, different impedance load behaviour, room interactions, power supplies design etc. For sure there are a lot of other possibilities, but, again, it has nothing to do with my personal opinions, it is just engineering.
So, lets put it in the correct way: is you the person here that is putting your personal opinions over the known theories about audio, not me telling the only truth are the current theories, right? The first position shows for sure a kind of arrogance when not well developed.
Again, lets quote your opinions here to make clear how strange and variable is your position about distortion:
"Don't get too besotted with distortion specifications. They mean virtually nothing...."
"Distortion is not the one and only answer. Is it important? To an extent, yes...."
Distortion has importance, in any context. For sure its not the only important factor here, but many problems in audio designs create distortion effects and if you read Mr. Self's Book you will see many of them related with distortion measurements and other quality standards.
Distortion measurement and other standards are not created for marketing purposes only, even in audio. There are international rules defining them. They are very usefull for engineerings to compare and to match designs and systems. They put some order in marketing chaos, for sure, but your statement (opinion) seems just something like "if one egg in the basket is bad all of them are bad too". It's a simplist approach to a very complicated question.
About your waste of money believing in paper specs, please, I must tell you even in my childhood I always tested things before I bought them. So, don't put again your personal experience here like a truth for those that believe in technical parameters to buy audio equipments. For sure very good specifications from a reliable amplifier designer are a good start point to BUILD good amplifiers, so that I think if Pixie had received bad comments about this specific amplifier he would have considered them before mounting it. It was not the case.
The problem for me was your trying to disdain Mr. Slone's book with no scientific basis. Actually it seems you was seeing, after first Pixie's reply, a kind of "ignorance" about sound design being transmitted by someone that wrote an incorrect book and tried to open up our eyes to see the truth from your relevant experience. This is a kind of Gospel, not the oposite way.
About ?mistakes? that you found out in Mr. Slone´s books, lets see just above the post from Thunau about your opinion (I don't know very much about studios, but I'm just asking myself what kind of technology this people were using in their studios in the 50's and even 60's - I think was tube equipment. Very funny. Of course it is just my opinion, not the truth). It is enough, because your statement about the ?trade secret? has no meaning and, please, don't try to explain it again.
Again, about my ?point? (slow down with your ego, please), at least you are seeing a meaning in a meaningless standard. Like in your opinion about capacitor test in Self's book. It's distortion in that chart in the Y axis, right, that meaningless thing. So, that difference means nothing...
I think there is a difference between a handbook and a theory book. Mr. Slone's book is a handbook, or a construction manual, but, even in this case your statement
?For instance, if you take Slone's word for it, there is one and only one topology to use when designing an amp. It's a classic one, no doubt, but is it the one and only? That way stifles innovation. No new topologies will ever be invented by people who adhere closely to Slone's viewpoints. And, actually, he does repeatedly pat himself on the back for having designed a circuit that cannot be bettered in any way.?
Is wrong because he explains other topologies and offers Class A and B circuits for the readers. Please, see the chapters 6 e 11. If you know new topologies, OK, it's time to write a new theory book and to ask someone about gain characteristics in frequency and amplitude for linear devices, because I don't want to try again
Your statement about video impressions has nothing to do with design of video line amps, but it's simplist and again you are trying to show me your truths even in audiovisual experiences. Video technology is a large field and has very much research done. Don't considering your opinion about how good or how bad video is nowadays, please, change your TV connections from S-VHS output to RF output and see the results. Distortion means something for video but nothing for audio. Funny...
I think it's clear now why I said is not fair to disdain Pixie's opinions or Mr. Slone's work, specially in your case. I think it was just your big ego working here. I suppose Pixie is not a child and it is just a technical debate (nothing personal here), so, don't worry about his or my feelings. Your concern and crimminal atitude are not important for me.
About your further note, my further note (personal) about this is the following: it's just gossip.
I agree with Mefinnis, this debate is not productive, these posts are bigger than necessary and I don't want to reply your opinions anymore. If you want to talk about circuits, polarization, topologies etc - it will be good in my opinion and I will help you if you want and if I can - put your questions in the correct foruns. I will do the same.
Regards
Of studio amps and monitors
Grey,
Two observations. Studio amps need to deliver power in vast quantities on demand to main monitors. Just the nature of signals dealt with on regular basis in recording chain. Before things get organized (mixed down) we are dealing with transients, wild level differences etc. In order to keep a comfortable listening level the amps must be able to provide at least 20- 25 dB of headroom. With average speaker efficiency this means usually 400-800 Watts a side. Not exactly Class A amp territory. So guys use class B amps of high quality. Bryston, HotHouse, some Crown, big Haflers are common while the top dogs have some more esoteric products. You can definitely hear well what you are doing with those. In mastering houses where there is no need for all that headroom you see Krells, Pass and other boutique names that might be more familliar to a consumer.
About speakers. The same demands and duties apply as to amps. We are looking for a system that has effortless headroom at fairly high listening levels to begin with. Those drivers have to be engineered a little differently than your hi-fi home drivers. Even then there are some just wonderfull monitors using ATC, Volt, and Dynaudio components- same that are used in some of the nicest hi-fi designs. Quested and Dynaudio Acoustics make some wonderfull studio monitors with all the qualities you are looking for in a speaker. When power demands are a little relaxed- like in mastering houses- you see Duntechs and other high end consumer offerings along with custom designs.
And one more point. All those wonderfull recordings that brutally expose shortcomings of our playback gear are born in those studios and believe me, guys who are engineering them hear all the detail and imaging and depth you enjoy in your house. Sometimes they get the finished product and notice that somewhere along the way their work got messed up. All of a sudden ambiances are not right it doesn't image as well etc (digital Gremlins). But that is whole other issue debated with heated passion on some boards.
Grey,
Two observations. Studio amps need to deliver power in vast quantities on demand to main monitors. Just the nature of signals dealt with on regular basis in recording chain. Before things get organized (mixed down) we are dealing with transients, wild level differences etc. In order to keep a comfortable listening level the amps must be able to provide at least 20- 25 dB of headroom. With average speaker efficiency this means usually 400-800 Watts a side. Not exactly Class A amp territory. So guys use class B amps of high quality. Bryston, HotHouse, some Crown, big Haflers are common while the top dogs have some more esoteric products. You can definitely hear well what you are doing with those. In mastering houses where there is no need for all that headroom you see Krells, Pass and other boutique names that might be more familliar to a consumer.
About speakers. The same demands and duties apply as to amps. We are looking for a system that has effortless headroom at fairly high listening levels to begin with. Those drivers have to be engineered a little differently than your hi-fi home drivers. Even then there are some just wonderfull monitors using ATC, Volt, and Dynaudio components- same that are used in some of the nicest hi-fi designs. Quested and Dynaudio Acoustics make some wonderfull studio monitors with all the qualities you are looking for in a speaker. When power demands are a little relaxed- like in mastering houses- you see Duntechs and other high end consumer offerings along with custom designs.
And one more point. All those wonderfull recordings that brutally expose shortcomings of our playback gear are born in those studios and believe me, guys who are engineering them hear all the detail and imaging and depth you enjoy in your house. Sometimes they get the finished product and notice that somewhere along the way their work got messed up. All of a sudden ambiances are not right it doesn't image as well etc (digital Gremlins). But that is whole other issue debated with heated passion on some boards.
Hmmm, methinks blmn is a bit peeved...
I'm not sure how to respond to commentary such as my psych stuff not being his fault. Probably best to leave well enough alone.
Jan, you and I, I think, are closer in viewpoint than it would appear. Hafler, et. al. (incidentally, I've got an old pro Hafler for one of my bass amps...love the sound) to me classify as mid-fi, and the applications in which you describe it are just wonderful. My point is that it's not really high end equipment (by my standards...Hafler was, at one point kinda entry level high end, but I'm not sure that you can make that case any longer), although I'm sure it's competitive with its peers in terms of specifications/power/what-have-you. The other stuff is good, but what we have is audio high end gear making its way into the recording industry, not recording/pro gear making its way into home use. (When's the last time you saw someone buy QSC for dedicated home stereo use? Granted, I've known some musicians who have pressed their road gear into use at the house...why buy two amps when you're poor...and the home stuff ain't making you any money.)
Let's draw a distinction between the gear and its usage. In the context of a studio, mid fi gear (Hafler, et. al.--and yes, you and I may in all honesty disagree whether it merits the label high end or mid fi, and I won't fuss) is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my above comments. The higher stuff...here, you and I are on the same side I think...it's high end, yes? with all the attendent huge power supplies, exotic topologies, etc. that one might expect. Performance (we hope) is commensurate. But my commentary was directed towards the Hafler-class stuff. If we get to discussing whether Pass or Krell in a studio is different from the same units in a home setting, then we're pitting high end against high end.
What do you say? Call it a day and go out for a beer?
Grey
I'm not sure how to respond to commentary such as my psych stuff not being his fault. Probably best to leave well enough alone.
Jan, you and I, I think, are closer in viewpoint than it would appear. Hafler, et. al. (incidentally, I've got an old pro Hafler for one of my bass amps...love the sound) to me classify as mid-fi, and the applications in which you describe it are just wonderful. My point is that it's not really high end equipment (by my standards...Hafler was, at one point kinda entry level high end, but I'm not sure that you can make that case any longer), although I'm sure it's competitive with its peers in terms of specifications/power/what-have-you. The other stuff is good, but what we have is audio high end gear making its way into the recording industry, not recording/pro gear making its way into home use. (When's the last time you saw someone buy QSC for dedicated home stereo use? Granted, I've known some musicians who have pressed their road gear into use at the house...why buy two amps when you're poor...and the home stuff ain't making you any money.)
Let's draw a distinction between the gear and its usage. In the context of a studio, mid fi gear (Hafler, et. al.--and yes, you and I may in all honesty disagree whether it merits the label high end or mid fi, and I won't fuss) is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my above comments. The higher stuff...here, you and I are on the same side I think...it's high end, yes? with all the attendent huge power supplies, exotic topologies, etc. that one might expect. Performance (we hope) is commensurate. But my commentary was directed towards the Hafler-class stuff. If we get to discussing whether Pass or Krell in a studio is different from the same units in a home setting, then we're pitting high end against high end.
What do you say? Call it a day and go out for a beer?
Grey
Grey,
No problem. We are, like I said before close in believes when it comes to specs, sound etc. Recording technology in the 50's and 60's was where the cutting edge analog design was taking place. Ampex gear sounded better than most of todays recorders back when Beatles were cutting Revolver. Recording technology of those days spilled over to good consumer gear. That's propably what Sloan had in mind. I don't know how old the man is but some old beliefs are hard to change.
These days it is digital technology that is first produced for music/media production and then adopted to playback devices. Times change.
No problem. We are, like I said before close in believes when it comes to specs, sound etc. Recording technology in the 50's and 60's was where the cutting edge analog design was taking place. Ampex gear sounded better than most of todays recorders back when Beatles were cutting Revolver. Recording technology of those days spilled over to good consumer gear. That's propably what Sloan had in mind. I don't know how old the man is but some old beliefs are hard to change.
These days it is digital technology that is first produced for music/media production and then adopted to playback devices. Times change.
Sickening
I can't believe I started that! I'm glad it's done.
Thanks to all for a spirited debate. It was interesting.
So, we conclude this with the way it started. We will all continue to build amps the way we each want to. Amazing, isn't it!?
Thanks to Jason for creating an environment where all sides of this audio world can meet. Most sites are very geared to one corner of the world.
Later,
pixie
P.S. I'm from Texas, it would have to be Margaritas!
I can't believe I started that! I'm glad it's done.
Thanks to all for a spirited debate. It was interesting.
So, we conclude this with the way it started. We will all continue to build amps the way we each want to. Amazing, isn't it!?
Thanks to Jason for creating an environment where all sides of this audio world can meet. Most sites are very geared to one corner of the world.
Later,
pixie
P.S. I'm from Texas, it would have to be Margaritas!
And I'm from the Seattle area: microbrews.
Though I'm a teetotaler myself. I miss good Southern
BBQ.
Gah, there's SO much reading to do, experimentation,
blowing up transistors and trying over again. The
best tools I have for marking progress are distortion
analyzers and oscilloscopes, and my ears. Amplifiers
just don't fall together from a box of parts tossed
on the bench. People and companies do this stuff for
a living and have to show a profit or do something
else; measurements are a tool of the trade, of necessity.
And a lot of the designers DO listen to their handiworks,
as do many of their dealers. They get feedback and change
designs accordingly.
Maybe we need a new breakthrough in design; maybe the
current topologies are mostly mined out for possibilities.
I try to choose projects based on what little I understand
about electronics, which gives me clues about what might sound better and perform more reliably. Some designs are
visually and intellectually appealing; I chose parts because
I know polystyrene and low-TC resistors and Black Gates are
better than run-of-the-mill stuff, if I can afford better.
I can't afford those tantalum resistors, though! I think I
will get marginally better results using Teflon wire, and
certainly it won't be any worse than vinyl, I just happen
to have access to a surplus source of Teflon wire at a good price rather than Cardas prices.
The results I've gotten so far are pretty good, but I'm preparing to test those results in a more demanding environment against better equipment, and I know my present
Leach amp won't hold up against the very best. But on my
resources it's the best I can do. There's only so much I can do; I have to commit to a certain design choice and live with it for a few years at least.
Areas I don't understand well at all include negative feedback techniques; I just understand from reading that feedback has
to be applied intelligently. It's very hard to use lots of
feedback in tube amps partly because of the phase shift
introduced in the output transformer, and it's been shown that tons of feedback aren't really necessary for solid state design. Indeed, there are a couple of solid state
amps out there that don't use global negative feedback at all; I'm curious how they sound compared to other amps. Maybe there's something to this. I dispair of ever understanding how to do the serious math; I'm a multiple college dropout who keeps trying as best he can.
As I gradually learn more, I'll be in a position to try out
some ideas just to see what the sound is like. A lot of
designers do work this way; they've enough experience to make educated guesses about topology and some of them are
willing to try more radical ideas, retro ideas, or break
new ground about obscure distortion mechanisms we haven't
yet learned to quantify and can only guess at. The state of
the art is a moving target, which makes it more fun to shoot at, even if we do miss a lot.
I wish I didn't have this wretched cold; it's hard to concentrate.
Though I'm a teetotaler myself. I miss good Southern
BBQ.
Gah, there's SO much reading to do, experimentation,
blowing up transistors and trying over again. The
best tools I have for marking progress are distortion
analyzers and oscilloscopes, and my ears. Amplifiers
just don't fall together from a box of parts tossed
on the bench. People and companies do this stuff for
a living and have to show a profit or do something
else; measurements are a tool of the trade, of necessity.
And a lot of the designers DO listen to their handiworks,
as do many of their dealers. They get feedback and change
designs accordingly.
Maybe we need a new breakthrough in design; maybe the
current topologies are mostly mined out for possibilities.
I try to choose projects based on what little I understand
about electronics, which gives me clues about what might sound better and perform more reliably. Some designs are
visually and intellectually appealing; I chose parts because
I know polystyrene and low-TC resistors and Black Gates are
better than run-of-the-mill stuff, if I can afford better.
I can't afford those tantalum resistors, though! I think I
will get marginally better results using Teflon wire, and
certainly it won't be any worse than vinyl, I just happen
to have access to a surplus source of Teflon wire at a good price rather than Cardas prices.
The results I've gotten so far are pretty good, but I'm preparing to test those results in a more demanding environment against better equipment, and I know my present
Leach amp won't hold up against the very best. But on my
resources it's the best I can do. There's only so much I can do; I have to commit to a certain design choice and live with it for a few years at least.
Areas I don't understand well at all include negative feedback techniques; I just understand from reading that feedback has
to be applied intelligently. It's very hard to use lots of
feedback in tube amps partly because of the phase shift
introduced in the output transformer, and it's been shown that tons of feedback aren't really necessary for solid state design. Indeed, there are a couple of solid state
amps out there that don't use global negative feedback at all; I'm curious how they sound compared to other amps. Maybe there's something to this. I dispair of ever understanding how to do the serious math; I'm a multiple college dropout who keeps trying as best he can.
As I gradually learn more, I'll be in a position to try out
some ideas just to see what the sound is like. A lot of
designers do work this way; they've enough experience to make educated guesses about topology and some of them are
willing to try more radical ideas, retro ideas, or break
new ground about obscure distortion mechanisms we haven't
yet learned to quantify and can only guess at. The state of
the art is a moving target, which makes it more fun to shoot at, even if we do miss a lot.
I wish I didn't have this wretched cold; it's hard to concentrate.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back online...Opti-MOS!
Hey Damon,
A teetotaler in the land of microbrews--now there's an example of casting pearls before swine. Oh, well. Get rid of that cold, bud!
I look at the theory & technical aspect of electronics in this way: Serious artists go to school and begin by learning, of all things, anatomy. Bones and muscles. They provide the shapes that make our bodies look the way they do. Some of the old masters' anatomical studies still exist to show that this was true even hundreds of years ago. But they go on from there. They cover the muscles, tendons, and bones with flesh, then cover (sometimes) the flesh with clothing. Masterpieces are created in this way. There is an underlying understanding of the fundamentals, but not an obsession with them. This analogy also allows for the rare rogue talent to come charging down from the hills and paint a masterpiece, not from training, but from having a well-developed eye and a steady hand. Some people just have the knack of understanding things that others have to struggle for.
Mastery of the technical aspects of electronics is like anatomy lessons. Tubes and FETs work via charge effects. Bipolars work with charge carriers. Dialectrics in capacitors absorb electrons, only to release them later. Stuff like that. Good things to know for those of us who aren't possessed of rogue talent. But then it's time to move on. No one (excepting perhaps med students) wants to sit around looking at anatomical drawings all the time. There comes a time when you need to cease drawing detailed studies of the joints of a spider's leg and join the living. The world awaits...
(Note that Horowitz & Hill chose to call their book The *Art* of Electronics)
Tell me more about this Teflon wire. Copper or silver? What gauges? Price?
You can make a truly excellent interconnect with fine gauge single strand wire in twisted pairs. The downside is that it's fragile as hell. I've always meant to try stuffing it into copper braid for strength, but have never gotten around to it. Something other than braid would probably work as well, as twisted pair is already pretty well shielded.
Grey
[Edited by GRollins on 04-04-2001 at 10:44 AM]
Hey Damon,
A teetotaler in the land of microbrews--now there's an example of casting pearls before swine. Oh, well. Get rid of that cold, bud!
I look at the theory & technical aspect of electronics in this way: Serious artists go to school and begin by learning, of all things, anatomy. Bones and muscles. They provide the shapes that make our bodies look the way they do. Some of the old masters' anatomical studies still exist to show that this was true even hundreds of years ago. But they go on from there. They cover the muscles, tendons, and bones with flesh, then cover (sometimes) the flesh with clothing. Masterpieces are created in this way. There is an underlying understanding of the fundamentals, but not an obsession with them. This analogy also allows for the rare rogue talent to come charging down from the hills and paint a masterpiece, not from training, but from having a well-developed eye and a steady hand. Some people just have the knack of understanding things that others have to struggle for.
Mastery of the technical aspects of electronics is like anatomy lessons. Tubes and FETs work via charge effects. Bipolars work with charge carriers. Dialectrics in capacitors absorb electrons, only to release them later. Stuff like that. Good things to know for those of us who aren't possessed of rogue talent. But then it's time to move on. No one (excepting perhaps med students) wants to sit around looking at anatomical drawings all the time. There comes a time when you need to cease drawing detailed studies of the joints of a spider's leg and join the living. The world awaits...
(Note that Horowitz & Hill chose to call their book The *Art* of Electronics)
Tell me more about this Teflon wire. Copper or silver? What gauges? Price?
You can make a truly excellent interconnect with fine gauge single strand wire in twisted pairs. The downside is that it's fragile as hell. I've always meant to try stuffing it into copper braid for strength, but have never gotten around to it. Something other than braid would probably work as well, as twisted pair is already pretty well shielded.
Grey
[Edited by GRollins on 04-04-2001 at 10:44 AM]
OPTI-MOS
There are an awful lot of replies not answering the original question so I will put in my humble opinion as one who has build two of Randy's OPTI-MOS amps.
The amps were stock (using his kits with matched trannies etc) except that I modified the feedback take off point, used 60,000 uF Cerafine caps per rail, replaced any ceramic caps with polystyrene foils and used a large film cap for input coupling.
Results - Excellent, the amps were far superior to the NAIM 250 they replaced (a $3500 amp). They are simple to build, incredibly quiet, dynamic amps - thoroughly recommended.
All the folks who laugh at Randys use of 'non audiophile' componenets should consider that any music you listen to on vinyl or CD has most likely passed through countless mixing desk $0.50 opamps and electrolytic coupling caps. Lets get real here, professional equipment relies on good circuit design not $20 exotic film caps and certainly not vacuum tubes!
Regards
There are an awful lot of replies not answering the original question so I will put in my humble opinion as one who has build two of Randy's OPTI-MOS amps.
The amps were stock (using his kits with matched trannies etc) except that I modified the feedback take off point, used 60,000 uF Cerafine caps per rail, replaced any ceramic caps with polystyrene foils and used a large film cap for input coupling.
Results - Excellent, the amps were far superior to the NAIM 250 they replaced (a $3500 amp). They are simple to build, incredibly quiet, dynamic amps - thoroughly recommended.
All the folks who laugh at Randys use of 'non audiophile' componenets should consider that any music you listen to on vinyl or CD has most likely passed through countless mixing desk $0.50 opamps and electrolytic coupling caps. Lets get real here, professional equipment relies on good circuit design not $20 exotic film caps and certainly not vacuum tubes!
Regards
optimos
Remember, though, MEFINNIS, that one reason that so many solid-state amps sound like doody is that their distortion rises with frequency. Sloan's design seems to address this particular problem quite well. Which removes one obstacle to good sound.
I love the way my tube amp sounds. But I understand that I am listening to distortion which does not appear on the source medium.
Nelson Pass' commercial amplifiers, by the way, feature very low distortion.
Remember, though, MEFINNIS, that one reason that so many solid-state amps sound like doody is that their distortion rises with frequency. Sloan's design seems to address this particular problem quite well. Which removes one obstacle to good sound.
I love the way my tube amp sounds. But I understand that I am listening to distortion which does not appear on the source medium.
Nelson Pass' commercial amplifiers, by the way, feature very low distortion.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.