The Eagle has landed ...... A21 in the house , shootout later this weekend....
@Nigel ...
Interesting , 78 would be a big problem for most , very limited the supply of tables running at 78 .....
Last edited:
Lol should get one and keep it on my desk .....
The original mono ...?
I find all of his recordings excellent ......
I use a Garrard 401 . The cutting was using Technics SP 10 as drive motor . Sorry to say I didn't like the cuts of Perter Gabriel . I think the SP 10 might be the cause . The lathe was a Scully in a previous life . The Belafonte was beyond criticism . Peacefrog records in London plan to do stuff soon .
Quads and Marantz No 9 used as reference system at Peacefrog .
I think If I do my project 45 is a must .
Peacefrog : Home
We are modding Technics 1210 to do 78 for discos ( we hope to get people interested ) 1210 is a good turntable . We built a wood one . It sang like a canary to quote my old boss .
Quads and Marantz No 9 used as reference system at Peacefrog .
I think If I do my project 45 is a must .
Peacefrog : Home
We are modding Technics 1210 to do 78 for discos ( we hope to get people interested ) 1210 is a good turntable . We built a wood one . It sang like a canary to quote my old boss .
Meh ....!
This is the big issue for me with most reference recordings .. NO MUSIC, then again i think Nora Jones is not that great of a singer, go figure ..
.
Last edited:
I find the claim about a higher efficiency loudspeaker sounding better "interesting" (I guess that's a polite enough word). So a lower efficiency speaker "throws away" more of the music? Likewise, doesn't a 100 to 1 resistive divider "throw away" more of the music than a 10 to 1 divider does? We still use those to control volume, don't we?
Does anyone know of any actual evidence to this claim about higher efficiency being better (other than, say, not needing as powerful an amplifier)? Just wondering.
Oh, and I found one of "those" stamps (contains a certain four-letter word, though for various reasons it's not "too" easily read).
I tend to agree with dvv and a.wayne. I don't know the situation so I can just try to speak by logic.
Tools are not everything, but tools do improve designers performance. The question is whether a sim software is a redundant tool in amp design or not. I don't think so. Sometimes we need more than one similar tools just because each one has its unique advantage. I believe this applies also to simsoftware for electronic design. It's a matter of our expertise in utilizing (how to tackle/handle/treat the tool).
True, that the existence of simsoftware tend to limit hands-on experience with real circuit. This is dangerous of course, if the designer doesn't have sufficient expertize to relate simulation result with real result. But if he does, I believe sooner or later he can outperform those "old" engineers who do not have the capability to change.
I'm a computer man. Sooner or later, I can't believe a man can live without computer/software. You may have already seen the trend.
The vitriol levied by the high efficiency crowd is only match by those with lenco tables ....
You might have a point there. My audio "bible" was a book from the 1980 published by National Semiconductor, called the "Audio/Radio Handbook". A fantastic publication explaining in detail and maths how to designs whatnot, of course, based on NS op amps, but still general enough to be worth its weight in gold. Chapters are:
1) Introduction
2) Preamplifiers
3) AM, FM and FM Stereo
4) Power amplifiers
5) Floobydust (equalizers, electronic XOs, etc)
My original version is in tatters now, saying it was used is an exercise in understatement. I mentioned this as a suggestion to a fellow from the US. He hunted it down, thesedays it's published by someone else under licence from NS, and he bought two copies ($14.95 per copy), kept one as I suggested, and sent me the other one as a thank you gift. He didn't have to do that, but I am nevertheless extremely grateful.
In those days, there was no Internet and no PC, so we had to read, a bad habit I never shook off to this day, I still love to read. Reading makes you take your time and gives you time to ponder some things out, Internet is far too superficial for that.
In case anyone wants to follow up, its ISBN is:
ISBN 1-882580-35-4 51495
That's exactly what I was thinking about.
In 1978, if I dreamed up a circuit, I'd have to do some heavy calculating and then make the model on a protoboard, hook it up with the lab equipment and try it out. If it worked, which almost never happened onthe first go, any additional work was tedious in having to replace a lot of elements, which implies that I had to have these elements at hand. All told, at least a week's work for a relatively simple circuit.
Today, I can sim that same circuit in an hour's time. I can have it up and running in one day in a simulator. Of course, there's no way I can get out of a real world model, with all of the wiring and lab instruments, and just getting it to work flawlessly in electrical terms does no mean it sound right, but in fact, I have shaved off at leat 3/4 of the dull, grunt work.
In short, what used to be months is now reduced to weeks - don't tell that's not progress.
Where sims are priceless is in allowing a lot of people to try out their ideas at home, without needing to have all the lab equipment, and although lab equipment prices have really gone down, it's still a nice sum if you were to buy everything you need, even on the second hand market.
THIS I think is the real danger - if someone believes that he doesn't need to know much to use a sim, then that someone is gravely mistaken. A sim is just a tool, no different from a hammer - with a hammer, you can idly crack wallnuts, build a home, or commit manslaughter. It's not the tool, it's the hand the tool is in.
Of course they don't John, but there are notable differences.
For example, a highly efficient speaker will ALWAYS sound more impressive in a dealer's showroom than a less efficient one. Especially for those 5 minutes or so listening, which is about what most folk do, operating under the assumption - what the hell, a speaker is a speaker, no big differences except in size.
Few of those people even wonder how will it all sound in their room, after several hours' worth of listening. And how might it work in their systems.
And the dealers are no help. Milan Karan told me a dealer in Singapore complained that he had problems selling his integrated amp because for the same volume, you had to turn his volume knob to say 11 o'clock, while a lowly Yamaha amp, costing say 10% of the Karan, was just as loud at 8 o'clock. Some dealer, huh? Real knowledgeable, I see.
Loud by definition sounds better upon first hearing. Nobody wonders what happens later, when you discover that your scope of volume is low down on the pot scale, where it is least balanced, that your amp starts to clip at say 12 o'clock, etc, etc, etc.
In the 80ies, the British audio press was standing on its head pounding into the heads of its readers that efficient speakers actually missed out on all of the subtelties (their great word meaning anything and everything, and what exactly is a "subtelty" is your own pick). The instant Musical Fielity introduced their Kelly speaker line, the point of which was efficiency at 95 dB/1W/1m or better, the narrative changed - now we had "microdynamics", which were all important, and which lower efficiency speakers didn't do too well.
I am not being nasty to the British press, but what many of you probably don't know is that in Europe, Middle East and Asia, British mags rule supreme, Stereophile coming in a late, late second and being of merit only to those who see themselves as seasoned audiophiles "in the know". The impact of the British press is incredible, you'd have trouble believing it in real life. And the worst of it is that the worst magazines have the most impact - What Hi-Fi? heading the roost. But they diversified and now have several local market, local language editions throughout Europe.
Meh ....!
This is the big issue for me with most reference recordings .. NO MUSIC, then again i think Nora Jones is not that great of a singer, go figure ..
.
Peacefrog : Artists : José González ( Sony TV ad of coloured balls running down a street . SF I think ? )
- Status
- Not open for further replies.