alvaius said:
I have purposefully bolded out the above section, but I will get to that later on in my answer.
First of all, it is a rather common misconception that 'THD was king' as far as amplifier design goes in the late 70s. It was the prevalent marketing gimmick, that is true - but having been under the hood of literally hundreds of 70s designs, I find it completely unjustified to assign them no sonic merit.
This would have been a good thread if only it stuck to the subject. Reading t hrough it, one might get the impression that the seventies only saw Phase Linears, Crowns and the occasional Carver, when this is decidedly NOT true. Also, the title and content of the thread do not give any reason to expect discussion shuld be limited to high power amps, or ones mostly used for PA work (I'm using the term 'PA' in the broadest sense here).
Mid to late 70s and to a lesser extent, early 80s gave us most fo the topologies and nearly ALL the parts used and revered in todays amplifiers. It also gave others, no longer available, for which many designers that were around then, pine for. Let me name just a few: Alps plastic film multisection pots, most if not all JFETs, a plethora of fast low beta droop output transistors, lateral MOSFETs, VFETs (sadly not available any more power JFET), decent electrolytic caps (to an extent they can be called that), usable toroidal transformers. In the 70s, these amps cost 1/4th of a decent car, and were designed by some very clever people, and frequently over-designed, because for the price, no-one dared sell you a disposable product. With a modicum of care, a large number operates near perfectly even now, 30+ years later. And, all these clever people back then never managed to put together a decent sounding unit back then, but today, using largely (and sadly!) most of the same parts, WE DO? Oh, PLEASE! Some of these could put todays high-end offerings to shame, just give them frech electrolytics, as 30+ years do take a toll - and some could do it as they are, 30+ years after they were made. Some have practically no peer today - I own a class D amp which was made by Sony, that uses power JFETs in the output, and 500kHz carrier frequency. Show me someone who dares make a comparable product today, with all the 'new' parts, technologies and knowledge - and back in 1978 they even did it on a single sided PCB, and incorporated a switching power supply. And yes, it does indeed have sonic merits.
Back to what I set in bold in my quote of alvaius.
There is a 'joke' around, that goes something liek this: if pedophiles molest children, what do audiophiles do?
In this disposable sociaty, I would lath being called an audiophile. The emphasized section above just nails it - because today, audiophiles will take $500 cables s gospel, because they have become a group that can't be bothered to understand the CAUSES - when it is so much easyer and more fun throwing money at EFFECTS. It gives almost unlimited playground for talking in all manner of mumbo-jumbo terms which ALMOST make sense, and makes them look real clever to each other at shows. I am sorry if this offends anyone, but a friend of mine pulled a prank at a show replacing two siemens E88CC's from and amp and replacing t hem with two well used PCC88's that came out of old TV sets at the local dump, only to have the owner and his 'victim' extoll on the sonic virtues, having no idea of the switch.
"these $500 AC power cords. Are they snake oil? Not necessarily. They can potentially solve subtle issues or design flaws with grounding and shielding in either individual pieces of equipment or the system as it is put together"
The REAL question is, is fixing of subtle issues and design flaws - neither of which should have appeared in the first place! especially in a 'high end' product, worth $500 in fixes by a power cable, when thay may as well cost $05 to fix in the actual equipment, when it was being designed? Apparently, to some people it is worth that, if only it prevents them from learning the root cause, and sending the equipment together with a nasty letter of complaint back to where it came from. Unfortunately, these people are the ones who largely call tjhemselves 'audiophiles in the purest sense'. Sorry, not me, I wouldn't be caught dead doing so.
Too bad I seem to lack the scrupule to sell $10 worth of parts as $200 cables, only because they have a nice purple jacket and box. I could certainly earn a lot of $ that way, but I would feel in danger of being hit by lightning, or run over by a car, or some such unlucky event, 24-7 if I did this.
ilimzn said:
:bs: It's a constant source of amazement that some who most strongly claim to represent the voice of science are the least likely to lean on that discipline when describing those with whom they disagree. Straw men are poor structural support. But one thing I can't let pass, THD (along with frequency response and to a smaller degree plus-three digit damping factor) absolutely was the magic bullet in the seventies. To say otherwise is simply incorrect.
Re: Re: Re: amps - the not-so-great debate
you're kidding, right?
I'm as much aghast and offended by the rapacious pricing and overblown marketing claims of current high-end retail audio gear as the next guy , (including the turntables that cost more than my first house), but to use an analogy, I don't think I need a double blind taste test to distinguish between a frozen Costco "ground surloin" burger patty and a well aged grain feed filet mignon.
Appropriate portions and preparation of each will provide the required amount of protein and avoid food posioning, but I guarantee they won't be indistinguishable to my sensory perception.
really?
"pass" ?- pray tell us what that means
I think that what was said was:
I can assure you that Dave is no stranger to test gear, just not a blind advocate of their sonic relevance
Please clarifiy- if you're questioning that system interaction is a problem at all, then there's certainly cause for many of us to "agree to disagree" (or worse)
However, if you're acknowledging the problem and simply castigating our ignorance, I'm sure there's a lot of serious DIYers, and even well experienced audio engineer members of this forum that would be very interested in your methodologies to quantify and therefore correct for these issues.
tlparker said:
you're kidding, right?
I'm as much aghast and offended by the rapacious pricing and overblown marketing claims of current high-end retail audio gear as the next guy , (including the turntables that cost more than my first house), but to use an analogy, I don't think I need a double blind taste test to distinguish between a frozen Costco "ground surloin" burger patty and a well aged grain feed filet mignon.
Appropriate portions and preparation of each will provide the required amount of protein and avoid food posioning, but I guarantee they won't be indistinguishable to my sensory perception.
really?
"pass" ?- pray tell us what that means
I think that what was said was:
I can assure you that Dave is no stranger to test gear, just not a blind advocate of their sonic relevance
Please clarifiy- if you're questioning that system interaction is a problem at all, then there's certainly cause for many of us to "agree to disagree" (or worse)
However, if you're acknowledging the problem and simply castigating our ignorance, I'm sure there's a lot of serious DIYers, and even well experienced audio engineer members of this forum that would be very interested in your methodologies to quantify and therefore correct for these issues.
rdf said:
Well, we all know what specmanship means. My point was, yes, these were the numbers that counted in sales flyers. Also, slew rate and power output. But, this does not necesairly mean that THIS is what these amps were solely designed for. If they were, most of what we see today would not be here - that was my point.
Today, specs are 'out' and in fact, by measurement standards of yore, some are horrible when measured or quoted. But, supposedly, the amps sound beter, and we can take that as a flat all-encompasing statement? Not to me they don't. Mostly because it's the music that's supposed to sound, not t he amp. At least that's how I understand things. As to the merits of the sound itself, we are going well into the realm of subjectivity, and as they say, de gustibus...
Regarding straw men as support - yes, I do criticise audiophiles, as are commonly described today. Mostly for seeming to lose the touch with reality when reviewing 2000$ power cables WIHOUT replacing all the cabling in the house, incl. receptacles - at the very LEAST. If it comes down to sound, we've been there before, the percepton is subjective, so there can scarcely be an objective argument about it. But come on, I am talking about price vs performance. I CANNOT believe an 'average audiophile' was so tittilated by the effect of a $2000 power cable that it was worth his $2000! Mind you, I am not saying that there isn't a buyer for every product, cause it is plain that there is.
Finally, there is a certain logic to things. For instance, if I find that a cable makes a huge difference in how a system sounds, my first instinct is that a cable, not being by any means simple, is still the simplest of all components - especially since all the others have some form of cable built in - so therefore, unless there was rampant incompetence involved, is the least likely to be 'the' problem. Of course, sometimes it turns out t hat a different cable is all you CAN do, simply because the rest of teh system is what it is, and it is what you are given to work with. But I find seriously worrying that so many people will simply settle on this, without questioning if the cable is REALLY the component they need to change, especially since some cables cost on the order of some pretty decent other components.
Let me put it a different way:
If the alternator in your $15k car performed slightly better with a kevlar-carbon-silk composite belt, that happens to cost $2000, would you buy the belt, a better alternator, or perhaps, a $17k car?
Hi poobah,
Line them all up and be done with it. The urge to reoffend is far too strong with the money involved.
Hi ilimzn,
I'm going with the more expensive car (unless the only difference is the alternator!). But how does it sound??
-Chris
Line them all up and be done with it. The urge to reoffend is far too strong with the money involved.
Oops! I get it now. As the purveyor of liquid speaker cables, you wanted to be guarantied a seat to this event.
Hi ilimzn,
I'm going with the more expensive car (unless the only difference is the alternator!). But how does it sound??
-Chris
Hi ilimzn, I've read a lot of your posts and don't question your knowledge or skills. Nor am I second-guessing the talent of designers in the Seventies. Some still post here, and it should be noted from a contrary perspective to yours (Curl and Pass for example.) What I am disputing is your notion of 'audiophile'. Much of the engineering communtity has this 'tick - and for the record I'm a B.A.Sc. E.E. as well - that casts an extreme segment as typical of all who play with wires and parts. The worst are those with no demonstrated experience in the audio field. My first mods were to a Hafler DH-101 and I've yet to see a $2000 power cord or know anyone who has. My favourite interconnects are paired 18-gauge magnet wire. If you look with an objective eye you'll see a large part of the community is like that, especially here, and the $2k power cord Stereophile contingent isn't representative. No more representative than 'number crunchers' who argue that if the specs are right it must sound right, period.
poobah said:Hey Quasi!
What?
____________________
Anyway what I noticed about some of the changes since the 70's have been;
More intelligent PCB layout and much less wiring
Nicer transistors (faster, queiter, higher voltage etc)
Torroids used more and more.
and
the as the price of quality (and large) components have come down an improvement in power supplies.
Hi Quasi,
I have noticed that heat sinks have become both smaller (area) and less efficient (construction). I have also noticed the lack of a chassis, now unit body construction. Controls are poorly constructed and the faceplates gravitate towards plastic.
On PCB layout. Components are now allowed to run at much higher temperatures. Capacitors are more likely to be located against hot components these days. Thermal realities do not seem to be considered. Large board construction has been favoured over smaller PCB unless we talk about daughter boards.
Service access is really very poor.
These comments are directed to the normal component an average person would tend to purchase. In the 70's, the average person was purchasing a more durable product. Many of those components had far superiour audio performance compared to today's plastic wonders.
-Chris
Edit: Poobah, I thought you were going to be a teacher ?
I have noticed that heat sinks have become both smaller (area) and less efficient (construction). I have also noticed the lack of a chassis, now unit body construction. Controls are poorly constructed and the faceplates gravitate towards plastic.
On PCB layout. Components are now allowed to run at much higher temperatures. Capacitors are more likely to be located against hot components these days. Thermal realities do not seem to be considered. Large board construction has been favoured over smaller PCB unless we talk about daughter boards.
Service access is really very poor.
These comments are directed to the normal component an average person would tend to purchase. In the 70's, the average person was purchasing a more durable product. Many of those components had far superiour audio performance compared to today's plastic wonders.
-Chris
Edit: Poobah, I thought you were going to be a teacher ?
Hi poobah,
I put most of the blame where it belongs. To the people who voted with their dollars.
Mind you, they didn't have the correct information either, and refused to research the purchase (or use common sense even!). I therefore have to blame the distributors and manufacturers as well. Right down to the unprofessional dealers (it used to be run as a business).
After our good software is gone (LP's and ahhh... CD's), we will be stuck with lossy compression formats. We are already stuck with much more substandard program material (Blame the record companies for that - and I do). So once that is gone, who will care. Our higher resolution systems will be able to reveal all the flaws we will be stuck with. Microsoft seems intent on controlling everything we see, hear and research. Scary. 1984, and I thought we dodged that bullet. Except these guys are incompetent.
-Chris (boy, that went down hill fast!)
I put most of the blame where it belongs. To the people who voted with their dollars.
Mind you, they didn't have the correct information either, and refused to research the purchase (or use common sense even!). I therefore have to blame the distributors and manufacturers as well. Right down to the unprofessional dealers (it used to be run as a business).
After our good software is gone (LP's and ahhh... CD's), we will be stuck with lossy compression formats. We are already stuck with much more substandard program material (Blame the record companies for that - and I do). So once that is gone, who will care. Our higher resolution systems will be able to reveal all the flaws we will be stuck with. Microsoft seems intent on controlling everything we see, hear and research. Scary. 1984, and I thought we dodged that bullet. Except these guys are incompetent.
-Chris (boy, that went down hill fast!)
anatech said:
I agree entirley Chris. I should have mentioned that I was refering to higher end stuff. All of what you said is true.
Having said that my Yamaha RX777 (purchased 2005) seems to be reasonable well made and I've had the lid off to have a look around. Apart from the more complex control electronics it seems fairly straight forward to service. I do also have a Realistic receiver from the late 70's early 80's (it still works) and this is built like a truck. These units were similarly priced (inclusive of inflation index) so I can make a bang for buck comparison. The Yamaha is far superior in terms of sound although the Tandy has more punch. People might say that it's unfair to compare a Tandy to a Yamaha, but I did compare a Yamaha to the Tandy way back then and I found the Tandy better.
Cheers
Q
Edit: It's sad seeing older blokes like us reminisce about the 70's.......lady starstruck, she's nuthin but bad luck....nobody gonna take my car, I'm gonna race it to the ground.....there's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold......sigh
Wow! Found this thread late...
Can't help but agree with everything ilimzn has said. Well put.
Now I have to clean the soda pop off my monitor.
Can't help but agree with everything ilimzn has said. Well put.
poobah said:The power cord guys should be lined up and shot.
The speaker cable guys should be made to watch.
The interconnect guys should be given a stern warning.
Now I have to clean the soda pop off my monitor.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.