dissapointed
You're all so against class D....
I just wanna say one thing now. Class D is very efficient but low quality. The lower quality it's caused by switching. The final stage in class D a.k.a. MOSFETs are the switcing devices. M I correct? (pls correct me if not). Just if we replace MOSFETs with conventional high speed switching tubes could we have a hope that they'll operate better than transistors?
Overall the amplifier remains class D, because of the analog modulating and comparator system and because of switching in the final stage.
You're all so against class D....
I just wanna say one thing now. Class D is very efficient but low quality. The lower quality it's caused by switching. The final stage in class D a.k.a. MOSFETs are the switcing devices. M I correct? (pls correct me if not). Just if we replace MOSFETs with conventional high speed switching tubes could we have a hope that they'll operate better than transistors?
Overall the amplifier remains class D, because of the analog modulating and comparator system and because of switching in the final stage.
That argument , (economical and high efficiency) is just not valid for most people interested in high quality sound reproduction, personally I don't care if my amp is inefficient, for the moment I am using an OTL amp that draw ~400W in idle and give 2 x 25W.
If it would be so, (I hope not!) that availability of electric energy would be limited in the future I probably would prefer to listen a shorter time each day to my inefficient but good sounding amp than to have to listen all day to something very efficient but not so good sounding.
Regards Hans
I am quite sure that most people on this forum are willing to spend some energy and money if its needed in order to experience good sound.
However please read once more what I wrote:
"I probably would prefer to listen a shorter time each day to my inefficient but good sounding amp than to have to listen all day to something very efficient but not so good sounding."
That is I rather listen 1 hour per day using an inefficient but good sounding amplifier than have to listen to something less good sounding the whole day.
BTW, if you are concerned about minimising energy consumption it is better to concentrate on improving speakers as they are normally extremely inefficient, I am using horns which is the most
efficient type of speaker existing with easily 10 times more efficiency than most other types, therefore I can live with a relatively less powerful amp thereby minimising total power consumption.
Regards Hans
I am sure that you have listen to many horn speakers as you can say this so strongly. Horn speakers are not for everyone but there are many people enjoying low power tube amps with horns, have you listened to any good such combination?
I think you have to explain what you mean by this.
Regards Hans
and...
And I'm talking here just with you guys, maybe my wors travel more than this. I hope my ideeas wiil get far far away (Shrek2) than just a site. Anyway if u don't like this ideea (v. thread) you should post anyway 'cause all that can do a critical eye is improve. ("what doesn't kill you it makes you tougher").
Thank you all again.
ps:maybe my tone is a little bit rough, don't take it like this, I just want to make my point.
And I'm talking here just with you guys, maybe my wors travel more than this. I hope my ideeas wiil get far far away (Shrek2) than just a site. Anyway if u don't like this ideea (v. thread) you should post anyway 'cause all that can do a critical eye is improve. ("what doesn't kill you it makes you tougher").
Thank you all again.
ps:maybe my tone is a little bit rough, don't take it like this, I just want to make my point.
tubetvr said:
"Most" people? Care to give us the actual numbers, Hans?
Some day in the future, vacuum tubes, sigh, will be surpassed, even in PP mode (gasp). Spears were surpassed, horse-drawn buggies were surpassed, slide rulers were surpassed, the Edsel was surpassed before it existed, Plaid pants were (mostly) surpassed, George Michael was surpassed, the Volkswagen Rabbit was surpassed. E=MC2 will be surpassed. Turntables will be surpassed. My beloved teflon capacitors will be surpassed. My best ideas are already decisively surpassed. The future is something better than we already got. Who's to say the shape of it, Class D or other?
NOT DEAD YET...
Hi,
With all due respect but I've heard that said about a number of things and yes, most of it has been replaced by something "better".
Question is better for what, for whom?
Fact remains that for some things there will still be tubes and there's alot more of them around than most people realise...
No, not just for audio. It would be totally naieve to think that the tube industry would survive on the production of audio tubes (how many are there, real audio tubes that is?) alone.
Still, the tube has been notoriously hard to beat in audio for a number of reasons.
The most important one is they just sound better than anything else to a vast number of ears, no matter how advanced technically other devices may seem.
No, we don't want another cheap "tubes versus transistor" flame fest...Or do we?
Just unwinding my old cylinder grammophone here...
Cheers,
Hi,
With all due respect but I've heard that said about a number of things and yes, most of it has been replaced by something "better".
Question is better for what, for whom?
Fact remains that for some things there will still be tubes and there's alot more of them around than most people realise...
No, not just for audio. It would be totally naieve to think that the tube industry would survive on the production of audio tubes (how many are there, real audio tubes that is?) alone.
Still, the tube has been notoriously hard to beat in audio for a number of reasons.
The most important one is they just sound better than anything else to a vast number of ears, no matter how advanced technically other devices may seem.
No, we don't want another cheap "tubes versus transistor" flame fest...Or do we?
Just unwinding my old cylinder grammophone here...
Cheers,
Re: serengetiplains
The to-be history of innovating something better than ... turntables (currently the best we have, in my experience) might involve: lousy souding cd players as a flawed first start, better but still not state of the art SACD players, fancy shmancy Microsoft medialess HD encoding, ETC and ETC until ... *presto* ... something better than turntables. But not to mistake, turntables will be surpassed, and who am I to separate necessary from unnecessary on the path to getting to that point ("CD was a useless diversion," "why bother with SACD it's not state of the art" etc)?
Guys, put away your defensiveness toward innovation. People who express ideas perhaps not yet tested provide a valuable service.
Polimorph said:
The to-be history of innovating something better than ... turntables (currently the best we have, in my experience) might involve: lousy souding cd players as a flawed first start, better but still not state of the art SACD players, fancy shmancy Microsoft medialess HD encoding, ETC and ETC until ... *presto* ... something better than turntables. But not to mistake, turntables will be surpassed, and who am I to separate necessary from unnecessary on the path to getting to that point ("CD was a useless diversion," "why bother with SACD it's not state of the art" etc)?
Guys, put away your defensiveness toward innovation. People who express ideas perhaps not yet tested provide a valuable service.
Re: NOT DEAD YET...
No question about it in my experience, so my ears included, and of course tubes are not dead yet, they perhaps will not die in our lifetime. In the spirit of my previous post, class D amps might be (might not be, who's to say is the issue) one necessary step on the path to bettering the best of what we now have---call that tubes, for argument's sake.
Regards!
fdegrove said:
No question about it in my experience, so my ears included, and of course tubes are not dead yet, they perhaps will not die in our lifetime. In the spirit of my previous post, class D amps might be (might not be, who's to say is the issue) one necessary step on the path to bettering the best of what we now have---call that tubes, for argument's sake.
Regards!
LET'S MAKE THINGS BETTER?
Hi,
Where on earth have I heard that one before?
Sure let's make a better tube amp....can't be too easy after all those years, can it?
As long as they don't come shooting at us with their own preconceived ideas, I don't mind.
It seems to me a little premature to already declare class D as the way to go, won't you agree?
Those Hunfortunate Henough to be the proud Howners of a pair of very Heffecient Hornloudspeakers are now Hadvised to switch to class H.
Class H will be defined as class D with Horrendous amounts of gridcurrent modulated at 27.9 MHz...
Cheers,
Hi,
Where on earth have I heard that one before?
Sure let's make a better tube amp....can't be too easy after all those years, can it?
As long as they don't come shooting at us with their own preconceived ideas, I don't mind.
It seems to me a little premature to already declare class D as the way to go, won't you agree?
Those Hunfortunate Henough to be the proud Howners of a pair of very Heffecient Hornloudspeakers are now Hadvised to switch to class H.
Class H will be defined as class D with Horrendous amounts of gridcurrent modulated at 27.9 MHz...
Cheers,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.