We like valves, not things pretending to be valves. You may be confusing guitar amps with hi-fi; one requires a certain kind of distortion and narrow bandwidth, the other requires an absence of distortion and a wide bandwidth. Both valves and SS can deliver distortion and lack of distortion; it comes down to the design and the aims and ability of the designer.Paul Uszak said:
For those of us who pursue hi-fi, however faintly, the lack of sound is what matters; both valves and SS can deliver this.
Most of us on here don't collect old valve amplifiers; we build new valve amplifiers (although, in some cases, to old designs). The clue is in the name: DIYaudio. Nothing like stamp collecting. Someone once said that all of science is physics or philately: audio is physics, although not all people realise this and try to drag in the stamps from time to time.
well ,to many people usually wants pretty good sounding amps on the first place .
Seasick Steve I rate as excellent, and the better and more revealing your system the more enjoyable his performances.I would rate Doghouse Music with Jazz at the pawnshop.
While I appreciate the gist of your post I can not wholeheartedly agree.
Of all the possible incarnations of music, from tribal chanting to classical and commercial pop to bluegrass, jazz and metal I dislike the most. ;-)
As an aside: The Carver Challenge strongly implies that by far the most audible difference between valve and transistor amps is the DF yet it is often said that DF differences are not audible.
Maybe all systems does sound identical, it is the music we listen to that make it different. I can hear whether Seasick Steve cleaned his nails or brushed his beard before a recording, that is how well it is recorded.
Originally Posted by billshurv 
Yes, well one per channel.
Bob C sells what people want to buy!
Of course, we all do else we go to bed hungry. You cannot sell anything people don't want to buy - you can even give it away.....😱
Would you say that better sounding equipment is more expensive and sought after than better looking equipment?
Yes, well one per channel.
Bob C sells what people want to buy!
Of course, we all do else we go to bed hungry. You cannot sell anything people don't want to buy - you can even give it away.....😱
Would you say that better sounding equipment is more expensive and sought after than better looking equipment?
Last edited:
It wasn't actually the DF, it was the high output impedance. The high series resistance caused volume changes that varied with frequency.
That's something that Stereophile now tests in power amplifiers.
Don't downplay the element of ritual. Why do amateur astronomers spend 100's of hours grinding their own mirrors? In Japan there is a large following for full range horns and 750mW amplifiers as well some other exotica, IMO the importance of ritual in the culture is important. The tea ceremony begat kaiseki which is the grandmother of the format of many of the highest end western restaurants these days. Food as ritual. A totally authentic tea ceremony is not unlike a mass in a way.
I have a cousin now living in Japan for over 30yr. with a grown up Japanese family who makes part of his living dressing up in full Catholic vestments and giving fake wedding ceremonies for folks who want a dual traditional and western "white" wedding. IIRC in Latin to boot.
Last edited:
Downplaying or denying the importance of ritual is deeply irrational, as is resisting consideration of ritual with a critical eye.
I have never heard that said. What I have heard said is that, once the DF is 40, there is no need to worry about it any more. That's a amplifier output impedance of 0.2Ohms for a nominal 8 ohm speaker.
For many years I had a solid state amplifier with a DF of 11. I think the valve amp it replaced was actually better in that respect.
I admit I have overstated that position a wee bit so sue me! ;-)
But usually that statement that there is no difference beyond 40 is usually accompanied by some ancient published calculations in which they use cable with a resistance an order of magnitude higher than my rather standard 4mm^2 cable.
Substituting my actual cable resistance brings different results.
I'm kinda trying to explain the experiences after I swapped my amps from one competent SS amp to another. If it were just me I'd put it down to expectation bias and leave it at that but a number of people (ie everybody who cares about sound) have independently from each other commented on it without knowing if I had actually changed anything.
All described the differences they perceived very similarly so I am trying to figure out which measured difference between the amps is responsible for that and I don't think it is the extra 0 after the decimal point when it comes to THD or the step from 100W to 250W.
Not sure if FR variance would explain what was heard.
It was described as the bass being 'cleaner', 'more audible detail', 'tighter' and possibly deeper extension (this might be because of the 'detail' bit rather than being an actual extension).
The amps in question were a QUAD 520f and an MC2 Audio MC450.
It was described as the bass being 'cleaner', 'more audible detail', 'tighter' and possibly deeper extension (this might be because of the 'detail' bit rather than being an actual extension).
The amps in question were a QUAD 520f and an MC2 Audio MC450.
lower DF can certainly increase bass output. The 520f is a current dumper and the MC450 looks a more standard topology and both have reported DF within spitting distance of each other. I wouldn't look there initially for the difference.
I'm running out of places to look. ;-)
PS: Before the QUAD I had an Arcam Alpha 8 (DF50 & 50Wrms) which was a terrible amp with bloated, mushy bass and harsh treble at slightly raised volume (suspect clipping), easily the worst I've ever owned taking into account the breakdowns due a design fault in the PSU. However I have no independent corroboration for that one.
That said in the lower registers the difference between Arcam and QUAD was similar to the difference between QUAD and the MC2.
hmm. Tricky. I have to say I don't know enough about the Quad current dumpers as produced to know if it might just be a case of them not quite being up to the task. Heresay says the BBC were very happy to dump Quads for Chord amps, but BBC folklore is full of that!
What are you driving with the amplifier?
What are you driving with the amplifier?
Funny, I know of one guy who was very happy to dump his Chord amp for an MC2.
At the time the amps were driving Tannoy Little Reds.
Still are as a matter of fact but now active. I cannot hear a difference between QUAD and MC2 when used above 1.2kHz.
If I'd know more about electronics I would be tempted to try and improve the QUADs Class A (voltage) amp.
Well, I'm still tempted but I'd probably kill myself and burn the house down since I know easily enough to be dangerous. ;-)
At the time the amps were driving Tannoy Little Reds.
Still are as a matter of fact but now active. I cannot hear a difference between QUAD and MC2 when used above 1.2kHz.
If I'd know more about electronics I would be tempted to try and improve the QUADs Class A (voltage) amp.
Well, I'm still tempted but I'd probably kill myself and burn the house down since I know easily enough to be dangerous. ;-)
Last edited:
This is an interesting statement. I have been wondering about this...
Damping Factor has been calculated using fixed resistance. But most speaker has non-flat impedance. At HF impedance is maximum. The interesting question is: What is the impedance at LF??
If the impedance at LF is 4 Ohms, then Bill's statement is wrong...
Lower damping means higher (internal or output) impedance of the amplifier. With high output impedance, the voltage drop at 4 Ohm load is maximum, it means the output at 4 Ohm is lower than the output at HF (e.g. 10 Ohm)...
Why this is interesting is actually this question: What is the impedance at LF where bass is perceived stronger? I have a feeling that this is not at the 4 Ohm impedance but at resonance where impedance is very high!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.