AAAh!
With your girlfriend over when you were younger, I bet Radio Saudi-Arabia on SW would have been enough for your enjoyment! 😀
True, HiFi is not a requirement, neither is a Porsche!
**** me! what has all this got to do with the original subject?
I apologize for my side tracking!
I suspect you are referring to "caroline".
But I guess it could have been your g/f's name? 😀
FM radio is not at all relevant.
Recording techniques are only tangentially relevant.
I like to sometimes listen to some very old timey songs, recorded very long time ago. Recorded with poor fidelity, poor equipment, poor standards. Often further damaged with the passing of time, perhaps copied poorly from one poor format to another poor format.
What I've found when listening to this kind of material is that poorly made recordings benefit THE MOST from good reproduction. Not the least - not "it's made poorly, so why bother", not at all.
As a rule, distortion on distortion (in the reproduction sphere) is the worst. It's better to have 3% THD inflicted on one occasion, than gather 1% THD incrementally along the signal path.
This applies to dynamics as well. If the signal is already 'damaged' or lacking, it's MORE IMPORTANT to take better care of it on it's way to your ears. Not less.
Crappy op amps in the studio signal chain are a reason to strive to further fidelity in your home signal chain.
While designing and building ever more fancier and fancier tube amps, I found that the 1930's recordings on damaged formats got the most benefits. The reasons are in my original post in this thread; in the case of vinyl, transient response is paramount. Scratches should not create distortion; if they do, it ruins the listening.
Anyway, to sum up my dynamics thoughts:
1) PSU impedance, lower it
2) Distortion, lower it (without NFB preferably)
3) Transient response, improve it (source followers driving grids)
Recording techniques are only tangentially relevant.
I like to sometimes listen to some very old timey songs, recorded very long time ago. Recorded with poor fidelity, poor equipment, poor standards. Often further damaged with the passing of time, perhaps copied poorly from one poor format to another poor format.
What I've found when listening to this kind of material is that poorly made recordings benefit THE MOST from good reproduction. Not the least - not "it's made poorly, so why bother", not at all.
As a rule, distortion on distortion (in the reproduction sphere) is the worst. It's better to have 3% THD inflicted on one occasion, than gather 1% THD incrementally along the signal path.
This applies to dynamics as well. If the signal is already 'damaged' or lacking, it's MORE IMPORTANT to take better care of it on it's way to your ears. Not less.
Crappy op amps in the studio signal chain are a reason to strive to further fidelity in your home signal chain.
While designing and building ever more fancier and fancier tube amps, I found that the 1930's recordings on damaged formats got the most benefits. The reasons are in my original post in this thread; in the case of vinyl, transient response is paramount. Scratches should not create distortion; if they do, it ruins the listening.
Anyway, to sum up my dynamics thoughts:
1) PSU impedance, lower it
2) Distortion, lower it (without NFB preferably)
3) Transient response, improve it (source followers driving grids)
And what makes your definition of "crappy" valid?
I find such a statement unbelievable, from someone who has clearly never been near a modern mixing desk, but is giving us his "hearsay based expert opinon". 😱
I suppose your definition of "crappy" would apply to those beautiful swiss made Studer, Sonosax etc units which are a delight to work with and contain many of the same opamps used by so many other modern mixers...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
We have an expression... sh..t in = sh..t out.
There's the problem.
No amount of triode induced extra musical distortion at your end is gonna make it sound acceptable.
Computing and algorithms can help a lot, (to reduce masking inducing distortions) but that all costs money especially if you want it done in "real" time.
DACs.
Forget the hype.
Why would I ever want to pay more for some overpriced "hi end" junk for 3000 -7000 USD when I can buy professional studio stuff like this for 1000USD, which even runs on 2, 9V batteries?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
mullered:
Is that really what you got out of my post? Well, it's beyond clear you are not posting in good faith.
I have nothing to say about op amps, other than
1) The amps I built that used op amps, performed rather poorly. All they gave me was beginner soldering experience in my teens. This probably means I am not very good at dealing with op amps.
2) The amps I've built using tubes, have reached a stage where I'm very happy with them, and amps I sometimes hear built by others (very much million times better solid state designers than I ever were or am) don't impress me. This makes me not really interested in getting to know op amp world. If I hear an op amp based amp that impresses me, I'll have to look into it.
I used the term 'crappy', because anyone who reads this board even a bit, finds out quickly that op amps are not respected much here. Also, without fail, every now and then someone brings up the argument from THINK OF ALL THE OP AMPS IN THE STUDIOS, which, as I was trying to point out, is a reason to strive for greater fidelity at home, not a reason to be less ambitious.
I admit, I've only been near a modern professional mixing desk twice. I'm no expert in recording music. What does that have to do with building home audio reproduction equipment with tubes?
My fancy tube amps don't induce distortion on purpose. Not everyone is building the same 2A3 amps of old. Some, like me, go to (admittedly) impractical lenghts to avoid distortion. My mention of B+ regulation and source followers should have cautioned any actual tube builder to know that there are people present in this thread (I'm by no means the only, not at all) who don't build effect boxes out of tradition.
That brings me to my last point. I'm not an recording expert, and I've only been twice next to a mixing desk.
How many tube amps have you designed and built?
Is that really what you got out of my post? Well, it's beyond clear you are not posting in good faith.
I have nothing to say about op amps, other than
1) The amps I built that used op amps, performed rather poorly. All they gave me was beginner soldering experience in my teens. This probably means I am not very good at dealing with op amps.
2) The amps I've built using tubes, have reached a stage where I'm very happy with them, and amps I sometimes hear built by others (very much million times better solid state designers than I ever were or am) don't impress me. This makes me not really interested in getting to know op amp world. If I hear an op amp based amp that impresses me, I'll have to look into it.
I used the term 'crappy', because anyone who reads this board even a bit, finds out quickly that op amps are not respected much here. Also, without fail, every now and then someone brings up the argument from THINK OF ALL THE OP AMPS IN THE STUDIOS, which, as I was trying to point out, is a reason to strive for greater fidelity at home, not a reason to be less ambitious.
I admit, I've only been near a modern professional mixing desk twice. I'm no expert in recording music. What does that have to do with building home audio reproduction equipment with tubes?
My fancy tube amps don't induce distortion on purpose. Not everyone is building the same 2A3 amps of old. Some, like me, go to (admittedly) impractical lenghts to avoid distortion. My mention of B+ regulation and source followers should have cautioned any actual tube builder to know that there are people present in this thread (I'm by no means the only, not at all) who don't build effect boxes out of tradition.
That brings me to my last point. I'm not an recording expert, and I've only been twice next to a mixing desk.
How many tube amps have you designed and built?
Well actually I've come back to that after a break of about 30 years, (for a totally unrelated reason).
It was "curiousity that killed the cat", to make a totally DC coupled, linear, miniature valve mic preamp, from the phantom end to the balanced output that can be run off battery power.
It's not a trivial task to achieve that.
However
I found the same old tired out formulae being trotted out as if in some time warp, only the price mysteriously have been multiplied by 100 as a whole generation of suppliers and the chinese jump on the global band wagon.
"Bemused", has to be the operative word, including from the opposite end (in the profession), who can't understand why anyone would want to bother. 😕
I agree it's not at all trivial. I've been designing a fully balanced tube mic pre (though not battery powered) myself. Since it's not trivial, but full of open questions and things to figure out to get to the very best results, this thread on how to improve reproduction dynamics should be of interest to you.
But, (and mods please correct me if I'm wrong) this forum is for audio reproduction, not recording.
This forum is for DIY. I may be mistaken, but my impression is, that tube DIY components have not been this cheap and easily available for a long time. It's easier to DIY great amps now than ever, not least because of forums like this where new ideas are discussed.
Like I said; this very thread where you voice this (legitimate) concern of stagnancy has contained some ideas which certainly are not from a time warp. Yet it seems you are denouncing 1) DIY 2) tubes instead of looking into these non-time-warp ideas.
Dynamics can be, and often are, distorted much before clipping. Put a source follower before a power stage tubes' grids, and see what happens. Lower a PSUs output impedance, and see what happens.
Do you agree with my opening statement of "Yes, different amp designs do in fact have different dynamics"?
What are your ways of making tube amps more dynamic?
Actually many happy hours of searching revealed this as one of the forums (forae?), amongst a few others, where most discussion seemed to take place in the time frame 2003-2007.
I suspect one of the more sensible people to get all this going was Mr Broskie, which really seemed to get properly into gear about 15 years ago.
Progress in this area seems to go in fits and starts, then you discover there's almost unused patents dating from the 50s which were not really economical to do then, because they were "production environment".
There's really nothing new under the sun, but then neither is the constant overwhelming flow of BS.
Eg:-
I get totally turned off, then when someone starts claiming their multi 1000 USD DAC is somehow better than my onboard convertors on sound cards which we are happily using for recording, or the outstandingly good bespoke convertors fitted in 20yr old Professional Sony DAT machines.....
People remain wedded to snobbism, and can't get it when they have to accept you can get the same for 50USD off EBAY or pick up an old scrap DAT machine for just cents, because people can't buy DAT cassettes for them any more.
You know there's an A6 going on EBAY right now for 30 USD Buy it now!
Can you believe it?
I suppose in retrospect only freeing work on radio valves from the constraints of production (cos there was no alternative was there!), that allows this to become a luxury hobby.
Eg:-
When you start looking at it a little more carefully (I spent 15 mins yesterday admiring the gorgeous Russian military and space connectors used, in a local Electronics shop yesterday), then you can start to do interesting stuff.
Eg2.
Why on earth did people choose such an awful connector as a Phono plug or spade connectors tied down with screws?
What were they thinking? Is this still 1950?
Eg3. Ancient triodes with ancient designs of transformers?
I mean, there are toroidal transformers being made now, which are far more efficient than before, output transformers which go from virtually DC to 300khz....and a quality of components which are repeatable almost entirely because of computerised production techniques...never mind the possibility to do the circuit boards by CAD.
Let's keep this all clean and linear fun shall we? 😉
Is this the start of an answer?
Last edited:
What we have been saying is that a vast knowledge of the dying arts has many times given us systems that seem more dynamic than they should be. I think of Caruso when saying that. How people get these modern Caruso transcriptions is outside of my understanding. It can not all be digital magic ? The basic dynamic range seems much better than should be possible regardless of digital enhancement. I always refer to Caruso requirements. Where Caruso lives in the hi fi spectrum is where the largest problems will exist. Some would say 500 to 2000 Hz. Circa 1905 recordings.
208 Radio Luxembourg was the favourite. Good AM radio can be surprisingly good. I am told experimental stereo existed with a 10 kHz bandwidth. 405 line TV also I think in AM 10 kHz mono? If I am right on stereo AM 0 to 30 Hz was used to centre the two side bands, it had no audio up to 30 Hz ? Left and right being the two mixed in mono when mono receivers. Austrailia I think wanted to use it.
208 Radio Luxembourg was the favourite. Good AM radio can be surprisingly good. I am told experimental stereo existed with a 10 kHz bandwidth. 405 line TV also I think in AM 10 kHz mono? If I am right on stereo AM 0 to 30 Hz was used to centre the two side bands, it had no audio up to 30 Hz ? Left and right being the two mixed in mono when mono receivers. Austrailia I think wanted to use it.
I hope you don't mind me quoting you on this.
The "dying arts", is not just about that, the generation of people who actually worked with valves in the 40s-60s is dying right now.
Those people were mines of commonsense, and were immune to hype.
Often they were the first generation really to experience the things we take for granted, microwave radiation, lasers, transistors, FETs, ICs, and see the old techologies that propelled the 2nd world war along, from the discovery of radar/civil defence to being nicked for speeding with the same technology just down the road in their 70s and 80s.
They were well aware of the short comings of those technologies as they emerged.
There's a huge difference between having to do the maths by hand or with a slide rule and UNDERSTANDING what you are doing, with its shortcomings, than taking things for granted because some computer program has told you it's alright, and someone is hyping a "1950s NOS MULLARD EL34!)*.
Look at the CV of someone like Adrian Newey and you will get the message.
(*I mean there's very little uncompressed source material around so how can make any meaningful objective validation procedure, if you don't even believe what the oscilliscope and distortion meter is telling you?).
Last edited:
My dad taught me radar including CH in 1960 along with audio, the fact I was 4 years old didn't stop him. I agree .
Frank Derney was at Garrard working on the Zero 100.
I was thinking. Zero loop feedback valve amps sound better, much more dynamic. This seems to be that simple valve amps are not ideal for loop feedback, Dynaco is not bad. Having never made a OTL I can not say how so them, in my mind they should be OK. FET amplifiers love it if the typical Hitachi design with double VAS. Most transistor amps less so. I don't want to give pages of reasons. Just to say I sincerely think it so. I could even imagine some dynamic range expansion device could be useful. It could compress when required. I love what old tape decks do, nothing better if that's all you have. Sony TC377 was OK , Akai 4000DS less so. Revox if possible.
Frank Derney was at Garrard working on the Zero 100.
I was thinking. Zero loop feedback valve amps sound better, much more dynamic. This seems to be that simple valve amps are not ideal for loop feedback, Dynaco is not bad. Having never made a OTL I can not say how so them, in my mind they should be OK. FET amplifiers love it if the typical Hitachi design with double VAS. Most transistor amps less so. I don't want to give pages of reasons. Just to say I sincerely think it so. I could even imagine some dynamic range expansion device could be useful. It could compress when required. I love what old tape decks do, nothing better if that's all you have. Sony TC377 was OK , Akai 4000DS less so. Revox if possible.
I have loads of EL 34. In general I just prefer them to other types. The ones I like best are Marshall. No idea what they are. They came out of Chipping Norton Studios. One I would like to try is Ruby. Very cheap from China. I prefer EL34 to 300B in amps I have heard. 300B seems slow to my ears. I have some Gu50 if I ever truely get arround to finding the best use. Some 211 also if I want. EL84 is hard to beat. One amp I designed but never listened to is SE in PP out EL34. This was to use up some PP 34 transformers and test a driving stage for the 211. The SE input needs 54 V rms to drive it as the outputs are in long tail pair type circuit. Valve people would call it something different. The EL34 No 2 has a grounded grid. I now regret that as it measured very nicely. Against my predudice it is an all triode ( strapped ) design as that measured best. The driver valve gave 77 V rms at 20 mA. I have a hunch people do not drive the 300B correctly. The stage I have for 211 might be better. I have seen a 813 driven by a TDA2050 ( ? ). The reasoning was very good.
Anything OBECTIVE in all that with tests, THD, like Millett likes to do or just more hearsay?
This is EXACTLY the stuff that turns me off about the whole valve thing which is a FAD.
Like classic cars 250GTO et al...
Call it by it's name it's just another speculative FAD.
The sooner all this hi falutin BS vanishes the better, complete with my "black plate, double getter, sylvi-nos-mull tosh, silver wired, point to point, tube rolling comparing with its attendant ego trips" and the ridiculous sky high prices for 70yr old junk.
Last edited:
I think if the hype can be avoided there is a magic to valves. Perhaps they force imaginiative solutions where one is allowed to be out of step with the modern world. I often see amps that at 0.01% are looked upon as a failiure. As most speakers can not do better than 1 % THD I don't get too upset about an amp having the same. If an amplifier can be made to sound and measure good I am happy. The measurement after a certain point is about a goal without a reason. The risk is that the complexity although hard to prove is the worst part of the design. Bob Stewart thought of it as photocopying many times. I think he said " Distortion in audio amplifiers due to loss of imformation ".
My FET amps have 0.005 % THD at 50 kHz and 80 watts, mostly the same at 100 kHz . My valve designs about 1%. They sound alike. Most other amps sound processed. The FET amp is very tough also. I would like to say I have built a really good transistor amp. I haven't as yet. Quad 303 I like very much. My speakers are not really too bothered about damping factor so that helps.
Whilst I do think power supply design is at least 50 % of an amplifer I have of late thought vastly over engineered ones to be pure laziness and pandering. To find the cheaper solution might be 70 % the devellopment time.
My FET amps have 0.005 % THD at 50 kHz and 80 watts, mostly the same at 100 kHz . My valve designs about 1%. They sound alike. Most other amps sound processed. The FET amp is very tough also. I would like to say I have built a really good transistor amp. I haven't as yet. Quad 303 I like very much. My speakers are not really too bothered about damping factor so that helps.
Whilst I do think power supply design is at least 50 % of an amplifer I have of late thought vastly over engineered ones to be pure laziness and pandering. To find the cheaper solution might be 70 % the devellopment time.
The above opinion apparently is just plain WRONG, and had become an utter obsession with the SET loony toones tube crew.
There lots of unanswered questions.
I aim in my work for the lowest possible noise and distortion.
If you look just at Broskie, he has excellent designs with lots of feedback that work great, but of course people can't seem to see the feedback loops.
If you believe what Dick Burwen says (who made the lowest distortion, best valve amp design ever) the amplifier had huge negative feedback on a very large and powerful push pull unit.
Krohn-Hite Ultra-Low Distortion Power Amplifier, Model UF-101, 1954:-
50 watts at 0.005% distortion from 4 - 6550 tubes, produced for 20 years as a laboratory instrument.
Here goes again.
Are tube amps really just glorified equalizers? | Stereophile.com
Now what day is christmas 2015? 🙄
I actually wasn't getting notifications of new posts. But, I think I am scared after all. Not sure how this all relates to my original question. I honestly didn't read all of the posts so it's possible that I missed something that answers my original question.Does my nail fit your hammer?
I was hoping for some explanation involving driver tube/output tube relation or something along those lines. Direct coupling is at least related but I'm not comparing an amp that is DC'd. Remember that the only change I'm making is the amplifier with the result that one amp sounds compressed and the other sounds very uncompressed with same power ratings. Why?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.