@Globulator writes:
"I read a lot about the 432Hz vs 440Hz issues, I wonder if that had an effect?
J.D.Rockerfeller, (the well known musician .. - oh, wait, oil, (from both wells and snakes) - insisted upon pushing the 440Hz standard, which many say is discordant.. back in the 1800s many fine old world houses had pipe organs, music was everywhere."
In general, absolute pitch rose from around A=415 in the 17th century to A=440 when it was standardized during the 19th century as a result of shared orchestral playing throughout the world. None of these absolute pitch levels had any effect on the musical downturn I described. Again, it is the result of cultural disinterest in musical activity.
BUT, OH! It's time to talk about music and numbers!
Just love this topic...can spend great lengths of time here.
And lets talk about music, number, and harmonic distortion -- the acoustic version.
Even more FUN!
The great philosopher Pythagoras believed that music was number made audible. This was because he had identified the most important element of music theory, the so-called Pythagorean comma. His tools were limited to largely conceptual ones and he described something called a superparticular proportion -- in which the numerator exceeds the denominator by "1." In symbolic terms, this would be (A+1)/A.
His great discovery showed that when A=8 the musical interval was a major second and, when you added 6 of these together (raise 9/8 to the sixth power) the sixth interval (=B# in current terminology) overreaches the octave (when A=1) by a small but disturbing amount -- the comma that has caused endless musical complications ever since.
And why?
It's because musicians cannot accept an infinite number of pitches. They need a manageable number of discrete elements and Pythagoras's comma determined that number -- six major seconds (A=8) or 12 perfect fifths (A=2). In short, he truly invented music theory.
Now what Pythagoras didn't know was consonance is based upon the overtone series. When you stretch a string across two nodes it vibrates not just at the fundamental, but, also, at a great number of harmonic additions based on the formula N=1, N=2, and so forth. This was recognized in the 19th century and the musical concept of consonance was recognized numerically as the number of common overtones between two pitches. When A=1 the interval is an octave and both A+1 and A share all overtone harmonics. This is the most consonant of all pitches and the point of congruency for our musical world. It determines that we will use 12 and only 12 pitches.
This is also why second harmonics are more agreeable that third harmonics -- the relative number of overtones that are shared.
NOW lets get more serious.
Your A=440. And your octave = 440 * (A=1)/A = 880. In theory this is always correct.
But, in the world of acoustical instruments it NEVER is. This is because nodes are unstable and that instability causes enharmonicity in which the superparticular relationships are slightly skewed (meaning N=2 is never correct). The amount of skewing is based upon the relative stability of the node. So, pianos are under tremendous tension (20 tons or more) and the nodes are very, very stable. Consequently, the piano's timbre is bald with few overtones and the octave is very close to its theoretical 2/1 proportion.
By contrast, acoustic guitars have a node at the end of the fretboard and another on the bridge -- that sits on a slight unstable soundboard. As a result. the timbre is brighter than a piano and with many more overtones -- and, also, with greater enharmonicity. Acoustic guitars will vary from the theoretical proportion of 2/1 by a greater amount than a piano.
These numbers and relationships establish the basic framework upon which systems of intonation and tuning developed for 2000 years. Would be delighted to discuss this along with the relationships between mathematical concepts and tuning systems.
Time for some equal-tempered fun!
"I read a lot about the 432Hz vs 440Hz issues, I wonder if that had an effect?
J.D.Rockerfeller, (the well known musician .. - oh, wait, oil, (from both wells and snakes) - insisted upon pushing the 440Hz standard, which many say is discordant.. back in the 1800s many fine old world houses had pipe organs, music was everywhere."
In general, absolute pitch rose from around A=415 in the 17th century to A=440 when it was standardized during the 19th century as a result of shared orchestral playing throughout the world. None of these absolute pitch levels had any effect on the musical downturn I described. Again, it is the result of cultural disinterest in musical activity.
BUT, OH! It's time to talk about music and numbers!
Just love this topic...can spend great lengths of time here.
And lets talk about music, number, and harmonic distortion -- the acoustic version.
Even more FUN!
The great philosopher Pythagoras believed that music was number made audible. This was because he had identified the most important element of music theory, the so-called Pythagorean comma. His tools were limited to largely conceptual ones and he described something called a superparticular proportion -- in which the numerator exceeds the denominator by "1." In symbolic terms, this would be (A+1)/A.
His great discovery showed that when A=8 the musical interval was a major second and, when you added 6 of these together (raise 9/8 to the sixth power) the sixth interval (=B# in current terminology) overreaches the octave (when A=1) by a small but disturbing amount -- the comma that has caused endless musical complications ever since.
And why?
It's because musicians cannot accept an infinite number of pitches. They need a manageable number of discrete elements and Pythagoras's comma determined that number -- six major seconds (A=8) or 12 perfect fifths (A=2). In short, he truly invented music theory.
Now what Pythagoras didn't know was consonance is based upon the overtone series. When you stretch a string across two nodes it vibrates not just at the fundamental, but, also, at a great number of harmonic additions based on the formula N=1, N=2, and so forth. This was recognized in the 19th century and the musical concept of consonance was recognized numerically as the number of common overtones between two pitches. When A=1 the interval is an octave and both A+1 and A share all overtone harmonics. This is the most consonant of all pitches and the point of congruency for our musical world. It determines that we will use 12 and only 12 pitches.
This is also why second harmonics are more agreeable that third harmonics -- the relative number of overtones that are shared.
NOW lets get more serious.
Your A=440. And your octave = 440 * (A=1)/A = 880. In theory this is always correct.
But, in the world of acoustical instruments it NEVER is. This is because nodes are unstable and that instability causes enharmonicity in which the superparticular relationships are slightly skewed (meaning N=2 is never correct). The amount of skewing is based upon the relative stability of the node. So, pianos are under tremendous tension (20 tons or more) and the nodes are very, very stable. Consequently, the piano's timbre is bald with few overtones and the octave is very close to its theoretical 2/1 proportion.
By contrast, acoustic guitars have a node at the end of the fretboard and another on the bridge -- that sits on a slight unstable soundboard. As a result. the timbre is brighter than a piano and with many more overtones -- and, also, with greater enharmonicity. Acoustic guitars will vary from the theoretical proportion of 2/1 by a greater amount than a piano.
These numbers and relationships establish the basic framework upon which systems of intonation and tuning developed for 2000 years. Would be delighted to discuss this along with the relationships between mathematical concepts and tuning systems.
Time for some equal-tempered fun!
Hi tubelectron,
Hi Globulator,
You completely missed the points I made. Totally and completely. So I'm going to say this, depending on what noise and distortion is present you may well be able to hear the difference between electronics that both advertise 0.001% THD. I've explained it until I'm blue in the face, so I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.
You also continually drag subjective opinions into the fray. This is purely a matter of taste, and it isn't even consistent over time. I've been clear on that as well.
If you people want to ignore what is proved and known by those who have the experience and means to see these things, fine. Not our job to train you and prove all these known facts. Do your own work, but until then stop yakking without actually knowing. I'm just really tired of trying to explain things to people who can't grasp the simplest of fundamentals for running a valid test or experiment. On top of that, I bet none of you own the test equipment that can show the things we see, yet you will argue we can't measure the very things we routinely measure. Just like a religion. You are 100% faith based, not knowledge based.
Like it or not, these days we can measure everything that matters, consistently. What goes on between your ears is your problem and maybe therapy is your only answer.
Whatever you wish to compare. It matters not. What does matter is that you control the variables so you are in fact comparing what you think or say you are comparing. Given that humans are not consistent at all, forget using a human as an instrument. The other thing is that with a human, there is massive interference from their brain.
Hi Globulator,
You completely missed the points I made. Totally and completely. So I'm going to say this, depending on what noise and distortion is present you may well be able to hear the difference between electronics that both advertise 0.001% THD. I've explained it until I'm blue in the face, so I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.
You also continually drag subjective opinions into the fray. This is purely a matter of taste, and it isn't even consistent over time. I've been clear on that as well.
If you people want to ignore what is proved and known by those who have the experience and means to see these things, fine. Not our job to train you and prove all these known facts. Do your own work, but until then stop yakking without actually knowing. I'm just really tired of trying to explain things to people who can't grasp the simplest of fundamentals for running a valid test or experiment. On top of that, I bet none of you own the test equipment that can show the things we see, yet you will argue we can't measure the very things we routinely measure. Just like a religion. You are 100% faith based, not knowledge based.
Like it or not, these days we can measure everything that matters, consistently. What goes on between your ears is your problem and maybe therapy is your only answer.
OK, fellow, you've won, right?
And what did you win?
Do you really think the people who read this thread are stupid? Or that they are unable to ascertain the character of someone who makes this kind of insulting statement?
Hi Craig,
Not trying to win anything.
Logic and truth. Observation and fact. Just exhausted seeing the same arguments over and over after explaining everything over and over. At some point you just get tired.
Not trying to win anything.
Logic and truth. Observation and fact. Just exhausted seeing the same arguments over and over after explaining everything over and over. At some point you just get tired.
Crawls out from the rubble and dusts himself off...
So, as mentioned a few pages back....I cranked up the Onkyo A5 and it took a few minutes to even produce sound, while crackling with every control input. I'm putting this down to totally discharged caps in parts of the circuit maybe allowing some DC through. Anyway it is playing now...not too bad for an oldie. Even with the tone controls defeated the output is quite bass-prominent. As I said, I haven't heard it for years. It does sound more powerful than just 50 watts, but I'm aware this is down to the gain setup compared to my usual amp (SKA GB150).
But as is always the case with these old units, the selector switches need a clean as they need jiggling to maintain output. This amp has never been worked on at all. Another project?
Carry on...
Cheers
Stuey
So, as mentioned a few pages back....I cranked up the Onkyo A5 and it took a few minutes to even produce sound, while crackling with every control input. I'm putting this down to totally discharged caps in parts of the circuit maybe allowing some DC through. Anyway it is playing now...not too bad for an oldie. Even with the tone controls defeated the output is quite bass-prominent. As I said, I haven't heard it for years. It does sound more powerful than just 50 watts, but I'm aware this is down to the gain setup compared to my usual amp (SKA GB150).
But as is always the case with these old units, the selector switches need a clean as they need jiggling to maintain output. This amp has never been worked on at all. Another project?
Carry on...
Cheers
Stuey
Last edited:
I think perhaps the main issue here is that I have a different viewpoint to your own, but thankfully in our modern world were tolerance and diversity are celebrated, this is a good thing. It seems to me that the following quote might be useful here 😀
As far as I recall your position is very clear, and I respect this viewpoint:
At no time have I said this is 'wrong', it's not for me to tell others what to believe or what to think: I simply state the other, quite popular, TIM + stability based viewpoint that coincides with my own preferential theory.
I.e. I'm actually diverging from your viewpoint by pursuing a different line of thought, which I think you said said was Ok:
Incidentally my SEP is on an all new chinese chassis and transformers, and arrived with all new chinese tubes.
Now it has soviet GU50 RF transmitter tubes, soviet 6N2P-EV tubes, and some spare VR tubes and an old ECC88 I harvested from a very dead Tektronix scope. ECC88's don't seem to be used much in tube audio gear, and I'm sort of using this one now to listen to stuff on: but if there is a shortage of course I'll hold my hands up, and replace it with a soviet tube. TBH the war in the ukraine has probably destroyed many more good tubes, but I accept that I have used an old tube, guilty as charged.
But back to the 'low/zero TIM + Stability viewpoint: It's not just my view - i have given references, but perhaps it would be instructive to read them, so I'll copy-past a snippet here if that's ok: From http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/tinyhistory2.html
So we can see that even in the 1970s there were unyielding beliefs view that THD was all, and that TIM was a nonsense 😀
Perhaps rather than me missing the point, this is a mere continuation of an interesting discussion of 50+ years length!?
I'm also not sure I agree with this statement:
Because those DarTZeel amplifiers sell at £50k a go, and people are buying up the Chinese clones, and all saying that they like the way it plays the music. Of course they may all be wrong, but they are buying them.
DarTZeel is an interesting case, because it fits into your criteria I think:
The DarTZeel performs very well, so I think that's a useful example. It's also zero feedback - which is most interesting for the binary question of 'Is GNFB needed?'. Clearly not, reading the comments, and from listening to my SEP with the OPT out of the loop. Putting the OPT out of the loop was not even my idea, Thorsten Loesch wrote of his reasoning in a forum, and it made much sense.
Interestingly most of the names I have quoted are also members of DiyAudio too, IIRC, do they continue to be interested in the real, technical expeimentation of the hobby. It's good to have a diverse group of opinions, it's the new thing!
People are also improving these BarTZeel clones too, because of course the clones are not as good as the originals, except perhaps for the metalwork. I thought this was an interesting post I read: (comments in
I think the DarTZeel circuit is from an old ITT + MIT idea, but it shares an interesting concept with Bob's Audionic CC-2 and Dan's REdesign LNPA-150, in that low TIM is their goal !!
Thanks, I think we agree then, and it's an interesting discussion too, of an old divide 🙂
Many people think the low TIM amplifiers sound good: My consistent objective observation that low TIM, high stability and simple, short feedback circuits allow many people to enjoy music better - than on amplifiers where low THD was the goal, appears to me at least, to be valid. And this is the source of this interesting discussion with you.
The old vintage stuff that is sought after today doesn't seem to have low THD, but it doesn't have huge amounts of GNFD either. For example the Sansui 1000a, which is a delight to listen to, has a THD of 0.8% (at max output), the Sansui Eight receiver has a THD of < 0.3%, again indicating the main goal wasn't THD.
The early transistor amplifiers - freed of the constraints of the Output Transformer - ended up with huge amounts of GNFB, which apart from killing most western makers off due to unreliability - didn't sound great. And I suggest that speaker THD masks any change in amplifier THD, except for the fact that odd order harmonics have a harsh, grating character. Perhaps another benefit of mild GNFB is that low harmonics remain as low harmonics, rather than being multiplied into the ear-irritating high order odd harmonics - and that's without even considering TIM or stability.
The A5 looks very cool, nice build quality too.
Electro coupling caps do sometimes leak - while reforming or permanently.
I'd also spray the pots with De-oxit as there is a metal-to-metal wiper inside that can get a bit crusty too.
Coupling caps can also have a remarkable effect on the sound, I had some recycled (poly!) caps in a super-cheap chinese amp I bought, and sort of ignored them while while I was hunting for the cause of the mysterious muffled character - for some reason, perhaps as they looked a bit recycled, I replaced them and the sound was dramatically transformed! 😀
I'm still not sure how a series cap managed to kill treble LOL.
🎼
I've got a cartridge swap to do later in the week, I collected an old Dual CS505 I'd given to a friend, because it has 78rpm on it. I have a Shure V15 on a different player (a slightly modded Sansui SR222) that has a 78 stylus option I have, and a boxed set of 78s to try!
I'm told that most 78s have unique EQ to them, some people go into fantastic detail about this, apparantly some 78s also have amazingly good quality audio when they are EQd correctly - so I wanted to have a go with that!
Still in charity shops here I see the odd, unwanted 10" 78s, so my goal is to see what they sound like, an audio trip into the past! Does anyone else still play 78s? What do you think of them?
It's pretentious to affirm this. The question is rather : what do you measure ?
This doesn't answer this question either : what are you comparing ?
T
Last edited:
Hi tubelectron,
Overall performance is what I compare. What answer are you looking for? I asked before.
Specifically, I compare THD and IMD spectrums at various power levels. If equipment doesn't make the grade at 1 watt, it won't do ay better at higher levels. The equipment is listened to at length if it is promising. I have a few amplifiers I'll leave in the listening room, and they don't colour the sound. The best amplifier I have heard to date was a Bryston 4B cubed, and I had that for three weeks in the room. Normally I don't like Bryston, but they nailed it this time. I expect the 3B cubed would sound the same.
Do I listen to tube amplifiers? Yup. I've designed a couple, upgraded (for real) a few and restored some. A lot actually. The best of those so far was a McIntosh MC60. They are fun, but they are not as clean or quiet. They also have a higher cost of operation. I was apprenticed on tube technology and was more comfortable with it. I adopted the better way to accomplish the goal of driving speakers.
Looking at spectrums with single and two tone signals actually does fully describe an amplifier's performance from years (decades) of testing, listening and objective opinions from many others. As the test equipment got better, we were able to determine the why in it. Others with similar test equipment and time to investigate have come to very similar conclusions.
Now I had said exactly what I am measuring before in this thread. Anyone with similar equipment can easily replicate the work I've done, and in fact I am following in the footsteps of others before me. I just proved it for myself. Feel free to gather the required equipment and run your own tests, follow the evidence.
Overall performance is what I compare. What answer are you looking for? I asked before.
Specifically, I compare THD and IMD spectrums at various power levels. If equipment doesn't make the grade at 1 watt, it won't do ay better at higher levels. The equipment is listened to at length if it is promising. I have a few amplifiers I'll leave in the listening room, and they don't colour the sound. The best amplifier I have heard to date was a Bryston 4B cubed, and I had that for three weeks in the room. Normally I don't like Bryston, but they nailed it this time. I expect the 3B cubed would sound the same.
Do I listen to tube amplifiers? Yup. I've designed a couple, upgraded (for real) a few and restored some. A lot actually. The best of those so far was a McIntosh MC60. They are fun, but they are not as clean or quiet. They also have a higher cost of operation. I was apprenticed on tube technology and was more comfortable with it. I adopted the better way to accomplish the goal of driving speakers.
Looking at spectrums with single and two tone signals actually does fully describe an amplifier's performance from years (decades) of testing, listening and objective opinions from many others. As the test equipment got better, we were able to determine the why in it. Others with similar test equipment and time to investigate have come to very similar conclusions.
Now I had said exactly what I am measuring before in this thread. Anyone with similar equipment can easily replicate the work I've done, and in fact I am following in the footsteps of others before me. I just proved it for myself. Feel free to gather the required equipment and run your own tests, follow the evidence.
Hi Globulator,
What you like is what you like. Cool, no problem.
The market will offer what people prefer. The bulk will be what most people actually buy. SET and tube equipment is in a minority even while enjoying this latest fad. Do an honst survey. Then survey equipment over the decades. I don't have to prove anything, the answers are plainly out there.
One thing I will say. On the internet you can find support for any view you wish. Apparently the moon landing never occurred, I can prove it with a few examples. But, the overwhelming body of evidence shows we did. See what I'm saying? You are dragging out little bits in front of an avalanche of solid evidence.
Anyway, I have my hands full helping people. Arguing stuff like this is something I have little time for. Do the actual work yourself now.
What you like is what you like. Cool, no problem.
The market will offer what people prefer. The bulk will be what most people actually buy. SET and tube equipment is in a minority even while enjoying this latest fad. Do an honst survey. Then survey equipment over the decades. I don't have to prove anything, the answers are plainly out there.
One thing I will say. On the internet you can find support for any view you wish. Apparently the moon landing never occurred, I can prove it with a few examples. But, the overwhelming body of evidence shows we did. See what I'm saying? You are dragging out little bits in front of an avalanche of solid evidence.
Anyway, I have my hands full helping people. Arguing stuff like this is something I have little time for. Do the actual work yourself now.
Easy : I though that you would have found the answer by yourself...
You are measuring numbers.
You are comparing numbers.
Surprising... Me too, like many others members here :
https://guilhemamplification.jimdofree.com/
So I have been forced to learn that no, in the end, I am not listening to numbers, but to sounds.
Hence my last question, written some posts before : is it worth ? It seems to me that @Globulator and @Craigl59 have seized the sense of this request, and by the way they answered it, each one with his manner.
No. Numbers doesn't explain everything in Audio - nor in many other sciences by the way - and this, despite very sophisticated and always better instrumentation. No need to be an Audiophile to understand this.
Every humble scientist know this : the deterministic models have their limits... It was during the Age of Enlightenment (XVIIIe Century) that we were convinced that Man (rather than Scientists by themselves) had discovered everything, modeled everything, understood everything, etc. What a gap with today !
Thank you for your condescension ! 😏
Personally, I think I have done enough of that actual work you speak about, to consider Audio - and more globally Science - not solely under the measuring, deterministic way. That means that I absolutely do not negate its remarkable contributions, for sure, but I consider that it is a picture, a view of the problematique, and not necessarily the definitive answer which explains it all.
Finally, you are right @anatech : don't waste your time to give us lessons, moreover if you have little time for. Yes, we - or at least I - will never be totally convinced by the numbers we read, but we will manage all right in the end... Helped by our ears !🙂😉
T
Last edited:
Hi tubelectron,
lol!
Okay, did and have been confirming the answers over the years. Always looking for a better way.
No, I'm sorry. You totally missed the entire plot. We are not measuring numbers. What we are measuring is looking at spectrum analysis. I guess since you don't have access to what we are looking at you can't imagine it. What we see is far more insightful and complicated than you imagine.
Right, my point is we listen as well. And we have more knowledge and insight since we have more information. Also, we are not simulating anything. We are measuring real, operating equipment. Sadly you are minimizing what we are doing and you fail to understand what we are seeing as well as listening to.
No, you have not done the work. You've listened, and that's a great start. Now, buy the equipment like we have, or gain access to it and use it. Then you will see what is going on. You'll also quickly see that the spectrum type measurements do agree with what you hear. Until you do, your thinking is stuck in the 70's with the anti-measurement crowd.
It seems like you would rather bury your head in the sand instead of considering the possibilities of what we can do today. Ahh, the romance of being able to hear beyond technology. I guess it is comforting in some way. I'd rather know the truth.
lol!
Okay, did and have been confirming the answers over the years. Always looking for a better way.
No, I'm sorry. You totally missed the entire plot. We are not measuring numbers. What we are measuring is looking at spectrum analysis. I guess since you don't have access to what we are looking at you can't imagine it. What we see is far more insightful and complicated than you imagine.
Right, my point is we listen as well. And we have more knowledge and insight since we have more information. Also, we are not simulating anything. We are measuring real, operating equipment. Sadly you are minimizing what we are doing and you fail to understand what we are seeing as well as listening to.
No, you have not done the work. You've listened, and that's a great start. Now, buy the equipment like we have, or gain access to it and use it. Then you will see what is going on. You'll also quickly see that the spectrum type measurements do agree with what you hear. Until you do, your thinking is stuck in the 70's with the anti-measurement crowd.
It seems like you would rather bury your head in the sand instead of considering the possibilities of what we can do today. Ahh, the romance of being able to hear beyond technology. I guess it is comforting in some way. I'd rather know the truth.
tubelectron's brilliant post cuts to the heart of the matter. When I was an academician I knew a number of PhD mathematicians, prominent in the field. Interestingly, they all had creative minds and when you talked about important mathematical concepts they were likely to express themselves with philosophical concepts couched in analogies. They stressed to me that mathematics and numbers were a language that was particularly precise and powerful. But they considered it this way as a tool and, as such, without value until it was properly plugged into a situation.
This thread is, ostensibly, devoted to the value and reasons for antique gear. Several of us have stressed that old gear is not inferior to modern stuff, but, rather, better. Such reasoning is becoming more and more prevalent in the field.
Would you like some proof? Try buying a Studer 1/2 inch tape deck from the 1980s. None are available. Similarly, a pre-recorded popular R2R tape, say the famous Fleetwood Mac Rumours (at 7 1/2 ips with Dolby) is selling for upwards of $2000. When they are available -- and they are not.
It is arrogant to assume that people following this path are misguided. Those of us that pursue analog excellence do so with significant expense and with a realization that you can achieve much better reproductive excellence with older tools and machines. Or by building new machines with the older methods and parts. But you have to spend the effort, time, and monies.
Last edited:
Craig,
Not once was it ever said these folks are misguided. Not once. I've also made it clear we are not talking about numbers. A picture is worth a thousand words (and numbers) and that is what we are seeing.
Now, tape machines are something I used to specialize in and in recording studios. So here you go if you want ... I was warranty for Revox and Tascam plus others and was well known for calibration work, also on cassettes where I was warranty for many brands that included Nakamichi. Wanna have a go? 😉
Studer made the best machines, no question. Ever heard a master with Dolby SR? Expensive little modules. Anyway, many albums were also laid down on Denon PCM machines back in the day as well. The cool thing with R-R machines is you can use them for effects (Motown) and they can be overdriven. Not so with any digital format, you tend to run out of little ones and zeros. Hard clip, not cool, not graceful. But now we are talking about creating music in the studio. It is amazing to see a pair of Studer 24 track machines locked together, one chasing the other.
Why aren't R-R machines generally available today? They are expensive to produce, real expensive to maintain if you can get the parts. Believe me, I know since I service them. Calibration tapes are a consumable, difficult to get and real expensive (they always were, I used MRL). Seen the price of a pinch roller? Reel motor? Heads or lapping for same?
People will pay all kinds of money for things, whether stupid or not. So claiming people will pay whatever it is for a tape or tape machine doesn't prove anything more than supply and demand. It's that simple. I had a Tascam BR20, sold it because I didn't use it as much and the cost of even 1/4" blank tape is now over $100 for a pancake. You know what that is don't you?
I was trained on, designed and built everything from tube gear back in the day to modern, current equipment. I restore and improve older equipment of all types. Since this is my vocation and has been for over 50 years, I picked up some knowledge along the way. Realise one thing. I am not selling anything. I have no irons in this fire. I'm just telling you factual things. That's it, I don't even have an ego to protect here.
What this is, is practical, empirical observations. No simulations, just real measurements - and listening tests. All I said was that they agree, period. Got a problem with that? Apparently people without access to the equipment and without experience do. Now, think about that for a minute. Hmmmm.
Not once was it ever said these folks are misguided. Not once. I've also made it clear we are not talking about numbers. A picture is worth a thousand words (and numbers) and that is what we are seeing.
Now, tape machines are something I used to specialize in and in recording studios. So here you go if you want ... I was warranty for Revox and Tascam plus others and was well known for calibration work, also on cassettes where I was warranty for many brands that included Nakamichi. Wanna have a go? 😉
Studer made the best machines, no question. Ever heard a master with Dolby SR? Expensive little modules. Anyway, many albums were also laid down on Denon PCM machines back in the day as well. The cool thing with R-R machines is you can use them for effects (Motown) and they can be overdriven. Not so with any digital format, you tend to run out of little ones and zeros. Hard clip, not cool, not graceful. But now we are talking about creating music in the studio. It is amazing to see a pair of Studer 24 track machines locked together, one chasing the other.
Why aren't R-R machines generally available today? They are expensive to produce, real expensive to maintain if you can get the parts. Believe me, I know since I service them. Calibration tapes are a consumable, difficult to get and real expensive (they always were, I used MRL). Seen the price of a pinch roller? Reel motor? Heads or lapping for same?
People will pay all kinds of money for things, whether stupid or not. So claiming people will pay whatever it is for a tape or tape machine doesn't prove anything more than supply and demand. It's that simple. I had a Tascam BR20, sold it because I didn't use it as much and the cost of even 1/4" blank tape is now over $100 for a pancake. You know what that is don't you?
I was trained on, designed and built everything from tube gear back in the day to modern, current equipment. I restore and improve older equipment of all types. Since this is my vocation and has been for over 50 years, I picked up some knowledge along the way. Realise one thing. I am not selling anything. I have no irons in this fire. I'm just telling you factual things. That's it, I don't even have an ego to protect here.
What this is, is practical, empirical observations. No simulations, just real measurements - and listening tests. All I said was that they agree, period. Got a problem with that? Apparently people without access to the equipment and without experience do. Now, think about that for a minute. Hmmmm.
I've done it. You can get tube warmth, tape head saturation compression and reverb all in one box; sort like a tube echoplex - as long as the song ends before the tape runs out. That was maybe 40 years ago.
@anatech : too bad... You continue to loose yourself in condescension.
Plus you are tacitly taking us as ignorants, not ot say... Idiots.
Thank you : I know how to use a VOM, VTVM, DMM, Oscilloscope, Sound Level Meter, Spectrum Analyser, and interpret most of the measurements they provide. However, I never take these informations for granted as representing the truth, in the sense as they are always questionable.
"Le doute est la première condition du savoir" - Averroès, 1126-1198, Mathématicien, Médecin et Philosophe.
By hiding yourself behind your meters and screens to strike us with a Truth that is not one, you are definetly missing what others already understood for years, and possibly for centuries.
You are not credible - at least to me - with you arguments.
You won't convince much people with such an attitude, nor such a standpoint.
Bluntly said, it simply denotes a glaring lack of understanding of what the fundamentals of science are.
It seems necessary to take a step back at this point - just like any good scientist or engineer do.
I think it's not worth discussing this further : it's closed - at least for me.
T
Plus you are tacitly taking us as ignorants, not ot say... Idiots.
Thank you : I know how to use a VOM, VTVM, DMM, Oscilloscope, Sound Level Meter, Spectrum Analyser, and interpret most of the measurements they provide. However, I never take these informations for granted as representing the truth, in the sense as they are always questionable.
"Le doute est la première condition du savoir" - Averroès, 1126-1198, Mathématicien, Médecin et Philosophe.
By hiding yourself behind your meters and screens to strike us with a Truth that is not one, you are definetly missing what others already understood for years, and possibly for centuries.
You are not credible - at least to me - with you arguments.
You won't convince much people with such an attitude, nor such a standpoint.
Bluntly said, it simply denotes a glaring lack of understanding of what the fundamentals of science are.
It seems necessary to take a step back at this point - just like any good scientist or engineer do.
I think it's not worth discussing this further : it's closed - at least for me.
T
Last edited:
tubelectron: yes, not credible and more importantly, not coherent. There is no ability to speak to the issue and address the active line of thought. What predominates instead is competition: "I am right because I know more than you."
Hi tubelectron,
Well, I'm not trying to be condescending at all. I am tired of people dragging in all kinds of arguments that don't address the question because they don't like what they hear.
If you have the instruments, perhaps they aren't good enough. Test equipment is useless if you can't trust the results. The questions lay in the test setup if not done to industry standards. Or the ability to interpret the results. So if you don't trust what the instruments are telling you and they are of good enough quality, either you don't believe the truth and you're fighting tightly held preconceptions. Or the equipment isn't actually good enough and you can't see everything you need to see.
As I said, I have no horse in this race. I'm not selling product, services or anything else. I'm not an audio personality ... so maybe, just maybe I'm simply telling you the truth.
Well, I'm not trying to be condescending at all. I am tired of people dragging in all kinds of arguments that don't address the question because they don't like what they hear.
If you have the instruments, perhaps they aren't good enough. Test equipment is useless if you can't trust the results. The questions lay in the test setup if not done to industry standards. Or the ability to interpret the results. So if you don't trust what the instruments are telling you and they are of good enough quality, either you don't believe the truth and you're fighting tightly held preconceptions. Or the equipment isn't actually good enough and you can't see everything you need to see.
As I said, I have no horse in this race. I'm not selling product, services or anything else. I'm not an audio personality ... so maybe, just maybe I'm simply telling you the truth.
If we speak about antique gear - for the better of for the worse - I very like the 75's Marantz look... Here's what I have :
Except for torough cleaning and setup, all of them are in their specs... Amazing for items dating from 1975 ! They have a sound of their own, which has nothing much to envy to modern equipment of the same range of price.
T
Except for torough cleaning and setup, all of them are in their specs... Amazing for items dating from 1975 ! They have a sound of their own, which has nothing much to envy to modern equipment of the same range of price.
T
Yes, people say that one can find anything on the internet, true 🙂
The UK government tells me not to trust the internet too.
But they also publish all English and UK laws and statue on the internet, and for electronics I also find the datasheets on the internet too - so I think it's really just a communications medium, not a source, so trusting or not trusting it isn't really a 'thing'. 😀
My sources in this discussion of TIM have been real people, Nelson, Lynn, Dan, Bob, Herge etc.. and my own experience and listening, and that of the comments of what appear to be real people listening to the DarTZeel clones. Real people.
The reviews of the real DarTZeels - yes, they could be biased, sure. But they are consistent with all the people I've mentioned, so I think on balance, the data consistently points to it sounding very very good indeed.
And also i can find many objective reasons why it should sound very very good 🙂
So I think my viewpoint about TIM, stability, short feedback paths and excellent sound has merit.
As for the moon, well I can see you are an Apollo mission believer. It's good to be able to believe in stuff, I've never been able to do that. Personally I think up to (and including) Apollo 7, all reporting was correct.
But have you not noticed the big anomaly in the photos? The logical impossibility in most of them? Big, bold and right there:
Look at the photos of the big rocks, Shadow Rock, Tracy's Rock, etc.
It didn't fall recently - there are no marks: the dust must have arrived after it landed there. Ok?
So why is the top surface, not also covered in dust? How can they be weathered clean, in a vacuum? 😀.
Something very odd with those photos, doesn't mean the fantastic story is bunk - but those photos are 😀
Coming back to this Pioneer SX838 type fix for the 2SC1451 driver transistors that go noisy, and then worse - I casually mentioned replacing mine with one or two 2N5551 NPNs as I have some from my Maplin MOSFET amp mods, and they are cheap and plentiful, about 20p each (delivered) here in the UK.
So I thought I'd compare the specs (see attached): and I'm satisfied that the 2N5551 will be a good choice.
Ic(max) is also 12x bigger, the 2SC1451 is only 50mA !! (600mA for the 2N5551).
I'm not sure how much dissipation it may need, the 2N5551 is 630mW vs 700mW, so I found a 'cool' way to make a cheap TO92 heatsink (think I'll bend the eye over too, to stop it being able to slip down), so I'll try replacing my SX838 drivers first, as that was occasionally slipping into protection the last time it was used - and see what it does.
Anyway, just thought I'd say I'm pioneering the 2N5551 as a fix for this receiver 😀
Attachments
Nice, I have a couple of those. I used to sell them new.
They can be improved without cutting traces. I do it often enough. Yes, they have their own sound. My favorite is the 2325, I have one and had two previously.
The four channel units are murder to work on. Their amplifiers are also not as good as the two channel models.
They can be improved without cutting traces. I do it often enough. Yes, they have their own sound. My favorite is the 2325, I have one and had two previously.
The four channel units are murder to work on. Their amplifiers are also not as good as the two channel models.