Konnichiwa,
Not quite, what I DID WRITE is that the excessive depth often found with high end gear is an artefact of the reproduction system. I like my soundstage realistic, meaning very wide and reasonably and evenly deep (but fairly shallow), instead of the narrow deep tunnel so often substituted by "High End" systems.
But I worry about soundstage only AFTER the tonality and low level detail (being able to tell how hard a cymbal is struck and which make it is for example) are sufficiently resolved.
Sayonara
protos said:
Not quite, what I DID WRITE is that the excessive depth often found with high end gear is an artefact of the reproduction system. I like my soundstage realistic, meaning very wide and reasonably and evenly deep (but fairly shallow), instead of the narrow deep tunnel so often substituted by "High End" systems.
But I worry about soundstage only AFTER the tonality and low level detail (being able to tell how hard a cymbal is struck and which make it is for example) are sufficiently resolved.
Sayonara
Re: Re: PSE
Konnichiwa,
Yes, take a PSE Amp and a dual trace 'scope on an isolation transformer.clip the scope to the output transformer Anode input with the valves anodes connected via a pair of 10 Ohm (current sense) resistors. Now observe the behaviour of both valves at varying frequencies, levels etc.
Apart from this, I mentioned it before, if the driver circuit is good enough I find PP subjectively better than PSE.
I had an Amp around for a while switchable (on the fly) between PSE & PP. This used RC coupling and 2 Amplifying stages with phasesplitting in the first stage. This Amplifier was semi-differential in the second stage (LTP with modest cathode resistor, not CCS), paraphase splitter in the first stage. With THAT amp PSE sounded better than SE.
Using an Amp with DRD Driver and/or IT driver the PP Amplifier sounded darn close to SE, with perhaps a slightly colder tone (maybe I need to dig out some Oil Cap's for the supplies?) than SE, but overall similar performance in all key areas.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Mike C said:
Yes, take a PSE Amp and a dual trace 'scope on an isolation transformer.clip the scope to the output transformer Anode input with the valves anodes connected via a pair of 10 Ohm (current sense) resistors. Now observe the behaviour of both valves at varying frequencies, levels etc.
Apart from this, I mentioned it before, if the driver circuit is good enough I find PP subjectively better than PSE.
I had an Amp around for a while switchable (on the fly) between PSE & PP. This used RC coupling and 2 Amplifying stages with phasesplitting in the first stage. This Amplifier was semi-differential in the second stage (LTP with modest cathode resistor, not CCS), paraphase splitter in the first stage. With THAT amp PSE sounded better than SE.
Using an Amp with DRD Driver and/or IT driver the PP Amplifier sounded darn close to SE, with perhaps a slightly colder tone (maybe I need to dig out some Oil Cap's for the supplies?) than SE, but overall similar performance in all key areas.
Sayonara
- Status
- Not open for further replies.