SY said:
Eduardo de Lima of Audiopax. I interviewed him for AudioXpress. We attended his presentation at ETF 2007.
Jan Didden
It is a great mistake to think that SE amps sound better because of high level of 2'nd harmonic on high power.
The secret is, low level of all harmonics on low power, and the lower is the power, the narrower is their specter. High level of distortions on high power is a trade-off for reproduction of fine details, intermodulations on peaks don't sound good and can't be preferred, but they are forgivable because of dynamics of distortions that mimic the real world.
The secret is, low level of all harmonics on low power, and the lower is the power, the narrower is their specter. High level of distortions on high power is a trade-off for reproduction of fine details, intermodulations on peaks don't sound good and can't be preferred, but they are forgivable because of dynamics of distortions that mimic the real world.
I know people who were enthusiastic about Flutterman, but not the people I know these days. I mean: Richard Heyser and I were enthusiastic owners of k-horns in the '60's, yet we grew away from them.
It is best to have a consistent set of listening opinions, if possible.
It is best to have a consistent set of listening opinions, if possible.
bear said:Well, this is going to make all of the professional musicians that I know cry out loud when I tell them that they could have perfect pitch if they only applied themselves and learned it properly.
I guess we should tell all the graduates of Julliard, Berklee and the great Conservatories of Europe about this too...
We're not talking about just recognizing that a note is for example an "E" or an "A" or even an "Ab"... we're talking about that and being able to tell if it is a few cents north or south of the mark... without a prior reference note. That is perfect pitch.
Thanks...
_-_-bear
common theme throughout this thread.
some want to learn, others just mock those who know.
I'm still curious about the contextual issue of being born with absolute pitch where the prevalent tuning is say 438 rather than 440. Historically the "correct" tuning has varied a lot, I frankly wouldn't notice a difference unless someone put together a delberate demo.
scott wurcer said:
The chamber (concert) A is now defined to be 440 Hz, but it has varied from 380 to 480 Hz and even today some countries use 442Hz and 435Hz, so that absolute pitch in one country must be a nightmare in another.
I mean people can increase their IQ and the brain is globally linked. I don't think there are really any rules. And nobody's "perfect" ... pitch or otherwise.
I've always had some people telling me, You can't do this, or you can't do that. I was in remedial everything in elementary school, and a junior high teacher told my parents I'd never score higher than a C. My freshman year of high school I was an A-B student. I had a terrible time with writing my senior year of high school ... failed three straight quarters of english. I just didn't know how to express myself on paper. I persisted and I was scored an A in technical writing in college and started getting all A's on my papers.
So, I don't know about "perfect pitch" not being something you can learn. But, there will always be people that are particularly good at it, for whatever reason, I think. Just my rambling thoughts on the subject.
I've always had some people telling me, You can't do this, or you can't do that. I was in remedial everything in elementary school, and a junior high teacher told my parents I'd never score higher than a C. My freshman year of high school I was an A-B student. I had a terrible time with writing my senior year of high school ... failed three straight quarters of english. I just didn't know how to express myself on paper. I persisted and I was scored an A in technical writing in college and started getting all A's on my papers.
So, I don't know about "perfect pitch" not being something you can learn. But, there will always be people that are particularly good at it, for whatever reason, I think. Just my rambling thoughts on the subject.
stinius said:
I think Michael Keaton's line in "Mr. Mom" says it best...
"Jack Butler: You wanna beer?
Ron Richardson: It's 7 o'clock in the morning.
Jack Butler: Scotch?
Ron Richardson: Yeah? Are you gonna make it all 220?
Jack Butler:Yeah. 220... 221, whatever it takes."
It's also the high level of 2nd at low power, and lots of third, too, at all levels. Much like the effect of an Aphex. A high source impedance helps whomp up the bass on most speakers, too.
SY said:
It depend on which amp, and what to call "high". No doubt some amps to match some speaker wires are what you describe.
As this is still the BLOWTORCH thread, I would like to point out a few things.
This is not a good thread to learn how to make things as cheap as possible. It is also not a good thread for demanding measurements that make sense on why we choose each and every component, both active and passive. It just isn't here, and I will give you a hint: It doesn't exist yet, up to this time.
However, if you want to see how some relatively successful designs more-or-less work, and how and why they are constructed the way they were, this thread is for you.
Some come here to lift a schematic and leave disappointed. Others come to harass the 'believers', as is their want on many places on the internet.
Why anyone wants to argue about these things, amazes me. When I don't need first class performance, I go to Radio Shack, as I did today. and buy what's there. I got a amplified stereo speaker for $22. Such a deal. That is about 20 minutes work, on something that I am expert at. Why should I bother to spend hours building its equivalent? It is just for TV sound, late night, when the lady in the next apartment bangs on the wall. I can hear every word, but it would not be my first recommendation for a concert.
'Horses for Courses', engineers, please don't try to convince me that what I bought today can stand up to my $5000 WATT's parked next to it, or even my $1500 Sequerras nearby. But it will do.
This is not a good thread to learn how to make things as cheap as possible. It is also not a good thread for demanding measurements that make sense on why we choose each and every component, both active and passive. It just isn't here, and I will give you a hint: It doesn't exist yet, up to this time.
However, if you want to see how some relatively successful designs more-or-less work, and how and why they are constructed the way they were, this thread is for you.
Some come here to lift a schematic and leave disappointed. Others come to harass the 'believers', as is their want on many places on the internet.
Why anyone wants to argue about these things, amazes me. When I don't need first class performance, I go to Radio Shack, as I did today. and buy what's there. I got a amplified stereo speaker for $22. Such a deal. That is about 20 minutes work, on something that I am expert at. Why should I bother to spend hours building its equivalent? It is just for TV sound, late night, when the lady in the next apartment bangs on the wall. I can hear every word, but it would not be my first recommendation for a concert.
'Horses for Courses', engineers, please don't try to convince me that what I bought today can stand up to my $5000 WATT's parked next to it, or even my $1500 Sequerras nearby. But it will do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.