Hi scott, let it fade away, not worth pursuing
My answer was really about the Technical aspect, nothing personal, and feel sorry that my feeling pissed off at that moment made me write an answer in a tone which might be read like more than what I actually meant.
And really I recognized the poster´s Technical knowledge; if anything I felt more than surprised by a Technical discrepance which I didn´t expect there.
Peace.
As of speaker cables, still think only relevant parameters are measurable resistance, inductance, and, if overtwisted or knit more complex than Grandma´s Irish sweaters : capacitance, which *usually* is not a problem, but may become so if done on purpose.
As of my original answer, I´d erase it myself if we weren´t beyond the allowed "time window".
No reason to erase yourself, just the BS needs erasing. But there are powers that be that are invested in it so it perpetuates.
No 0.1% has not been quantified. It is an illustrative number. It is probably high. But it is sufficient to illustrate that way fewer systems need to consider the consequences of flattish impedance (speaker), high output impedance (amp). Or systems where frequency response, high output impedance and rises in impedance can extend frequency extremes. That latter is way bigger than the straight current amp applications and is very much applicable to SETs & some full-rang espeakers.
dave
Hi Dave,
Why is it that you take a special case, an exception to the rule (a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage) to argue against the norm? Everyone here is coming from a well understood and well defined standpoint. Even when caught with "facts" (like Nelson's paper) that do not actually support your view you continue to argue things to the death.
I understand that you have business interests that depend on your viewpoint, but you don't have to attempt to prove the world wrong, or impugn the reputation of other members (myself included). All you have to do is come out and tell people honestly that your speaker designs operate differently than most speaker systems do. I think that is obvious by the cabinet design.
You aren't in a fight for your life. You are just fighting for market share, and that you can do nicely.
-Chris
Why is it that you take a special case, an exception to the rule (a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage) to argue against the norm? Everyone here is coming from a well understood and well defined standpoint. Even when caught with "facts" (like Nelson's paper) that do not actually support your view you continue to argue things to the death.
I understand that you have business interests that depend on your viewpoint, but you don't have to attempt to prove the world wrong, or impugn the reputation of other members (myself included). All you have to do is come out and tell people honestly that your speaker designs operate differently than most speaker systems do. I think that is obvious by the cabinet design.
You aren't in a fight for your life. You are just fighting for market share, and that you can do nicely.
-Chris
Ok, will do.Hi scott, let it fade away, not worth pursuing
I know there is no point arguing with Dave, he can't help himself but has to say things like "you're lost" to me. I will still ask questions when I suspect FUD.
Because i have been told this small subset of the hifi world does not exist at all and is not worth considering.
From the start i said that over here on the FR forum a larger number of systems fall into that small subset. And the 1 post the OP has made since the start was more or less to confirm that he thinks his system could fall into this small subset, he has added skinny wire to his list of things to try.
Business interests have zero to do with it. I am cheering for diyers to push the limits and explore the boundaries instead of just sitting where it is comfortable. It is clear that many are not comfortable out on the fringes.
It is not my fault if i have pointed out a hole in your understanding of how some real hifis work. And what about me? You would have other members thinking that this subject should not even exist.
Just the one example of those members that love their SETs, who should be very aware of how this tiny part of the hifi world works, and that will hopefully allow them to get the most out of their hifis.
dave
Hi Dave,
I'm way more familiar with SET design. This is the way cheap table top radios and cheap TVs were designed. Higher end radios and TVs got real push-pull amplifiers. This held true even into the transistor age, but finally everything pretty much has gone to the push-pull method simply because of lower energy requirements and higher sound quality. I've been working on that technology as it was designed and constructed from the 1920's on up to current product. You only know of the recent past. The origins of the technology are completely lost on you. Nelson Pass's efforts are interesting, and he manages to get lower distortion from his products. You aren't Nelson Pass (in case you haven't noticed).
So why not try advancing your ideas without attacking people personally, and by stating all factual information without the bending and twisting you typically do? Calm down, treat others with respect. You will be treated with respect in return and you won't feel like everyone is attacking you. Of course that means calling a truce and standing down.
-Chris
That's no reason for you to be on the attack in every direction
Given that you like to mis-state things as a fact, I'll take the liberty of quoting that entire post. Show me where what you said is true.
See, no where does it state what you are claiming. BS meters are going off in every direction when you post in this thread so far.
I'm going to cry BS again Dave. This is your very narrow scope of business and only an idiot would work against their own best interests. My only issue is that you are perfectly willing to trample over everyone else's comments in pushing your own view of things.
That is pretty insulting. Actually, I know how real Hi Fi's work. You really don't simply because you are operating on a sliver of reality that constitutes a tiny percentage of what is out there in the real world. You have said as much before. You also make a habit of attacking people's credibility which is getting tiresome and boring.
More BS from the master. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe those systems exist, and if people want to play with them - great! However, you make it into one loud self-interest group. What you have been doing is pushing what works for those systems that are your area of commerce all over everyone else's. You are on hell of a squeaky wheel Dave, but that's all. Just a noisy pin point of the audio world.
No, not just an example. You are whipping up a zealous war against every system that isn't your type.
I'm way more familiar with SET design. This is the way cheap table top radios and cheap TVs were designed. Higher end radios and TVs got real push-pull amplifiers. This held true even into the transistor age, but finally everything pretty much has gone to the push-pull method simply because of lower energy requirements and higher sound quality. I've been working on that technology as it was designed and constructed from the 1920's on up to current product. You only know of the recent past. The origins of the technology are completely lost on you. Nelson Pass's efforts are interesting, and he manages to get lower distortion from his products. You aren't Nelson Pass (in case you haven't noticed).
So why not try advancing your ideas without attacking people personally, and by stating all factual information without the bending and twisting you typically do? Calm down, treat others with respect. You will be treated with respect in return and you won't feel like everyone is attacking you. Of course that means calling a truce and standing down.
-Chris
I only respond in kind. I made a simple suggestion that the OP might try skinny wire and see if he liked it in HIS system (which he is going to do) and then i was clearly told that my suggestion could not possibly work.
Even when presented with real-world examples of systems that prove that such systems exist, it seems they don’t count. (in the mathematical world i was trained in, it is often the case that a single counter-example is sufficient to sink a theory. Einstien pushed past Newton with such findings, and we are starting to see stuff that promises to push past Einstein. Now hif is not hi-end theoretical physics but the same rule applies.
People have systems that fall into this tiny subset and they need to know how to get the most out of them. There is still a lot of research to be done to fgure out what works and what does not, i am encouraging that research, you are saying, forget it, it has all been done before. And that is true. And many people are diggin gout that work done by the ancients before us and explore what has been buried by a general rush to lower cost.
Myopic. I am only pointing out that this small subset is real and has different rules fro the mainstream world. While my business does include some of the speakers that fall in this subset. Ny commercail interests have always been because as i have explored this hobby, others have wanted to pay me for my work — of which i have done very little since being forced into semi-retirement by my near-death experience. Exploring enjoyable hifi (and helping others explore) is my goal.
At least now you are admitting these systems now exist (the guy who just finished building his 300B SET will be happy to know he exists now). Why are they not real hifi? The purpose of a hifi is to bring the listener an emotional connection to the art of the music, nothing more,nothing less.
As per rules i have only argued the existance of this part of hifi and that different rules apply. If that is an attack your credibility, then perhaps, when talking about that small segment of reality you do lack credibility. You have dissed approaches that people have found useful in making their hifis more enjoyable.
That is all in your head. I am only saying that such systems exist and they are worthy of exploring (i seem to be repeating myself here). Over and over again i have repeated that this is a vanishinly small part (but real) of the hifi world, and have clearly stated that you are 100% right when when excludes this small subset.
While that is true (because there are less parts they cost less), it ignores things like 45/2A3/200B/211/805 etc SETs that their builders really love, and are not cheap amps. I have heard the beauty that a wellbuilt one, used to drive appropriate speakers can bring.
Here I suggest that lower cost for more power, lower measured distortion meant more could be sold. The argument that this drive for lower cost also meant higher quality rings empty.
And how do you know that (that BTW attacks the member not the idea)? At least on things within my area of study you would be wrong. My knowledge of tue amps for instance is way greater then how SS works, from studying the work of the ancients.
But i do have 2 of his amps. I know genius when i see it.
I have argued the technical points (or certainly have tried to stay there). It seems that because these technical points contradict your work view that is an attack on you? You are good at what you do, but you seem lost on this particular subject. It can be made to work, and work well, and is well worth exploring (and many of diyAudio are doing just that). You can ignore them, i try to help them.
dave
Time for me to quit this ridiculoaus back & forth.
I apologize to the members for this on-going back & forth. I believe i have made my point for those with an open mind and for those already (or thinking of) exploring this growing subset of the hifi world. For those with more mainstream stystems i suggest that you pay attention to the advise aimed at those systems (the Pass paper is solid with no emotion in it).
dave
I apologize to the members for this on-going back & forth. I believe i have made my point for those with an open mind and for those already (or thinking of) exploring this growing subset of the hifi world. For those with more mainstream stystems i suggest that you pay attention to the advise aimed at those systems (the Pass paper is solid with no emotion in it).
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.