Is that a musician's name for the BJT exponential response? The avalanche effect is quite different and is used in some 'zener' diodes.gfergy said:
No. Tubes distort (just like SS) by creating harmonics, not amplifying them more. Both tubes and SS naturally generate more second than third etc., but the exact balance is different and in both cases is strongly affected by the circuit details.
I think you need to do a lot more research before writing your book, unless you plan to propagate myths.
Don't be so sure. Often I see people comment about what they think they heard. I've already brought that up here.
http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/mil/ads/6LQ6.pdf
it has high resistance (5k) in triode.. ?
They were used as output tubes in the Mc3500 mono's and at that time i felt the sonics was superior to other amplifiers running KT 88's , it had way less tooob sound for sure, had to admit they lasted less, nothing like buying 16 output tubes .... 🙄
Mac must have thought highly of them to stick them in their reference amp...
That's been the findings of myself and others here (George a.k.a. Tube Lab) concerning the sonics of TV HD finals used as audio finals. The distortion performance is excellent, even when running open loop: none of that "pentode nastiness" unless you turn 'em up almost to the clipping point. 6BQ6s are good for ~40W per PP pair. 6AV5s, a little less, but you can lose the top cap connection. Good for ~30W if you run 'em on the conservative side. I have a 6BQ6GA design that could put out 37W, but the OPT is a Stancor (4K4 (P-2-P) with tertiary windings for Ultralinear, and 4/8/16/32/125/500R secondary taps) that was intended for use with Class A 6L6s, thus the Ultralinear tertiaries. I thought it might be a PA OPT, but it turned out not to be with -3.0db freqs of 20Hz and 50KHz. Works good as a 30W amp. Run conservatively, one pair of finals has been going strong now for five years.
The 6LQ6 is good for quite a bit more (I have a few samples, but they've been run pretty hard) and the 6LW6 is a total beast, and probably the biggest color TV HD, and the last generation of Octal HDs before the advent of the nine and twelve pin types. Hard to find the 6LW6 iteration, as a lot of these made their way into legal and illegal RF power amps. Got some 36LW6s, though, and an idea to put them to use: a real speaker-poofer.
What they heard and what they think they heard is the one and the same - it's the end message inside the brain that counts. It's been mentioned many times that what you "hear" can change radically merely by changing one's inner focus - as a parallel example, if looking at a 'beautiful' girl, and then deliberately noticing and obsessing on every slight "defect" in her appearance, she will end up appearing quite repulsive to you ...!
So, what to do about reproduced audio then? Well, I've found that making the quality match how 'natural' sound comes across works best for satisfying my "inner hearing" ...
No, the type. Think wrapping a towel around your ears vs. dragging a nail across a saucepan ...
And yet sometimes we audition something more expensive, or build something we expect to sound good and it doesn't, so obviously cost, pride or intent do not always override our ears...
Soem people seem very quick to dismiss what people hear as obviously just a psychological effect that cannot be backed up by any evidence...
Soem people seem very quick to dismiss what people hear as obviously just a psychological effect that cannot be backed up by any evidence...
(in reply to Chris: you are in fact precisely agreeing with DF96's statement that you are looking for an effects box.)
Now now, gentlemen, think a little about motivation here. Building an amp with the motivation of creating a "Yes, that sounds real" moment is NOT the same as the motivation to "look for an effects box". You can argue about the results as much as you like, but you must acknowledge the sincerity of the motivation. Also this should NOT be confused with hedonic motivation to have nicely glowing tubes, retro styling or whatever. You can use the terms Primary Motivation and Secondary Motivation if you like - glowing tubes etc. are Secondary if the desire to create a "Yes, that sounds real" moment is the Primary motivator.
While referring to psychology here I'd also suggest that the term "effects box" is being wrongly used in the case above. In psychiatry conditions are judged to be categories (e.g.bipolar or not). In psychology they are usually scales, so depression would be measured e.g. on a Beck scale between zero and 50. Everybody would be somewhere on the scale. I see amplifiers as being on a similar scale. NONE are identical to the original sound, therefore they are ALL on a scale of "effects-ness" somewhere, however small the distortions.
You might argue that there is a threshold where an amplifier falls into the category of "effects box" but where exactly would you place the threshold? There is no existing definition of this to my knowledge. So I really don't see the value of the expression where the intention is fidelity to the original, in particular where it is used in a pejorative sense. I can see that it's a convenient expression for some, but that's about all. The exception to this is stage amps where the MOTIVATION is to create effects so it makes more sense in that context to refer to them as effects boxes.
Motivation, gentlemen, motivation. Not the same as results.
Last edited:
That's what you say, not I. Of course I'm not against more pleasing, I have a system like that in the living room for background music and the TV, . And I don't pretend that system is accurate. That is not what I said - You are putting words in my mouth.
If I wanted an "effects box" I'd go down to Guitar Center and buy some effects pedals, or borrow an Aphex unit from work. I haven't done either.
Hello Sy. What exactly do you mean by this? You've referred to DBT tests where one amplifier cannot be distinguished from another. That's comparing two outputs. But what are you calling the input here? Live instruments? You appear to be referring to something "audible" in the sense of a listening experience? So does this mean "listening to the input and listening to the output"?
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. 😕
It seems we are not. But I've read the page you're on. I'm further along in the book, now. 😉
Speaking of which, I still haven seen your reply to fidelity level of amps posted [/QUOTE]
I don't know which amps you are asking about. Got any names or makes? Maybe I've heard them.
While I’m on the subject of motivation, I’d say there’s another way of looking at “fidelity to the original sound”. As humans we don’t process the entirety of the original sound because we simply don’t have the processing power to do so. We only process, using our 126 bits per second brains (cf. Miller, more accurate figure welcomed) a partial version.
This may explain the process by which we seek to reproduce NOT the entirety of the original sound but our selective PERCEPTION of it. So say, for instance, that the listener is acutely tuned in to timbre. If the timbre is perceived as just that little bit more realistic in the reproduced version the listener may believe it’s closer to the original (selective) listening experience. The same for vocals – a listener acutely tuned in to vocals may find what they are seeking in an amplifier which gives the impression of greater fidelity to vocal quality. The motivation in each case is realism to the original and fallible listening experience.
And listeners all select information in different ways depending on what they filter in and what they filter out, which goes some way to explaining what amplifier and system choices they make. I have a friend who prioritises dynamics. His system is extremely dynamic but to me unlistenable because I rate the timbre as poor. My own system is weaker in dynamics and stronger in timbre. He would call it bland. In our different ways we have both carefully constructed systems which to our ears are faithful to the essential qualities we are tuned in to. Neither system is perfectly accurate, but frankly what system is? And our ears are very far from accurate anyway, so our perceptions will always vary.
One of the points here is that as builders many of us are motivated to recreate our own concepts of realism, not “a euphonic sound” as has been so often suggested as the motivation.
I wouldn't be so sure, or sure that the 2nd law applies here.
But ultimately it doesn't matter. Ultimately it does not matter one bit to me if an amp turns the signal upside down, paints its **** blue, buys it cotton candy and takes it for a stroll on the Coney Island Boardwalk - as long as what comes out of the speakers sounds consistently, and across a wide number of recordings, like the real thing. That's High-Fidelity - it sounds like the real thing. That the signal remains unmolested or altered is ultimately of no importance to me, because I can't hear the electrical signal. All I can hear is the result, the sound.
I understand the pedantic definition of Hi-Fi and was married to it myself at one point, but it's just a reference, a choice, a preference, a very good starting point. I also understand that it is an easy to grasp definition of Hi-Fi and the only definition that some will ever admit. That does not effect me. My goal is for the final result to sound accurate, because it's the only the sound that I can listen to.
Yes, it does. Once you've corrupted the signal, you can't uncorrupt it.
You're back to saying, "If an effects box pleases me, I'll build an effects box." Which is fine, but it's not "high fidelity" by definition. It's "better sounding to me because of the signal processing."
Boxes of gain have electrical inputs and electrical outputs. Those signals can be compared by instrument, by ear, or by any other means you can think of (e.g., comparison to a reference).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.