In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[snip]

] From: Iain M Churches Subject: DBT a flawed
] method for evaluating Hi-Fi ? Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:25
] Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
]
] I don't know what motivates people who listen to Stravinsky to buy
] SET amps. But the fact is that they do, as a matter of choice.

The second first sentence refers to "people" who fit the conditions
you specify. The second makes a statement as a "fact" about their
choice. Tje wording seems to me to indicate that you wish the
statements to be taken as a general indication which is reliable for
all those "people" referred to in your first sentence.

I simply make an observation, and wonder why it may be so.

That is OK given that we have clarified that your observation is based only
on a small grouping of individuals. This means it is a curious observation,
but we can't really draw any conclusions from it in isolation. The problem
is that the number of people involved is small, and may be subject to a
'selection' effect or sheer chance. Thus the 'reason' may simply be a mix
of 'chance' and some factor linked with happening to know someone like
yourself.


To be able to make such a statement, you would need to have reason to
show it was reliable for such a group. Yet your reply only refers to
your own "music circle" and "three" people.

Three from fifteen, makes 20%, a much greater percentage than I would
have expected. Three others have PP valve amps, so that makes 40% who
use something other than SS. I wonder why there should be such a high
percentage in a classical music group?

Given the small sample, and the possible selection factors, it is not
obvious that the reasons are more than 'chance' and a bias due to a
selection effect. I don't know figures, but I suspect that only a tiny
fraction of those who enjoy listening to music on domestic audio systems
use valve amps. In itself, all this would tell us is that most people are
quite happy listening without using such an amp.



On that basis your statement seems to simply say, "I know some people
who prefer SET amplifiers and who also listen to Stravinsky". That may
be so, but does it tell us anything applicable beyond that specific
set of a few individuals?

Your interpretation of what I say is correct. I still wonder why these
people choose SET. Any ideas?

WRT Stravinsky as a parameter, no. :-)

Otherwise, I have some "ideas" if you mean hypotheses that might be
relevant, yes. However I have no real reason to be convinced said
hypotheses *are* explanations, either entirely, or as factors. Too many
variables, too little in the way of reliable evidence. :-)



I'm not clear why the group you pick out should be of particular
significance. But since you make a statement about them, I'd be
interested to know the answer to my question.

I use the music group as an example, because they are people I know,
with audio systems with which I am acquainted. It may be that others in
this NG have no one in their immediate circle with an SET amp. This
gives 0% - also a figure that I accept. If this was so in my own case,
I could have written "I wonder why none of those who listen to
Stravinsky use SET"

Well, I listen to Stravinsky, but do not use SET. Never occured to me that
there might be any relationship at all TBH.

I am not really concerned with how many people listen to SET. But I *am*
interested to know why. Maybe an SS dominated group is not the right
place to ask the question:-))

My first concern would be to establish some evidence of statistical
significance before I looked for "reasons" for what might be chance or
selection. Otheriwise it may be a waste of mental effort to try and form a
more specific hypothesis.


It seems that SET performs especially well with small classical
ensembles.

I appreciate that this may be your opinion, and that of the specific
few people you know and were referring to. The problem is that your
wording seemed to be implying that this was something established as
being 'valid' on a more general basis. However the wording you now use
is quite "weak" in that it includes "It seems" instead of "fact". And
"especially well" is a value judgement/opinion of relative merit,
which might mean "does not sound as awful as SET used for some other
things" just as easily as it might mean "better than anything else".
:-)´

What is uyour personal opinion? Do you disagree that SET performs
especially well with small ensembles?

Can't really comment on the basis of personal experience as the only SET I
have used in 'living memory' was the transistor design I had a student
make.

However I can speculate (a la the "ideas") mentioned earlier.

May be that at low powers the limited available power becomes irrelevant,
so does not impede use.

May be that with small ensembles what low-order nonlinearity there is
produces low-order intermod and harmonics that colour the results in a way
that suits the nonlinear processes of human hearing

May be that the o/p high impedance interacts with many speakers to alter
the tonal balance and offset reponse factors elsewhere in the chain and
give a more pleasing result.

However the above are really 'plausible speculations' rather than firm
theories that could be well supported.



In this context, it seems odd that those producing the recordings do
not do so using, say, SET amps, *if* they feel this would give
'better' results.

I think, Jim, the explanation is simple. SET cannot produce the power
required for a large monitoring set up.

That is not, I think, a completely satisfying reason. I assume the aim in
the recording process is to get 'good' results. I would therefore suspect
that if those recording, etc, the music felt that SET sounded better they
would adopt a suitable SET based system - even if it meant a lower
monitoring level and/or high efficiency speakers. In effect, the question
would become "why monitor/balance using a high level when a lower level may
give 'better' results?" Particularly when most people at home may well be
listening at lower levels.

Above said, it strengthens my curiousity about what makes some people
prefer SET. If the factors could be identified and made sense, then it
seems reasonable to suspect that they could be applied using other types of
amp that can supply higher powers...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html