Excerpt - Lynn Olsen

This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how traditional
measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier design. The lower
harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper harmonics, yet they
dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is steering the designer, the
reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away from good sound.

It’s the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely different
place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream engineers,
mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers — but the key to good sound sure
isn’t where the audio industry has been looking.

If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? The differences between mass-fi and
true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener.

We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and
better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident.
After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a
Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70
received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable,
and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early
Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.

There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better, since all
kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the horizon, and there are
major advances in computer modelling techniques every year. Synthetic diamond
cones, anyone?

It’s time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all and
discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that people are
actually hearing. Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than
hinder, it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message

Excerpt - Lynn Olsen

This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how
traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier
design. The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the
upper harmonics, yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The
meter is steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the
consumer away from good sound.

Again, so far, so good.

It's the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely
different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream
engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers - but the key to
good sound sure isn't where the audio industry has been looking.

If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with
65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today's
digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? The
differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as
day to an (open-minded) listener.

Absolute bunkum.

We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better
and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and
more evident. After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300
transistor amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the
modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with
modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps
sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties
(Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
realistic with today's more efficient, and much more transparent,
speakers.

Absolute bunkum.

There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better,
since all kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the
horizon, and there are major advances in computer modelling
techniques every year. Synthetic diamond cones, anyone?

True, although there's no evidence that diamond cones would provide audible
advantages.

It's time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for
all and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier
distortion that people are actually hearing.


Via DBTs we know that most "amplifier distortion" exists only in people's
heads.

Once we find
measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder, it'll be
easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener

Electronics aren't the problem - speakers and microphones are. We don't even
know what an ideal speaker and microphone should do, let alone make one.

In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
Excerpt - Lynn Olsen

This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how
traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier
design.

This may be the case for both transistor and valve based amplifiers.
Depends upon the care with which measurements are made, how well they are
interpreted, and how relevant they may be to actual use with music.


The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper
harmonics,

The above statement makes various unspecified assumptions about the kind of
musical signal patterns being used, the other equipment, and the hearing of
the individual listener. Also about the actual levels of distortion, etc,
etc.

yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is
steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away
from good sound.

That may be the case if the measurement fails to be appropriate and the
person reading the resulting values does not assess their relevance.
However if the distortion *is* low even with musical signals, then this
should not be a factor unless someone *likes* distortion. :-)

It's the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely
different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream
engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers - but the key to good
sound sure isn't where the audio industry has been looking.

I am not personally surprised if someone says that many reviews in
magazines are of doubtful value. However I'd tend to apply this to many
'reviews' which go no measured results at all, just as I would to those
which do, but fail to ensure they are relevant.

If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with
65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today's
digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?

Good question. :-) I'm not sure everyone here would offer the same
answer, though. One possibility is that people may sometimes actually
prefer a sound which is distorted or altered in some ways, whereas other
may not like such changes.


Another possibility is that such 'mass-fi' might use lousy
speakers, etc. No doubt there are other possibilities... :-)

The differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as
day to an (open-minded) listener.

Maybe I am not as open-minded as I thought. My experience is that this
varys from case to case and I would be reluctant to make such a general
statement as if it were invariably correct.

We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better
and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more
evident.

Not sure who "we" are here... :-) FWIW I use electrostatic speakers, but
prefer a transistor amp. So far as I am concerned this does not 'prove'
anything much beyond being what I prefer. ;-

After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor
amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced
Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the
DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The
entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna
SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and realistic with today's more
efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.

The above seems to assume I am American or have lived there. Since this is
not so for me, and I have no real personal experience of the amps quoted I
can't comment.

It's time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all

This may require evidence, though, as opposed to simple assertion. ;-

and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that
people are actually hearing.

Indeed.

Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder,
it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener

Hard to argue against that as a generalisation. May well lead to better
units of all types.

TBH I'm not quite sure why the above is meant to be a serious argument for
valve amps being 'better' than transistor ones. Seems to simply be saying
that any measurements need to be relevant and correctly understood. Beyond
that, it just seems to be some personal assertions. Have I missed
something?

FWIW I have no argument with, for example, proposals that simple THD is of
limited value in many cases. Just did a webpage on that. :-) Indeed, it
throws a nice light on 'valve' topologies and gives an argument that could
be said to be in their favour... :-)

Also curious that this posting and a previous one seem to focus on one form
of 'distortion' and ignore other factors - e.g. the relatively high output
impedance of many valve amps compared with typical transistor ones.

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

On 22 Jul 2003 13:05:13 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Excerpt - Lynn Olsen

snip

If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?

Two points he

* this is a highly subjective statement ("sound much better" is
entirely in the perception of the listener - some may agree with this,
others disagree)

* the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
inadequacies of the former.

The differences between mass-fi and
true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener.

We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and
better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident.
After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a
Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70
received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable,
and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early
Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.

Given that the components referred to above are US in origin, and US
"mass-fi" equipment has been historically a very poor cousin of UK
equivalents, I'm not sure how valid this comparison is.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jul 2003 13:05:13 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

snip snip

* the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
inadequacies of the former.
Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

Don't know about all the valve stuff I'm afraid. Don't understand the
technical bits and never had the opportunity to listen. But if nothing else
it's made me think that there might be something in it after all given the
'passion' here ;-)

Rob

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters. Unfortunately a lot of CDs use those original cutting master
tapes, and they reveal this compression well. This is not the fault of
CD, it is caused by poor quality source material.

Some of the vinyl enthusiasts on this group will tell you that vinyl
sounds just fine even after it has been digitally recorded. This
suggests several things, (1) CD/digital can record source material
sufficiently well to be almost completely transparent; (2) to repeat (1)
in a different way - the act of recording the vinyl onto CD doesn't
remove the so-called "warmth"; and (3) the "warmth" that people refer to
is a characteristic of vinyl, caused mostly by distortion, compression
and other imperfections.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Stephen

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I
think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well
as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles
stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered
Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the
record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got
something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original
recorded masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response
of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback
system.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding",
you're talking out the back of your neck.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I
think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well
as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles
stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered
Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the
record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got
something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original
recorded masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response
of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback
system.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding",
you're talking out the back of your neck.

What an odd thing to say. The standard for "good sounding" is the
opinion of RJH. Too bad about the American Hendrix pressings or I'd have
an opinion, too.

Stephen

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of
LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least
90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium.

Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist
intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the
"master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will
have been done during the production of that master. From that point
forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that
master tape as closely as possible.

It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience,
and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that
this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being
"complimentary" to anything. Digital's natural frequency response, when
properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It
will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so,
as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music
intended to be listened to by serious musophiles.

EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various
imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for
practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting
and playback processes. If you told the engineer this silly
"complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used
as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately
that was still a lot.

In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken',

It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the
resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be
seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s
which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music
more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the
first place. It's that simple.

as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
digital.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the
warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic
reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is
going onto your vinyl, baby.

To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and
do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a
position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP.


--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com