|
|
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Read the whole article at http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!" === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
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. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article , Andy Evans
wrote: Read the whole article at http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html If I get a chance I'll have a look. :-) excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!" If they mean "into a loudspeaker load with an impedance between 4 and 8 Ohms" when considering domestic audio power amps, then I suspect you could match this with: "try to find a *valve* circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion and no feedback.!" 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 |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
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 |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"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. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
|
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"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 |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
* 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. Amen, brother. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk