On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:07:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:44:55 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

All I can say is if
you haven't spent any time with a valve amp yourself, get a good
listen and
see if it does anything for you.

Been there, done that. Nice pleasant sound, even on ****e recordings,
hence not high fidelity. Also softens really great recordings, so
****e sound, basically.

Hmmm, how does that work - both a 'Nice pleasant sound' and '****e
sound'......???

(An interesting paradox born of extreme prejudice, methinks....)

Nope, just another example of you not reading somethijng right.....


Of course! Silly old me!

Wasn't utter ******** at all was it? Because while 'nice' and '****e'
usually appear the *opposite* ends of a given scale in any ordinary context,
in the case of "*high fidelity* sound" it would appear different (and
unique) rules apply as in:

"They are not mutually exclusive in terms of *high fidelity* sound......."

How's that - did I read that right yet????

He's got it, by George he's got it!

If your system makes *everything* sound 'nice', say if you use a
single-ended valve amp, then you may be sure that as an accurate
reproducer, it's ****e!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

If your system makes *everything* sound 'nice', say if you use a
single-ended valve amp, then you may be sure that as an accurate
reproducer, it's ****e!

I still think it was unintelligently worded.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

If your system makes *everything* sound 'nice', say if you use a
single-ended valve amp, then you may be sure that as an accurate
reproducer, it's ****e!

I still think it was unintelligently worded.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:07:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:44:55 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

All I can say is if
you haven't spent any time with a valve amp yourself, get a good
listen and
see if it does anything for you.

Been there, done that. Nice pleasant sound, even on ****e
recordings,
hence not high fidelity. Also softens really great recordings, so
****e sound, basically.

Hmmm, how does that work - both a 'Nice pleasant sound' and '****e
sound'......???

(An interesting paradox born of extreme prejudice, methinks....)

Nope, just another example of you not reading somethijng right.....


Of course! Silly old me!

Wasn't utter ******** at all was it? Because while 'nice' and '****e'
usually appear the *opposite* ends of a given scale in any ordinary
context,
in the case of "*high fidelity* sound" it would appear different (and
unique) rules apply as in:

"They are not mutually exclusive in terms of *high fidelity*
sound......."

How's that - did I read that right yet????

He's got it, by George he's got it!

If your system makes *everything* sound 'nice', say if you use a
single-ended valve amp, then you may be sure that as an accurate
reproducer, it's ****e!



OK, my 'sarcasm board' probably needs re-valving then! ;-)

I know full well what you mean, but you are talking about 2 different scales
here - 'sound quality' and 'accuracy',

So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not
very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either
form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable
compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's
personal preferences??

(If so, I've certainly got no problem with that - been saying as much for a
few years now!)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:07:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:44:55 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

All I can say is if
you haven't spent any time with a valve amp yourself, get a good
listen and
see if it does anything for you.

Been there, done that. Nice pleasant sound, even on ****e
recordings,
hence not high fidelity. Also softens really great recordings, so
****e sound, basically.

Hmmm, how does that work - both a 'Nice pleasant sound' and '****e
sound'......???

(An interesting paradox born of extreme prejudice, methinks....)

Nope, just another example of you not reading somethijng right.....


Of course! Silly old me!

Wasn't utter ******** at all was it? Because while 'nice' and '****e'
usually appear the *opposite* ends of a given scale in any ordinary
context,
in the case of "*high fidelity* sound" it would appear different (and
unique) rules apply as in:

"They are not mutually exclusive in terms of *high fidelity*
sound......."

How's that - did I read that right yet????

He's got it, by George he's got it!

If your system makes *everything* sound 'nice', say if you use a
single-ended valve amp, then you may be sure that as an accurate
reproducer, it's ****e!



OK, my 'sarcasm board' probably needs re-valving then! ;-)

I know full well what you mean, but you are talking about 2 different scales
here - 'sound quality' and 'accuracy',

So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not
very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either
form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable
compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's
personal preferences??

(If so, I've certainly got no problem with that - been saying as much for a
few years now!)

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:07:51 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Actually there is a point there - I should have said imperceptable -
its well known that certain ultrasonics can invoke emotion in
people...

As, of course, do certain harmonics and is almost certainly why most
normal people find the 'sound of valves' hard to resist......

Thing is - the 'valve sound' can be reproduced on any linear amp as long
as the input material has the distortion pre-recorded...



Or a tube buffer stage like MF's X10-D could be used, see:

http://www.greatgig.com/quad/TamingTate.htm

Also:

"The Musical Fidelity X10-D is a CD upgrade/sound enhancement device. It
connects between your CD player and amplifier or receiver.Gives clearly
audible improvement in dynamics and bass response. Cuts some of the coldness
and harshness of CD sound with a warmer, smoother, more analog type sound.
You wil still have all the benefits of CD clearness and clarity with the
addittion of of better bass response and a warmer, smoother sound typical of
analog. If you love analog sound but also the clarity of CD sound, this is
for you, it will combine the best of both worlds. A state of the art high
end audio device that delivers the goods."


And just to feed your 'distortion' demon:
"And if you are talking about the Musical Fidelity X-10, that is not at all
a DAC. It is a tubular case, containing two halves of a ECC88 per channel in
a high-feedback, cascde Amplifier connection, causing a Bass Roll-off due to
too small coupling Cap's and generating some additional distortion because
it runs on too low Voltages...."

Happy now?

;-)

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:07:51 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Actually there is a point there - I should have said imperceptable -
its well known that certain ultrasonics can invoke emotion in
people...

As, of course, do certain harmonics and is almost certainly why most
normal people find the 'sound of valves' hard to resist......

Thing is - the 'valve sound' can be reproduced on any linear amp as long
as the input material has the distortion pre-recorded...



Or a tube buffer stage like MF's X10-D could be used, see:

http://www.greatgig.com/quad/TamingTate.htm

Also:

"The Musical Fidelity X10-D is a CD upgrade/sound enhancement device. It
connects between your CD player and amplifier or receiver.Gives clearly
audible improvement in dynamics and bass response. Cuts some of the coldness
and harshness of CD sound with a warmer, smoother, more analog type sound.
You wil still have all the benefits of CD clearness and clarity with the
addittion of of better bass response and a warmer, smoother sound typical of
analog. If you love analog sound but also the clarity of CD sound, this is
for you, it will combine the best of both worlds. A state of the art high
end audio device that delivers the goods."


And just to feed your 'distortion' demon:
"And if you are talking about the Musical Fidelity X-10, that is not at all
a DAC. It is a tubular case, containing two halves of a ECC88 per channel in
a high-feedback, cascde Amplifier connection, causing a Bass Roll-off due to
too small coupling Cap's and generating some additional distortion because
it runs on too low Voltages...."

Happy now?

;-)

In article , Keith G
wrote:


So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but
not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that
either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable
compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the
user's personal preferences??

OK, let's stir the pot a little... ;-

How about a slightly different wording for the choices:

1) valve amps - May not be very accurate, but the changes tend to be such
that some people like the effect they have upon the results.

2) SS amps - May be more accurate, so the amp has relatively little 'sound'
of its own, hence the 'sound' depends more on the input than the amp. Some
people prefer this as it allows them to hear more clearly what was recorded
or broadcast and avoids applying the same 'effect' to everything they hear.

:-)

Alternatively:

1) Amplifiers showing a limited frequency response, limited power below
clipping, relatively high distortion, and high output impedance. Preferred
by some people.

2) Amplifiers showing a fairly flat response, high powers before clipping,
low distortion, and low output impedance. Preferred by some people.

That might lead us back towards considering that perhaps the results depend
upon the design rather than the choice of devices... ;-

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:


So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but
not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that
either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable
compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the
user's personal preferences??

OK, let's stir the pot a little... ;-

How about a slightly different wording for the choices:

1) valve amps - May not be very accurate, but the changes tend to be such
that some people like the effect they have upon the results.

2) SS amps - May be more accurate, so the amp has relatively little 'sound'
of its own, hence the 'sound' depends more on the input than the amp. Some
people prefer this as it allows them to hear more clearly what was recorded
or broadcast and avoids applying the same 'effect' to everything they hear.

:-)

Alternatively:

1) Amplifiers showing a limited frequency response, limited power below
clipping, relatively high distortion, and high output impedance. Preferred
by some people.

2) Amplifiers showing a fairly flat response, high powers before clipping,
low distortion, and low output impedance. Preferred by some people.

That might lead us back towards considering that perhaps the results depend
upon the design rather than the choice of devices... ;-

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 Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not
very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either
form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable
compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's
personal preferences??

Close, but no cigar.

SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound,
but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering