Re Valve amps
 

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 18:46:03 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
This sort of post never fails to amaze me - like ss kit *doesn't* distort
the signal FFS!!!

Hang on here, Keith - ss kit measures .00000000001% distortion because
it's
sonically transparent. Never mind what it sounds like.

Well no, the point is that it *is* sonically transparent, i.e. it
*sounds* just like the input, regardless of what the numbers say. Of
course, if you *prefer* it to sound *different* from the input, that
would be your choice. Just don't call it 'high fidelity', OK?

And anyway, most people
use ss kit so it must be better. Who are we to remain unconvinced by such
arguments.

Stoopid, perhaps? Or just rebellious? You can easily spot a rebel - he
uses the same kit as all the other rebels...................

So true.......

Great album - whatever happened to Spandau Ballet?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Re Valve amps
 

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 18:52:11 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**I suggest you do what I did: Subject yourself to a blind test, between two
or three highly regarded amplifiers.

That's so not easy to do in Blighty.....

Yes it is - I have at least two 'highly regarded' amplifiers right
here, a Krell KSA-50 mkII and an Audiolab 8000P. And I can get hold of
another half-dozen within the week.

I chose two SS amps and one tube amp.
Through a modest load, the tube amp was impossible to choose from the better
of the SS amps. The valve amp was an Audio Research VT100

OK, that's fekkin' impossible for a start....

Excuse me? Care to expand? Remember Keith, a *good* valve amp does
indeed sound just like a good SS amp - why wouldn't it?

and, IMO, was the
most accurate valve amp I have ever heard (and tested). Most other valve
amps are trivially easy to pick, because they distort far too much.

I still say there's plenty of people who ain't too bunched up about
distortion and just enjoy the music....

Sure there are - and most of them listen through SS amps.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Re Valve amps
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...


If valves are used for musical *production*, then the distortion forms
part of the art (which is fine, since musicians are making new music)

However, for musical *reproduction*, the valves would distort the
signal
being reproduced, and taken to its extreme, a valve amp would then act
as a signal processor, wouldn't it?

This sort of post never fails to amaze me - like ss kit *doesn't*
distort
the signal FFS!!!


well, it was a sweeping generalisation. But if I was a betting man, I
would
wager that a similarly priced SS amp would have less distortion than a
valve amp.


Very likely - strong chance it wouldn't be Class A tho......

**So what? The need for Class A operation of a hi fi amplifier is both
vastly overstated and, in most cases, simply untrue.

Provided an amplifier is competently designed and reasonably biassed (into
the linear operating region of the active deive/s) more bias current (Class
A) is simply overkill and unnecessary. Moreover, the Class A operating point
of an amplifier is completley dependent upon the load connected to that
amplifier. For instance: Stewart's Krell is rated for 50 Watts Class A
operation into an 8 Ohm load. Thus, it's Class A operating point is 25 Watts
@ 4 Ohms and 12.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms, etc.

As for the statement that an amplifier is Class A, most are not. Here's a
few I've measured:

Musical Fidelity A370 - Rated at 185 Watts Class A. Actual Class A power -
15 Watts.
Musical Fidelity A1 - Rated at 20 Watts Class A - Actual Class A power - 2
Watts.
Krell KSA150 - Inferred Class A power 150 Watts - Actual Class A power - 35
Watts.
Krell KSA200 - Inferred Class A power 200 Watts - Actual Class A power - 40
Watts.
Marantz PM80-II (Class A switched on) - Claimed Class A power 30 Watts -
Actual Class A power - 3 Watts.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Keith, I'm not taking a dig at valve preferences, since there are no
right
or
wrong preferences.


Agreed

Re Valve amps
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**I suggest you do what I did: Subject yourself to a blind test, between
two
or three highly regarded amplifiers.


That's so not easy to do in Blighty.....

**Then, unto you do, I suggest you cease saying stuff like:

"Absolutely agree

on paper

but

in the real world

they

quite simply

dont......"





I chose two SS amps and one tube amp.
Through a modest load, the tube amp was impossible to choose from the
better
of the SS amps. The valve amp was an Audio Research VT100


OK, that's fekkin' impossible for a start....

**Nothing is impossible.



and, IMO, was the
most accurate valve amp I have ever heard (and tested). Most other valve
amps are trivially easy to pick, because they distort far too much.


I still say there's plenty of people who ain't too bunched up about
distortion and just enjoy the music....

**I'm sure they do.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re Valve amps
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:46:23 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**The term: "Pom", is a one of endearment. It should not be taken as an
offensive term. "Pommy *******" is also a term of great endearment. As
in:

"Will ya have another beer, you Pommy *******?"

The term: "Whinging Pom" is a very severe insult.

The term: "Tight arsed Scot", is, like the term: "Miserable Scot", merely
a
perfectly accurate observation and cannot possibly be taken as terms
which
are offensive.

What would a whinging ocker know about it? :-)

**I dated a Scotswoman for awhile. Yep, I even ate Haggis. She never told me
what was in it. It tasted fine.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re Valve amps
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

He accepted by cheap alternative. I dutifully repaired his amp and
returned
it. he LOVED it. "it sounds better than it ever has." he said. Cool,
everyone's happy.


Yep, just like someone with a valve amp who loves the sound and either
hasn't got a clue or doesn't give a rat's about

makes sign of the cross with both index fingers

*distortion*

hissing and spitting from all assembled.....

**Nope. Neither. It is not that difficult to build an amplifier which sounds
as bad as a cheap valve amp. The REAL tricky thing, is to build a GOOD valve
amp. THAT is hard work. For the record: I cut my teeth on valve amps and,
for as recently as 1980 (or thereabouts) I was using a highly modified
Dynaco valve preamp in my own system.

Further and for the record: I have no problems with mild amounts of
distortion, PROVIDED the levels are below what is accepted to be audible.



My repair involved the fitting of 4 SS power amp ICs, along with some HF
and
LF filtering, to simulate typical tube frwquency responses.

I never told him what I had done.


Iggrance is bliss, they dew say..... ;-)



Let's sum this up with an analogy:


**Your analogy is faulty.


Yes, seems I've got a bad batch on the go atm.....


Cheap Chinese valve amps are more expensive than
good quality, new SS amps (Rotel, Arcam, et al).


Yebbut, where's the sodding valves???

**They're not necessary. You could do what Musical Fidelity do: Chuck a
couple of useless valve in an amplifier and charge a huge premium for it, I
guess. Personally, I don't see the point crippling a design and artificially
inflating it's price.

We're talking about people who want a
*valve* amp not some boring little slice of 5-star (for the month) brushed
aluminium, 'built down to a price'....yadda yadda yadda.....

**And there is the rub. As I asked a long time ago: Why? If more people who
imagine valve amps are the way to go actually listened to some of the
planet's finest valve amps, in comparison to some good SS amps, they may
well realise that they've been conned. REALLY good valve amps sound just
like really good SS amps. Only crappy valve amps sound different
(distorted).


Those pesky output
transformers ensure that valve amps will ALWAYS cost more than
approximately
equivalent SS amps.


Oooh! He said *transformers* :-)

Oooh! Suits you!

(I got Hammonds on my latest -
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...w/2a3amp01.jpg )

**Very nice.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re Valve amps
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


Well no, the point is that it *is* sonically transparent, i.e. it
*sounds* just like the input, regardless of what the numbers say. Of
course, if you *prefer* it to sound *different* from the input, that
would be your choice. Just don't call it 'high fidelity', OK?


When have I ever? Haven't always made the point that if you didn't attend
the recorded event how TF would you know?

How much 'input' (ie live events, I suppose) *doesn't* actually sound quite
****e at the time? (LSO at the Barbie excepted...)

I'm not hung up on 'fidelity' - I'm only interested in the 'sound' I get
from kit. I have no trouble identifying instruments, voices or sounds and I
get more 'space' and detail from my valves than I do from my SS amps and I
don't get fatigued/bored by them, unlike ss amps when I find often that I've
switched off (ears not kit) at some stage...

Now, if you are going to tell me an arc-welder ss amp costing thousands will
kick my piddly little valve amps (which cost only so many hundred) I'm going
to say 'so frickin' what?'

(Today, I have only run 2 different amps - both ss.... ;-)


Stoopid, perhaps? Or just rebellious? You can easily spot a rebel - he
uses the same kit as all the other rebels...................


Yeah - mostly Arcam atm.....


So true.......

Great album - whatever happened to Spandau Ballet?


Went into Eastenders, I believe.....

Re Valve amps
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...


If valves are used for musical *production*, then the distortion
forms
part of the art (which is fine, since musicians are making new
music)

However, for musical *reproduction*, the valves would distort the
signal
being reproduced, and taken to its extreme, a valve amp would then
act
as a signal processor, wouldn't it?

This sort of post never fails to amaze me - like ss kit *doesn't*
distort
the signal FFS!!!


well, it was a sweeping generalisation. But if I was a betting man, I
would
wager that a similarly priced SS amp would have less distortion than a
valve amp.


Very likely - strong chance it wouldn't be Class A tho......

**So what? The need for Class A operation of a hi fi amplifier is both
vastly overstated and, in most cases, simply untrue.

Provided an amplifier is competently designed and reasonably biassed (into
the linear operating region of the active deive/s) more bias current
(Class
A) is simply overkill and unnecessary. Moreover, the Class A operating
point
of an amplifier is completley dependent upon the load connected to that
amplifier. For instance: Stewart's Krell is rated for 50 Watts Class A
operation into an 8 Ohm load. Thus, it's Class A operating point is 25
Watts
@ 4 Ohms and 12.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms, etc.

As for the statement that an amplifier is Class A, most are not. Here's a
few I've measured:

Musical Fidelity A370 - Rated at 185 Watts Class A. Actual Class A
power -
15 Watts.
Musical Fidelity A1 - Rated at 20 Watts Class A - Actual Class A power - 2
Watts.
Krell KSA150 - Inferred Class A power 150 Watts - Actual Class A power -
35
Watts.
Krell KSA200 - Inferred Class A power 200 Watts - Actual Class A power -
40
Watts.
Marantz PM80-II (Class A switched on) - Claimed Class A power 30 Watts -
Actual Class A power - 3 Watts.


That's *exactly* what I said - 'strong chance it wouldn't be Class A tho'
innit??

Both my valve are *fully* Class A and'experts' have assured me it makes a
Difference....!!!

(Can't say I could tell, myself other than the amps are most pleasant and
very engaging!)

Re Valve amps
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


Sorry Keith. If you shunt your prejudices and imagination to one side,
and run double-blind level-matched comparisons - they quite simply do.
Used below clipping, A Krell 700 sounds just like an ARC Reference
600, sounds just like an Arcam A85. The ones that sound *different*
(i.e. most SETs and other crappy valve amps), are basically broken.

As you might say - just *trust* your ears..................


That's just what I *don't* do - I'm too involved. I ask others who have (or
claim to have) Golden Ears....

What I detect for myself is abstract (ie difficult to measure) stuff like
'emotion' and engagement. Believe me, if I could get better from ss gear,
I'd bloody use ss gear!

I am fully aware of the areas where ss gear wins over valves and, like I
said just now, the only two amps I've run today (one on the computer) were
two little ****e Technics cheapies that I absolutely love - I just don't use
them when I want the 'Full Monty'

OK, I don't think you've got Broadband, so this track (at 7 meg):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...20Tomorrow.mp3

isn't going to help you, but I've posted it as a good example (taken almost
at random - I was listening to the album earlier today) as a very good
example of the type of stuff I like and which sounds 1000% better (space,
depth, imaging, texture, timbre) when played through valves.

(*Trust me* on this....!!! ;-)

Re Valve amps
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...


If valves are used for musical *production*, then the distortion
forms
part of the art (which is fine, since musicians are making new
music)

However, for musical *reproduction*, the valves would distort the
signal
being reproduced, and taken to its extreme, a valve amp would then
act
as a signal processor, wouldn't it?

This sort of post never fails to amaze me - like ss kit *doesn't*
distort
the signal FFS!!!


well, it was a sweeping generalisation. But if I was a betting man,
I
would
wager that a similarly priced SS amp would have less distortion than
a
valve amp.


Very likely - strong chance it wouldn't be Class A tho......

**So what? The need for Class A operation of a hi fi amplifier is both
vastly overstated and, in most cases, simply untrue.

Provided an amplifier is competently designed and reasonably biassed
(into
the linear operating region of the active deive/s) more bias current
(Class
A) is simply overkill and unnecessary. Moreover, the Class A operating
point
of an amplifier is completley dependent upon the load connected to that
amplifier. For instance: Stewart's Krell is rated for 50 Watts Class A
operation into an 8 Ohm load. Thus, it's Class A operating point is 25
Watts
@ 4 Ohms and 12.5 Watts @ 2 Ohms, etc.

As for the statement that an amplifier is Class A, most are not. Here's
a
few I've measured:

Musical Fidelity A370 - Rated at 185 Watts Class A. Actual Class A
power -
15 Watts.
Musical Fidelity A1 - Rated at 20 Watts Class A - Actual Class A power -
2
Watts.
Krell KSA150 - Inferred Class A power 150 Watts - Actual Class A power -
35
Watts.
Krell KSA200 - Inferred Class A power 200 Watts - Actual Class A power -
40
Watts.
Marantz PM80-II (Class A switched on) - Claimed Class A power 30
Watts -
Actual Class A power - 3 Watts.


That's *exactly* what I said - 'strong chance it wouldn't be Class A tho'
innit??

**And my question was: Who cares? Full Class A operation of any amplifier
(save SE products, of course) is simply not necessary. I will say this,
however: Opertaing a crappily designed amplifier into Class A, will likely
make it sound better than it otherwise would. Operating a properly designed
amplifier into Class A, will not make it any better.


Both my valve are *fully* Class A and'experts' have assured me it makes a
Difference....!!!

**What is the load impedance? Does it vary? Your unamed "experts" are
entitled to their opinions. Their opinions will be givne the weighting they
deserve (ie: none).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au