"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:22:26 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:07:56 +0000 (UTC)
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

In which case, why the 'war' about SS and valve? if neither distort
audibly, then they sound the same.

There *is* no war about *good* valve amps.

Im aware of that. I was asking a rhetorical question.

Interesting that the qualification 'bad' has to be used to get the attacks
off the ground isn't it? Who TF knowingly uses *bad* valve amps???

Apparently, you do. If the output signal is anything other than a
larger version of the input signal, i.e. if the amp *has* an
identifiable 'sound', then it is *by definition* a bad amplifier.

Which of my valve bits are 'bad'...

EAR 834P
EAR834L
Dynaco Mk III
WAD KiT88
Homebrew 2A3

The EAR834L and Kit88 are the only ones which might qualify as 'not
bad'.


Close, but no cigar - they are all very pleasant and not widely dissimilar,
but the 2A3 amp is the 'nicest' (detail, clarity. 'tone' and soundstage)
even on only 'inappropriate' speakers (so far).....

(That's not only *my* opinion btw....)



....and how 'bad' are they if *I* like using them???

Different argument entirely


Yes and you would do well to remember that the next time someone states a
preference by saying they think valves are 'better' - instead of dragging
that same old tub out again for the gazillionth time....!!!

Now, forget all that (I'm getting past bored of it again), I'm off down the
Div shop on my way out shortly - what's 'hot' atm (that we haven't already
seen)? As a movie buff yourself, got any recommendations?


NP. FM Radio 3 on a Technics ss amp - very 'informative' (makes all the
right noises) but 'dry' as ditchwater and lifeless. (Thus, I haven't paid
any real attention to it since I swapped it in....)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:07:18 +0100, "Paul"
wrote:


Would that be the master tape you'd never get to see, much less hear
(and be able to compare too)?

Well, I do have a Nagra and a CD burner.......................

Out of interest, what audio card are you using to do the AD conversion?

Soundblaster Audigy, so I'm certainly not at the 'cutting edge' of
technology! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:26:19 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:56:01 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:40:00 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:05:58 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:44:07 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

No, you still don't *geddit* do you? - I'm an 'end user', I'm only
interested in what comes OUT of my speakers......

Me too - and I like it to bear the closest possible relationship to
what was on the master tape...............

Would that be the master tape you'd never get to see, much less hear
(and be able to compare too)?

Well, I do have a Nagra and a CD burner.......................

And?

I have access to a full Protools setup as well as the studio of one of
Britain's foremost TV music composers, but I still don't have access to
the master tape of Chris Rea's 'Road To Hell'.

Your point being?

That I can *make* 15 ips analogue master tapes, and compare them
directly to CD-Rs of those tapes.

Perhaps the music industry should have a scheme where audio engineering
zealots (geeks?) should be allowed to borrow the master tapes of any CD
they buy so that said anal retentive zealots can sleep comfortably at
night?

It's not exactly rocket science, short rodent.

That's because it isn't rocket science, exact or otherwise.

This master tape ******** is just people like yourself wanking off over
spec sheets.

Nope, it's real audiophiles who care about high fidelity sound
reproduction, *listening* to master tapes and CDs made from them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:55:25 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:13:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:57:29 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Unless, of course, you're going to thrill us with all those developments
that have been going on unseen in valves and vinyl technology that somehow
makes it better than when it was the norm?

Nope. If it suits you to believe audio performance and reproduction has gone
anywhere other than downhill in the last 50 years, that's perfectly fine by
me...

Thanks for proving beyond all doubt that you're a complete asshole.
BTW, there were no stereo LPs in 1954.

******** as usual, don't let the truth get in the way of you making a
point...

"One of the earliest stereo recordings was done in 1932 in Philadelphia
for Bell Labs. The recording by Stokowski of Scriabin’s “Poem of Fire.”
It was done on a vinyl disc using two grooves, one for each channel. Two
years later stereo recordings were being done at Abbey Road studios
using a vertical-lateral technique. Decca records released the first
stereo records in 1945 using the vertical-lateral system. They could not
be played well by the current playback systems. “The Robe”, in 1953 was
the first movie to be released in Cinemascope with a stereo (actually 4
channel) soundtrack. There were more than 30 other stereo films released
that year. "

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_07.html

******** yourself, half-truths and deceptions as always.

At least you had the honesty to post the link to the original article,
rather than just your 'edited highlight'. Anyone who reads the whole
article is immediately aware that it wasn't until 1958 that the RIAA
standardised on the 45/45 system. However, I admit that I got it wrong
regarding the first stereo LPs actually produced, which was in 1945,
not 1955 as I had thought. OTOH, they were the 'hill and dale' Decca
style which sank without trace due to incompatibility both with mono
records and with playback equipment, and the article also notes that
the first *commercially available* stereo recordings were made in 1954
- and they were open-reel tapes, not LPs. The first stereo LPs you
could actually buy, came out in 1955.

Those of an enquiring nature will note that the Decca cartridge to
this day uses a lateral/vertical generator design, not the otherwise
universal 45/45.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Out of interest, what audio card are you using to do the AD conversion?

Soundblaster Audigy, so I'm certainly not at the 'cutting edge' of
technology! :-)

By no means -- certainly not ProTools HD, or Apogee Rosetta...

.... and yet... respectable specs, biggest issues are probably noise floor
and dithering, and I bet capable of a workmanlike test. Interesting.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:39:25 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:29:56 +0100
"Keith G" wrote:

Do you think people replace equipment on an annual basis back then?
Are you not aware that a 7 yead old in '54 could well be listening to
the same kit as a 17 year old in '64.....??

Oops, that was poorly worded - I should have said the *same* person could
*still* be listening to the same kit when he was a 17 year old, ie a
listening period of 10 years...

I've had the same amplifier and speakers for 13 years now, and I've no
intention of replacing them in the near future, so what's your point?


Read the thread and work it out (it ain't hard), Molton posted "I wouldnt
pretend I recall the details of many sounds I heard when I was
7" implied to me that when one was no longer 7, the kit was tossed out (and
presumably replaced?), never to be heard again! Didn't happen in 'owr 'ouse
I can tell you - I was probably listening to same radio we had when I was 7,
when I was 20!

Add to that, that even as I type I'm listen to a pair of very nice speakers
dating from 1975, see where I'm going.....???

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:42:20 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:47:11 +0100, Keith G used
to say...


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...

"One of the earliest stereo recordings was done in 1932 in Philadelphia
for Bell Labs. The recording by Stokowski of Scriabin's "Poem of Fire."
It was done on a vinyl disc using two grooves, one for each channel.
Two
years later stereo recordings were being done at Abbey Road studios
using a vertical-lateral technique. Decca records released the first
stereo records in 1945 using the vertical-lateral system. They could
not
be played well by the current playback systems. "The Robe", in 1953 was
the first movie to be released in Cinemascope with a stereo (actually 4
channel) soundtrack. There were more than 30 other stereo films
released
that year. "

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_07.html

An excellent reference Kurt, and one I'm sure that will be totally
disregarded by a few here who like to pump factual inaccuracies and
personl
opinions (OSAFs) into this group with an air of 'authority'.....

What, you mean like Kurt's 'edited highlight'?

I'm waiting for Pinkie's rejoinder of "I said Stereo *LP*" as he is a
devotee of not only the OSAF philosophy, but also as a practitioner of
semantics and pedantry whenever he is shown to be less than accurate.

I did say there were no stereo LPs in 1954, which was factually
correct, hence what I said was totally accurate, and not a matter of
opinion. The previous existence of a few stereo recordings on
open-reel tape (and that was only in 1954), and the curiosities that
were the Decca 'hill and dale' records from the immediate post-war
years has nothing to do with my absolutely accurate blasting of
Garratt's idiotic assertion that sound quality has been going downhill
for the last fifty years.



OK, reduce that to 30 and you can add Shiny Nigel to the list straightaway
and he sells the bloody stuff for a living (has done for half that time)!

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Sep 2004 16:57:57 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:
...
1955-70 stereo LPs, which era also contained many of the very best
master tapes ever created. Thanks to CD, we can all now hear just how
good those masters were, ...

Hear, hear! I keep asking myself how it is that modern digital re-masters
from analogue master tapes can often sound as good as the best quality
digital recordings of recent years.

Well, in terms of fidelity to the mic feed, they don't. OTOH, those
old analogue masters have nice euphonic artifacts built in........

Indeed - by "as good" I was referring to something of an overall quality
which is clearly not perfect in just the "high fidelity" sense (although
on some - e.g. my 1973 Kleiber/Freischutz - it's amazingly good in
that sense).

However I keep asking myself whether it realy is euphonic imperfections
or other qualities (or both) which keeps me going back to remarkably old
analogue recordings in preference to clean but less involving modern ones.
(NB this is not true in all cases - my favourite Zauberflote - Solti 1990
- is a modern digital recording which has many of the recording qualities
of the Freischutz as mentioned above but is cleaner and clearly has more
dynamic range.)

There's an interesting comparison in my collection - Gould's all-digital
1981 Goldberg Variations and the recent re-master from the analogue
backup tape. The difference in Gould's low-level humming between these
two is fascinating.

--
John Phillips

Here's a link which discusses the difference between tubes and solid
state for recording preamps:

http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm

Here's the abstract of the article:

Engineers and musicians have long debated the question of tube
sound versus transistor sound. Previous attempts to measure this
difference have always assumed linear operation of the test
amplifier. This conventional method of frequency response,
distortion, and noise measurement has shown that no significant
difference exists. This paper, however, points out that
amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signal transients
(THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in
the harmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with
tubes, transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into
distinct groups.


--
Fred Gilham
....every candid Reader will easily understand my Discourse to be
intended only in Defence of *nominal* Christianity, the other having
been for some time wholly laid aside by general Consent, as utterly
inconsistent with all our present Schemes of Wealth and Power.
--- Jonathan Swift

On 27 Sep 2004 11:09:53 -0700, Fred Gilham
wrote:


Here's a link which discusses the difference between tubes and solid
state for recording preamps:

http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm

Here's the abstract of the article:

Engineers and musicians have long debated the question of tube
sound versus transistor sound. Previous attempts to measure this
difference have always assumed linear operation of the test
amplifier. This conventional method of frequency response,
distortion, and noise measurement has shown that no significant
difference exists. This paper, however, points out that
amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signal transients
(THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in
the harmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with
tubes, transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into
distinct groups.

This article may have some relevance in a studio control room, where
listening is commonly done at ear-hurting levels, but for domestic
reproduction - at least in my house - the amplifier never comes within
a mile of overload, so it is only the nominally linear part of the
transfer function that is of relevance.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com