Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of component selection.


Well, I've recorded myself alone and in various bands countless times but not
recently and not well enough. I could do this, since I have a double bass and a
Bechstein grand right next to the hi-fi, and I have a Tascam DAT recorder. Not
sure about mics - I'm not a recording engineer. But yes, this could be done.
Andy

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

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
Recreating fine detail, faithfully timbre in music is all very well but
you
want those dynamics too - its all part of the listening experience. Good
live unamplified music is anything but boring surely?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but what
is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system. Take
away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are used
to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about
an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


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

47µF is not a large capacitor. I remember from my student days being taught
that
the working voltage of an electrolytic should be rated at 1.4 times the
voltage across
it (providing that it will always operate under loaded conditions) and that
elctrolytics
with a working voltage rating much higher than the actual voltage across
them gradually
loose their ability to operate at the higher voltage.

The reason you liked the second capacitor better may be that it had a
better
electrical performance. There are so many factors beside just capacitance
and DC voltage working. for example ESR, Impedance, and Ripple factor.

Iain

47µF is not a large capacitor.

It is when it's polypropylene! I use all polypropylene caps in crossovers. andy

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

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
47µF is not a large capacitor.

It is when it's polypropylene! I use all polypropylene caps in crossovers.
andy

Sorry! For some reason I thought we were talking about a PSU
electrolytic:-)
But I still say 47µF is not a large cap. A pal of mine in Stockholm lives
opposite
a high security warehouse, five floor, with no windows. He is convinced it
is
actually a 1MegaFarad 10kV electrolytic:-)

Iain

Andy Evans wrote:
I started by using better speaker cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured).

Wat colour? girly pink?

Without wanting to get into a cable war (the entire subject being almost
universally ********) surely solid core is not the way to go - flex
having lower impedance, etc?

In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building
and tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound
like live music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears
since I've been a professional musician for most of my life.

Well, I've used both my ears *and* measurements. I find the measurements to
have been very useful in helping to identify what to do when my ears
weren't happy. Saved me a lot of 'flailing about' and helped me to get an
understanding of what it happening.


I also did all improvements methodically, switching one thing at a time,
and preferring a closer approach to the original sound, more fidelity in
instrumental timbre and more detail, reasoning that any unrealistic
timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity' to the source. OK. ~ Now the
point is this: How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and
voices actually sound?

These days I only go to half or dozen or so live unamplifier music events a
year. Used to go to far more when I lived in London. So in my case this is
a matter of 'memory'. I seem to be able to hear the 'sound' in my head a
lot of the time, but this obviously is fallible.


If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified
(plus folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is
smooth, natural, even bland. It's unimpressive in many ways compared to
our "delusional" hifi kits and our delusional hifi language. It doesn't
have 'warmth', or 'bloom' or 'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have
is a lot of nothing - nothing between individual instruments except
space. To reproduce this it's necessary to reproduce a lot of nothing,
which is the fantastically difficult bit. It means no gloss on the
treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they should sound like
small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no 'dynamics'
that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring you might
say. And very hard to achieve -

In general, I'd agree. For me the hard bits tend to end up with:

1) Silencing things like faint mechanical 'buzz' that affect my ability to
get quite bit and silence 'sounding right'.

2) Speaker choice and placement and acoustics. In my experience these
dominate the ability to get the kind of 'solid and clear' stereo image you
describe.


you have to eliminate resonances, all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but
'take away' infidelities of all kinds. At this point Stewart must be
rubbing his hands and saying "I told you so - acoustically transparent".
Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't exist.

Afraid I don't know what the sentence above means.

[snip]

Why this post then? I just eliminated another level
of grunge - yes, more has "gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I
started by using better speaker cables (solid copper core, the previous
ones were coloured). Then I wired my whole system through a monster
variac which I have (25 amps). Obviously an effective mains cleaner.

Having routinely used variacs during amplifier development I'd say that
they don't have any real effect as a 'mains cleaner'. Indeed, I'd say that
if anything they can upset the mains by producing a higher - and load
dependent - source impedance for the resulting 'mains'. The ones I've used
do nothing much to 'clean' the mains - either by ear or by measurement.

Can't recall the details of the variacs, but used a variety, and was
working on amps at the time that had to deliver very high powers as well as
pre-amps with MC stages.

[snip]


Hi-Fi seemed delusional. I'm sure this post will be of little use to
those who listen mainly to rock and amplified music, but for those who
listen to classical and acoustic music, getting closer to 'nothing much
except the live sound of music' may matter a lot.

FWIW I listen mostly to classical and acoustic music, but my own experience
seems quite different to yours. If I got the effects you describe I would
have redesigned the PSUs in the amps, or altered the amps to be less mains
sensitive. Indeed, I spent a lot of time sweating over just that. :-)

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building
and tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound
like live music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears
since I've been a professional musician for most of my life.

Well, I've used both my ears *and* measurements. I find the measurements
to
have been very useful in helping to identify what to do when my ears
weren't happy. Saved me a lot of 'flailing about' and helped me to get an
understanding of what it happening.

As both an engineer and a musician, I like the above approach.
When I build something that sounds especially pleasing, or perhaps
not sop pleasing, I take it to the workshop to find out why:-)

Over the years, several interesting factors have come to light.
Extended bandwidth (DC to daylight:-) is not necessarily a prerequisite
for a good sounding amplifier.

As regards distortion, I have found that the amount of THD is not
so important as the distortion content - the way the THD is made up.
For example amplifiers with a small amount of 3rd harmonic sound
less pleasing than amplifiers with a larger amount of 2nd harmonic.

My main interest is in high quality valve amplifiers, which IMO
are much more of a challenge for a designer than SS
(I also happen to like the way valve amplifier can sound)

It is probably true that measurement is not the complete story, as
amplifiers
are designed to play music through loudspeakers, not reproduce sine waves
and spectral noise into oscilloscopes and spectrum analysers. But being
able
to see what is going on, does tell one a great deal, and points one in the
right
direction.

Iain

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years
building and tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi
system sound like live music. I didn't use measurements for this, I
used my ears since I've been a professional musician for most of my
life.

Well, I've used both my ears *and* measurements. I find the
measurements to have been very useful in helping to identify what to
do when my ears weren't happy. Saved me a lot of 'flailing about' and
helped me to get an understanding of what it happening.

As both an engineer and a musician, I like the above approach. When I
build something that sounds especially pleasing, or perhaps not sop
pleasing, I take it to the workshop to find out why:-)

Over the years, several interesting factors have come to light. Extended
bandwidth (DC to daylight:-) is not necessarily a prerequisite for a
good sounding amplifier.

You can, of course, say the same about many individual technical specs
taken in isolation. Ideally, the amp should be 'adequate' or better on the
basis of a series of specs. This, in my experience thens to be what
mathematicians call "necessary but not sufficient" as a guide. i.e. if you
fail some specs you can expect the sound to be altered in predictable ways.

As regards distortion, I have found that the amount of THD is not so
important as the distortion content - the way the THD is made up. For
example amplifiers with a small amount of 3rd harmonic sound less
pleasing than amplifiers with a larger amount of 2nd harmonic.

However my personal preference is for amplifiers that have minimal levels
of distortions at whever harmonics fall in band. Indeed, given
intermodulation distortion, I'd extend this to intermod in the audio range.
I am less personally less concerned with some harmonics being less
objectionable than others than with lowering distortion to the point where
it becomes audibly irrelevant.

My main interest is in high quality valve amplifiers, which IMO are much
more of a challenge for a designer than SS (I also happen to like the
way valve amplifier can sound)

Depends what you mean. :-)

I'd agree that having to include the snags that o/p transformers and valves
tend to bring do give you problems which solid state tends to sidestep.
:-)

However personally I am less concerened with 'challenge' than with getting
amplifiers that work nicely. Provided you take care and know what you are
doing, I think you can use either valve or solid-state. If solid state is
less of a challenge, fair enough, I'll use the time that frees up to listen
to music. :-)

Although the above said, my experience was that it took years to design a
power amp (solid state) I was really happy with. Took a lot of work and
patience, but I am not sure it was a 'challenge'... ;-

It is probably true that measurement is not the complete story, as
amplifiers are designed to play music through loudspeakers, not
reproduce sine waves and spectral noise into oscilloscopes and spectrum
analysers. But being able to see what is going on, does tell one a
great deal, and points one in the right direction.

Yes. The difficulty, though, is ensuring you make the relevant measurements
and can interpret the results appropriately. One of my niggles with audio
reviews is that they often fail to do this and just give simple standard
values that don't tell us much.

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
You can, of course, say the same about many individual technical specs
taken in isolation. Ideally, the amp should be 'adequate' or better on the
basis of a series of specs. This, in my experience thens to be what
mathematicians call "necessary but not sufficient" as a guide. i.e. if you
fail some specs you can expect the sound to be altered in predictable
ways.

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

As regards distortion, I have found that the amount of THD is not so
important as the distortion content - the way the THD is made up. For
example amplifiers with a small amount of 3rd harmonic sound less
pleasing than amplifiers with a larger amount of 2nd harmonic.

I have found that amplifiers with the most pleasing (this may not be the
most
accurate:-) sound seem to have a harmonic distortion decreasing gradually as
the order increases. This is perhaps one of the problems with NFB. It
cancels
the "benign" even harmonics, leaves exposed the more unpleasant odd
harmonics.

However my personal preference is for amplifiers that have minimal levels
of distortions at whever harmonics fall in band.

I have listen extensively to large Crown (Amcron) and Carver broadcast amps.
They have incrediblt low distortion figs which as a builder of valve amps I
can
only dream of. They may be incredibly accurate, but their sound leaves me
cold.

My main interest is in high quality valve amplifiers, which IMO are much
more of a challenge for a designer than SS (I also happen to like the
way valve amplifier can sound)

Depends what you mean. :-)

I am fortunate enough to be a recording engineer by profession, so I have
for
many years had the opprtunity on classical sessions to sit in the studio
during
rehearsals and hear the "real" sound, which can then be used as a reference
for what is coming out of the loudspeakers. Even in this digital age of
hard
disc multitrack systems, I still use a Radford STA100 .(UK built 1964)
for monitoring.

I'd agree that having to include the snags that o/p transformers and
valves
tend to bring do give you problems which solid state tends to sidestep.
:-)

Yes indeed. Generally speaking, the circuitry is more simple perhaps, but
the
problems are much more difficult to overcome. The triode would seem to
be the perfect amplifier stage until you come up against the Miller
effect:-))

However personally I am less concerened with 'challenge' than with getting
amplifiers that work nicely. Provided you take care and know what you are
doing, I think you can use either valve or solid-state. If solid state is
less of a challenge, fair enough, I'll use the time that frees up to
listen
to music. :-)

Perhaps I put too much emphasis on the word "challenge".


Although the above said, my experience was that it took years to design a
power amp (solid state) I was really happy with. Took a lot of work and
patience, but I am not sure it was a 'challenge'... ;-

Then you are a long way ahead of me. I have never been able to design
a SS amp with which I have been entirely satisfied.

Yes. The difficulty, though, is ensuring you make the relevant
measurements
and can interpret the results appropriately. One of my niggles with audio
reviews is that they often fail to do this and just give simple standard
values that don't tell us much.

I agree entirely. It may also be that on the test bench
we put too much importance on some
measurements and do not undestand the relevance of others. In valve
amplifiers for example damping factor has an enormous bearing on the way
the amplifier sounds. One takes a high DF for granted in an SS amp. In
a valve amplifier, a figure above twenty (which seems adequate in listening
tests) is not easy to achieve.


Iain

having to include the snags that o/p transformers and valves tend to bring do
give you problems which solid state tends to sidestep.

Think on the bright side - transformers isolate stages, and valves can be very
linear devices. And I agree with Iain that large amounts of feedback can be a
problem as well as a solution, and that a nice descending ratio of harmonics is
sonically worthwhile. Some pioneering work was done on this by Jean Hiraga in
the 70s I believe, showing why moving coil cartridges like the EMT sounded
better by looking at their harmonic spectrum.

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