Hi,

In message , Tat Chan
writes
Glenn Booth wrote:


I've been threatening to build a valve amp for ages, and I still
intend to - that doesn't mean I have a valve preference, just that I
want to build a valve amp (call it sentimental - I was building SS
amp kits as a kid, and missed the 'real age of valves'). I remain
pretty keen on my Audiolab, and I'm convinced that the 'killer
upgrade' for me will be speakers.



out of curiosity Glenn, what speakers are you using at the moment?

Sore point. At the moment I'm switching between Kef Q35s (which just
don't work in this room) and an ancient pair of Heybrook HB1s (original
version, very bright sounding but they do work in the room). I've been
holding off on an upgrade as we're moving house sometime soon. Wifey
gave me an "IOU" birthday present, which I intend to trade in for a pair
of ESL63s once we find a house.

I'm pretty happy with my amp, and the next big upgrade for me would be
a better pair of speakers and listening environment!

Speakers make all the difference, IMO. Room treatment can also make a
very big difference - I decorated my room a while back, and it ruined
the acoustics somehow.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

I hear the Sheperds tones as going up to the major 7th and then down an octave
and starting again.I must admit that on the other applet I hear low-high at 110
and high-low at 160. I was unfamiliar with these - thanks for posting! Andy

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


The snag is using a connection for which I pay by the minute. Thus
postings from people whose comments I may wish to read may also cost
me extra cash to re-read unsnipped copies of what I've already seen.
If your postings routinely annoyed me, then yes, I could then delete
them all and not download them. However since I find many of your
postings interesting I download them.


Don't you just download them and get offline to read them and reply to
them at your leisure???

Yes. The problem is that the more there is to download, the longer the
downloading takes, and hence the more it costs those who use this approach.
As I said, though...


The problem is a minor one provided the practice isn't widespread.
However for the above reason some of us wish to encourage snipping
when this this possible.


I've really got no argument with that - I prefer snipped posts as they
are, quite simply, much easier to read.

I also find this. Hence I'd also say that when people snip posts with care
they make it easier for others to read what they are trying to say. Hence
the poster helps themself to be clear and persuasive by snipping carefully.

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 29 Oct 2004 08:12:02 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I hear the Sheperds tones as going up to the major 7th and then down an octave
and starting again.I must admit that on the other applet I hear low-high at 110
and high-low at 160. I was unfamiliar with these - thanks for posting! Andy


I hear them exactly the same way - I've never heard the constantly
rising effect.

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

"Iain M Churches" wrote


But you're right, it did have that 'cordiality' about it. Hmmm.....

(You got me thinking now - I binned ukrav a while back....)



snip very interesting anecdote


As a result, this you fellow is over the moon.
If he had made such an overture in this group he would
probably be hanging from a lamp-post by now.



Iain, I suspect the sad truth is that some here would find a congenial group
to be a bit boring. It's obvious to me that a small (but highly contagious)
minority are only here to jack off in decent folks's faces, while they work
out their own fear/frustrations and the disappointments of the day....

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:25:44 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:14:57 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:
Please do not give the impression to people that music has to be
compressed
for disc cutting, This definately not the case, especially in the case of
classical
music which rarely needs any treatment whatseover, perhaps a dB or two of
peak limiting but no more.

Were it not the case, then we wouldn't have people claiming that they
can hear low-level detail on vinyl that they can't hear on a CD of the
same performance, now would we?

If they say then can, then we must assume they can. One cannot cannot get
inside aonther listener's head, as it were.

But please do not use compression as an explanation.

It is the *only* rational explanation, given use of the same stereo
mixdown master tape for CD and LP.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
I can't tell the difference between ss amps, if that helps?

We haven't started on hybrids yet............ would we all praise them or
hate
them?

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

Praise them. IMO many of the best sounding audio amplifiers are hybrids.

Mike

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:51:01 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Keith G wrote:

What is especially laughable is the suggestion that a 'ruler flat' FR graph
means *anything* at all in the real world. I could give you the phone number
of a valve amp designer who will laugh his arse off if you start arguing
'ruler flat' anything!!!

I would have to disagree here (and the technical posters can correct me
if I am wrong). Having a flat frequency response means no frequency
component is attenuated or amplified disproportionaly to othe frequency
components, which means that the ouptut waveform is just a larger
version of the input waveform. If the FR graph isn't ruler flat, then
certain frequencies would be exagerrated during playback.

Quite so. The valve amp designer would be laughing in an embarrassed
way, because of his inability to achieve a flat response............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Tat Chan" wrote



After all, no one wants to be told their £1000 amp probably sounds just
like a £300 amp when driving speakers within both amps limits!

I can't tell the difference between ss amps, if that helps?


that's the whole point, isn't it?
'wire with gain'




No, not with me it isn't. My systems are 'sound producers' in their own
right. I play records for *that* sound - I'm not too bothered how it relates
(in the nth degree) to what went down at the time of recording, which was
before I was born in some cases.




Which is why I like valves - you can change 'their contribution to the
overall sound quality cocktail' simple by changing the valves, if you
want.


fair enough. Kinda like using tone controls, isn't it?


No. This is a criticism frequently levelled by one or two people who really
have no idea what my (or anybody else's) systems sound like and who are
stuck with memories of Fluffy Bunny amps from the 50s. I have been very
successful recently (see reply to Jim LS, elsewhere) in 'matching' 3
separtae valve/speaker pairings to create a very even (and quite superb)
'house sound'. If you are intersted the pairings are as follows:

1) 40 wpc Chinese EL34 amp on 25 year old B&W DM2As - here the 'harder'
nature of the EL34s and the relatively high power makes the best of a
speaker which is mellow and needs pushing quite hard.

2) 32wpc KiT88 amp with 6550Cs atm on a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s - in
this pairing, the 'neutral to warm' 6550s 'beef up' the slightly thin and
analytical sound of the Wharfies and make them sound much larger than they
are - indistinguishable form the DM2As in 'normal' listening, in fact.

3) 4wpc 2A3 SET on JM-Lab Chorus 715s - mostly because the 91.5 dB
sensitivity helps to get a larger sound (which will fill the house) from the
'weedy' (heh, heh!! ;-) amp and the tweeter on the JMs loves to show off the
top end of the 2A3s. Arguable the least 'similar' combo in close listening
where the extra 'space' and detail creeps up on you if you are listening
properly, otherwise it chuscks out pretty much the satisfying sound I love
with *zero* fatigue.




No, it is not only open to non-engineers who use non-engineering terms
when expressing an opinion or preference. I have mentioned this before,
every one has their own opinions and preferences, of which there is no
right or wrong.


OK, that's good - how about then if these opinions and preferences are
expressed in 'non-engineering' terms, as mentioned above??

I don't have a problem with that, as should be the case with everyone
else. After all, you are expressing opinions and preferences, and not
technical details.


Thank you - it ain't hard is it? (Easy to turn it in to a punch-up though,
if that's what you are really wanting....)


If you (or anyone else) choose to interpret 'better' as a scientific
claim you then get to choose hoe to address any dispute with those
(perceived) claims.

I don't interpret 'better' as a scientific claim. 'Better' in this case is
highly subjective and should be whatever the end user is happy with.


Yes.


On the other hand, 'high fidelity' would be a scientific claim ...


Yes, but still so subjective as to be virtually useless. I have often said I
don't like the term 'hifi' here in the past (ignored by those who found it
more useful, so to do) as it really only ever was a marketting term used to
sell audio gear. If 'fidelity' was to have any meaning in the sense of a
quantifiable relationship between input and output signal than some figure
would need to be produced to allow scientific comparison, don't you think?
(Percentages perhaps?)


If you care (or respect) the person you are taliking to you can still
create potential for future dialogue. If you choos not to do so, you must
expect that dialogue to end at some point.

I don't think I have belittled anyone here in this NG.


That's not a *you* 'you', it's an *anyone* 'you' ('one' in posh English
:-).


That's the whole point - who TF has *ever* made any such claim? There are
those (spot the 'tact' here) who *choose* to interpret the word better as
fake, scientific claims for the purposes of showing off and exercising
their 'debating skills' to make up for a boring day or summat.

You snipped out my smiley ... the last definition of 'better' was an
attempt at scientific stereotyping ...


No, I saw the smiley - the remark I made wasn't directed at you - sorry if
it appeared it was.



What is especially laughable is the suggestion that a 'ruler flat' FR
graph means *anything* at all in the real world. I could give you the
phone number of a valve amp designer who will laugh his arse off if you
start arguing 'ruler flat' anything!!!

I would have to disagree here (and the technical posters can correct me if
I am wrong).


No, **** the 'technical posters' - I'm interested in *your* viewpoint here,
not theirs.


Having a flat frequency response means no frequency component is
attenuated or amplified disproportionaly to othe frequency components,
which means that the ouptut waveform is just a larger version of the input
waveform. If the FR graph isn't ruler flat, then certain frequencies would
be exagerrated during playback.


Yes, agree entirely but my point is that no FR is truly 'flat' and I suppose
I'm trying to match opposite and oposing deficiencied to create an
artificial 'compound flatness'..??

But as I have said before, like others I am more interested in the 'end
product sound quality' than any relationship (real or imagined) it may (or
may not) have to the 'original', recorded sound. A poor analogy, but think
of a fantastic oil painting, stand back far enough and compare with a
photograph of the same image. What do you want - 'information' or a 'deeply
satisfying emotional experience'??

Now having said that, I don't want to give the impression that valve amps on
well-matched speakers don't sound like the 'real thing' - they do and even
'more so' in normal listening. My systems can go from a deep (if slightly
soft) growling, room-buzzing (walls, doors), chest-thumping, nausea-inducing
bass (Bjork Headphones, Liszt 'Ad Nos' Fantasia and Fugue on a big organ
with 32' Pedal pipes) to a shattering treble that verges on painful (Bjork,
same album - Telegram, but can't remember the track name)...

:-)

"Tat Chan" wrote


Well, sometimes the preferences are not admited, but rather stated as
superiority or false technical statements, which in when the tech brigade
posts the corrections.


Excuse me?

When has this happened? Do you think you could actually point to such a
"false technical statement" or have you just got caught up with all the
********??

Well, I don't have a specific recollection on this NG,


Right. Fine.


but there was definitely a case on r.a.h.e when a poster or two showed a
lack of understanding of sampling theory (i.e. stairsteps versus
analogue's inifinite resolution).


OK, maybe there was but it's not germaine to our discussion.

(If it helps, I *definitely* can't hear the steps in digital sound!!!! :-)




Yes, your vinyl and valve preference is noted. No one can dispute or
rebuke preferences, because one man's meat is another man's poison.


Is my regular and frequent use of 'digital' also noted? Let's see if we
can straighten you out Tat, it would be a start.

yes, you have stated lots of times that you play CDs regularly as well,
but you have stated that you prefer vinyl to CD.


Is that a problem?



(Want to run the 'bigot' line again, in my case....??? ;-)


Nah, unless you try to ram your vinyl/valve preferences down everyone's
throat ...

Have you *never* seen me post 'valves are not for everyone'...???

(Before your time?)


I can't remember if you did, but a search through the archives should
bring it up.


Off you go then.