Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


For me, the key point here is that 'better' is a term that is defined
in different ways by different people.



Of course - nothing unusal about that, it happens with half the English
Language. Words like 'fast', 'tall', 'slow', 'wide' etc. have no meaning
until a common standard is accepted.

Not quite. Words like "tall" differ from "better" in that we can easily
define a numerical measure for the purposes of comparison.


Did you miss the words "common standard"....??



Yes, any terms can be used in a misleading or ambiguous way. Indeed, the
advertising industry is founded on this. :-) However if we wish to
actually communicate, we have to establish clear and unambiguous meanings
for the words we use. Otherwise those involved literally do not know what
they are arguing about. :-)


Yes, I agree, but where there is a basic lack of goodwill and/or shared
objectives, the use of subjective descriptives is easily rendered impossible
and/or pointless. The only sure remedy is to avoid such communication
altogether.



Hence unless people first agree upon the specific definition they are
using, employing the word 'better' tends to lead to arguments at
cross-purposes.


As before, I agree, virtually any 'comparative' terminology can used for the
purposes of prolonging argument if one or more of those involved wish it.
Simpler, less 'self-important' souls can apparently work with words ranging
from 'minging' to 'blinding' and achieve near-perfect understanding of each
other....???



That depends on the underlying motives of those who wilfully and
routinely choose to turn the casual use of such words into protracted
acrimony.

That may well be so at times. However my impression is that people also
often read meanings and 'motives' into statements that are not those the
writer intended. Hence my wish to try and pursuade you (and others reading
this :-) ) to direct more attention to the question of agreeing the
meanings of the terms used, and to notice when they are ambiguous.


Jim, in 1971, my 'Verbal Ability' was placed firmly in the 100th percentile
by a firm of Industrial Psychologists called (IIRC) Russell Ewbank (or
summat very similar) somewhere just off Picadilly Circus. Of the 3
administrators that conducted a whole day's testing on about 50 or 60 of us
(at a hideous amount of money per head with a number of people from very
auspicious organisations like Reuters, IIRC), 2 of them were in my (then)
boss's office the next morning. I was told 'we will probably use you as an
example from now on' or somesuch, I thought 'Hmm, what a pair of
wattocks'....

The point? - Believe me, I can direct 'enough attention' to the careful
wording of descriptive terms when a) I believe there is some real point and
b) I can be arsed.....




For that reason, it is a word best used sparingly and with care in
this context.


Even that, however polite and innocent-seeming, is a form of censorship
not acceptable to me and one or two others in here.......

I am not asking for 'censorship'. I am suggesting ways to ensure
communication is more reliable.


It's not that important. Personal opinions do not need to be justified, this
is a *general* hobbyist newsgroup, not an International Court Of Law or
Select Committee......

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


One is that it may be that you and others - to some extent - prefer
'valve amps' (in a very general sense) because they *do* 'distort' the
sound in some specific ways.


Certainly - I will readily agree that I genrally prefer the distortions
of valve amps to the distortions of ss amps.

This then leads to the question of what the "distortions" you *perceive*
may be in each case.


OK: I consider valve amps to generally sound clear, warm and fluid and am
perfectly happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion. I
consider, by comparison, ss amps to sound vague, cold and harsh and am happy
to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion.



Means nothing to me - it's a part of the physical world, the greatest
beauty of which is that there are no two truly *identical* entities and
'distortion' (general sense) exists to ensure this most wonderful state
remains thus for eternity.....

Whilst I would accept the above, I would also go on to comment that two
items may become indistinguishable in use.


Yep, almost a certainty - think sugar cubes.


Hence they may then become
'identical' in the context of that use.


Yep, keep thinking sugar cubes.


Given this, I am not sure if it
matters if some precise measurements indicate differences which we don't
perceive when using the items.


Absolutely. Measuring sugar cubes would be deemed a very 'anal' activity if
the general public adopted the habit - not so for the QC Manager of Tate &
Lyle though....


Not really. But I suspect you guessed that. :-)

She could have been referring to their physical appearance for all I know.
The problem is the one I indicated in other postings. If you wish a set of
words to communicate your actual meaning you have to ensure the words used
have a meaning which the writer and the reader have agreed and is clear
and
unambiguous. I can't say that I follow your/her meanings in this context,
so I am reduced to having to guess, which risks my simply
misunderstanding.


Hmm, guess? Why guess when you can ask?

A normal conversational tactic, when someone doesn't understand summat, is
to offer a 'temporary scale' that both parties can relate to and use for the
purpose of clarification, is it not? Example: 'What, as high as a London
double-decker bus? - Ooh, about one and a half busses high, actually...'
kinda thing?? Too simple?


I think you're getting a bit hooked up on this distortion thing. It only
has the 'bad' connotation with people who started reading the
ingredients on the packet a few years ago and got a scare from it. Ever
since, they have been waving it about like a dead cat and trying to
scare the impressionable with it!!

OK. It may have been a misapprehension on my part, then. My impression at
times is that your or others have become annoyed and dismissed the idea
that valve amps (or analog/vinyl) show levels of distortion higher than SS
or digital. (I agree BTW that what I have just written is quite vague and
sweeping. :-) )


Annoyed? No, I don't think so - it's not an *emotive* term for me. I do feel
one or two here have been severely affected by the word in the past and like
to hurl it about like an insult. Their problem, not mine....

Does this help - I have absolutely no idea what the 'distortion figures' are
for any of my amps, as I type. (KiT88 - THD 0.3% seems to ring a bell??)



In general terms, I do not personally share your preference for valve
amps, However I can happily accept that you prefer them for some
reason(s). rather than this being a source of heated pun argument,
my interest is in trying to identify the reasons behind the
difference in preference in ways that might lead to 'better' results
for you, and for others - of whatever preference in this matter.


Not sure what you mean - I don't need any help in this matter,

Do you mean:

1) You feel that you have already obtained the "best possible" (in terms
of
your own meanings of those terms) amplifier, etc, so no help is needed for
that reason?

or

2) You feel that anything I might learn or suggest would be irrelevant as
I
could not possibly have any advice or information that would be of use to
you in finding "better" (in your own judgement/terms) amplifiers, etc?

or

3) What?


Precisely what I say - I'm not looking for assistance with amplification
issues. If that were to change for any reason, I would ask straightaway...


if it helps you though I am delighted to assist any way I can.

OK. Then my personal preference here would be for you to assist by
considering the points about clarity and lack of ambiguity in the terms
used, and ensuring we all work with agreed definitions so far as possible
so as to promote understanding rather than argument.


Hmm, I'm quite happy to qualify or explain any remark I have made in the
past or might make in the future, but I'm not sure that I can 'ensure we'
anything though - sounds like it might call for an 'authority' that a)
doesn't exist here or b) I wouldn't like to see used, even if it did exist.
(The point that this is a *hobbyist* ng can not be made too often, IMO....)

OK, I've been getting away with it up 'til now - revelling in an absolutely
superb sound from the radio on the second Chinky amp (first use) on a pair
of speakers that I 'refurbished (*georgous* sound all round) but Swim's
caught her gardening recordings up and I think it's *movie time* now...!!!
;-)

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Keith G wrote:

OK: I consider valve amps to generally sound clear, warm and fluid and am
perfectly happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion. I
consider, by comparison, ss amps to sound vague, cold and harsh and am happy
to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion.

cut

Hmm, I'm quite happy to qualify or explain any remark I have made in the
past or might make in the future,

Ok, in that case, explain to me why you cant seem to even accept the
possibility that (good) SS amps sound 'cold and harsh' due to an absence
of audible distortion.

(or will you continue to pretend that you ****-canned me (yeah, right))

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" emitted :

Just a brief acknowledgement to say I gotta go out - I'm trying to shake
the worst cold (flu?) of my life atm!! I'll try and get back to you
later.
(Guess what? - We don't have a box at the opera tonight either!! ;-)

Meanwhile, to give you some idea of a perspective , this is a list of
all
the ss amps of which I have heard samples (and most of which I have
owned)
in the last 5/6 years or so, as far as I can remember (off the top of my
head):

NAD
Rotel
Cambridge Audio
Cyrus
Marantz
Quad
Luxman
Sony
Yamaha
Technics
Parasound
Krell
Trio/Nikko (can't remember what it was)
MF (??)

and mebbe one or two others that don't come immediately to mind....

Arcam
Roksan

Which Roksan.. and what did you think of it??



Two examples of the same model - Kandy I think (about £500 a year or so
ago??) Perfectly OK in the standard, efficient 'remote control', 'brushed
aluminium' way - nothing to really remember about it other than if it was
the one with red/orange triangles on it (or was that the Arcam?) it was a
bloody PITA to use - kept going into 'sulk' mode for some reason....???

(I gotta say it - I can't bloody tell these ss amps apart.....!!!)

Which is one of the reasons I prefer valves. Right now I'm getting away with
murder with Bob Harris on the radio - it sounds so *damn good* Swim hasn't
started fidgetting for a Divvy yet!

(Won't be long now tho'.... :-)

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Ian Molton wrote:
Keith G wrote:

OK: I consider valve amps to generally sound clear, warm and fluid and
am perfectly happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion.
I consider, by comparison, ss amps to sound vague, cold and harsh and
am happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion.


cut

Hmm, I'm quite happy to qualify or explain any remark I have made in
the past or might make in the future,


Ok, in that case, explain to me why you cant seem to even accept the
possibility that (good) SS amps sound 'cold and harsh' due to an absence
of audible distortion.

(or will you continue to pretend that you ****-canned me (yeah, right))

I think you'll find that you have been (er) '**** caned' but your point
is interesting.

IMO entire human perception is shrouded in distortion and I find this
whole debate about 'causal distortion' a red herring. Certainly, by
measurement using certain 'rulers', a valve amplifier will provide a set
of measurements different to that of a SS amplifier.

It is my intuitive feeling that many SS amps distort source sound in a
way less benign than that of many valve amps.

I have learned this by listening, not measuring. And really, when all's
said and done, I could listen to either quite happily. It's just that I
have the time and money to choose - and given the choice I prefer the
way a valve amplifier does its job.

All IMO - I wouldn't bother biting if I were the OP. All I can say is
have a listen!

Rob

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Ian Molton wrote:
Keith G wrote:

OK: I consider valve amps to generally sound clear, warm and fluid and
am perfectly happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion. I
consider, by comparison, ss amps to sound vague, cold and harsh and am
happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion.


cut

Hmm, I'm quite happy to qualify or explain any remark I have made in the
past or might make in the future,


Ok, in that case, explain to me why you cant seem to even accept the
possibility that (good) SS amps sound 'cold and harsh' due to an absence
of audible distortion.

(or will you continue to pretend that you ****-canned me (yeah, right))

I think you'll find that you have been (er) '**** caned' but your point is
interesting.


Jeez, it'll be a blow to his ego to realise that he has, in fact, been
binned. ;-)


IMO entire human perception is shrouded in distortion and I find this
whole debate about 'causal distortion' a red herring. Certainly, by
measurement using certain 'rulers', a valve amplifier will provide a set
of measurements different to that of a SS amplifier.

It is my intuitive feeling that many SS amps distort source sound in a way
less benign than that of many valve amps.

I have learned this by listening, not measuring. And really, when all's
said and done, I could listen to either quite happily. It's just that I
have the time and money to choose - and given the choice I prefer the way
a valve amplifier does its job.

All IMO - I wouldn't bother biting if I were the OP. All I can say is have
a listen!


Rob, that was beautifully put - which is probably something to do you
becoming 'Dr Rob' in a very short while, while** I remains a simple
****-pusher from the sticks wi' nobbut a handful of 40 year old O-levels to
bless meself wiv.... :-)

Molton, if you want 'not binned', you'll have to email me or get someone to
pull your header through - I've got a number in there as yew do knoe and
I've no idea which is you. (Spyro????)

Then yew'll have to shew sum respeck or you'll damn soon be back in there
agin! OK?


**while, while ?? You wouldn't expect to see that working, would you? :-)

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Rob wrote:
Ian Molton wrote:

IMO entire human perception is shrouded in distortion and I find this
whole debate about 'causal distortion' a red herring.

Huh? Whilst I accept that no two humans eevr will hear the same sound
the same way, and that our perceptions are inevitably coloured, I see no
reason that this means we should ignore the quality of our sources.

Example - I have full colour vision and exceptional night vision. My
father is colourblind, and a friend of mine is nightblind.

We perceive the same sources differently - I will see everything, my dad
will not be able to distinguish red and green, and my nightblind friend
cant see low contrasts in the dark.

does this mean that my dad should short the red and green channels on
his TV and my friend should alter the gamma on his so that dark isnt
well reproduced?

because thats the visual equivalent of what valve amps do to the sound
(bar a small number of genuinely linear ones).

Why fail to reproduce the source as best as can be done, and pay more
for the privelidge. In my analogy, we could all get a good picture from
a bog standard mass produced TV set. there is no need for my dad to buy
a special red-and-blue-only TV, and besides, it'd reduce the resolution
anyway, to throw away a channel like that.

It is my intuitive feeling that many SS amps distort source sound in a
way less benign than that of many valve amps.

No amp should be run into distortion for HiFi use. Trouble is that most
valve amps distort within their normal operating conditions.

wether you like the distortions is another matter, and entirely a
subjective one at that.

I have learned this by listening, not measuring. And really, when all's
said and done, I could listen to either quite happily. It's just that I
have the time and money to choose - and given the choice I prefer the
way a valve amplifier does its job.

Thats your perogative.

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Keith G wrote:

Molton, if you want 'not binned',

Im clearly not binned in any serious way by you, keith. You just cant
keep your nose out, can you?

fekkin' moron...

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:23:16 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

One is that it may be that you and others - to some extent - prefer
'valve amps' (in a very general sense) because they *do* 'distort' the
sound in some specific ways.

Certainly - I will readily agree that I genrally prefer the distortions
of valve amps to the distortions of ss amps.

This then leads to the question of what the "distortions" you *perceive*
may be in each case.

OK: I consider valve amps to generally sound clear, warm and fluid and am
perfectly happy to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion. I
consider, by comparison, ss amps to sound vague, cold and harsh and am happy
to ascribe all of that to some form of distortion.

As noted, valvies are terrified to admit that good SS amps simply do
not possess *any* audible distortion. Makes everything else they say
tainted by the same suspicion of head-in-the-sand or sheer dishonesty.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Ian Molton wrote:

No amp should be run into distortion for HiFi use. Trouble is that most
valve amps distort within their normal operating conditions.

Technology moves on.
In 50 years we have gone from state-of-the-art valve amps
that sound like "a straight wire with gain"
and don't have any "valve sound"
to today's abominations that are deliberately non-linear.

--
Eiron.