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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

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!!
;-)

Well, my wife and I went to a 'Space Opera' performance on Friday night
(Opera, but presented humourously as if 'Star Wars'). It looked/sounded
good, but we left after a while as the (idiot) conductor/keyboardist was
using a piercingly bright light to illuminate his music. This was shining
into our eyes so brightly that we left after about 10 mins with pains in
the eyes and heaches. :-/

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....

The 'light' came on for me when I got a big old valve amp (Arion) a few
years ago, since when I have never looked back and today I have a
selection of valve amps ranging from 40 year old classics to one which
has not even been powered up yet!!

OK?

Erm... I'm not sure what particular comment or question the above is
responding to.

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

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"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"....??

No. My point was how such a standard can be determined and agree. In some
cases we may be talking about a 'one dimensional' quantity which can be
easily specified in objective terms. In other cases we don't seem to have
that situation - e.g. with people using the term "better" for something
like their personal preferences in amplifiers *unless* they can give a
clear and unambiguous definition that then gives those discussing the topic
the '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.

You may be right if you will only settle for a "sure remedy". All messages
and communications carry with them the risk of error or misunderstanding.
However if we *do* wish to communicate, then to do so effectively, and
minimise the risk of misunderstanding, it seems to me to make sense to bear
what I am saying in mind.




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.....

But if in a given situation you "can't be arsed" is there then a point in
'comminicating' with a method which you are then, yourself, aware is
potentially flawed and misleading. Either you wish to communicate or you do
not.



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......

Agreed. However we have to also bear in mind that some 'personal opinions'
may read as if they were assumed to be, or presented as, general statements
of 'fact' about the physics, etc, of the real world. In such cases they may
be tested (and perhaps falsified) by some suitable method and shown
'wrong'.

We are all free to hold personal opinions. However we are also all prone to
form 'opinions' that turn out to be 'wrong' as soon as they are expressed
or taken to be more than personal preferences.

The above does not mean I am saying you are 'wrong' in any of your views,
just that I don't think it helps you or anyone else if your wordings are
ambiguous on these matters. However as you imply, it is your choice what
you write and how you write it. Others can then only judge your views on
that basis.

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

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

In article , 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.

The question then moves on to your "ascribe" making the assumption that it
is the case that these changes are due to 'distortion' in both cases.

Consider what you say above as one hypothesis.

1) That in each case you hear the distortion changing the sound in a way
that differs from one class of amp to the other.

Now consider an alternative hypothesis.

2) That the distortions have an audible effect in one case, but not in the
other, and you prefer one of the results.

Would you be happy with either hypothesis?

[snip]



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...

I was asking about what reason you have for "not looking for assistance" as
I was curious as to why you made the statement since you still seem to be
buying amplifiers.

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

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

In article , Rob
wrote:
Ian Molton wrote:


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.


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.

I would agree that it does seem to be the case that human physiology means
that our hearing system is quite non-linear, and hence does not always
react as we might think. However I don't think it follows from this that
distortion in audio equipment is a 'red herring'. It can alter the results
in an audible way, and hence must matter if we have an interest in the
results.

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

But it may be that your "intuative feeling" is simply incorrect as a
description of reality once you use the term "distort" which has a quite
specific definition in the context of measurements on audio equipment. Thus
it may be that your statement is unreliable.

I have learned this by listening, not measuring.

Again, by "learned" here you presumably mean "I have formed this feeling as
it seems consistent with hearing a difference and preferring one sort of
amp".

However would it not also be quite consistent with your experience to say
that you prefer the sound altered in a given way by a valve amp, so simply
miss this when listening to a SS amp? - i.e. it does not tell you anything
about the presence or absence of distortion in a SS amp beyond saying it
does not share the distortion of a valve amp?

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

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

In article , Paul Dormer
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" emitted :

It is more difficult to do this with "better" as people using the term
do not seem to be using it to describe the same qualities, or have
agreed how they could be specified. Thus any use of "better" tends to
lead to arguments that stem from the failure to have a shared agreed
meaning for the term which is clear and unambiguous.


The clarity of the kind you're talking about is only achievable (and
desirable!) in formal settings IMO.

I am less sure of 'desirable' in the above. However apart from that I agree
with you comment. However what I would prefer people to do in 'informal'
discussions is recognise that by using such words with no agree definition
they may simply lead themselves into arguing at cross purposes. Thus a lot
of time and 'fury' could be avoided if they recognise this and proceed
appropriately. e.g. simply acknowledge that the term they used may not tell
the reader anything.

However, if you can supply an unambiguous meaning for the word
"better"... one that works here...?

;-)

That is the problem... :-)

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

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

In article , Paul Dormer
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" emitted :

1) That the consumer press at times misleads people and impedes
understanding,

That may be true but A) presumably they (consumer audio press) are
subject to the same laws as everyone else and, B) nobody is prevented
from publishing "better" magazines.

I know of a number of occasions where manufacturers have been *very*
annoyed by comments and 'reviews' in magazines. Sometimes about clear and
damaging errors of fact, sometimes about pretty absurd opinions.

The problem is that upsetting or alienating the magazine editor is not a
good move on a strategic level. Hence you 'bet the farm' if you take them
to court. For that reason I don't think anyone has done so.

However I do know of furious phone calls, legal letters, etc. I also know
of 'deals' where the magazine agrees to publish something more positive in
the future or to publish a 'balancing' article provided it does not
actually criticise them magazine, etc, for the offending item. This is
mostly some years ago, but I would be very surprised to find this no longer
occurs at times. People's livelhoods are at stake. Designers *do* care
about the kit they develop, and having spent a long time on something it
can be really annoying to find an article dismisses it on the basis of
factual errors, etc.

I'd love to think that "better" magazines (i.e. more reliable and more
informative) might appear. Alas, the history of this area is not promising.

The reality is that magazines tend to pay on a per-page or per-word basis.
This means that quick and chirpy 'opinions' are an easy way to make money
and fill a magazine. Gaining and developing a detailed technical
understanding of the relevant topics - particularly if you wish to check
commonly assumed ideas or make 'new' points - can take a lot more time than
just sitting down and writing a few thousands words of your personal
opinions. [1]

Having a lab of kit adequate for the modern measurements to high standards
is also expensive to acquire and maintain. Simply saying "I like A,
therefore it is 'better'" is much cheaper and easier. It also helps ensure
the 'guru' status.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] FWIW I am now trying to write a couple of articles per year for HFN. My
experience so far is that each one takes me 2-3 *months* to write as I am
trying to research the relevant areas, understand them, and present results
that are either 'new' to the audio mags, or present things in an
informative way that will illuminate areas that are overlooked. I can't say
how successful I have been, but the point here is that if I was doing it
for the money I would have abandoned this almost as soon as I started. :-)

The problem is that most professional or semi-professional writers are
under time and money pressures so can't always be expected to work as I
have been doing. How much effort (and understanding) they bring to bear
therefore varies a lot from one writer/editor to another, but generally
under the presures I indicate. In general, they don't *want* to make
errors, but end up making them as a result of being human, and under
pressure.

--
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

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

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.

Which abominations are these - sorry, didn't follow the reference? Andy

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

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

"Keith G" wrote
I remains a simple ****-pusher from the sticks

And you're calling Pinkie?!

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote


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!!
;-)


Well, my wife and I went to a 'Space Opera' performance on Friday night

On the subject of performances, I saw 'Dressed to kill' (KISS tribute)
at the limelight in crewe the other night.

stunning... my ears are still bleeding ;-)

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

Eiron wrote:
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.

Truer words have not been spoken.