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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:19:45 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:
Rob wrote:

Think of the amp as a lens - a valve amp 'bends the light' in a

way that allows focus. Some wouldsay distortion, I'd say focus, and
it's the curious sense of space that valve amps relay plus the
'smoothness'.

Ok, its a "lens"

And there is no such thing as a perfect lens.

can you explain how your analogy works please because it makes little
sense to me.

The medium through which we 'see' music (the lens analogy) is better
served with valves, sometimes

Only through *your* distorted vision..............

lenses dont amplify light, they bend or distort it.

I know - they can amplify an object - hence the anaolgy with 'amplifier'.

As you can tell(!) it's difficult (impossible?!) to set this out with
empirical data. Just listen to one.

I have, they distort, end of story.........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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. :-/


That *is* a bloody nuisance! I suppose the guy needed a big light for the
keyboard but surely it could have been shielded in some way?

I don't know if it's me getting old, but most of the last few 'live events'
I've attended I wouldn't do twice, IYSWIM...



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.


Me neither.....

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

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

Jim, in 1971, my 'Verbal Ability' was placed ...

I've never had a problem understanding you Keith. I get the impression
that you write as you speak! :-)


Yes, you're not far wrong - I tend to do exactly that! ;-)

(Which is to say there's usually some attempt at some form of lame wit -
which appears to go unnoticed much of the time!! :-)

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

Andy Evans wrote:
He'd spent $3,000 on SS pre amd power amps, but after a year he could stand it
no longer, and went to all tubes, how's that for 22 yr old ears?

Nice post, Patrick.

Can we all join in the back-slapping?

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:19:45 +0000, Rob
wrote:


Ian Molton wrote:

Rob wrote:

Think of the amp as a lens - a valve amp 'bends the light' in a


way that allows focus. Some wouldsay distortion, I'd say focus, and
it's the curious sense of space that valve amps relay plus the
'smoothness'.

Ok, its a "lens"


And there is no such thing as a perfect lens.



I know

can you explain how your analogy works please because it makes little
sense to me.

The medium through which we 'see' music (the lens analogy) is better
served with valves, sometimes


Only through *your* distorted vision..............


Er, beginning to wish I'd never started this lens thing - a lens
corrects vision, no eye is perfect, etc, oh yes.


lenses dont amplify light, they bend or distort it.

I know - they can amplify an object - hence the anaolgy with 'amplifier'.

As you can tell(!) it's difficult (impossible?!) to set this out with
empirical data. Just listen to one.


I have, they distort, end of story.........................

Fine, I've had enough!

:-)

Rob

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

Rob wrote:
Ian Molton wrote:

Rob wrote:

Think of the amp as a lens - a valve amp 'bends the light' in a

Ok, its a "lens".

can you explain how your analogy works please because it makes little
sense to me.

The medium through which we 'see' music (the lens analogy) is better
served with valves, sometimes

Why? The only reason I can think of is because they're made of glass...

lenses dont amplify light, they bend or distort it.

I know - they can amplify an object - hence the anaolgy with 'amplifier'.

No, the 'amplification' you refer to is a distortion of the light 'rays'
that hit the object, by the lens, that makes them diverge more. the
light isnt getting bigegr, nor is it getting brighter, in fact *less*
light energy will reach you from the object when viewed through the
lens, as the smae amount of light is being spread over a greater area.

As you can tell(!) it's difficult (impossible?!) to set this out with
empirical data. Just listen to one.

So you cant explain it and ask me to accept what you say based on my
perception of the world rather than an impirical measurement?

we *KNOW* we can record and reproduce waveforms with far greater
precision than human hearing allows us to perceive. why then can we not
see the 'distortions' in tests?

Our ears are merely transducers, bound by the same physical laws as
everything else - if you can hear something, it can be meaasured, even
if the measurement must be taken by monitoring the electrical impulses
in someones brain to 'tap into' the signals from their ears.

Can you suggest any reason why I should believe there is some
impossible-to-measure factor that is the reason you prefer valve amps?

I prefer to listen with the bass knob turned up a notch. its not a
'subtle nuance' I brought out of the original recording, its an added one.

Why cant you accept that valve amps (non transparent ones) simply
distort in a way you like, and (good) SS (or valve) amps do not distort
audibly.

?

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

Rob wrote:

The only thing I'm attempting to do in this thread (good point actually
SP) is encourage people to *try* a valve amplifier if they have the
money and inclination, and not dismiss it on the basis of empirical
evidence.

Most of us here *have* tried one. but when one already has an
essentially perfect amp, why would one need to improve on that?

If you want to add 'warm friendly distortion' sure, use a
non-transparent valve amp. No-one will stop you.

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

Ian Molton wrote:


Why cant you accept that valve amps (non transparent ones) simply
distort in a way you like, and (good) SS (or valve) amps do not distort
audibly.


Because, whilst I don't think anyone is claming that valve amps produce
less measurable alteration of the signal than solid state ones, I think
everyone who is trying to make the same point, is saying that it seems
to them that the valve amp appears to reproduce music in a more accurate
fashion, not measurable accuracy, but percieved accuracy. And because of
the perceived increase in accuracy, I think that people find the use of
the word distortion problematic. It is hard to use a term that you have
attached negative connatations to, to describe a effect that they see as
positive.

Step back from this for a minute and think about it, there have been a
steady procession of posters saying almost the same thing about why they
like valve amps, and what they percieve the difference in sound to be.
There seems to be a high correlation between their description of the
sound, and what it is that they feel is lacking in solid state
amplification. This to me is showing that there may well be something
real at work here, something that should deserve closer study.

While on the "other" side, there is a monotone of comments along the
lines of "nothing to see here, move on". No audible distortion, For all
intents perfect. All sound the same, etc...

--
Nick

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


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'.


OK, in the real world this is more likely to take to form of a question or
series of questions to remove/reduce unambiguity than for someone,
expressing an opinion, to match the Gettysburgh Address with a perfect,
all-encompassing statement of preference that is immediately clear to all
and which leaves nothing to question or the imagination, is it not?


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.


The wish to communicate and the wish to understand are not necessarily one
and the same thing all of the time: "There's none so blind as those who
won't see...."


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'.


Let's put this into a different perspective: If some **** *chooses* to
interpret a stated opinion as a fact he is either a fool or up to some form
of mischief....



We are all free to hold personal opinions.


Yes, a very good weekend to remember that......


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.


Quite and it is therefore just as important that the 'expressee' does what
he can to ensure that he fully understands the opinion stated by the
'expressor'.....



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.


OK, that was all very interesting, if a little tautological, but it seems to
me you are basically saying that someone expressing an opinion must do so in
a way which leaves no margin for error or misinterpretation. Fine, but when
an opinion is expressed at large to number of people it is inevitable that
it will interpreted differently by at least some of them. My point is that,
unless they find it disadvantageous so do to, anyone with a genuine interest
in that opinion will do what they can to reduce the possibility of
misunderstanding, will they not?

(You know, start most of their statements with the words 'Not sure what you
mean....?? )

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

Nick Gorham wrote:
Ian Molton wrote:


Why cant you accept that valve amps (non transparent ones) simply
distort in a way you like, and (good) SS (or valve) amps do not
distort audibly.

Because, whilst I don't think anyone is claming that valve amps produce
less measurable alteration of the signal than solid state ones, I think
everyone who is trying to make the same point, is saying that it seems
to them that the valve amp appears to reproduce music in a more accurate
fashion, not measurable accuracy, but percieved accuracy.

What kind of bull**** is this? 'perceived accuracy' ? either something
is accurate or it isnt.

why cant you say it reproduces music in a more pleasurable fashion and
have done with it ?

why does it HAVE to be more accurate, than an SS system, just because
you happen to prefer the sound ?

Some people like mechanical watches, despite their inaccuracies. Few
claim they keep time in a smoother fashion or some similar bull****.

I HAVE listened to valve amps. I *DO* like the sound some produce. I
DONT like the same distortion applied to all my music. I *USE* my tone
controls.