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

In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
I refuse to learn to dislike something musically superb for its trivial
technical imperfections.


I just listened to Rubinstein playing Mozart and Chopin in mono from a
live concert. Before that was Sofronitsky playing Scriabin, same
quality. You're talking to the converted here, mate!

Similar here in my personal preference for Barbirolli and the Halle. They
were often criticised for all sorts of technical faults. The results seem
pretty musical to me, though. :-)

Ditto many of the 'historic' recordings in terms of recording quality. The
'defects' may be obvious at times, but the music remains worthwhile in my
view.

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 DiamondII's
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip lots of interesting stuff

I have no complaint about those who prefer valve or vinyl, though. My
interest is in understanding this in terms that illuminate both the
physiology involved, and the designs. Alas, this is difficult for the
reasons I have outlined.

Slainte,

Jim


That's interesting, thanks Jim. I would like to understand it too - it's
just the more I think about it the more complex it becomes. And here I'm
straying into socio-political-cultural-gender explanations *plus* (and
absolutely not forgeting) the technical bases of valve vs SS. I remember
a paper on coital noise and perceptions, same source, different views!
When I get time I may well have a look at all this, but before I do I
need to get my head round some the technical basics.

Anyways, for me now, I'll just get on with listening and fiddling and
fettling :-).

Rob

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

In article , Patrick Turner
wrote:



Harmonics in music are its very essence, so a fraction of a percent more
or less harmonics if they are 2h, 3h, 4h or 5h or 6h makes little
difference. At a concert, each person at a different seat in the
audience gets a different balance of harmonics. But the music is spoiled
if the imd mounts up as a result of excessive thd, because the imd
products are not harmonius with the musically related tones.

I am inclined to agree. I would also point out that some/many(?) of the
waveforms produced by musical instruments are asymmetric and have a high
peak/rms crest factor even with sustained waveforms (see one of my websites
for examples). This means that how the nonlinearity varies with signal
level may be quite important, and a single sinewave THD value does not
indicate this.


I must say I have not witnessed much 7h in anything I have tested,
unless the level was taken to the brink of clipping, when by that time
the the mix of harmonics has mushroomed, as opposed to am amp working at
1/10 of its maximum power, where the mix of harmonic products is less
complex, and also the imd mix is less complex.

My experience (mostly with SS amps) is similar. Indeed, my experience even
20+ years ago was that this was often less of a problem than many people
assumed.

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
 

On 15 Nov 2004 12:51:04 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Hello Don - I was a bit loose about my use of 'unbeliever' - as you rightly
point out. Have no fear - I'm as cynical as the next man, and I learn a lot
from (and enjoy) your posts and those of Jim, to name but two. No what I meant
was "those who refuse to believe on principal", which I don't think refers to
you or Jim - you're always open to consider ideas.


Fair enough - but this group in particular has far too many who refuse
to disbelieve on principle!

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

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

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....

Agreed. The reader/receiver has a responsibility to make a fair effort to
understand the message. However the writer/source also has a
responsibility
to try and ensure the message can be reasonably free from ambiguity or
misleading language. For communication to be possible the source and the
receiver have to co-operate to that extent. This means in part an agreed
'language'.


Exactly.



It also means both parties being alert to the possibility of
misunderstandings, and being willing to try and clarify if they wish
communication to actually take place.


Exactly - 'being willing' is the pivot here...




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.

Not quite. I am quite aware that leaving "*no* margin for error or
misinterpretation" is impossible. :-) (Please see below...)

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.

Tell me about it. I have taught large classes of undergrads, so could
probably do the statistics on that! ;-


I have an anecdote here which may interest you.

On a beautiful summer's afternoon in a beautiful garden in Wiltshire, a
decade or more ago, I got a 10/11/12 (?) year old kid with serious
behavioural problems (schoolwise - an inmate of some Special Needs
establishment) to write the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism' perfectly,
first time on a cigarette packet by simply saying the word slowly and
carefully to him (only once, as I recall), before his utterly amazed
grandfather and (tearfully proud) mother. (The topic/challenge had never
arisen before.)

How? - Simple, he liked me and wanted to succeed for me. (It helped that I
*knew* he could do it, he was a 'mini me' - hated shools and authority, was
not the least bit dim.... ;-)


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....?? )

Indeed. It is a phrase I am sometimes guilty of writing. :-)


I'm glad you spotted the smiley I was dismayed to see I had omitted! ;-)



So my point is, indeed, as you describe above. That those involved should
be alert for this and make reasonble efforts to sort out misunderstandings
over meanings of words, etc, if they wish to communicate. :-)


Exactamento!

:-)

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

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

Other than 'signal breakup' when the volume's wicked up too hard in
certain
circumstamces, what TF does this 'distortion' actually sound like?? What
should I be looking for?? Perhaps if I knew what it was I could develop a
loathing for it also.....??? :-)

I annoy my musician friends by liking recordings which are not up to their
high technical music performance standards.


That's odd because the Group's Resident Expert And Teacher On Nearly
Everything (GREAT ONE) tells us that 'musos' are notorious for having ****ty
hifi...???

('musos' - just dripping with respect and admiration, ain't it? ;-)


I refuse to learn to dislike
something musically superb for its trivial technical imperfections.


Of course, how else could you listen to it in the bathroom, for instance?


So, you should stick to your own principles in audio appreciation.
I will certainly continue to be interested in my type of imperfect but
good music and interested in the technical aspects of the best possible
audio reproduction.


Absolutely.


(Now, why do I also know that I'm not going to get an answer to this that
doesn't sound like it's coming from a raving looney?)

Oh, well.


:-)


(Well, maybe not 'raving'...... ;-)

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

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message


The choice of words
eg. "obvious failings" and "obsolete technology" gives the game away.

Yes, they show an unflinching devotion to keeping things factual.

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Nick Gorham" wrote


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

we

???

Continues to represent a body of opinion? Seeking 'safety in numbers'.
Lonely? Has friends after all?


Feck me! Missed the obvious - 'multiple personalites'...!!!

(Angie?? :-)

Ya hafta fekkin' larf....!!!

:-))

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

"mick" wrote in message


but a high THD does not necessarily mean that the amp
sounds bad or that the effect of the high THD is audible.

Sure it does. Take a power amp with 30% THD at listening levels. How can it
sound good?

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

"Keith G" wrote in message


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.

Given your abhorance of listening tests with reasonable experimental
controls Keith, this is all about your prejudices.