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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:28:53 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"mick" wrote

You have raised a very good point there.

We know that valve amps distort. We know that we can produce ss amps
with almost unmeasurable (never mind inaudible) distortion.

We also know that our hearing is non-linear in all sorts of ways. We know
that the ear/brain combination does some *very* strange things under
certain conditions. Our hearing has even been found to introduce its own
THD which can be at least partially measured using a microphone in the
middle ear.

Could it be possible that non-linearity and the built-in distortion
factor is what causes the difference in sound? That a perfect "wire with
gain" amplification is actually *wrong* for our ears simply because it
does *not* introduce the distortion that our hearing associates with
"real" sound?


Hmm, interesting. (Very.)

No, it's not interesting at all. It's a very old and *very* misguided
argument. Certainly, our ears distort - but they distort in exactly
the same way when listening to the live performance as to a
reproduction at the same SPL.

Following on from this hypothesis, I can see what the "valvies" mean by
the descriptions that they give (including the argued word "better"). I
can also see why some of them take a dislike to "ss" sound. Is the real
problem that in order to produce realistic-sounding results we *need* some
sort of distortion to fool our hearing into accepting the sound as real?

No, it's simply that bad valve amps have well-known *euphonic*
artifacts. Easy listening, but never accurate.

If it helps, as a valvie, I would like to state that when we are not put on
the defensive by 'sandampers' (who, for some strange reason, feel so bloody
*threatened*...??) it is not so much a case of actually disliking ss
amplification, but more a case of simply liking valves better.

Just another sign of the ignorance of valvies, that they use a stupid
attempted pejorative term like 'sandamp' without understanding that
there's *much* more melted sand in their glowing bottles. Basically,
as dogs and their owners tend to look alike, so the heads of valvies
and their amps tend to similarity - both hollow-state......... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:02:59 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

OK, don't bother coming to, er, Pommyland, to shop for amps atm, then....

**The odd thing here is, that, to Aussies, there is Pommyland, Scotland
and Ireland. We don't label the entire UK with the term: Pommyland. We
don't think much about the Welsh (though I did live with a Welsh lass for
awhile). I guess it's all that coal mining and singing and stuff.

I would imagine thaqt the Kiwis are more akin to the Welsh, he said
sheepishly................ :-)

Apropos of nothing, it is my contention that Irish women (if you catch them
in their *fleeting* bloom) are second only to German women in the
pulchritude stakes....

Nah, Italians - but as you say, lacking endurance. For that, you need
Scandinavians.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:39:16 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote:


As I said, you can waffle as much as you like. Transistor technology is
57 years old, any new advances are still based on old technology.

To use your analogy then doesn't that preclude, $DEITY forbid, someone
using valves on a state of the art computer motherboard?


So your position is that transistors now are the same as transistors 57
years ago - there is no current state of the art. You are entirely
clueless.

Valves, on the other hand, are exactly like they were 57 years ago -
there have been no advances and the state of their art is far from
current.

I am not quite sure how:

A) multiple field emitters, polotrons, and various other vacuum-state
devices.

B) high mobility / ballistic or quantum well/dot or multiple barried SS
devices.

fit into the above picture. My understanding is that they have been
developed during the last couple of decades, and in some cases required new
understanding of the relevant physics and/or novel fabrication methods.

Don't know if any of them have been used in audio, though. :-)

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
 

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:35:44 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

snip

mick - if you wish to continue discussing this Im happy to respond to you.

Cheers, Ian.

This is all just playing with ideas. I don't profess to be an expert on
hearing, recording or amplification or anything remotely connected with
them! Somebody, somewhere *must* have written books on this stuff, but I
probably wouldn't understand them... grin

I can see where you are coming from: "If listening to a live performance,
for the sake of argument, from a point source instrument, our 'inherent
distortion' is the only thing impacting on the signal."

But our ears don't perceive an instrument as a point source. We hear
positional information - possibly phase and/or frequency shift sensing -
which must include reflected sound and, possibly, THD inherrent in any
frequency shift detection. There are no point source sounds that we can
detect in isolation - except maybe in an anechoical chamber!

Even stereo point sources with perfect reproduction *may* be insufficient
to reproduce all the necessary information as much of it must be at very
low level (where it could be detectable with logarithmic hearing but not
with linear amplification - the source information would be lost at the
microphone).

"If we now make a recording of the signal, again, for the sake of argument,
with a perfect microphone, and played it back from a single speaker in
place of the musician, with a perfect speaker, we should expect the
speaker to produce the same waveform as the musical instrument."

You are quite right - providing that the listener is comparing a point
source live instrument to an isolated single driver speaker in an anechoic
chamber. Another perfect microphone at the original listener's location
should give an exact copy of the source (although if you used a human
listener he/she should only have one ear, with the outer bit (pinnae? not
sure...) cut off!).

In real life we would be producing a point-source representation of the
original, with all the location information stripped from it. It would
measure perfectly, but information would be missing. It would be analagous
to a painting, which is a 2D represdentation of a 3D space.

"If we can agree on the above, this suggests that in order to hear
something that is true to the original sound, we need to have distortion
free reproduction."

IMHO that doesn't necessarily follow. Unless you can be sure of recreating
*all* reflected sound from the original source's surroundings the
infinitely low distortion of a perfect reproduction system will still be
missing information.

I just have a hunch that the THD produced by a valve amp is doing more
than just giving a "warm" and "easy" feeling to the sound. I am wondering
if it is fooling the ear/brain combination in some way. That deception is
translated by some people into a feeling that the sound is more lifelike,
giving rise to their almost unanimous descriptions. This could be going
further than simple addition of even harmonics being used to "fill out"
musical sound to make it feel "bigger".

I don't know. Someone must have done, or be doing, research on this.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

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

"mick" wrote in message

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:54:04 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

snip

That wasnt my question. My question asked why Keith couldnt accept
the 'cold harsh sound' of SS amps was due to a LACK of audible
distortion.

I said nothing about wether valve amps distort.

You have raised a very good point there.

We know that valve amps distort. We know that we can produce ss amps
with almost unmeasurable (never mind inaudible) distortion.

We also know that our hearing is non-linear in all sorts of ways. We
know that the ear/brain combination does some *very* strange things
under certain conditions. Our hearing has even been found to
introduce its own THD which can be at least partially measured using
a microphone in the middle ear.

Note, this distortion overlays everything that we hear. It is part of the
natural hearing experience.

Could it be possible that non-linearity and the built-in distortion
factor is what causes the difference in sound?

It's impossible because this distortion is part of unamplified,
non-reproduced sound.

That a perfect "wire
with gain" amplification is actually *wrong* for our ears simply
because it does *not* introduce the distortion that our hearing
associates with "real" sound?

Our ears introduce this distortion whether the sound is pre-distorted by a
tube amplifier or not.

This logic is so bad that it does not deserve further discussion.

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

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:28:15 +0000, Ian Molton used
to say...

IOW, the ear introduces the same distortion all the time, so
introducing more distortion wont help.

Why won't it help?

Becuase its distortion.

Ever heard of noise cancellation technology?

Sure, but its quite a different thing.

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

"mick" wrote in message



This is all just playing with ideas.

It's worse than that, its mangling ideas with bad logic.

I don't profess to be an expert
on hearing, recording or amplification or anything remotely connected
with them! Somebody, somewhere *must* have written books on this
stuff, but I probably wouldn't understand them... grin

First study up on basic logic. This seems to be lacking from your ideas.

I can see where you are coming from: "If listening to a live
performance, for the sake of argument, from a point source
instrument, our 'inherent distortion' is the only thing impacting on
the signal."

No, the words "point source" are gratuitous, and an obvious attempt to
introduce either a straw man or a red herring.

Do try to think logically and do try to stay on topic.

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

"Keith G" wrote in message

"mick" wrote


You have raised a very good point there.

We know that valve amps distort. We know that we can produce ss amps
with almost unmeasurable (never mind inaudible) distortion.

We also know that our hearing is non-linear in all sorts of ways. We
know that the ear/brain combination does some *very* strange things
under certain conditions. Our hearing has even been found to
introduce its own THD which can be at least partially measured using
a microphone in the middle ear.

Could it be possible that non-linearity and the built-in distortion
factor is what causes the difference in sound? That a perfect "wire
with gain" amplification is actually *wrong* for our ears simply
because it does *not* introduce the distortion that our hearing
associates with "real" sound?


Hmm, interesting. (Very.)

Only to ******s like you, Keith.

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

Mike Gilmour wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Expect thats the new bottles giving out the smell, had the same thing
happen here when I installed 8 new KT88's..the stink was 'orrible but it
went away after about an hour. Funny that, because it's the first time I
had quite that strong smell from new power valves...probably a bit of
burnt
bean sauce and rice wine after the factory lunch break :-) ......If they
have one that is!

Mike

Smelly amps after turn on indicate the tubes have not even been tested
properly.

I hope they last.
Chinese KT88 copies had a reputation for having a 40%
failure rate over 12 mths.

Dunno Patrick I went back to Svetlana's 6550C's again because I lost at
least 50% of the dynamics with the '88's but gained some (psudeo?) 'air',
IMO not worth the trade. Tried KT90's which went far too far in the other
direction :-)

The problem is that chinese amps might look nice, even sound nice,
but the detailed examination of the circuit and output transformer quality
often leaves a lot to be desired.

They seem to be improving slowly.

Get over there, you'd make a shed load of cash designing machines to make
wide band width OPT for future audiophile amplifiers

The designs for these have been common knowledge for 60 years at least,
and all the info on how is spelled out in RDH4.
But the chinese like to make copies, and they overlook the inner details,
and some of the product is like a Rolex watch made in HK.

Mechanised winders for transformers have been around for years,
and the asians don't need lessons or lectures from me.

The Zero was no match for a Huricane or Spitfire eh.



Patrick Turner.

.. s ei




Patrick Turner.

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

Keith G wrote:

"Mike Gilmour" wrote



Dunno Patrick I went back to Svetlana's 6550C's again because I lost at
least 50% of the dynamics with the '88's but gained some (psudeo?) 'air',
IMO not worth the trade. Tried KT90's which went far too far in the other
direction :-)

Interesting. I'm running my KiT88 with Svet 6550Cs in and have been for a
while now.

This started out as a temporary measure when I had a KT88 go down leaving me
one can short of a 6-pack, as it were, but since most of the people who get
to hear it have continued in their admiration of the sound (and the cost of
a set of four KT88s being not exactly chump change) I've not got round to
replacing them yet.

Is it your opinion that the 6550s are a better valve generally? - I'd sooner
not spend £150 or more to find out they are, if that's likely to be the
case!!

(I can't say I 'remember' a vastly different sound myself.....!!??)

KT88 EH and 6550 EH are now exactly electronically identical
from all the tests I have done.
Brands other than EH will be different.
Not necessarily better or worse, and tube amps sonic signatures
depend on combinations of sources and speakers; so do some SS amps.
so I don't think there is an easy explanation for what we hear.

Both perform well, and a guy who replaced the ageing jan GE6550A in an amp I
made for him
was astounded with the new 6550 EH.

But I also changed other things in the amp, like using EL
84 as driver triodes, instead of 6CG7, and a simpler NFB application.
And so I dunno what contributed to the
better dynamics.
Thd went from 0.04% at 3 watts to 0.01%, with no more NFB applied,
so maybe that says something.

Patrick Turner.