"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:16:22 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
JustMe wrote:

Many of you chaps believe that the Peter Walker(?) "straight-wire"
ideal
is
that which any "hifi" designer should aspire to construct.

Do you think that this is attainable?

To all intents and purposes it has been attained in all good SS amps
(And a handful of exceptional valve amps)

Please can you suggest some examples? (Hopefully I will know at least
one!)

Audiolab 8000S, and the 8000P power amp. Common enough, and
essentually 'blameless', as Doug Self would say.

Well I know these amps very well and used to own an 8000S, so I'd find
that
to be a useful reference.

So, who's going to build me an Alchemist Kraken APD6aII filter for use
with
an 8000S then?

That depends what was wrong with the Kraken! If it's not a simple FR
difference, then a filter isn't going to do it. From your description,
it sounds more likely that it was a combination of weak bass and high
distortion, either crossover or HF IMD. You could likely synthesise
this with a good DSP unit (and a good programmer!), but wouldn't it be
simpler just to buy another amp?

There's nothing wrong with the Kraken - I love it, it sounds better than the
Audiolab (see thread "Amp swap disappointment" for more).
I don't want to buy another amp - I'm going to flog the Audiolab shortly and
continue to enjoy the pleasures of the Kraken.
If you were to apply any simple description to the sound, it wouldn't be
weak bass, in my opinion, but rounded-off HF.

I presume such a filter could be built to be inserted via the 8000S's
pre-power loop, enabling a very simple switch between "8000S
straight-line
integrated" and "8000S Pre/Power/Alchemist mode" )

I'm happy to provide the amp for measurement and, from what I've read,
Stewart will be glad to provide an environment for a double-blind test
;o)

Sure, although I'm not sure that fiddling with filters is going to
give you what you're looking for. If you really do want 'character' in
your amplifier, perhaps you should look at single-ended valve designs.

I don't have any experience with these.

BTW I'm not making any claims to right/wrong on any issue here, but I
find
this a very interesting concept and, to me at least, the results of such
a
test would have a profound impact on the way I would look at different
amps
and the choices made by those who design and build hifi products. It
would
also make an interesting article for a decent hifi mag and a good website
too.

Of course, some of you may think that this is nothing new and an
unrealistic
quest, but I'm not aware of a hifi product "simulator" and would be glad
to
buy one at a reasonable price, if it worked accurately.

For performance rather than reproduction, I believe that Marshall do a
range of amps which have 'valvesound' simulators built in. OTOH, I'm
informed that they don't really sound the same as a classic valved
Marshall (shrug).

So then, from what you and others would say, the "filters" or "DSPs" used
now, are NOT able to accurately emulate other amps with accuracy and the
technology to do so may be some way off and/or be too expensive?

JustMe wrote:


For performance rather than reproduction, I believe that Marshall do a
range of amps which have 'valvesound' simulators built in. OTOH, I'm
informed that they don't really sound the same as a classic valved
Marshall (shrug).


So then, from what you and others would say, the "filters" or "DSPs" used
now, are NOT able to accurately emulate other amps with accuracy and the
technology to do so may be some way off and/or be too expensive?



The POD I mentioned is a world apart from the "valvesound" ideas, but
still not perfect, but better than lugging 15 different amps around. I
haven't looked for some time, but the makers web site has assorted sound
clips of the different effects it can do.

I don't think you can make a guitar sound like its being played at loud
volumn, through a amp and speakers that are compressing the tops of the
wave without clipping them, without actually doing it, all three parts
the guitar (strings, body and pickup's), amp, and speakers are
intereacting to produce the result. If you DI a guitar, and then replay
that through a amp, you get quite a different effect. And for that
matter, its quite a different feeling playing a (say strat) guitar on
the edge of feedback, there is so much life in the strings, you are as
much keeping it on a leash as playing it.

Listen to some of the small sounds at the back of the mix in something
like Electric Ladyland, and consider how loud they must have actually
been played, esp as that was before amps with three controlable gain
stages (or even two) were about.

--
Nick

"Nick Gorham" wrote in

The POD I mentioned is a world apart from the "valvesound" ideas, but
still not perfect, but better than lugging 15 different amps around. I
haven't looked for some time, but the makers web site has assorted sound
clips of the different effects it can do.

I don't think you can make a guitar sound like its being played at loud
volumn, through a amp and speakers that are compressing the tops of the
wave without clipping them, without actually doing it, all three parts the
guitar (strings, body and pickup's), amp, and speakers are intereacting to
produce the result. If you DI a guitar, and then replay that through a
amp, you get quite a different effect. And for that matter, its quite a
different feeling playing a (say strat) guitar on the edge of feedback,
there is so much life in the strings, you are as much keeping it on a
leash as playing it.

Listen to some of the small sounds at the back of the mix in something
like Electric Ladyland,



Hmmm, you'd need valve amplification and a decent vinyl rig to be able to do
that for a start!

Keith G wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in


The POD I mentioned is a world apart from the "valvesound" ideas, but
still not perfect, but better than lugging 15 different amps around. I
haven't looked for some time, but the makers web site has assorted sound
clips of the different effects it can do.

I don't think you can make a guitar sound like its being played at loud
volumn, through a amp and speakers that are compressing the tops of the
wave without clipping them, without actually doing it, all three parts the
guitar (strings, body and pickup's), amp, and speakers are intereacting to
produce the result. If you DI a guitar, and then replay that through a
amp, you get quite a different effect. And for that matter, its quite a
different feeling playing a (say strat) guitar on the edge of feedback,
there is so much life in the strings, you are as much keeping it on a
leash as playing it.

Listen to some of the small sounds at the back of the mix in something
like Electric Ladyland,




Hmmm, you'd need valve amplification and a decent vinyl rig to be able to do
that for a start!




In fact thats a example of the damage that can be done by looking at
scopes. When the first masters were made of Electric Ladyland, the
engineers looked at the tape, and found all sorts of odd out of phase
signals on it, so they decided to fix it. When the resultant pressing
was heard by Hendrix, he was less than impressed, they had spent a lot
of time creating all the out of phase effects in the first place. Thats
why its the second pressing is the one to have, not the first.

--
Nick

Nick Gorham wrote:

In fact thats a example of the damage that can be done by looking at
scopes. When the first masters were made of Electric Ladyland, the
engineers looked at the tape, and found all sorts of odd out of phase
signals on it, so they decided to fix it. When the resultant pressing
was heard by Hendrix, he was less than impressed, they had spent a lot
of time creating all the out of phase effects in the first place. Thats
why its the second pressing is the one to have, not the first.

I call BS.

looking at a scope with simple waveforms on you may be able to see
out-of-phaseness.

I challenge you to do so on a complex musical source.

Ian Molton wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

In fact thats a example of the damage that can be done by looking at
scopes. When the first masters were made of Electric Ladyland, the
engineers looked at the tape, and found all sorts of odd out of phase
signals on it, so they decided to fix it. When the resultant pressing
was heard by Hendrix, he was less than impressed, they had spent a lot
of time creating all the out of phase effects in the first place.
Thats why its the second pressing is the one to have, not the first.


I call BS.

looking at a scope with simple waveforms on you may be able to see
out-of-phaseness.

I challenge you to do so on a complex musical source.

Accepted, not wanting to be accused of bull**** (though this was just
ment to be a hopefully interesting "did you know"). I thought I would
try myself. yes I know he as left the building, but I still didn't want
the accusation to stick :-)

They did have some fun on that record, I can picture them, surrounded by
what was then (I guess) state of the art kit, finding ways to abuse it.

I wish I had my video camera on hand, anybody want to spend a few
minutes with a scope and has that recording, there is some quite OBVIOUS
out of phase information, try side one track one, "And the gods made love".

Anybody know of any PC stuff that could create a lissajous from a wav ?

--
Nick

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:
Keith G wrote:


Listen to some of the small sounds at the back of the mix in something
like Electric Ladyland,


Hmmm, you'd need valve amplification and a decent vinyl rig to be able
to do that for a start!


In fact thats a example of the damage that can be done by looking at
scopes. When the first masters were made of Electric Ladyland, the
engineers looked at the tape, and found all sorts of odd out of phase
signals on it, so they decided to fix it. When the resultant pressing
was heard by Hendrix, he was less than impressed, they had spent a lot
of time creating all the out of phase effects in the first place. Thats
why its the second pressing is the one to have, not the first.

I enjoy Hendrix a lot. Didn't know about EL being altered as you describe.
Interesting. These days I listen to his work on CD-A, though. (Or DVD-V).
Some of the phase effects, etc, seem to come over well using ESL's. :-)

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:00:03 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Nick Gorham" wrote in

The POD I mentioned is a world apart from the "valvesound" ideas, but
still not perfect, but better than lugging 15 different amps around. I
haven't looked for some time, but the makers web site has assorted sound
clips of the different effects it can do.

I don't think you can make a guitar sound like its being played at loud
volumn, through a amp and speakers that are compressing the tops of the
wave without clipping them, without actually doing it, all three parts the
guitar (strings, body and pickup's), amp, and speakers are intereacting to
produce the result. If you DI a guitar, and then replay that through a
amp, you get quite a different effect. And for that matter, its quite a
different feeling playing a (say strat) guitar on the edge of feedback,
there is so much life in the strings, you are as much keeping it on a
leash as playing it.

Listen to some of the small sounds at the back of the mix in something
like Electric Ladyland,

Hmmm, you'd need valve amplification and a decent vinyl rig to be able to do
that for a start!

I think you mean that you'd want to completely avoid valves and vinyl
for that.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

JustMe wrote:

So then, from what you and others would say, the "filters" or "DSPs" used
now, are NOT able to accurately emulate other amps with accuracy and the
technology to do so may be some way off and/or be too expensive?

Not necessarily. The main difficulty is in generating a suitable *model*
not in actually building hardware to implement it.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:28:11 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:16:22 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
JustMe wrote:

Many of you chaps believe that the Peter Walker(?) "straight-wire"
ideal
is
that which any "hifi" designer should aspire to construct.

Do you think that this is attainable?

To all intents and purposes it has been attained in all good SS amps
(And a handful of exceptional valve amps)

Please can you suggest some examples? (Hopefully I will know at least
one!)

Audiolab 8000S, and the 8000P power amp. Common enough, and
essentually 'blameless', as Doug Self would say.

Well I know these amps very well and used to own an 8000S, so I'd find that
to be a useful reference.

So, who's going to build me an Alchemist Kraken APD6aII filter for use with
an 8000S then?

That depends what was wrong with the Kraken! If it's not a simple FR
difference, then a filter isn't going to do it. From your description,
it sounds more likely that it was a combination of weak bass and high
distortion, either crossover or HF IMD. You could likely synthesise
this with a good DSP unit (and a good programmer!), but wouldn't it be
simpler just to buy another amp?

There's nothing wrong with the Kraken - I love it, it sounds better than the
Audiolab (see thread "Amp swap disappointment" for more).

Of course, there's something wrong with the Kraken, otherwise it would
sound like any other good amp! Please don't use terms like 'sounds
better', when what you mean is that *you* prefer some particular
nonlinearity.

I don't want to buy another amp - I'm going to flog the Audiolab shortly and
continue to enjoy the pleasures of the Kraken.
If you were to apply any simple description to the sound, it wouldn't be
weak bass, in my opinion, but rounded-off HF.

Fine, so that's your preference, no problem.

So then, from what you and others would say, the "filters" or "DSPs" used
now, are NOT able to accurately emulate other amps with accuracy and the
technology to do so may be some way off and/or be too expensive?

As noted, it depends what's wrong with the Kraken. It might be easily
simulated, or it might take a serious box of DSP tricks.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering