On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:26:17 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...

Iain M Churches wrote:


That seems to be exactly the conditions under which it is used. No-one
seems to play Jethro Tull on a 300B:-)


Takes all sorts, Tull works fine for me with a 211.

Then again, I am no a great fan of 300b's at the best of times.

While not exactly a Krell-crusher, a 211 SET amp is perfectly capable
of putting out 25 watts, so hardly comparable to a 5-8 watts 300B
jobby.

So you are a member of what Stewart calls the "audio lunatic fringe" ? :-)
Having had the opportunity to listen to an SET amp, I must say I was
more than impressed.

With the 211 or especially 845, acceptable results with 'normal'
speakers are certainly possible.

Speakers are ProAc Studio 125's, 98db/w rated, but in a small room, so
almost load enough for me for most things, increasing the B+ and maybe a
bit of A2 should make it more than loud enough.

With a 211 amp, I'd agree that realistic levels are possible with
those speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:02:17 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I prefer SS for this and all other music listening. More natural,
and I know natural because I record.

Professionally?

He probably does it for the love of it, taking time and care, and
without your commercial constraints.................... :-)

A Nagra and a crossed pair of STC 4038s can often sound more
natural than anything churned out by the Abbey Road Studios!
Especially on your beloved 'small ensembles'.


Did you listen to Arny's "natural" recording, the URL of which Mike
posted earlier in this thread.

I don't think that Abbey Road has anything to worry about:-))

Ian, if you had done your homework, you'd know that you have been
misrepresenting most of the facts related to this recording.

I'm just sitting here waiting for you to cut yourself enough rope.

Arny, I don't have any more facts than the URL and your recording.

You also have google, no?

You seem to still be unable to spell my first name.

I spell it, just not properly. ;-)

What is so difficult?

Nonstandard spelling.

"bugbear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bugbear" wrote in message


On a related note, given the extreme claims
made for human hearing (or audio perception in
its widest sense) has there been a reputable
documented case of a sonic change detectable by a human
under DBT that CANNOT be detected by measurement?


AFAIK no.

Listening tests are at least 10 times less sensitive than the best
measurements.

If that's true, your answer to my question is "yes" (not no).

I don't see it.

IOW, measurements are about 10 times more sensitive than listening tests or
more.

IOW not only are their no audibly detectable changes that can't be measured,
its easier to measure them than hear them.

Measurable differences can abound between pieces of equipment that cannot be
audibly distinguished.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:02:17 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I prefer SS for this and all other music listening. More natural,
and I know natural because I record.

Professionally?

He probably does it for the love of it, taking time and care, and
without your commercial constraints.................... :-)

A Nagra and a crossed pair of STC 4038s can often sound more
natural than anything churned out by the Abbey Road Studios!
Especially on your beloved 'small ensembles'.


Did you listen to Arny's "natural" recording, the URL of which Mike
posted earlier in this thread.

I don't think that Abbey Road has anything to worry about:-))

Ian, if you had done your homework, you'd know that you have been
misrepresenting most of the facts related to this recording.

I'm just sitting here waiting for you to cut yourself enough rope.

Arny, I don't have any more facts than the URL and your recording.

You also have google, no?

Yes indeed.
What should I look for?
Will it make the recording sound any better? :-)

You seem to still be unable to spell my first name.

I spell it, just not properly. ;-)

What is so difficult?

Nonstandard spelling.

Think of it as a four letter word. You will manage:-)

Regards
Iain

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


With the 211 or especially 845, acceptable results with 'normal'
speakers are certainly possible.



There are some interesting looking 845's coming out now, I may give
those a try sometime as well.

http://www.jacmusic.com/html/article...awyer/test.pdf

When I get a TX made for the GM70's it should fit the 845 as well,
somewhere between 5 and 7k Primary

--
Nick

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:
Just a few days ago, he invited me to listen to a recording of
Shostakovich String Quartet No.3 Op.73 in F major, on which he
played. He uses a Russian built SET amplifier and a pair of Quad ELS.

Which amplifier, and which speakers?
The amp was built by a Russian engineer called Anton Reznikov,

As the result of a phone call, I now know that the amp uses a 211
preceded by a 6SN7 octal.

The ELS are later than I thought. Probably 1990?
From my description of them, my BBC pal tells me they are probably
type 63 Mk II. They have handles on the side, and were a version for
the USA only he thinks.

Jim, can you confirm this?

Regards
Iain

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In my case old age went bounding past me years ago. :-)

Slainte,

Jim


Curse or blessing, the older I get the more I know how little I really
understand.

Ian

--
Ian Bell

The GM70 is now a 211

I think Nic Wilshire is working on a GM70 and looking for a driver with high
transconductance, low Ra and mu around 35. Like you I'd use a 6SN7 type for low
distortion and tonal accuracy, and in fact I've invested heavily in 6SN7, 7N7,
7AF7, 6J5G, 6P5GT, 2C22, 7193, 76, 56, 37, 27 etc - the whole family back in
history. I tried out a 6SL7 for the first time in the amp I'm working on now
which is a real departure from my point of view. I can't help feeling that
valves get more 'lush' sounding as you progress up the mu ladder through 6N1P
to ECC83 - not something I really welcome. I had to use a higher mu valve for
the simple reason I only had one socket available! Outputs are parallel PP
12b4, a nice discovery because they sound great. A bit like driving a 2a3 (-40v
bias). I have a 6.6K OPT in the amp - not sure what the 12b4s want to see.
Chris Found suggests downloading the PP calculator from Tubecad - have you
tried it? Andy

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

Someone else, in the cap testing thread, pointed out thatone might be more
likely to detect a difference between caps in an amp with a low parts count.
That's why the µ-follower stage seemed such a good idea.


Yes that was me. You can get the same quote from several different sources,
e.g. Eric Kingsbury "With very simple circuits like this, the quality of all
the active and passive parts is critical. Indifferent capacitors, resistors,
and even switches, wire, solder, will be audible" with reference to his 6V6
(trioded) PP amp. reference:
http://audiotropic.netfirms.com/audio.html

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bugbear" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"bugbear" wrote in message



On a related note, given the extreme claims
made for human hearing (or audio perception in
its widest sense) has there been a reputable
documented case of a sonic change detectable by a human
under DBT that CANNOT be detected by measurement?


AFAIK no.

Listening tests are at least 10 times less sensitive than the best
measurements.

If that's true, your answer to my question is "yes" (not no).


I don't see it.

IOW, measurements are about 10 times more sensitive than listening tests or
more.

IOW not only are their no audibly detectable changes that can't be measured,
its easier to measure them than hear them.

Measurable differences can abound between pieces of equipment that cannot be
audibly distinguished.




Are there any audible differences that can't be measured?

Rob