"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

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'.

We are all agreed that a co-incidental pair, a tree or a tree with
outriggers
is an excellent way to record a small ensemble.

But my beloved ensemble is:
4 tpts. 4 tmbs. 5 saxes. Piano. Gtr. Bass. Drums. Percussion.

Try your Nagra and a pair of 4038s with that:-)

Iain

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:15:21 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

The amp was built by a Russian engineer called Anton Reznikov, and the
speakers by an English engineer called Peter Walker late 70's? I am
sure you know the type number better than I. The CD player was a
Studer A730.

That would be the Quad ELS, aka the '57, not a particularly sensitive
speaker, so you must have had a pretty restricted output level, and
noticeable distortion on peaks.

The output levek was not high, but eminently suitable for the music to
which we were listening.

What was the level?

The cellist actually played a short passage to illustrate a point, and
sat between the two speakers. The recorded and "live demonstration"
levels seemed quite well matched.

What music other than the cello you mention was used?

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

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 would welcome any information/context on your statement, BTW.

BugBear

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
It's the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), and it does
indeed have such a list, Hepworth Acoustics being one of the principal
consulting firms. Don't expect this advice to come cheaply!

People expect to pay huge sums of money for loudspeakers, and high end
amplifiers. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect to have to spend
some money on the room?

Do you read Private Eye? :-)

I'd agree that is "not unreasonable". Alas, in reality...

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

Can you give any figures for what percentage of all those who 'listen
to Stravinsky' choose to do so via SET amplifiers?

From talking to people in music groups and on RAT, the term SET comes up
remarkably often. In my own music circle I know of three people - more
than I would have imagined.

Unfortunately, that does not actually answer my question. You have snipped
your earlier comment which prompted my question, so I'll re-quote it below
in order to clairify the point of my question.

] From: Iain M Churches
] Subject: DBT a flawed method for evaluating Hi-Fi ?
] Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:25
] Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
]
] I don't know what motivates people who listen to Stravinsky to buy SET
] amps. But the fact is that they do, as a matter of choice.

The second first sentence refers to "people" who fit the conditions you
specify. The second makes a statement as a "fact" about their choice. Tje
wording seems to me to indicate that you wish the statements to be taken
as
a general indication which is reliable for all those "people" referred to
in your first sentence.

I simply make an observation, and wonder why it may be so.


To be able to make such a statement, you would need to have reason to show
it was reliable for such a group. Yet your reply only refers to your own
"music circle" and "three" people.

Three from fifteen, makes 20%, a much greater percentage than I would
have expected. Three others have PP valve amps, so that makes 40% who
use something other than SS. I wonder why there should be such a high
percentage in a classical music group?

Hence your "fact" seems to be based on a fairly limited and selected (on
the basis of being known to you personally) group. Is there any reason to
assume the same statements apply in general to most of those people who
happen to like Stravinsky? From your reply, I see no reason to assume so.

No none whatsoever. However, I do know that there are several on, and on
the
fringes of,this NG who listen to SET, although they do not usually make the
fact
known. I wonder why not? :-((

On that basis your statement seems to simply say, "I know some people who
prefer SET amplifiers and who also listen to Stravinsky". That may be so,
but does it tell us anything applicable beyond that specific set of a few
individuals?

Your interpretation of what I say is correct.
I still wonder why these people choose SET. Any ideas?


I'm not clear why the group you pick out should be of particular
significance. But since you make a statement about them, I'd be
interested to know the answer to my question.

I use the music group as an example, because they are people I know,
with audio systems with which I am acquainted. It may be that others
in this NG have no one in their immediate circle with an SET amp.
This gives 0% - also a figure that I accept. If this was so in my own
case, I could have written "I wonder why none of those who listen to
Stravinsky use SET"

I am not really concerned with how many people listen to SET.
But I *am* interested to know why. Maybe an SS dominated group
is not the right place to ask the question:-))

It seems that SET performs especially well with small classical
ensembles.

I appreciate that this may be your opinion, and that of the specific few
people you know and were referring to. The problem is that your wording
seemed to be implying that this was something established as being 'valid'
on a more general basis. However the wording you now use is quite "weak"
in
that it includes "It seems" instead of "fact". And "especially well" is a
value judgement/opinion of relative merit, which might mean "does not
sound
as awful as SET used for some other things" just as easily as it might
mean
"better than anything else". :-)´

What is uyour personal opinion?
Do you disagree that SET performs especially well with small ensembles?


In addition, if we are considering selected groups. What percentage of
those who are involved in professional recording, mixing, etc, always
do so using SET amplifiers for their monitoring/listening at the time?

From my own experience? None:-) But I do know of several (myself among
them) who monitor with a large PP valve amp.

OK. This for me raises an interesting point. I assume that those producing
recordings/broadcasts set pun out to make then sound as 'good' as they
can. In this context 'good' presumably means they choose to use listening
and monitoring equipment that they feel will lead to excellent results
when
the produced CD, etc, are played at home on decent audio equipment. This
seems to imply some level of consistency or relationship between what the
monitoring and domestic equipment will produce.

Yes, as I have mentioned before, I also have a pair of Amcron MA600 which
I use in recording. Putting up the Radford STA100 often brings favourable
comments from those involved. I could work with either amplifier,
their sound is not greatly dis-similar.

In this context, it seems odd that those producing the recordings do not
do
so using, say, SET amps, *if* they feel this would give 'better' results.

I think, Jim, the explanation is simple.
SET cannot produce the power required for a large monitoring set up.


Cheers

Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

The output levek was not high, but eminently suitable for the music to
which we were listening.

What was the level?

Hmm. Difficult to say. I went there to listen to an evaluation CD.
(the digital equivalent of a test presing:-) - not to measure SPL.
The listening level was lower than that to which I am normally
accustomed, and the listening position about 3m back from the
centre line.

The cellist actually played a short passage to illustrate a point, and
sat between the two speakers. The recorded and "live demonstration"
levels seemed quite well matched.

What music other than the cello you mention was used?
Shostakovich Op73. Quartet No3 in F major.

Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"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?

Slainte,

Jim

The amp was built by a Russian engineer called Anton Reznikov,

OK. As you might guess, I would now wish to know the o/p impedance, etc,
of
these amps as I'm afraid I know nothing about them.

I am afraid I know nothing about them either, except that, with the music
in question they did sound remarkably good. In fact I know very little
about
power triodes. I have since learned that this SET was a type 211.

and the speakers by an English engineer called Peter Walker late 70's?

OK. So I can assume they were one of the issues of the ESL57 as opposed to
a 63 or a 988/989.

That is something I can check. This gentleman is not the original owner,
but
I do know from where these speakers came, and can establish their history.

The obvious point here is that most of the SET amps I have seen reviewed
in
consumer mags have - where a value is given - o/p impedance of around 1
Ohm
even midband at low power.

I seem to recall than Andre told me they sometimes have a DF of 1.

Thus using such an amp rather than one with a low o/p impedance might well
change the frequency response by the order of 3dB. Hardly surprising if
this has an audible effect. Then a matter of circumstances if this is
preferred, I guess...

Yes indeed. I am still intrigued to know how an amplifier with such a poor
test bench specification can sound so good. I have no axe to grind here. I
do not own an SET amp.

The CD player was a Studer A730.

OK. I don't regard that as likely to be particularly significant in this
context.

I mentioned it because I was sure you would ask if I did not:-))

Another interesting point here is that ESLs tend to provide lower
distortion than cone-and-box speakers. Yet SETs tend to provide higher
distortion than common SS amps.

At lowish listening levels, the SET distortion was not even faintly audible.
I daresay that at higher levels it might have been so. I was not invited
to touch the level controls, and did not do so.

Iain

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"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?

Slainte,

Jim

The amp was built by a Russian engineer called Anton Reznikov,

OK. As you might guess, I would now wish to know the o/p impedance, etc,
of
these amps as I'm afraid I know nothing about them.

I am afraid I know nothing about them either, except that, with the music
in question they did sound remarkably good. In fact I know very little
about
power triodes. I have since learned that this SET was a type 211.

[clip]

Hi Iain,

Can we assume that this SET used 211 type valves, if so can you remember how
many?

Regards,

Mike

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...
Hi Iain,

Can we assume that this SET used 211 type valves, if so can you remember
how many?

Regards,

Mike

Yes I think we can make that assumption, as the numerals 211 were written on
the
front plate. I would need to make another visit, and ask the owner to take
off the
cage, to determine the valve complement.

Maybe that would be a good excuse for me to go and have another listen to
it:-)

Regards
Iain

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...
Hi Iain,

Can we assume that this SET used 211 type valves, if so can you remember
how many?

Regards,

Mike

Yes I think we can make that assumption, as the numerals 211 were written
on the
front plate. I would need to make another visit, and ask the owner to
take off the
cage, to determine the valve complement.

Maybe that would be a good excuse for me to go and have another listen to
it:-)

Regards
Iain

Thanks Iain, happy listening :-)