Jim Lesurf wrote:

There does seem to be to be a fairly clear distinction between "preferred"
and "more accurate". These may or may not co-incide, and this may vary from
one test item and/or user and/or set of circumstances to another.

Thus the "baggage" may be the assumption you make that "preferred" does
mean "more accurate".

Abso-smegging-lutely.

In the world of PA and guitar amps this isn't even a question.

Nobody ever said a Mesa-boogie or Fender Twin
was accurate - just wonderful :-)

BugBear

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote


I don't give a ******** about this being my own kit, all I'm interested
in doing is killing some of the blind prejudice that exists in this
group. All this yap about 'distortion' is an attempt to obfuscate the
reality - there is no reason a pair of horns and a triode amp should have
any less attack and slam etc. than a *good* ss amp on modern, multiway
speakers and there is no reason the *expected perception* of 'accuracy'
should be any the less either....


I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].

The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will remain
problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good listen,
and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and certainty.



snip distortion figures


Rob, outside of this group I couldn't care less who uses valves and who
doesn't. Inside this group I feel compelled/tempted occasionally to gainsay
the claims made by a few people here who think 'distortion figures' are the
be-all and end-all of an amplifier's qualities. (Ditto with vinyl, but as I
said recently, let's not go there...)


I do tend to promote vinyl a little - but that's mainly when people I
know say they've got a pile of LPs in the attic. I'd tend not to push
valves except on rare occasions in this NG, to add a bit of balance.

Over a period of the last few years I have tried a great many different bits
of kit in the search of REALISM (not 'accuracy' per se - I am not a
manufacturer), the fact that I have evolved up/down to triodes and horns to
find it has been by a long process of comparison and elimination. For
example, here's a snap of an amp I *loved* and would have been very happy if
I could have lived with it:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DSCN0595.JPG

I couldn't, so the search went on until I hit into valves - the rest, as
they say is history. I do not *promote* valves - when people like Shiny
Nigel (whom you have met) come round to hear them I only *ask* what they
think. If they make claims I usually shrug and say 'Oh, do you think so?'
Nigel (as you might have gathered) has got progressively harder to impress -
he has himself evolved from *gobsmacked* (Day 1) to becoming an expert on
'the valve sound' - all without actually having bothered to get one himself,
IYSWIM....!! ;-)

Last night he was gobsmacked again!! :-))


He's a character!

How anyone can claim that ss amps are more 'realistic' when I have never
heard one with any sense of depth, for example, is utterly beyond me. Unless
it's a case of the more expensive 'high end' amps having the qualities I
seek, when I would then say the claim that valve amps are more expensive
falls on its arse.


I'd re-adopt SS in a flash if it delivered valve sound. That's why I was
intrigued with Dave P's SS+tone controls=valve sound equation, but he
seems to have stepped back a little there. In fact, I've got a bid on
some Quad SS stuff ATM and use a nice little 70W SS power amp quite a
lot. The issue I've arrived at is that my preferred speakers (Dynaudio)
seem to need a hefty amp - more of an issue with valves than SS. There
it is, greater hardships etc - maybe your latest line in speakers will
change my chosen path :-)

Despite the pundits here, I read in the February 2006 HFW somewhere that
Chinese valve amps are selling in bigger numbers than ss amps from Japan
(must mean stereo amps only?) and without 'going there', FWIW, I read
somewhere that vinyl sales are slowly increasing. So all this tub-thumping
is actually having little or no effect, it would seem?


I'm not sure why that's happening. Intrigued to see a 'gramaphone' ad in
Saturday's Guardian - full page spread!

I think it's time to let the punters make their own minds up and for the
small minority here to stop trying to steer the situation according to their
own prejudices. Valves are definitely back on the menu in the UK so I don't
need to continue crusading for them - as I've said before, I ain't on
commission!

If a few here want to argue about summat new for a change - let's have a
look at how fekkin' poor most modern loudspeakers seem to be...???


I don't have a problem there - most 100UKP Tannoys and Missions sound
perfectly fine to me. DAB radio gets on my wick, but generally I'm happy
enough to punt my opinion FWIW.

Rob

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:



I've been swapping between a SS and valve power amp for a few years
now[1] - the valve amp is preferable. I think the problem - for Dave
Plowman at least - is that it simply can't sound 'more accurate' because
the figures don't stack up, which in turn are affected by distortion[2].


I doubt this is a 'problem' so far as Dave is concerned. :-)


Indeed - an assured fella; I could have phrased that better!


The notion that 'less accurate' within the scope of measurement can
translate to 'more accurate' in terms of the human experience will
remain problematic for some until they 1) give a decent valve amp a good
listen, and 2) unload baggage relating to empirical measurement and
certainty.


Not quite. :-)

The 'problem' here is with assocating a device which can be shown alters
the signals with "more accurate".

Thus confusing an objective claim with a subjective one.


Not really. On that occasion I did choose my words with reasonable care.
I feel that measurement and the listening experience are both relative
and subjective.

However if you can show that preceeding stages alter the signals in a way
that the valve amp accurately counters, then the useage here of "more
accurate" might have a more relevant definition.

Alternatively, if you can arrange for a test that compares

1) The actual orginal produced

2) The same reproduced via a non-valve system with low distortion and flat
response

3) The same reproduced via a valve system with the relevant levels of
distortion, etc.

and then have listeners decide - not knowing which was which - which were
more similar and which differered solely on the basis of the sounds. Then
you might have an interesting definition for the subjective use of "more
accurate" in this context.

Fine - although arranging such a test will not be without problems.


There does seem to be to be a fairly clear distinction between "preferred"
and "more accurate". These may or may not co-incide, and this may vary from
one test item and/or user and/or set of circumstances to another.


Yep.

Thus the "baggage" may be the assumption you make that "preferred" does
mean "more accurate".


You're quite right - that is my baggage, no argument :-)


Rob


1. Mainly because of the convenience of a SS amp.


2. Figures relating to my valve power amp back from the clinic:


Power output: 100W per channel with less than 1% distortion Distortion
@ 1W output: 3rd only @ -78dB Distortion @ Full power: 2nd @ -70dB. 3rd
@ -45dB Noise @ 1W output: -80dB Difference in performance between
channels " better than 1%. Reference Notes: -40dB = 1%; -70dB = 0.03%


Means very little to me!



And to me - in the absence of some other data from the above. :-)


I suppose I posted it to posit that it may measure like a SS amp, but it
certainly don't sound like one :-)

"Rob" wrote

Rob, outside of this group I couldn't care less who uses valves and who
doesn't. Inside this group I feel compelled/tempted occasionally to
gainsay the claims made by a few people here who think 'distortion
figures' are the be-all and end-all of an amplifier's qualities. (Ditto
with vinyl, but as I said recently, let's not go there...)


I do tend to promote vinyl a little - but that's mainly when people I know
say they've got a pile of LPs in the attic. I'd tend not to push valves
except on rare occasions in this NG, to add a bit of balance.



Well, I'm starting to think it's time to stop pushing the pea around the
plate and just squash it with 'If you don't like valves (triodes) in
particular then fine, just don't try and bamboozle me into thinking I'm
wrong to *prefer them*....

Ditto vinyl....


He's a character!

Less so these days - he's been unwell!!



I'd re-adopt SS in a flash if it delivered valve sound.


You think so, then you buy summat ss and the novelty wears off in under a
week...


That's why I was
intrigued with Dave P's SS+tone controls=valve sound equation, but he
seems to have stepped back a little there. In fact, I've got a bid on some
Quad SS stuff ATM and use a nice little 70W SS power amp quite a lot. The
issue I've arrived at is that my preferred speakers (Dynaudio) seem to
need a hefty amp - more of an issue with valves than SS. There it is,
greater hardships etc - maybe your latest line in speakers will change my
chosen path :-)

:-)

Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!

You know you are welcome to hear the horns any time (don't drive past the
place) but I hafta tell ya the B&Ws have gone!! ;-)


I'm not sure why that's happening. Intrigued to see a 'gramaphone' ad in
Saturday's Guardian - full page spread!

Take it from me, the Great Unwashed are starting to wake up to the entire
'digital mess' and a lot of 'vinyl hoarders' have got to the age where
they've got a bit of time now and want to hear thw 'good old stuff'!! I've
lost count of the people who have told me about records in the attic and
wanting to hear them again!!

Trust me, the modern equivalent of a Dansette and/or Soundburger would sell
if it had a few LEDs on it and was marketted right!! (Forget the
Guardian...!! ;-)

"Keith G" wrote


Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!


Of course I meant *aren't*.....!!

:-)

Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!


Of course I meant *aren't*.....!!

:-)

Well mine sound very nice with my valve amp!

It'd take a lot to make me change mine for something else now. And I can't
imagine a single-driver (i.e. no tweeter) moving-coil driver speaker doing it.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

So far as I can see, the 'logic' is that SET or some other types of amp

alter the sounds 'by design and intent' in ways that some people
prefer.

I think the idea that modern designers of valve equipment routinely and
delberately doctor the sound to make it euphonic is entirely false.
They routinely reduce unwanted distortions through design and
measurement, and I can assure you that quite a few originally worked
for Tektronix and have as many machines on their test benches as you
would expect to find in any designers lab. Plus, a lot of modern
designers use push pull circuits anyway, particularly using
transformers.Yes - those same transformers one routinely finds in
studios and in the recording process. Plus most modern designers use a
mixture of valves and solid state, so the idea of all valve circuits is
a myth anyway. I was rather surprised to see these views coming from
you, Jim.

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
This leads to a question I have asked in the past...

What is the purpose of those making the recording/broadcast actually
listening to what they produce with the playback systems at their
disposal *in terms of what they intend/expect the end user to hear*?

Do they expect - indeed require - end users to deliberately distort
or alter the results in specific ways to get an optimum result? If
so, why don't they apply that to ensure the result they wish the
end users to hear?

It seems to me that 'musicians' tend to be the ones on here that go for
the 'engineering is rubbish - it's the result at home that matters' school
of thought. But musicians are invariably involved in the final result of
any recording in my experience. So if that final result sounded so
terrible in the control room of the recording studio that it has to be
'improved' at home - why didn't they say?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I'm not surprised. If you want to alter the incoming signal to
something 'better' to your ears that's your prerogative. I just expect
it to be reproduced as accurately as possible - since I'm often in the
position of knowing what the original recording sounded like. A good
valve power amp is of course capable of doing this, but at very much
greater cost than a SS one.


Look at it this way. A high performance vintage valve amp
is rising in value by some 12% p.a. A new SS amp is
depreciating by about the same amount. So if money is an issue
for you, you do not need to be a beancounter can see which
one really makes sense:-)

A vintage car might well appreciate in value while pretty well any new one
will depreciate. But by any benchmark of performance the modern car will
better the vintage one.

Plus the fact that you have had the added enjoyment of
thermionic audio - something which cannot be put into
monetary terms.

Yes - you can certainly enjoy a Model T Ford. But then again at times it
will infuriate...

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Dynaudios are a valve's best friend!!


Of course I meant *aren't*.....!!

:-)

Well mine sound very nice with my valve amp!



Sure, I auditioned the 1.1s on valves and they did sound very nice - best
'little' speakers I've heard bar none. Rob uses them on valves as well, I
believe, but I still don't think they are best on valves - nor were the
Broadswords I had for a good while, with their Dynaudio drivers.


It'd take a lot to make me change mine for something else now. And I can't
imagine a single-driver (i.e. no tweeter) moving-coil driver speaker doing
it.


Ah, now there's a thing.....???

:-)