|
|
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your
opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is "always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied. What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies (except PP Class A) or any solid state amp. You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere. Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of variation. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Ian Iveson wrote: Just strayed to ukra, and tried this: "...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live performer, and is optimised for that purpose." Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one. Is it true? cheers, Ian (To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this: The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the "sound of real musicians playing". SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing". Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction. Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.) |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Mr. McCoy:
For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Gee, Useless, first you abuse Mr McCoy for an *excess* of precision,
now you *demand* precision from him, all within ten minutes! Why don't you put your mind in gear before you switch on your computer? Andre Jute Useless Wiecky wrote: Mr. McCoy: For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an
abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding defining what you mean by them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Mr. McCoy
Write what you will, but you are still both evasive, tiresome and quite stupid as to actually answering a direct question. One might be convinced that you are actually and entirely smoke and mirrors as opposed to the wise and all-knowing oracle such as is your posture. Put some facts on the screen so your wisdom becomes obvious to all, if you are able. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Useless Wiecky makes demands with menaces SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Useless Wiecky wrote: Mr. McCoy Write what you will, but you are still both Okay, that's two. evasive, tiresome and quite stupid No, no, no, Useless. "Evasive", "tiresome" and "stupid" are three items. Three is not a 'both' number. as to actually answering a direct question. We'll return to this vexed "direct question". One might be convinced that you are actually and entirely smoke and mirrors as opposed to the wise and all-knowing oracle such as is your posture. Or both, or neither, of course. You don't have either the brains or the command of the language to discover which, and right after I let you think one or the other I might change my mind just because it is lovely little you. Well, you might be lovely after you take tip about your mouthwash. Put some facts on the screen so your wisdom becomes obvious to all, if you are able. Is this your idea of a "direct question", Useless? A non-specific demand for knowledge, delivered with menaces? Or is it just another excuse to make yourself look important by abusing your betters, eh, Useless? Typical. Peter Wieck Useless. Wyncote, PA Home of the Useless. Unsigned out of contempt Three sets of threats from Useless Wiecky trying to extort information: wrote: Mr. McCoy: For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky: wrote: Mr. McCoy: You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods. Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare. Altogether a glamorous lady. Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language other than Old Arabic, of course. However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision. So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless. Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I say it UTILITY. You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue: wrote: Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding defining what you mean by them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Useless Wiecky makes demands with menaces SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
So many words to mask a poseur.
Mr. McCoy, you are truly a piece of work. Hollow of a certainty. Like termite-ridden wood, and about as substantial. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Useless Wiecky makes demands with menaces SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
wrote: So many words to mask a poseur. Mr. McCoy, you are truly a piece of work. Hollow of a certainty. Like termite-ridden wood, and about as substantial. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA We'll let your thousand words of abuse speak for you, Useless Wiecky: wrote: Mr. McCoy: For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky: wrote: Mr. McCoy: You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods. Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare. Altogether a glamorous lady. Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language other than Old Arabic, of course. However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision. So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless. Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I say it UTILITY. You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue: wrote: Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding defining what you mean by them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Andre Jute wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is "always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied. What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies (except PP Class A) or any solid state amp. You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. Exactly. People in love with silicon can be ever so irrational about triode amps because to know there is a better lover they could have but dare not because modern logic forbids it causes them deep and suppressed anxiety, and having an affair with triodes would have them question their dull marriage to frumpy solid state devices. Some men love soiled state amplifiers and think soiled state must be the focus of their love and mind like those religious zealots must focus on God, and that the only one true faith includes lashings of NFB. They foam at the mouth when they talk of SET, like as if SET amps are the work of the Devil; they just can't let themselves delight in the pleasures of triodes, and flagellate themselves like St Augustine to curb the lust they supress. I really don't care too much about the foamings and BS and lust supressions these emotionally dysfunctional ppl bung on which won't budge anyone who discovers that a few triodes are still the best way of reproducing the sound heard at a live performance after it has been electronically recorded. I have heard music through quite good sounding systems which have included soiled state amplifiers, but its never been better than what I have heard from a few triodes, and the best sound has been through triode amps that have a nice high power ceiling compared to average power level used, and my many experiences with SE amps confirm in my mind that serious ppl designing decent SE amps using triodes, pentodes or beam tetrodes are not wasting their time. 90% of the recorded music in the world is very electronically processed during the performance and following it in the studio, ( rather like meat is treated to produce sausages so that resemblance to meat is removed. ) So we have music being the result of electric guitars with added triode/tetrode/pentode/digital/soiled state distortions, so triode amps at home may not do much better than any other type of amp since the music is crap anyway. What makes AC/DC or Meatloaf sound any good at all? Sorry, but I have no clue. But what is the best amp to use for Dame Joan Sutherland recorded at her best from vinyl in 1963? I'll settle for the triodes thankyou. What brings Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing together from about 1953 right into your lounge? What gives the greater sense of emotional engagement? What produces the greatest sense of being there in the recording studio? I don't need Krell or Mark Levinson for that, I am most happy if I have a few triodes, with perhaps one exception, the single j-fet in cascode with the first triode of the phono amp. I trust a fet with a few millivolts, but after that I like to leave the larger signals in the hands of triodes. Patrick Turner. By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere. Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of variation. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Ian Iveson wrote: Just strayed to ukra, and tried this: "...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live performer, and is optimised for that purpose." Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one. Is it true? cheers, Ian (To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this: The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the "sound of real musicians playing". SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing". Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction. Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk