In article ,
Keith G wrote:
But surely the most famous of all 'they all sound alike' tests was
between the Quad II valve, 303 and 405 SS amps? Which certainly won't
sound like an SET. And I'd guess the Krell would fit in with the Quads
on that test - which involved running those amps within spec.

Plowie, you will no doubt be *delighted* to know that when Serge came
over on Wednesday to hear my SETs he thought they were crap!

Not delighted and not surprised. Some of us were building SETs when there
was no option... ;-) And of course were delighted with the sound. Even
although Dansette used SETs...

In the early '60s, living in a bedsit, I had a mono valve Jason FM tuner
feeding a Mullard 3/3 feeding a Goodmans Maxim. And at the low listening
levels it could only produce sounded marvellous. Used to love listening to
those R2 BBC Radio Orchestra sessions which sounded so much cleaner than
any record.

(I say this only so he feels free to make whatever comments he might
like to without fear of offending me! :-)

Anyway, gone now - I got a skip in yesterday and the whole lot is on its
way to the tip, ****ty firewood horns an' all...!!

You're missing the point. If home made gear gives you pleasure to listen
to, why not?

However, you could also try building other types of speakers. With perhaps
different types of amps feeding the various drivers using front end
crossovers. An SET driving the mid range to give you the sound you want,
and something more sensible for the bass and HF. ;-)

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

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

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
Think there's a pretty fundamental problem getting transformers to work
well at an extreme turns ratio. Like a match for 1 ohm.

When I wrote the earlier post, I was actually thinking of nominal 3 or
4 ohm loads which give problems to many lesser SS amps as their
impedance can dip below nominal, but can be matched quite well to valve
amps. I agree that it's a challenge to make a transformer work down to
1 ohm, especially at low frequencies, but possible given enough iron
and good winding technique.

It may well be but far easier (and cheaper) with SS. In other words a
cheap valve amp will have *more* problems driving a low impedance load
*properly* than a cheap SS amp. Of course the SS amp may simply blow a
fuse while the valve amp burns out its OPT. ;-)

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In the early '60s, living in a bedsit, I had a mono valve Jason FM tuner
feeding a Mullard 3/3 feeding a Goodmans Maxim. And at the low listening
levels it could only produce sounded marvellous.

I remember building one of those Jason tuner kits. The first FM radio I ever
heard was one that a friend had built, and it was such a staggering
improvement on the best MW radio I'd ever built that I just had to have one.
Did you wind your own coils too?

Used to love listening to
those R2 BBC Radio Orchestra sessions which sounded so much cleaner than
any record.

I think the 60s and 70s should probably be regarded as a "golden age" when
radio was potentially the best audio quality available to the home listener,
with none of the shortcomings of the two main recording systems available at
the time (analogue tape and disk). Since then, its technical ability has been
surpassed by that of a much better digital system (CD), and threatened with
replacement with a worse one (DAB). I doubt if this situation will ever
recur, as the best recordings are much better than the best broadcasts can
ever be, and the internet is gradually becoming the delivery medium of
choice, because the quality can be anything a broadcaster or publisher wants
it to be.

Rod.

Rod:
and the internet is gradually becoming the delivery medium of
choice, because the quality can be anything a broadcaster or publisher
wants
it to be.

I'm listening to the internet as we speak - some US classical station
called WCPE http://theclassicalstation.org/internet.shtml I also
listen to Batanga quite a lot - have an irrational fondness for
classical Argentine tangos, apart from the staple Salsa stuff. Whatever
the quality of old FM, we never got all that choice before, nothing
like it. So I don't think there's much to moan about. Andy

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:34:24 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:


Used to love listening to
those R2 BBC Radio Orchestra sessions which sounded so much cleaner than
any record.

I think the 60s and 70s should probably be regarded as a "golden age" when
radio was potentially the best audio quality available to the home listener,
with none of the shortcomings of the two main recording systems available at
the time (analogue tape and disk). Since then, its technical ability has been
surpassed by that of a much better digital system (CD), and threatened with
replacement with a worse one (DAB). I doubt if this situation will ever
recur, as the best recordings are much better than the best broadcasts can
ever be, and the internet is gradually becoming the delivery medium of
choice, because the quality can be anything a broadcaster or publisher wants
it to be.


While I agree in general about the "golden age" of radio, you are
allowing too much of a rosy glow to enhance the picture.

Most of the material broadcast would have been played off LP or
analogue tape; even then there were relatively few live broadcasts. In
order to get very good quality reception you had to live in the London
area; everywhere else was fed either by PO lines of variable quality
or rebroadcast feeds. This improved from the early 70s with the
introduction of the PCM distribution system.

But you are quite right about the naturalness of the Radio 3
recordings of the time, the freedom from excessive DR compression, and
the much more intelligent and relaxed presentation compared with the
"we must beat Classic FM" attitude that we have to put up with now.

Bill

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
But surely the most famous of all 'they all sound alike' tests was
between the Quad II valve, 303 and 405 SS amps? Which certainly won't
sound like an SET. And I'd guess the Krell would fit in with the Quads
on that test - which involved running those amps within spec.

Plowie, you will no doubt be *delighted* to know that when Serge came
over on Wednesday to hear my SETs he thought they were crap!

Not delighted and not surprised. Some of us were building SETs when there
was no option... ;-) And of course were delighted with the sound. Even
although Dansette used SETs...

In the early '60s, living in a bedsit, I had a mono valve Jason FM tuner
feeding a Mullard 3/3 feeding a Goodmans Maxim. And at the low listening
levels it could only produce sounded marvellous. Used to love listening to
those R2 BBC Radio Orchestra sessions which sounded so much cleaner than
any record.

(I say this only so he feels free to make whatever comments he might
like to without fear of offending me! :-)

Anyway, gone now - I got a skip in yesterday and the whole lot is on its
way to the tip, ****ty firewood horns an' all...!!

You're missing the point. If home made gear gives you pleasure to listen
to, why not?

However, you could also try building other types of speakers. With perhaps
different types of amps feeding the various drivers using front end
crossovers. An SET driving the mid range to give you the sound you want,
and something more sensible for the bass and HF. ;-)


:-)

Too late now - I'm reduced to listening to only CDs in my Pioneer DV-575A on
a Sony STR-DE485E AV amp hooked up to my Ruark Paladin speakers!!

(Perhaps, if I phone the skip company first thing tomorrow morning....??)

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Keith G wrote:
You've replied to the wrong person - I'm not in the market for that sort
of
amp.

Might buy a pair of 'em though - and have 'em made up as cufflinks!!

Ah, I see what's happened - you quoted somebody else without the usual
indication that it was a quote,


No I didn't....


so I thought it was you.


No it wasn't....

In article , Keith G wrote:
Ah, I see what's happened - you quoted somebody else without the usual
indication that it was a quote,

No I didn't....

The message I originally replied to began-

[start quote]
wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello all,

I thinking of venturing into the world of hi-fi seperates and I'm
starting by looking for an amplifier. I don't have a great budget for
this, around £150, therefore I have narrowed my choice down to the
following:
[end quote]

I've copied it here as received. I didn't spot at first that this was a
quote, because it didn't have the usual angle brackets to indicate this,
and of course neither did your reply, giving the appearance at first glance
that the entire message was from the person whose name was in the "From"
field of the header (you) and who was apparently asking about amplifiers,
including one similar to my own.

so I thought it was you.

No it wasn't....

Accepted.

Rod.

In article , Bill Taylor
wrote:
While I agree in general about the "golden age" of radio, you are
allowing too much of a rosy glow to enhance the picture.

Most of the material broadcast would have been played off LP or
analogue tape; even then there were relatively few live broadcasts. In
order to get very good quality reception you had to live in the London
area; everywhere else was fed either by PO lines of variable quality
or rebroadcast feeds. This improved from the early 70s with the
introduction of the PCM distribution system.

My personal experience (and yes I did live in London at the time) was
that my own high speed tape recordings of Prom concerts sounded much
better than any of the published ones, which were either 3.75 in/sec mono
on quarter inch tape, or compact cassette, or gramophone records. They
were unquestionably the best quality available to me for home listening,
it wasn't necessary to tiptoe across the room while they were playing,
and you could hear a complete work without any interruption.

The best sound for home listening now seems to be CD, as radio has fallen
a long way behind, with no sign of even trying to catch up.

Rod.

On 11 Feb 2006 04:42:54 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Why would you need a reference for comparisons, since all amplifiers
sound the same?.

Pinkerton then unthinkingly said::
Who ever said that?

You did - you've just participated in a long thread which stated that
the scientific evidence was that ampliers couldn't be distinguished
from each other in DBTs.

More pathetic lies from Evans. I said that *many* amplfiers are
sonically indistinguishable - certainly not *all* amplifiers. Indeed,
a more honest observer than you would note that I have frequently
stated my dislike of 'high end' SET amplifiers, because they *do*
sound different.

Jim gave you the references which you clearly
haven't had the courtesy to read, or maybe you don't want to read the
evidence so you can continue with your faith based assumptions that
your Krell sounds 'better' just because you want it to? That isn't
science, that's faith, and typical of the woolly self-centred rhetoric
you use in place of science.

I have never stated that my Krell sounds 'better' than any other
competent amplifier, you pathetic self-delusional liar.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering