Advice: Amp building
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


OK, quite by chance (I didn't take both these pix) I have what I think is
a good analogy for what I perceive to be the difference between analogue
and digital, valves and SS. See these very similar pix:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Screenshot.jpg

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Screenshot.jpg

They are both handheld snaps of virtually the same frame from the same
film film - one from a DLP projector and one from an LCD projector.

Someone ought to tell you how to properly adjust the pickture on a video
projector.


Really? I didn't adjust the picture on *either* of those projectors,
asitappens..


Initially, the DLP image doesn't strike you as sharp as that from the LCD
and DLP projectors suffer from 'artifacts' that are not present with LCD.

The LCD projector pix has color shift up the ying-yang. Anybody with
non-trivial experience with video projectors should immediately notice
that some adjustment is in order.


I think you place too much trust in a digital photo, but you may be right -
that's my son's photo. The *amazing coincidence* is that he already had that
taken (be weeks or possibly even months) when I sent him the DLP shot. It's
damn near the same frame........



Also the DLP projector is noisier, runs hotter and is much bigger than
the LCD. If you have not seen a DLP projector and only use an LCD one, it
will satisfy you completely and they are very easy and convenient to use.

In fact I have one of each in use in the same room. The two projectors
aren't really comparable and neither are the applications. However,
there's no overwhelming advantages of one over the other for the given
application.


Intrigued. What different applications do you use them for?

(We use projectors for movies and, er, movies....??)


On paper the case for the LCD is strong, in reality the DLP ****es all
over it....

In reality, the differences in implementation and installation quality
outweigh most technical details related to the basic principles of
operation.


Nonsense...

Advice: Amp building
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:53:45 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?
In that there is an original to which it may aspire. ...
What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the
emotional
response you want from what you hear?


If you believe that the musicians, singers etc have a clue what they
are doing, and publish a product containing the emotion they want to
impart, then a system that delivers that without overlaying a load of
other stuff is a very useful aspiration.


I think you're absolutely right - a system that conveys emotion. If your
system does that - gets most of that message across as you
remember/interpret it, then so much the better. I think we'd agree that
'emotion' can't be bottled, much less measured.

Agreed, absolutely. One of my seniors at Decca used to talk about
the *mf* (musicality factor) of a performance or a system. Music is
all about emotion, and I applaud people like Keith who are taking
the trouble to find the elements of an audio system which can reveal
the audible emotion embedded in so many performances at so many
levels.

I feel there is no one type of system that can be all things to all
music and all people. Perhaps a good SS amp is a fairly satisfactory
all-rounder? For small classical ensembles, a good SET with a pair
of Lowthers is an incredibly good combination. The high sensitivity
of the speakers is such that only a few mW of power is required to
fill most listening rooms, and at that level a good SET amp has very
low THD figs. Some people who are not accustomed to this kind
of sound talk about what they perceive as light bass. Go to a
concert, and listen to a string quartet. Not much bass there either:-)

I don't think Keith has a different set of aspirations, although I do
think his approach is unorthodox and out of the box (so to speak). It's
certainly changed my way of thinking about reproducing music.

Iain

Advice: Amp building
 

"Iain Churches" wrote


Agreed, absolutely. One of my seniors at Decca used to talk about
the *mf* (musicality factor) of a performance or a system. Music is
all about emotion, and I applaud people like Keith who are taking
the trouble to find the elements of an audio system which can reveal
the audible emotion embedded in so many performances at so many
levels.



You don't have to shift far from this ng to find there are a great many
people who are pushing and shoving to get more out of their 'audio
systems' - much more so on the continent than in the UK, it would seem - and
I think it would be fairly safe to assume that many (if not nearly all) of
them have come from 'normal' SS/CD/2 and 3 way speaker systems and, like me,
they became dissatisfied with the resultant sound at some stage....??

(Also, there are those who have realised that, after all the brouhaha and
hype, 'modern kit' doesn't cut the mustard and are now struggling to get
back to the sound they enjoyed better some 20/30/40 years ago.)

It would be easy to bang on about 'life', 'atmosphere', 'emotion' as though
they were some sort of magical properties inherent in the kit but the truth
is the answer's a lot more prosaic - it's much easier to get to the
'emotion' in a bit of music if you can at least hear all the notes,
instruments and words and if the 'tone' of voices and instruments hasn't
been made flat and bland by what I can only presume is the application of
too much feedback and enormous amounts of current being rammed through busy
crossovers (in tiny boxes) at ludicrous levels merely to produce a 'dynamic
sound'....???

(And failing - for me, it's definitely a case of 'less is more'.....)



I feel there is no one type of system that can be all things to all
music and all people. Perhaps a good SS amp is a fairly satisfactory
all-rounder? For small classical ensembles, a good SET with a pair
of Lowthers is an incredibly good combination. The high sensitivity
of the speakers is such that only a few mW of power is required to
fill most listening rooms, and at that level a good SET amp has very
low THD figs. Some people who are not accustomed to this kind
of sound talk about what they perceive as light bass. Go to a
concert, and listen to a string quartet. Not much bass there either:-)


The bass thing with the firewood horns is interesting. I've had a number of
people here who have made agreeable noises about the bass (favourable
comparisons with their own speakers) which, I have to say, I would have
regarded as 'light' in certain circumstances, having been hung up for a
while on trouser-flapping air pressure myself - until I realised that it
wasn't doing anything for the 'sound quality' and absolutely nothing for the
clarity, depth and detail.




I don't think Keith has a different set of aspirations, although I do
think his approach is unorthodox and out of the box (so to speak). It's
certainly changed my way of thinking about reproducing music.


That's where it hangs - to get to grips with SET/Horns on (preferably)
vinyl, you have to be prepared to drop some of the baggage you will have
acquired if you are coming from the above-mentioned 'normal' SS
amp/CD/multiway boxes and the problem in this group is that not many people
want to risk it. I can revert to a SS/CD/2 way speaker system with a couple
of minutes any time I want whenever I need to, if I need confirmation that
I'm at least headed in the right direction...

Asitappens, I have two separate setups on the go atm - vinyl is played on
the SET/Lowther all-valve system (wot else?) and
CD/DAB/FV/DVD/MP3/TV/FM/PVR/DVDR is played through an SS amp amp into the
'Pinkies' (single FR driver speakers) for convenience and to prevent the
Lowthers getting an accidental 'full volume' rude awakening....!!