Advice: Amp building
 

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:53:22 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Why should he?

Chipolata ink the must being of.

Clear now?

Slope fallacy slippery you present - while semiotic tolerance neglecting.

Try again: Why should Keith use universally accepted technical terms when he
next describes the sound of his latest speaker/amplifier?

It isn't so much the technical terms - it is normal words like "best"
that cause such heartache round here. I can't say I'm bothered any
more because I know where Keith is coming from and I'm fine with it.
But such words do have an objective existence out there to do with not
making things more different than they need to be. Doug Self puts it
well in his seminal amplifier book - "the very least you be able to
should ask of an amplifier is that it doesn't actually bend the
signal". Now things like SETs do exactly that, and hence it is hard to
figure how they might merit a word like "best". That use of words
gets up some people's noses, particularly when it is directed at a
newbie who is seeking guidance in Hi Fi. I can see why.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Advice: Amp building
 

We have low cost high volume production amps that exceed any reasonable
need. AK

OK - so the 'need' for a reference system, e.g. for professional
musicians, that is better than high volume production ss amps is
"unreasonable".

Amps are only useful and interesting as components of more complex
systems,
they are almost completely disinteresting as ends in themselves. AK

So why do you and Jim (DHTs) insist on pontificating over componants
which you have no interest in? Why should people who are seriously
involved in building and improving such componants be REMOTELY
interested in your pompous views when you clearly are only interested
in breezing in and out of threads without contributing anything of
value to the actual R+D of such componants. This is EXTREMELY tiresome
when it has to be endured on a regular basis. On other newsgroups
people actually help each other build projects, go through different
iterations, contribute experience of their own builds, suggest
modifications. Result - great equipment. Think about it.


The 'analogy' Andy gave was, actually, quite useful - it does show his
lack of grasp of the scientific method and how it can be applied in such cases. (Jim)

"Useful" only in the sense of getting Jim his usual kicks from
appealing to the whole of the world who he assumes is on his side and
ready to tut tut in rhythm. We used to have people like that in school
- we called them "teachers pets". I'm sure you remember the kind of
thing "Please miss, Penny's stolen the blackboard cleaner and she's got
it under her desk".......

Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2006 07:17:43 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

You make one change and measure - if it is better,
go a bit further until you peak. Then you start on the next parameter
and do it again. Once everything is as good as it gets, you go back to
the beginning and start again because everything interacts. Some
parameters you adjust in pairs because the interaction is first order
A bit like amplifier development in some ways.

This is a succinct, informative and practical explanation of product
development, and it sounds a hell of a lot like amplifier development
to me. You obviously have the benefit of experience here - from what
you say a lot of your work was extremely practical and solution
orientated in nature (and include the hard climates and adverse
circumstances.....!!!) Andy.

Yup that was way back when. It was all a bit more demanding than
amplifier development though. I was designing microwave and RF
measuring instruments for Marconi Instruments. The requirements were
many tens of dBs better than anything audio demands. The iterative
process was frequently something like 10 micron increments in the
length of a track connecting a FET gate. I would build a bunch at once
with all the different lengths, then evaluate them.

d

Don.
Do you know a guy called Peter Spurr from your Macaroni Inst days ??

Arfa

Advice: Amp building
 

I'm not sure what you mean by detail and clarity. Detail - hearing
everything on the recording depends to some extent on the level you
listen
to it at, as any external background noise can mask things. Clarity?
Isn't
that the same thing? (Dave)

Hello Dave - I'd probably agree with you that detail and clarity are
pretty much the same, and also that level and background noise affect
it (commonly a computer on in the same room). I think the interesting
thing to pursue is the "internal" (to the reproduction system) blurring
between distinct sounds, and on the other hand masking of very low
level sounds. I think it's progress with these that gives clarity (no
blurring) and low level detail (emergence of previously unnoticed
information). I'd add timbre as important for those whose listening is
predominantly to acoustic instruments. I'm not sure that any of the
above terms are free of subjective qualities, or meanings personal to
those who use them, but we need some sort of language to communicate in
the first place.

Advice: Amp building
 

Don Pearce wrote:

... Now things like SETs do exactly that, and hence it is hard to
figure how they might merit a word like "best".

It's obvious: different people have different criteria for what they *like*.
"Best" doesn't neccessarily mean best within certain technical criteria to
do with some notion referred to as 'accuracy of reproduction'. So far as I
understand it, listening to music isn't about some abstract, and ultimately
unobtainable, 'accuracy', it's about what you *feel* when you listen to it.

It would seem that the definition of "best" being promulgated by certain
individuals rests in their presupposition that the 'accurate' approach to
reproducing sound is the *only* way to acheive this. This is the false
premise that I said Dave was proceeding from. To wit...

This means LP is *adding* something to the audio that it shouldn't.

Who says that something shouldn't be added? Where is the universal truth
upon which this assertion is predicated? There is none. It is predicated on
the supposition that use of audio equipment which doesn't 'add' something is
the only way to instill whatever it is that we seek to feel when listening
to music.


Err, no. It was an example of how your whole thinking is flawed.

LIS, the *only* way: "Think like me, or you're wrong".


You
are looking for an extremely coloured unnatural sound - ...

Keith has made it clear for at least two or three years that what he's after
from his kit is that it has to instill the right emotional response. Dave's
comment is not based on what Keith has said - it's baseless.


That use of words
gets up some people's noses, particularly when it is directed at a
newbie who is seeking guidance in Hi Fi. I can see why.

Two things: Caveat emptor; and a certain cable jockey with an aversion to
making an easy grand.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Advice: Amp building
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

... Now things like SETs do exactly that, and hence it is hard to
figure how they might merit a word like "best".

It's obvious: different people have different criteria for what they
*like*.
"Best" doesn't neccessarily mean best within certain technical criteria to
do with some notion referred to as 'accuracy of reproduction'. So far as I
understand it, listening to music isn't about some abstract, and
ultimately
unobtainable, 'accuracy', it's about what you *feel* when you listen to
it.


The problem here is that some people like Don are conditioned by their
training and experience to *know* a SET can't be right (on paper), the
simple fact remains *for me* that (to put it very simply, by way of
illustration) if I swap from a SET to an 'ordinary PP valve amp' I am *not*
uplifted and if I swap from a SET to an SS amp I am quite 'disappointed' and
can not really get confortable with the sound.

I use SS amps all the time - excellent for AV/telly and 'background sound'
throughout the house during the day, but I do not *prefer* them.



It would seem that the definition of "best" being promulgated by certain
individuals rests in their presupposition that the 'accurate' approach to
reproducing sound is the *only* way to acheive this. This is the false
premise that I said Dave was proceeding from. To wit...

This means LP is *adding* something to the audio that it shouldn't.

Who says that something shouldn't be added? Where is the universal truth
upon which this assertion is predicated? There is none. It is predicated
on
the supposition that use of audio equipment which doesn't 'add' something
is
the only way to instill whatever it is that we seek to feel when listening
to music.


Plowie's problem is that admitting vinyl is *adding* something to the sound
is some sort of shibboleth that he needs to hear. What he doesn't know (or
want to know) is that I and a number of others don't much care whether it is
or not. I (and I suspect a number of others) feel that all the equipment
alters the sound and the end product, which is is the ultimate goal, is the
sum of all the components and source material used.



Err, no. It was an example of how your whole thinking is flawed.

LIS, the *only* way: "Think like me, or you're wrong".



That's Plowie - see other recent posts. You can't ever win with him - ignore
him and he'll call you a ******, respond to his bigotted remarks and he
tries to play you like you're lucky to get an acknowledgement. Personally,
I've no idea why he bothers to subscribe here, there don't seem to be much
that pleases him...??



You
are looking for an extremely coloured unnatural sound - ...

Keith has made it clear for at least two or three years that what he's
after
from his kit is that it has to instill the right emotional response.
Dave's
comment is not based on what Keith has said - it's baseless.


OK, I think I can help out here - see below for an analogy....




That use of words
gets up some people's noses, particularly when it is directed at a
newbie who is seeking guidance in Hi Fi. I can see why.


Don's words I think - no idea why he says that, I've never 'advised' a
newbie to do anything other than grab cheap (but good) off eBay until
recently now that Arny's 'low rent, adequate' stuff is down to damn near
eBay prices! (My last purchases for 'ordinary, thrasher' kit have all been
from Argos and Lidls...??!!)

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.

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.
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.

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

Advice: Amp building
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Then perhaps you'd use universally accepted technical terms when you
next describe the sound of your latest speaker/amplifier?

Why should he?



Because Plowie says so - this group isn't for dumb 'audio enthusiasts'
blogging their *current* activities, it's for old 'pro' wash-outs who want
to swing the lantern and bang on about the plastic cutlery they had in the
BBC canteen half a century ago....

Advice: Amp building
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
We have low cost high volume production amps that exceed any reasonable
need. AK

OK - so the 'need' for a reference system, e.g. for professional
musicians, that is better than high volume production ss amps is
"unreasonable".

Amps are only useful and interesting as components of more complex
systems,
they are almost completely disinteresting as ends in themselves. AK

So why do you and Jim (DHTs) insist on pontificating over componants
which you have no interest in? Why should people who are seriously
involved in building and improving such componants be REMOTELY
interested in your pompous views when you clearly are only interested
in breezing in and out of threads without contributing anything of
value to the actual R+D of such componants. This is EXTREMELY tiresome
when it has to be endured on a regular basis. On other newsgroups
people actually help each other build projects, go through different
iterations, contribute experience of their own builds, suggest
modifications. Result - great equipment. Think about it.


Where Arny's postulation falls on its arse is that for some people a 'low
cost high volume production amp' simply don't cut the mustard. I have 3 such
amps here and they are fine for their specific purposes (one is an AV amp
and is used daily) but they are not *best* for serious listening and
certainly don't do vinyl any favours, which might explain some of the
attitudes in here...??

Advice: Amp building
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm not sure what you mean by detail and clarity. Detail - hearing
everything on the recording depends to some extent on the level you
listen
to it at, as any external background noise can mask things. Clarity?
Isn't
that the same thing? (Dave)

Hello Dave - I'd probably agree with you that detail and clarity are
pretty much the same,


Nope.

A lack of treble might result in the loss of detail but it won't necessarily
mean there is no clarity. OTOH, excessive 'loose' bass will kill both in one
go...


and also that level and background noise affect
it (commonly a computer on in the same room).


Take it from me, Lowthers will cut straight through any such background
interference!


I think the interesting
thing to pursue is the "internal" (to the reproduction system) blurring
between distinct sounds, and on the other hand masking of very low
level sounds. I think it's progress with these that gives clarity (no
blurring) and low level detail (emergence of previously unnoticed
information). I'd add timbre as important for those whose listening is
predominantly to acoustic instruments. I'm not sure that any of the
above terms are free of subjective qualities, or meanings personal to
those who use them, but we need some sort of language to communicate in
the first place.


Sure, this group isn't entirely populated by 'audio engineers' and in any
case discussing stuff like 'sound quality' in quantative terms only doesn't
help anybody much!

(Tickles me how many 'scientific types' hafta have the soppy bar graphs and
pie charts as well as the numbers...!! ;-)

Advice: Amp building
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

Brown would be more accurate.

Yuh, I think I see where you're coming frarm - kinda *warm, earthy and
natural sounding*...??

Eddie Van Halen has what he calls a 'brown' sound. I think it started with
a
Marshall amp on one of those voltage dropper resistor thingies (variac?).
It's quite distinctive - a dirty, distorted sound, but not harsh. A guy on
a
gituar group spent time (and money, no doubt) fine-tuning his set up to
get
that sound - when he posted an example of his playing, the similarity to
Van
Halen's sound was striking.



Yes, to see some of the posts here you would think that chords, continuo,
discord, distortion, 'blue notes' &c. have no place in music replay....