I was looking at 'Audio Electronics' by the late John Linsley Hood this morning
while waiting for the newspaper to arrive, and was amused by this:

" Experiments in the late 1940s suggested that the level of audibility for
second and third harmonics was of the order of 0.6% and 0.25% respectively,
and this led to the setting of a target value, within the audio spectrum, of
0.1% THD, as desirable for high quality audio equipment.
However, recent work aimed at discovering the ability of an average listener
to detect the presence og low order (i.e. second or third) harmonic distortions
has drawn the uncomfortable conclusion that listeners, taken from a cross
section of the public, may rate a signal to which 0.5% second harmonic
distortion has been added as 'more musical' than, and therefore preferable to,
the original undistorted input. This discovery tends to cast doubt on the value
of some subjective testing of equipment."

So the SET set is right. single-ended valve amps are officially 'more musical'.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Eiron wrote:
I was looking at 'Audio Electronics' by the late John Linsley Hood this
morning
while waiting for the newspaper to arrive, and was amused by this:

" Experiments in the late 1940s suggested that the level of audibility for
second and third harmonics was of the order of 0.6% and 0.25% respectively,
and this led to the setting of a target value, within the audio
spectrum, of
0.1% THD, as desirable for high quality audio equipment.
However, recent work aimed at discovering the ability of an average
listener
to detect the presence og low order (i.e. second or third) harmonic
distortions
has drawn the uncomfortable conclusion that listeners, taken from a cross
section of the public, may rate a signal to which 0.5% second harmonic
distortion has been added as 'more musical' than, and therefore
preferable to,
the original undistorted input. This discovery tends to cast doubt on
the value
of some subjective testing of equipment."

So the SET set is right. single-ended valve amps are officially 'more
musical'.


The interesting thing there, is the statement that because it seems some
may prefer 2nd harmonics, this means that it "casts doubt on subjective
testing", not that it casts doubt on the validity of the measurement of
distortion :-)

In other words, the people who prefer the distortion are wrong, and they
should be ignored. And it clearly indicates that his goal was the
production of an amplifier that measured well, not one that people liked
to listen to.

--
Nick

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
" Experiments in the late 1940s suggested that the level of audibility
for second and third harmonics was of the order of 0.6% and 0.25%
respectively, and this led to the setting of a target value, within the
audio spectrum, of 0.1% THD, as desirable for high quality audio
equipment. However, recent work aimed at discovering the ability of an
average listener to detect the presence og low order (i.e. second or
third) harmonic distortions has drawn the uncomfortable conclusion that
listeners, taken from a cross section of the public, may rate a signal
to which 0.5% second harmonic distortion has been added as 'more
musical' than, and therefore preferable to, the original undistorted
input. This discovery tends to cast doubt on the value of some
subjective testing of equipment."

In the late '40s the public would not have heard anything approaching what
we consider normal these days for sound reproduction - there was only AM
radio restricted by the lines feeding the transmitters to about kHz, and
of course 78 rpm records. And pretty well all reproducers used single unit
speakers - often large. Amplifiers were invariably SET. So their
perception of what was or wasn't musical was influenced by what they were
used to.

So the SET set is right. single-ended valve amps are officially 'more
musical'.

In your dreams. ;-)

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

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

Nick Gorham wrote:


The interesting thing there, is the statement that because it seems some
may prefer 2nd harmonics, this means that it "casts doubt on subjective
testing", not that it casts doubt on the validity of the measurement of
distortion :-)

In other words, the people who prefer the distortion are wrong, and they
should be ignored. And it clearly indicates that his goal was the
production of an amplifier that measured well, not one that people liked
to listen to.

I still listen to my Linsley Hood 75w power amp, 0.01% distortion at any level
up to clipping. I like to listen to it.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
I still listen to my Linsley Hood 75w power amp, 0.01% distortion at any
level up to clipping. I like to listen to it.

Listening to R4 at the moment via one driving a pair of home assembled
LS 35/a...

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Eiron wrote:

" Experiments in the late 1940s suggested that the level of audibility
for second and third harmonics was of the order of 0.6% and 0.25%
respectively, and this led to the setting of a target value, within the
audio spectrum, of 0.1% THD, as desirable for high quality audio
equipment. However, recent work aimed at discovering the ability of an
average listener to detect the presence og low order (i.e. second or
third) harmonic distortions has drawn the uncomfortable conclusion that
listeners, taken from a cross section of the public, may rate a signal
to which 0.5% second harmonic distortion has been added as 'more
musical' than, and therefore preferable to, the original undistorted
input. This discovery tends to cast doubt on the value of some
subjective testing of equipment."


In the late '40s the public would not have heard anything approaching what
we consider normal these days for sound reproduction - there was only AM
radio restricted by the lines feeding the transmitters to about kHz, and
of course 78 rpm records. And pretty well all reproducers used single unit
speakers - often large. Amplifiers were invariably SET. So their
perception of what was or wasn't musical was influenced by what they were
used to.

Try actually reading the text, it was talking about the 1940's AND
"recent", i.e its not talking about the 1940's.

--
Nick

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In the late '40s the public would not have heard anything approaching what
we consider normal these days for sound reproduction - there was only AM
radio restricted by the lines feeding the transmitters to about kHz, and
of course 78 rpm records. And pretty well all reproducers used single unit
speakers - often large. Amplifiers were invariably SET. So their
perception of what was or wasn't musical was influenced by what they were
used to.

Maybe not what you would call hi-fi, but the public could actually listen to
jazz bands, orchestras, organ recitals and choral works. And they did have
access to Tannoy dual-concentrics and Leak or Quad push-pull amps.

Life wasn't all bad for our parents.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
I was looking at 'Audio Electronics' by the late John Linsley Hood this
morning
while waiting for the newspaper to arrive, and was amused by this:

" Experiments in the late 1940s suggested that the level of audibility for
second and third harmonics was of the order of 0.6% and 0.25%
respectively,
and this led to the setting of a target value, within the audio spectrum,
of
0.1% THD, as desirable for high quality audio equipment.
However, recent work aimed at discovering the ability of an average
listener
to detect the presence og low order (i.e. second or third) harmonic
distortions
has drawn the uncomfortable conclusion that listeners, taken from a cross
section of the public, may rate a signal to which 0.5% second harmonic
distortion has been added as 'more musical' than, and therefore preferable
to,
the original undistorted input. This discovery tends to cast doubt on the
value
of some subjective testing of equipment."

So the SET set is right. single-ended valve amps are officially 'more
musical'.



Depends if you are building/buying for sound quality or specification....

See elsewhere, where I mentioned a visitor was here from 11:30 am to 9:30 pm
listening to the Holy Trinity (SET/vinyl/horns) on Thursday - guess what, he
was here again yesterday afternoon for another 3 hours.....!!!

(I don't chain 'em to the sodding hifi rack - I've said it before and I'll
say it again: Never mind the technoyap, the proof of the pudding's in the
*listening*..... ;-)

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

In the late '40s the public would not have heard anything approaching
what
we consider normal these days for sound reproduction - there was only AM
radio restricted by the lines feeding the transmitters to about kHz, and
of course 78 rpm records. And pretty well all reproducers used single
unit
speakers - often large. Amplifiers were invariably SET. So their
perception of what was or wasn't musical was influenced by what they were
used to.

Maybe not what you would call hi-fi, but the public could actually listen
to
jazz bands, orchestras, organ recitals and choral works.



The percentage of the population that could get to 'quality music
performances' on a regular basis was probably even less (if it were
possible) than vinyl users today.....

(No - *really*....!! ;-)


And they did have
access to Tannoy dual-concentrics and Leak or Quad push-pull amps.


So do I.....



Life wasn't all bad for our parents.


I believe WW2 took the shine off it for some of them, for a while......

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
I still listen to my Linsley Hood 75w power amp, 0.01% distortion at any
level up to clipping. I like to listen to it.

Listening to R4 at the moment via one driving a pair of home assembled
LS 35/a...


Blimey, I wonder if mine's still up in the loft?
How would it pair with JR149s I wonder ?

T.