"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.

Lots of people told me that about SETs. So I went to HE2005 and heard a
bunch of them. I really didn't need to hear that crap. But now that I have,
I have a more accurate evaluation of tube bigots.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain
Churches wrote:



I don't read hi-fi reviews, but listen carefully to what dealers tell
me. They are not trying to sell me anything, but they do have their
finger on the pulse, and know precisely what products are in demand.
The fact that in Stockholm one can buy a Krell at -30% while there is
a longish waiting list for Conrad Johnson, speaks volumes.

You seem to keep assuming pricing and markup practices indicate
quality. Are you not aware that both makers and dealers will have
varying practices in these matters? All part of the ways they try to
compete and promote sales of their products.



I think the word *demand* (not quality per se) is of the essence
here....???

Indeed, that may well be so. You may note that the 'demand' for CDs is
larger than for LPs, larger for blockbuster movies than for concerts of
obscure classical music, etc. You may also note that the markup on items
varies according to their sales positioning and company practices.
None of this necessarily has much to do with quality.


No-one but you is linking/confusing 'demand' (or preference) with
quality....??

Iain's point is that 'discerning' audio enthusiast are choosing valve
equipment over SS, but I don't think it should necessarily imply the SS kit
is deemed to be of inferior quality??

SS bigots all fall into the trap of presuming a preference for valves is
only a comparative *quality* issue - it isn't, in my book, it's more a
question of difference. Much like the difference between petrol and
diesel-engined cars, if you like. FWIW, I operate both types of amp on a
daily basis and have different expectations of them...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.

Lots of people told me that about SETs. So I went to HE2005 and heard a
bunch of them. I really didn't need to hear that crap. But now that I
have, I have a more accurate evaluation of tube bigots.


No, you lost me - does that mean you didn't like the amps or the people who
bought/used them...??

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Andy Evans wrote:

Currently six people I know are building preamps with DHTs as a result
of hearing the difference in their systems.

So do tell me about this 'difference'. Even better, what's the reason
for it ?

You have to hear it - nothing else will enable you to understand what
I'm talking about. We can discuss DHTs but I can't "tell" you what they
sound like.

You can't even begin to describe it ?

Graham


Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.


It's never really been a *requirement* for a few opinionated posters in this
group....

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Iain Churches wrote:


Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a Bosendorfer
concert grand piano to someone who has never heard one. You need to
hear it, Graham.

I'm curious for sure. I'd want to measure it too or would that be some
kind of heresy ?

I'd also be interested in any evidence that it was real, due solely to the
sound, and wasn't something trivial/obvious like an alteration in the
frequency response. IIRC Andy made similar claims a while ago, but
although
someone else commented on a possible reason for a different in device
(electronic) characteristics, no-one was able to provide anything more
than
assertions of an audible difference that wasn't for a trivial reason.


This is interesting - it appears that some here wouldn't necessarily like
what they were eating until they had read the ingredients list on the
packet...???

Andy is building a DHT Pre for me (I don't need to add my own lack of
experience/expertise into the equation and risk crapping up a very sensitive
bit of kit) and the only testing it will get here is a) I got to like it
full stop and b) Swim's got to supply me with a string of 'better' responses
when I get her to hear a various snatches of music over a period of time
with it in/out, amp on its own, amp with Denon's pre section, amp with Pre
vs. another amp on its own &c. &c....

The only thing it won't be directly compared with is my EAR Line Stage -
that's already boxed up for disposal (has been for a few months now) - even
with Mullards in it, Swim could hear if that was in the loop coming up the
garden path!! She never failed to pick up on it!!

It's the old 'proof of the pudding' scenario again, isn't it...??

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Eeyore
wrote:


I'd also be interested in any evidence that it was real, due solely to
the sound, and wasn't something trivial/obvious like an alteration in
the frequency response. IIRC Andy made similar claims a while ago, but
although someone else commented on a possible reason for a different
in device (electronic) characteristics, no-one was able to provide
anything more than assertions of an audible difference that wasn't
for a trivial reason.


This is interesting - it appears that some here wouldn't necessarily
like what they were eating until they had read the ingredients list on
the packet...???

Perhaps you should name a few of the "some" you have in mind.

I note that you quote something I wrote and start with "this". But I
neither said, not meant, what you go on say above. If you think so, then
I am afraid you are mistaken. You would also be wrong to think it
must follow from what I said. If you think I am the mysterious "some"
then it looks like our friend the 'straw man' is making another
appearance. :-)

My comments had nothing to do with what anyone might or might not "like"
(i.e. prefer). So I am wondering who you are referring to, and what it
has to do with what I said...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Andy is building a DHT Pre for me (I don't need to add my own lack of
experience/expertise into the equation and risk crapping up a very
sensitive
bit of kit) and the only testing it will get here is a) I got to like
it
full stop and b) Swim's got to supply me with a string of 'better'
responses
when I get her to hear a various snatches of music over a period of
time
with it in/out, amp on its own, amp with Denon's pre section, amp with
Pre
vs. another amp on its own &c. &c....

I try to get as much feedback as I can for development purposes - you
have to beta test stuff to see where the drawbacks are on other
systems, because your own references can be misleading or atypical.
I've had all my colleagues laboriously listening for hours for
perceived differences, and I'm now putting these DHT preamps in
different systems to see how they sound in other rooms and setups, both
balanced and single ended. So far the DHTs have sounded better than the
preamps they replaced, both active and passive, which is encouraging.
But there are questions, of course. Frequency response is one,
microphonics another (some racks are very resonant, others excellent)
so it's a continued development process.
Last night I took a balanced DHT preamp over to my brothers. He has a
very classy setup - top Krell CD player, big Audio Research tube
preamp, Nagra VPA 845 amps and Apogee Caliper Sigs. Big room. His own
system has a sound which to me is a bit "thick" - lacking transparency
- and also a bit lacking in timbre on instruments, notably woodwind,
cymbals (especially with brushes) grand piano and voice. But it has
generally good "forward" tone and a lot of midrange presence, and the
amp and speakers are superb, better than the front end. The DHT preamp
showed more timbre and better treble and was a distinct overall
improvement, more than subtle but less than overwhelming. This was a
DHT preamp which had a previous version of the filament supply (now
superceded by a better one), so there's room for further improvement.
But better than a big ARC preamp is already a step in the right
direction.
The big change came when we put a Chris Found VDAC-4 digital board into
the system instead of the DAC in the Krell, fed by optical cable from
the Krell transport. Here the sound really opened out and started to
sound very transparent - really as if the hifi wasn't there. Very
natural, like listening to real musicians in the room. The DHT balanced
preamp was developed using this DAC in my system, and is biased to take
the output of the DAC straight into the grids of the DHT. Anyway, this
combination was quite special. My brother intended going to bed early
for an early morning start, but listened for a further 2 hours sitting
with his wife, pulling out CD after CD and listening to track after
track. A recording of a Rachmaninov symphony with Rozhdestvensky and
the LSO was quite gorgeous - rich lush strings, and woodwind plain as
daylight - you could follow the clarinet, cor, flute right through the
tutti parts as well as in solos. I asked my brother what he thought of
the sound - he said "very natural and detailed - better clarity and
instrumental timbre". This is a typical comment - clarity and timbre
are the two most obvious differences. His wife said the same and
clearly preferred it, and she's as (or more) discerning than he is. I
left the DAC and the preamp in his system so he could give me comments
after prolongued listening.
Discussion points: well, basically just frequency response. The bass
was a little lighter, though all there. The midrange was less forward
than before. We discussed whether this was enough to explain the
difference in sound, and we both felt that the difference in timbre of
intruments was too distinct to be explained by frequency response, and
that the clarity, again, didn't sound like a difference in frequency
response. This is a subjective judgement of course.
I don't believe all differences can be explained by differences in
frequency response, though clearly this plays a part. Having heard the
same DHTs in different systems with quite different frequency responses
(one was a big Tannoy system with really fine bass and rather rolled
off treble) I think I can recognise the common factors in the sound -
clarity and timbre. It's a sound that tends to delight classical and
jazz listeners (female vocals with jazz trio sounded spooky - right in
the room) - not sure what it would do for punk and headbangers. The
sound is quite delicate, though fast and foot-tapping.
My favourite rock'n'roll preamp tube is the 1626 ( a nice old ST shape
triode) , which is indirectly heated, but I prefer DHTs for everyday
listening, since my listening is almost all jazz and classical. When I
had my 1626 preamp in the system I used to turn the volume up and put
on Jimmy Smith - you literally felt like jumping up out of your seat
and dancing - it was like being hit by a treble vodka. Horses for
courses! Andy
PS reminds me of one of Ronnie Scott;s comments in his pre-set patter.
"And now I'd like to introduce you to our sound man......... John. John
is our sound man. John is the best sound man in the country. In the
city?............... Useless"

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Andy Evans wrote:

Currently six people I know are building preamps with DHTs as a result
of hearing the difference in their systems.

So do tell me about this 'difference'. Even better, what's the reason
for it ?

You have to hear it - nothing else will enable you to understand what
I'm talking about. We can discuss DHTs but I can't "tell" you what they
sound like.

You can't even begin to describe it ?

Graham


Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.


It's never really been a *requirement* for a few opinionated posters in
this group....

I remember an instance not too long ago when one such expert "evaluated"
a tube amp by simply looking at the schematic of another *totally different*
valve amplifier from the same manufacturer. Now that *is* clever:-)

Iain

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.

Lots of people told me that about SETs. So I went to HE2005 and heard a
bunch of them. I really didn't need to hear that crap. But now that I
have, I have a more accurate evaluation of tube bigots.


That's what I like about you, Army. Your use of the word
cr*p and the term "tube bigot", prove to all your open
mindedness and impartiality in evaluation:-)

Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

When I was younger - and even more foolish - than now, I did do this kind
of thing for a while. I still have some pocket scores with markings in
them. At the time some people regarded this as 'essential' if you really
wanted to detect all the nuances, etc. There was a sort of snobbery about
it as you might guess.

No snobbery as far as I am concerned. Just a lot of hard work that repaid
huge dividends later. The more you put in, the more you get out. What my
tutor Bernard Hermann used to call "surface listening" is not always
terribly
rewarding.

I just found it often got in the way of listening, and was a distraction
once you were reasonably familiar with the piece.

That's absolutely true. But studying the score is a very good way gain
that familiarity and learn how symphonic tone colour is built up.

So I decided it was a
waste of time for anyone who didn't have to 'study' the work. I prefered
to
enjoy the music rather than wanting to study it.

Yes. I would agree for most that is sufficient. But for musicians and
students who need a much deeper understanding, the score is the
key to this.

Iain