Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.. .

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:-)


It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in
careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects
would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs
under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his
obvious biases.


Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Iain Churches wrote:

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:-)

That was especially stupid.

Do name names please !

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:
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"


Interesting, thanks for that. I'm not sure if it helps, but I remember
reading that Chris Found was at odds with some in that he believed(s?)
that bass roll off should be designed in. I can email the article to you
if you want, and if I can find it.

Rob

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.. .

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.

A bunch of them, Arny??
Are you sure they were not directly heated bananas?

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


It reflects the situation in his own location, amongst
his own client-base. I agree this may or may not be
representative of the situation in other regions, or as a
whole.

Or, what he wishes it to be.

Oh Ye of little faith!. Now you are back into
denial again, Arny:-)

The Scandanavians must be a gullable lot if their folklore doesn't include
a lot of jokes along the lines of:

Q: How can you tell that a salesman is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

No. We say that about computer assembly/repair men:-)
But I have heard people here express their surprise at the
poor command so many English speakers have of their
own language. Having read some of your posts, Arny,
I am beginning to see what they mean:-)

It's "Scandinavians" Arny, not "Scandanavians" (sic) !!
I doubt anyone here would be sloppy enough to call
you "an Ameracan".


Iain forgets that I own a Conrad-Johnson preamp.

Excellent. Then you are not entirely a lost cause:-)

Iain

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Interesting, thanks for that. I'm not sure if it helps, but I remember
reading that Chris Found was at odds with some in that he believed(s?)
that bass roll off should be designed in. I can email the article to
you
if you want, and if I can find it.

Yes - I do believe there's a bass rolloff - even if slight. I know
Chris quite well, so no need to email the article - I'll ask him. Andy

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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.

Well, nobody is going to go to the trouble to set up a double blind
test, so that kind of evidence won't happen. I'm not a company with a
testing budget and I don't have time or premeses to set up such things
anyway. I'm just developing stuff, and trying out alternatives at this
stage. The question of frequency response is extremely relevent, but
difficult to do anything about. For a start I don't have a parametric
equaliser of sufficient quality, and even if I did, inserting it in the
chain would change the sound. You get some simple idea of frequency
response in two ways I can think of:
a) Listening on and off axis, in and out of the room
b) Listening to recordings that are bass light and bass heavy
I have to say with the two above, the quality of the sound - especially
instrumental timbre - remains pretty much the same. But your point
about frequency response is quite correct - it has to be factored in.

no-one was able to provide anything more than assertions of an audible
difference that wasn't for a trivial reason. Jim

Correct. Most comments on hi-fi consist of "assertions of an audible
difference". I try to test as logically as I can because I want to know
drawbacks as well as advantages, and I try to test to produce a rank
order with something familiar as reference, and always with known CDs
which have been tried on a variety of systems etc etc. One does what
one can. I'm only interested in the quality of the final sound, and
making design choices on the basis of listening to that sound. I try to
get second and third opinions all the way along to reduce the
subjective element, but I won't compromise the selection of componants
on the basis of the final sound being as close to the original acoustic
listening experience as possible.
Also, I'm not interested in blind tests for the purpose of producing
publications of a scientific nature. I leave that to others. I'm
interested in constantly improving the sound of what I have, and others
judge the results by listening to it directly and not having me
describe it in prose. I'm not unique in this - this is entirely banal
and what I'm sure the majority of small scale hi-fi builders do. And
what sensible hi-fi buyers do - they try a product out in their own
system. If it's better than what they have and affordable they buy it.
If it isn't better they send it back.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.. .

"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:-)



You catch my drift then.....

;-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.. .

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:-)


It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in
careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects
would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs
under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his
obvious biases.


:-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.


Oh, I don't think so - the use of words like 'some' and 'others' are common
in this group (there is a 'some' only two posts down from yours by
'another') they allow one to make a point or assertion without be directly
confrontational, as well you know. (You'll be asking another individual here
to be a little more specific about his use of the term 'bigots' as in 'tube
bigots' next....??? ;-)

Rest assured, if I have a direct comment to make about (or to) a specific
individual (or group) I will make it.


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...


Actually the remark was triggered by the general tone of the thread and this
remark in particular:

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

Not actually yours, I believe....??