Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
left ?

Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.

So what are you using to post here ? This is what your headers say.

User-Agent:
G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via:
HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.1.1 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/1.1
Turboweb [los-tc042 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-los-ad01.proxy.aol.com[C35D1561]
(Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])


Or are you simply choosing to be perverse ? You would have considerably
greater
credibility if you adhered to Usenet norms.

As an ex musician I'm so used to being an outsider that credibility -
in terms of fitting in with the norm and conventional behaviour - is a
bit of a Fata Morgana. If I'd wanted credibility I'd have become a bank
manager.

Ok. You *are* perverse!

Linux maybe ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
left ?

Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.

OK, let me help here - Mozilla is the cheese used to make pizzas,

LOL ! Pppffftttttt...... I have some Mozzarella in the fridge though !


King Kong is the Chinese province used to make *British* hifi equipment....

IAG !

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Andy Evans wrote:

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.

Exactly. That's how most people evaluate products.

Which is fine as far as it goes. Do you expect everyone's listening
preference to be
identical though ? There lies the limitation !


That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be
seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt
precision
and linearity. Graham

Many SET amps sound very good.

So some say. They also produce oodles of intermodulation products which
are most
unmusical. This will easily be revealed by playing 'complex' music, yet
they will
tend to sound excellent on a single instrument, or say a quartet.


please learn to quote properly btw

please learn to be more flexible and stop demanding that other people
obey your own views.

Please pull your head out of your arse !

Interesting to see that, sooner or later, all of you clowns who just don't
*get it* with valves have to result to guttersnipe phraseology....

It had nothing do do with 'toobiness' at all actually.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote:
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

The purpose of the DAC is to reconstruct an analogue waveform as defined by
the series of sample values.

Unforunately due to Mr Evans half-assed method of quoting you mixed his comments
with mine.

I did indeed say " Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and

objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener ".

And he said " So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it. "

Graham

I really have to stand up for my quoting here. The above looks like the
Battle of Agincourt on my AOL system - enough arrows to bring down the
cream of the French aristocracy. Hopeless for a quick comment. In
addition although the first comment is attributed the rest are not. And
even worse, AOL hides the whole previous text so you have to click on
it to see it al all - one more click stroke. In ordinary conversation
(you can imagine the oak dinner table and the bottle of Chablis) one
would say something like "to pick up your point about "skin deep" I
believe it was S J Perelman who said that after the USA, even though
politeness in Britain was only skin deep, that was deep enough for
him". One would not repeat the whole previous conversation word for
word. You may see newsgroups as a literary experience, but I consider
them as essentially conversation, and I believe that picking up on a
point somebody makes is quite enough in the omnipresent information
overload of the Net.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Andy Evans wrote:


Eeyore wrote
!
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen
from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt
precision and linearity.

'Shocking failings'....???

By any established technical standard for sure.


(I love it when you Denial Boys start to talk dirty.....!! :-)

You haven't heard the half of it.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly bogus.

The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.

My suspicion is that a lot of people with strong views on valve kit is that
they haven't actually ever *heard* any......

Certainly doesn't apply in my case.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...

Andy Evans wrote:

You've snipped all the previous content so it's impossible to know what
exactly you're replying to.

Please use 'inline posting'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_...nline_replying

You currently have all the hallmark signs of an arrogant opinionated
self-obsessed jerk !

And you don't....??

You're suggesting that it's arrogant to use and encourage the use of established
Usenet norms ?

They exist for a reason as you'll see when you read another of my posts. Evans's
method of attribution led you to incorrectly attribute part of what I said to
him.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...

Andy Evans wrote:

What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly
bogus.

The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.

There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on them
btw.

Nahh, I doubt that - you post like you've learnt nothing at all.....

Do continue. What is it you think I do / don't know ( have / haven't learnt )
about valves ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on
them btw.

I've no doubt you know valves from ( ?50s, 60s?, 70s?), but you'd be
very surprised at how much things have changed. Not the function of the
triode itself, which is well known, but the support circuitry is now
quite complex - cascode active loads, constant current sinks etc. - a
whole cuisine of modern ss devices and traditional stuff like glow
tubes. It really is "nouvelle cuisine" if you pardon the expression.
We're not talking Mullard circuits with EF86s and ECC83s any more.

You've got more faith with some of these 'hot under the collar' types than I
have Andy - I take a lot of what they say with a pinch of salt (large one).
Most of 'em have never heard a valve amp and some of the others have only
heard some old *legacy* struggler at best and seem to forget what some of
the transistor equipment from the 70s could sound like.....

Why would I consider the performance of 70s transistor equipment as having any
more weight than legacy tube kit ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-09-09, Andy Evans wrote:
If the DAC isn't (sufficiently) transparent then putting a valve (tube)
in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

Isn't a DAC by definition something with an analogue output stage? ...

No, it's a device with an analogue output (not necessarily an analogue
output *stage*). For example, in the case of current summing DACs the
summing point is sometimes connected directly to a pin on the DAC and you
are expected to supply your own virtual-earth transimpedance amplifier
(valve or SS) if you want a voltage instead of a current output.

Modern DACs are now typically voltage output again. There's no inherent
advantage to be had either way with current or voltage output really.


So something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
transformer,capacitor or tube stage. ...

Well, in the audio context a DAC will not (usually) drive a loudspeaker
so you need amplification and/or impedance conversion and/or current
to voltage conversion after the DAC itself.

Absolutely. There is no avoiding this.


However I can't see the
relevance of this. There is still a very real DAC in the reproduction
chain.

100% true.


The advantage of a tube stage is
that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
tube, and the DC included in the biasing.

That may be an advantage in certain cases but you still have a DAC
feeding the tube stage (if I have interpreted you correctly) which can
then (as you say) feed the grid of the tube amplifier with DC as well
as the analogue signal.

A long-tailed discrete differential pair would work nicely here but you still
have to get rid of the DC output offset from *that* stage !


However that DC is only needed in the case of feeding a tube grid
- it is not usually necessary if feeding other amplifying devices.
Indeed a DAC driving a tube output stage that fed a lot of DC as well
to the output socket would be a dangerous device. (I think I must be
mis-reading something here.)

Exactly right.


You can't talk about a DAC as if there's "nothing" on the end of it.

Of course you can. What do you call the device whose output you connect
directly to the tube output stage?

I am totally puzzled (sorry - I *have* tried to think what the agument
and point is, but I've failed).

Me too.

Graham