Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

A "cor" is the name commnonly used by musicians to
denote a French horn,

Well, actually, in UK orchestra slang "cor" almost always refers to cor
anglais. Horn is horn. In European languages, different story, hence
how it's marked on scores.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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.

Iain

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


[2] Who also moved on from valves to SS in due course and despite
being a keen musician tended then to be puzzled by the ongoing
arguments about valve amps. I can't recall him ever complaining that
without valves he couldn't tell an oboe from a cor any more...


Jim. A "cor" is the name commonly used by musicians to denote a
French horn, (the instrument first developed in France from the "cor de
chasse") and marked "cor" on most symphonic full scores.

Happy to accept what you say. That doesn't seem the usual practice in the
small collection of pocket scores I have, but I'd appreciate that full
professional scores may well be very different. Indeed, when I looked
just now in one of my old books on score reading, etc, some of the
examples show 'cor' for the horns, although others do not.

Yes of course there are variants. Most French and many German
composers seem to have used "cor", for French horns, the English
and Americans use "Horns"

I just typed cor to be brief in what was an aside. Afraid I'd long
forgotten this practice. Probably never had any idea it was common.

I'd be surprised if anyone genuinely misunderstood my meaning, given the
context, but apologies if anyone was.

No apologies needed Jim:-) My reply to you was "tongue in cheek"
If we had been speaking together in person, there would not have
been the slightest doubt of the meanings intended on either side,
I am sure. But as I mentioned elsewhere, you are renowned for
your precision in writing.


I don't think anyone on this planet could fail to discern between a
French horn and an oboe:-)

I think I'd agree. Particulary if they use full scores. :-)

You would be surprised how many do. I get tickets sometimes,
to attend the dress rehearsals of opera, ballets and symphony
concerts. The first five rows are packed with students armed
with scores and a selection of coloured pencils!

One also sees people at concerts with miniature scores, but
thankfully not often.

Regards
Iain

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Iain

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

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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.

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

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


I don't think anyone on this planet could fail to discern between a
French horn and an oboe:-)

I think I'd agree. Particulary if they use full scores. :-)

You would be surprised how many do. I get tickets sometimes, to attend
the dress rehearsals of opera, ballets and symphony concerts. The first
five rows are packed with students armed with scores and a selection of
coloured pencils!

One also sees people at concerts with miniature scores, but thankfully
not often.

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.

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

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

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
A "cor" is the name commnonly used by musicians to
denote a French horn,

Well, actually, in UK orchestra slang "cor" almost always refers to cor
anglais. Horn is horn. In European languages, different story, hence
how it's marked on scores.

Andy, I covered the slang eventuality when I stated that a
saxophone was not a horn either (though the word is often
used in slang for both saxophone and trumpet) As a jazz player
you will be familiar with the term.

The only book on orchestration and notation to I have to hand,
is Davidson, "The Instruments of the Orchestra". It states:
"Cor. The pitch of the instrument should be specified at
the start of the first stave i.e Cor Bb"

This cannot possibly refer to the cor Anglais which is
a transposing instrument in the key of F (i.e. one plays the
note C to reproduce F concert) So the part must be written
a perfect fifth higher than it is to sound.

Just as you say, there are bound be variants of usage. I some
countries, what we call the viola is known as the alto-violin.
The musical scale in German notation contains the note "H" !!

So that the standard annotation of A, Bb, B, C becomes
in German nomenclature ABHC. Students of Bach all
recognise the frequent use of the four note B-A-C-H
motif in the Art of Fuge which the composer used to spell
his name.

Music should be fun!

But, let's not take this all too seriously. It's purely
academic. But then, on second thoughts, Jim *is*
an academic:-)

Regards to all
Iain

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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

I intend to put the preamps through a whole load of tests when the
prototype is ready. No heresy at all in tests. Andy

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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...

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. 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...??

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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....

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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...??

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

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"

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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:-)

Iain

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. 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

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"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

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....??

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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 can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.



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. :-)


Or pehaps you simply missed a subtle inference to the irony of the
situation.




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...


Really? There is no infered coment about people liking things they
imagine to be there?


Scott



P.S. I am still waiting for your report on the other listening tests
you are aware of on the transparency of CD-Rs so we can evaluate those
along with the one I did.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

On 17 Sep 2006 08:29:34 -0700, wrote:

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

I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants? If they claimed magic, fair enough. But if
they claim science, shouldn't it be measurable?

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants?

How about multinationals?

"In tests 9 out of 10 cats preferred it"
"Reduces the appearance of wrinkles"
"Fights the seven signs of ageing" quote "For more beauty science,
please visit
www.pg.com"

And for those old enough "Aspro - does not affect the heart"

Be my guest and list the most outrageous claims you've heard!

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants?

How about multinationals?

"In tests 9 out of 10 cats preferred it"
"Reduces the appearance of wrinkles"
"Fights the seven signs of ageing" quote "For more beauty science,
please visit
www.pg.com"

And for those old enough "Aspro - does not affect the heart"

Be my guest and list the most outrageous claims you've heard!



The best one ever was 'Nothing works faster than Anadin'....!! :-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

The best one ever was 'Nothing works faster than Anadin'....!! :-)

I like "In tests 9 out of 10 cat owners preferred it".

That in itself was so utterly brainless. Preferred it to what? A poke
in the eye with a sharp stick? A steaming Dalmation turd? A railway
line sleeper?

And THEN they got round to changing it. But to what? This time it was

""In tests 9 out of 10 cat owners who expressed a preference, preferred
it".......

(Supply "to a steaming Dalmation turd" etc etc)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

On 17 Sep 2006 08:29:34 -0700, wrote:

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

I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants? If they claimed magic, fair enough. But if
they claim science, shouldn't it be measurable?

Don't they just simply avoid the issue by using plausibly sounding
pseudo-scientific terms which have in fact no actual meaning but sound
'important' ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

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

I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

I'm not clear from that whether it's the case that you think any audible
difference should be scientifically measurable too or not.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 17 Sep 2006 08:29:34 -0700, wrote:

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

I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants?

A fair question. I think it best to take them individually rather than
as a group. I think such claims come in differen flavors ranging from
slaes pitch to ignorance to fraud. I have no sympathy for fraud.


If they claimed magic, fair enough.


If they claim magic I dismiss them out of hand. I don't believe in
magic.


But if
they claim science, shouldn't it be measurable?


Yes.



Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 17 Sep 2006 08:29:34 -0700, wrote:

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

I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants?

A fair question. I think it best to take them individually rather than
as a group. I think such claims come in differen flavors ranging from
slaes pitch to ignorance to fraud. I have no sympathy for fraud.


If they claimed magic, fair enough.


If they claim magic I dismiss them out of hand. I don't believe in
magic.


But if
they claim science, shouldn't it be measurable?


Yes.



Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

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

I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must
be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his
point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the
point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all.
Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very
specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences
that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

I'm not clear from that whether it's the case that you think any audible
difference should be scientifically measurable too or not.


Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically
measuable.

Scott