"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
SETs are pretty thin on the ground in the UK and I have a leetle tiny
suspicion that many people with strong opinions about them have simply
never
heard one

A leetle tiny suspicion??? Does this come from a Zorro film?



No - Blazing Saddles....


I'd love
to see the sign of the Z on all the Audiolab gear about town, and a
caped intruder floating away into the darkness........



Ooh, er, I say - steady on, old chap!! :-)

Watching Gohatto atm (split over 2 evenings) it's kinda killing the
*Samurai* thing for me! What next? - 'The Ginger Ninja'...??? :-))

Oops, there's me being *shallow* again......

:-P

In article , Keith G
writes

"Eeyore" wrote


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.


OK...

First question - have you ever heard a SET and if so, on what speakers?
Second question - how is an amp failing when it a) switches on and off OK,
b) amplifies perfectly well all day long, b) sounds better than the other
amps one may have to hand?

Next - what price 'precision and linearity' to someone who is interested in
*using* the kit and not designing it? When it comes to audio, provided no
harm comes to kids, the elderly and little fluffy animals, I believe 'the
end justifies the means' and I am not too strung out about some of the
'facts and figures' when it comes to *measurements* and the like.

A task for you - play this fairly explosive track:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0In%20Love.mp3

Which deck did you record that off Keith?....

...and listen to it first on a pair of headphones and then over your 'hifi
system'.

Report here what 'shocking failings' in your system you found. Comment on
the 'fidelity' aspect and tell us how *accurate* you think it sounds. Then
make the effort to hear it on a SET amp and tell us how it compares and what
you have *learned* - this is what *we* SET users do, who also have a
selection of other amps *both* SS and valves.....

(SETs are pretty thin on the ground in the UK and I have a leetle tiny
suspicion that many people with strong opinions about them have simply never
heard one....??)





--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
writes

"Eeyore" wrote


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.


OK...

First question - have you ever heard a SET and if so, on what speakers?
Second question - how is an amp failing when it a) switches on and off OK,
b) amplifies perfectly well all day long, b) sounds better than the other
amps one may have to hand?

Next - what price 'precision and linearity' to someone who is interested
in
*using* the kit and not designing it? When it comes to audio, provided no
harm comes to kids, the elderly and little fluffy animals, I believe 'the
end justifies the means' and I am not too strung out about some of the
'facts and figures' when it comes to *measurements* and the like.

A task for you - play this fairly explosive track:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0In%20Love.mp3

Which deck did you record that off Keith?....


Lucky Goldstar GSA-4167B


that's OK Tony, I'll snip the rest of the **** off.....

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. The correspondence is uniquely defined if the
series of samples was correctly recorded. This much is simply a matter of
Information Theory and engineering. Also as you might expect from the phase
for which 'DAC' is an acronym.

The purpose of the *listener* is to listen to the results. So far as I can
tell, no DAC has awareness, or any ability to actually listen to anything.
:-)

Up to the listener, of course, if they actually want specific examples of
waveforms to be accurately reconstructed, or if they want them altered in
specific ways. Thus a real DAC may be designed to systematically alter the
results if the designer so decided. But the DAC still isn't actually
listening. :-)

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

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

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.

Andy Evans wrote:

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

AOL ? Good God !


- 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.

I suggest you use a decent 'newsreader'. Your problems are entirely of your / AOL's
own making.

Graham

In article , 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.

Sorry for that. I'm afraid it is one of the hazards of trying to make
sense of his postings.

I've also tried to get Andy to learn to show some consideration for others
and adopt the usual conventions for postings. As have others.

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

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

Addenda, "The purpose of having the DAC is to listen to it"

Up to the listener, of course, if they actually want specific examples
of waveforms to be accurately reconstructed, or if they want them
altered in specific waysJLS

This is one of many ways of saying "true believers use accurate
reproduction systems, while heretics worship at their own pagan
shrines" - I think the implications are clear enough.

In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Addenda, "The purpose of having the DAC is to listen to it"

Up to the listener, of course, if they actually want specific examples
of waveforms to be accurately reconstructed, or if they want them
altered in specific waysJLS

This is one of many ways of saying "true believers use accurate
reproduction systems, while heretics worship at their own pagan shrines"
- I think the implications are clear enough.

My "straw man argument" detector just triggered. :-)

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