"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:58:47 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


snip 'grey isn't a colour' &c.


Thinking SS doesn't distort is the first level of denial. Thinking your
speakers aren't *coloured* because you are using SS amplification takes
it
to the second level...


It is a question of degree - SS distorts possibly a hundred to a
thousand times less than SET,


So what? If the results are at least *preferable* what does it matter?
Sticking with summat because there's a popular notion that has been
perpetuated from the dawn of audio - that THD figures are the be-all and
end-all of an amplifier's performance shows a distinct lack of
imagination,
in my book....


You need to use your imagination? I don't want to have to use my
imagination when I listen to music. And I don't need to when I have an
amp that doesn't distort audibly.


Music doesn't stimulate your imagination...???

Call me daft, but I have such vivid images in my mind I almost *never* want
to see the video, if there is one...??

(Must be the kit you're using!! ;-)



You use a Cyrus 2 if I'm not mistaken - what's wrong with all the
subsequent
incarnations? (Last one I heard was a Cyrus 8....??) Presumably they are
not
making them to measure *less well* these days - in which case, dare I
presume that 'measures better' doesn't necessarily mean performs better at
least in the case of Cyrus amps...??


I do indeed have a Cyrus II, and it sounds great. So great in fact
that it sounds identical to the Marantz home theatre amp I'm currently
using in the living room. I haven't heard any of the later Cyrus
incarnations, so I can't comment.



OK, so not even *current* denial then - more like running forever with an
empty bucket...??

My comparisons are like *today*....

(SS amp playing as I type....)




so it is not realistic to speak of
denial there.


It is - see what I've just written


Speakers do, of course, as speakers will.


Yes they do and the first thing is unpick any notions of 'fidelity' the
Denial Boyz are claiming (just because they have an amp with certain
measurements) with their colourations, resonances &c. The second thing
most
of them do is bury detail...



The funny thing, though, is that despite all the stuff that speakers
do to the sound, they are still transparent enough to reveal the
difference between a SET (talking of burying detail!) and a
non-distorting amp, as you yourself will be the first to admit.


Stop that - that's Plowie's tactic. I experience no loss of detail
whatsoever with SET amps - the *clarity* of the detail is one of the main
reasons for choosing/using SETs. (I am starting to believe you have never
really heard one....???)


So
there are qualitative differences between the things speakers do and
the things amps can do.


And certain similarities between them.

Off out now to where there is an SS system on B&W speakers that doesn't even
sound as good as my car radio, but its owner is well enough satisfied with
it!! ;-)

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:32:58 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:58:47 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


snip 'grey isn't a colour' &c.


Thinking SS doesn't distort is the first level of denial. Thinking your
speakers aren't *coloured* because you are using SS amplification takes
it
to the second level...


It is a question of degree - SS distorts possibly a hundred to a
thousand times less than SET,


So what? If the results are at least *preferable* what does it matter?
Sticking with summat because there's a popular notion that has been
perpetuated from the dawn of audio - that THD figures are the be-all and
end-all of an amplifier's performance shows a distinct lack of
imagination,
in my book....


You need to use your imagination? I don't want to have to use my
imagination when I listen to music. And I don't need to when I have an
amp that doesn't distort audibly.


Music doesn't stimulate your imagination...???


C'mon Keith, you know it wasn't the musical imagination you were
talking about.

Call me daft, but I have such vivid images in my mind I almost *never* want
to see the video, if there is one...??

(Must be the kit you're using!! ;-)


I too listen to the radio more than I watch TV - for the same reason.



You use a Cyrus 2 if I'm not mistaken - what's wrong with all the
subsequent
incarnations? (Last one I heard was a Cyrus 8....??) Presumably they are
not
making them to measure *less well* these days - in which case, dare I
presume that 'measures better' doesn't necessarily mean performs better at
least in the case of Cyrus amps...??


I do indeed have a Cyrus II, and it sounds great. So great in fact
that it sounds identical to the Marantz home theatre amp I'm currently
using in the living room. I haven't heard any of the later Cyrus
incarnations, so I can't comment.



OK, so not even *current* denial then - more like running forever with an
empty bucket...??


While you are running with one that slops water all over your feet -
I'd hate that. But I'm not running with any kind of bucket, of course.

My comparisons are like *today*....

(SS amp playing as I type....)


Nice, innit?




so it is not realistic to speak of
denial there.


It is - see what I've just written


Speakers do, of course, as speakers will.


Yes they do and the first thing is unpick any notions of 'fidelity' the
Denial Boyz are claiming (just because they have an amp with certain
measurements) with their colourations, resonances &c. The second thing
most
of them do is bury detail...



The funny thing, though, is that despite all the stuff that speakers
do to the sound, they are still transparent enough to reveal the
difference between a SET (talking of burying detail!) and a
non-distorting amp, as you yourself will be the first to admit.


Stop that - that's Plowie's tactic. I experience no loss of detail
whatsoever with SET amps - the *clarity* of the detail is one of the main
reasons for choosing/using SETs. (I am starting to believe you have never
really heard one....???)


First amp I ever built was a SET. It was a kit from Radio and TV
Components Ltd, Acton. I didn't move to SS at the time because they
were pure ****e. Not so today, of course, and one of the reasons I use
SS is the added detail. If needed (and no, I don't need to) I could
back up my position with measurements.


So
there are qualitative differences between the things speakers do and
the things amps can do.


And certain similarities between them.

Off out now to where there is an SS system on B&W speakers that doesn't even
sound as good as my car radio, but its owner is well enough satisfied with
it!! ;-)


You have a SET car radio? Wow, now I'm impressed with your loyalty ;-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Never listened to the Isophon. Must try and find them sometime.

Quick before the wet weather sets in...

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:58:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Never listened to the Isophon. Must try and find them sometime.

Quick before the wet weather sets in...

Mmmmm.... like that, is it? Perhaps I'll give them a miss.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
You have a SET car radio? Wow, now I'm impressed with your loyalty ;-)

Many early valve car radios were of course SET. And sounded pretty
dreadful. First generation transistor Motorala and Radiomobile were also
SET. Their larger brothers push pull but still with a transformer. The SET
sounded marginally better, but not surprising given the circuit design.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:04:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
You have a SET car radio? Wow, now I'm impressed with your loyalty ;-)

Many early valve car radios were of course SET. And sounded pretty
dreadful. First generation transistor Motorala and Radiomobile were also
SET. Their larger brothers push pull but still with a transformer. The SET
sounded marginally better, but not surprising given the circuit design.

Actually, now I think of it, my first Motorola car radios were SET,
but the T stood for transistor - Germanium naturally.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:58:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Never listened to the Isophon. Must try and find them sometime.

Quick before the wet weather sets in...

Mmmmm.... like that, is it? Perhaps I'll give them a miss.




Par for the course - never let a bit of first-hand experience get in the way
of a good *review*, eh? ;-)

"Don Pearce" wrote


You need to use your imagination? I don't want to have to use my
imagination when I listen to music. And I don't need to when I have an
amp that doesn't distort audibly.


Music doesn't stimulate your imagination...???


C'mon Keith, you know it wasn't the musical imagination you were
talking about.


What imagination are you talking about then?




Call me daft, but I have such vivid images in my mind I almost *never*
want
to see the video, if there is one...??

(Must be the kit you're using!! ;-)


I too listen to the radio more than I watch TV - for the same reason.


Ditto....



OK, so not even *current* denial then - more like running forever with an
empty bucket...??


While you are running with one that slops water all over your feet -
I'd hate that. But I'm not running with any kind of bucket, of course.

My comparisons are like *today*....

(SS amp playing as I type....)


Nice, innit?


Not brilliant on the Lowthers - a bit *too stark*...

(Note that wasn't 'Koo Stark'....)



First amp I ever built was a SET. It was a kit from Radio and TV
Components Ltd, Acton. I didn't move to SS at the time because they
were pure ****e. Not so today, of course, and one of the reasons I use
SS is the added detail. If needed (and no, I don't need to) I could
back up my position with measurements.


That'd be what - 30 years or more ago?

Makes this all the more relevant:


OK, so not even *current* denial then - more like running forever with an
empty bucket...??


You have a SET car radio? Wow, now I'm impressed with your loyalty ;-)


Loyalty???

I think you're confusing me with the legacy types who buy *names*.....

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:58:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Never listened to the Isophon. Must try and find them sometime.

Quick before the wet weather sets in...

Mmmmm.... like that, is it? Perhaps I'll give them a miss.

Par for the course - never let a bit of first-hand experience get in the
way of a good *review*, eh? ;-)

Depends on the provenance of the reviewer. You keep on telling us just how
good your single driver horns are and I don't actually need to hear them
to know they're not. ;-)

--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:14:03 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:58:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Never listened to the Isophon. Must try and find them sometime.

Quick before the wet weather sets in...

Mmmmm.... like that, is it? Perhaps I'll give them a miss.




Par for the course - never let a bit of first-hand experience get in the way
of a good *review*, eh? ;-)

Stuff like that is always valuable. I'd have to go searching for them,
with really absolutely no intention of buying them, so Dave's comment
was fine.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com