"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


I own a Marantz Model 18 Receiver, dating from 1968. It originally
cost US$1,200.00 and was the most power receiver on the planet, back
then. For it's time, it was quite a sophisticated product, employing
full complementary silicon outputs, relay protection system and other
nifty stuff. It was critically appraised by reviewers at the time and
when I purchased mine (ca: 1977) I was stunned at how much better it
sounded than many contemporary amplifiers of similar (60 Watts) or
even more power. Just for yuks, I recently compared it to a more
modern Marantz amplifier (cost around AUS$1,000.00). No comparison.
The modern amp was somewhat better sounding. And, allowing for
inflation, the modern amp was MUCH less expensive. Don't even get me
started on loudspeakers. The technology for designing speakers has
improved in leaps and bounds over the last 40 years.



S'funny, we keep getting told how 'good amps' don't have a sound....???

**Because that is a fact. The ideal amplifier has no 'sound' of it's
own. No amplifier is ideal.


Therefore no amplifier has no 'sound' of its own then?

**Nope. That's not what I said.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

The *ideal* amplifier has no sound of its own, and no amplifier is ideal.
However, for many years now, amplifiers come awfully close to the ideal, and
consequently, except for the nittiest of nit-pickers, I subscribe to the
view that no (half-decent) amplifier has a sound of its own, and
consequently all sound the same.

Certain conditions apply, like operation below clipping into loads for which
the amplifier was designed, using music signals.

S.

The *ideal* amplifier has no sound of its own, and no amplifier is ideal.
However, for many years now, amplifiers come awfully close to the ideal, and
consequently, except for the nittiest of nit-pickers, I subscribe to the
view that no (half-decent) amplifier has a sound of its own, and
consequently all sound the same.

Certain conditions apply, like operation below clipping into loads for which
the amplifier was designed, using music signals.

S.



I've noticed that the Audiolab's I've got are rather boring in that
respect;!.

As are the ESL's..no fun at all.. Perhaps I ought nip over to Keith and
see if he's any spare horns I could prise off him at a decent price
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**They're not 40 years old. They were less than 30. Before that, even
B&W weren't building speakers which had the characteristics of most
decent modern speakers. The DM7 was, AFAIK, the first electrodynamic
speaker with truly modern characteristics.

I thought that accolade went to the Spendor BC1?


Not often I agree with my distinguished UK.D-I-Y DAB radio supporter
but on this occasion he is absolutely right....

If anybody's looking for a pair or the ones with the BBC amps in drop me
a mail off group I know someone who has some!..
--
Tony Sayer

"Serge Auckland" wrote


The *ideal* amplifier has no sound of its own, and no amplifier is
ideal.


Now you're doing it....


However, for many years now, amplifiers come awfully close to the
ideal, and consequently, except for the nittiest of nit-pickers, I
subscribe to the view that no (half-decent) amplifier has a sound of
its own, and consequently all sound the same.


Do you really believe that *deep down*? When others were challenged here
the '300 quid entry level' condition was swiftly applied although, tbh,
I think the speakers dictate the amp and the room (and other factors)
dictates the speakers - if that results in selecting an amp that 'reads
bad but sounds good' then San Fairy Anne.....



Certain conditions apply, like operation below clipping into loads for
which the amplifier was designed, using music signals.


Nice phrase - must remember that when 'low power, valve amp distortion
boys' start up....

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
The *ideal* amplifier has no sound of its own, and no amplifier is
ideal.
However, for many years now, amplifiers come awfully close to the
ideal, and
consequently, except for the nittiest of nit-pickers, I subscribe to
the
view that no (half-decent) amplifier has a sound of its own, and
consequently all sound the same.

Certain conditions apply, like operation below clipping into loads for
which
the amplifier was designed, using music signals.

S.



I've noticed that the Audiolab's I've got are rather boring in that
respect;!.


If 'tonally grey' (not my words) cuts it for you then you have my
blessing - enjoy!




As are the ESL's..no fun at all.. Perhaps I ought nip over to Keith
and
see if he's any spare horns I could prise off him at a decent price



If I had a pound for everyone who's been here, heard my 'horns' and gone
off and got them himself, I could almost afford to buy a CD....

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Keith G" wrote


S'funny, we keep getting told how 'good amps' don't have a
sound....???

**Because that is a fact. The ideal amplifier has no 'sound' of it's
own. No amplifier is ideal.


Therefore no amplifier has no 'sound' of its own then?

**Nope. That's not what I said.



It's what it looks like to me - your words (as above): "The ideal
amplifier has no 'sound' of it's own. No amplifier is ideal." - what
conclusion could be possibly drawn from that statement other than all
amplifiers are not ideal and therefore have a 'sound'...??

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote


I own a Marantz Model 18 Receiver, dating from 1968. It originally
cost US$1,200.00 and was the most power receiver on the planet, back
then. For it's time, it was quite a sophisticated product, employing
full complementary silicon outputs, relay protection system and other
nifty stuff. It was critically appraised by reviewers at the time and
when I purchased mine (ca: 1977) I was stunned at how much better it
sounded than many contemporary amplifiers of similar (60 Watts) or
even more power. Just for yuks, I recently compared it to a more
modern Marantz amplifier (cost around AUS$1,000.00). No comparison.
The modern amp was somewhat better sounding. And, allowing for
inflation, the modern amp was MUCH less expensive. Don't even get me
started on loudspeakers. The technology for designing speakers has
improved in leaps and bounds over the last 40 years.


S'funny, we keep getting told how 'good amps' don't have a sound....???
**Because that is a fact. The ideal amplifier has no 'sound' of it's
own. No amplifier is ideal.

Therefore no amplifier has no 'sound' of its own then?
**Nope. That's not what I said.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

The *ideal* amplifier has no sound of its own, and no amplifier is ideal.
However, for many years now, amplifiers come awfully close to the ideal, and
consequently, except for the nittiest of nit-pickers, I subscribe to the
view that no (half-decent) amplifier has a sound of its own, and
consequently all sound the same.

Certain conditions apply, like operation below clipping into loads for which
the amplifier was designed, using music signals.

S.



I simply don't get this. I've been using 5 SS amps of late (Quad 405,
Rose power amp, Cambridge AV, Behringer A500, and that within a Pure
mini system), as well as others on and off over the years, and I feel
each has 'a sound of its own'.

But this has been done-to-death in this NG. One thing I was never clear
on is the definition of 'half-decent'. One definition (Stewart Pinkerton
IIRC) was double power into half impedance, down to 2 Ohms (50/8; 100/4,
200/2 or something, plus some other stuff), but I've never seen a
sensible money amp that could come close.

Could you name the cheapest available new amplifier that sounds the same
as (say) your own at medium-high volume?

Just curious!

Rob

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**They're not 40 years old. They were less than 30. Before that, even
B&W weren't building speakers which had the characteristics of most
decent modern speakers. The DM7 was, AFAIK, the first electrodynamic
speaker with truly modern characteristics.

I thought that accolade went to the Spendor BC1?


Not often I agree with my distinguished UK.D-I-Y DAB radio supporter
but on this occasion he is absolutely right....

I feel someone has to put the majority view on a group like that. There
just isn't the outcry about its quality by the general public that some
would have you believe. So for those who haven't heard it, it may well
provide an answer to poor FM reception and the resultant distortions that
the detractors simply don't acknowledge. If and when there are definite
plans to drop the present FM service I will happily join any protest group.

If anybody's looking for a pair or the ones with the BBC amps in drop me
a mail off group I know someone who has some!..

Remember these generally aren't the same as domestic BC1s. Depending on
age they may only have an HF 1300 and not the additional HF 2000? 'super
tweeter'. The amp is also of rather lower power than most would use. Again
maybe only early ones had a mid range 'suck out' so beloved of BBC designs
of the day. In a nutshell, sound rather different from the contemporary
domestic version.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**They're not 40 years old. They were less than 30. Before that, even
B&W weren't building speakers which had the characteristics of most
decent modern speakers. The DM7 was, AFAIK, the first electrodynamic
speaker with truly modern characteristics.

I thought that accolade went to the Spendor BC1?


Not often I agree with my distinguished UK.D-I-Y DAB radio supporter
but on this occasion he is absolutely right....

I feel someone has to put the majority view on a group like that. There
just isn't the outcry about its quality by the general public that some
would have you believe. So for those who haven't heard it, it may well
provide an answer to poor FM reception and the resultant distortions that
the detractors simply don't acknowledge. If and when there are definite
plans to drop the present FM service I will happily join any protest group.

Yes of course. Like the new service from G-Cap media the Jazz..

128K MP2 Mono -- if thats progress then I don't want it!..


If anybody's looking for a pair or the ones with the BBC amps in drop me
a mail off group I know someone who has some!..

Remember these generally aren't the same as domestic BC1s. Depending on
age they may only have an HF 1300 and not the additional HF 2000? 'super
tweeter'. The amp is also of rather lower power than most would use. Again
maybe only early ones had a mid range 'suck out' so beloved of BBC designs
of the day. In a nutshell, sound rather different from the contemporary
domestic version.

Well What was good for the BBC in the good old days was good enough for
most all audiophiles
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Remember these generally aren't the same as domestic BC1s. Depending on
age they may only have an HF 1300 and not the additional HF 2000?
'super tweeter'. The amp is also of rather lower power than most would
use. Again maybe only early ones had a mid range 'suck out' so beloved
of BBC designs of the day. In a nutshell, sound rather different from
the contemporary domestic version.

Well What was good for the BBC in the good old days was good enough for
most all audiophiles

Not really true. What is pragmatic for broadcast use may well be bettered
at home.

I'll give just one example. When your favourite FM service started in the
'50s, some listeners complained of HF 'artifacts'. None of which were
'agreed' by the duty engineer. The answer was simple. The standard
monitoring speaker in use then - the LSU10, with a Parmeko dual concentric
driver, didn't reproduce much above 10 kHz. Or 10,000 cycles per second as
it was then. ;-) Auxiliary tweeters were bought from a retail components
shop (rather like Maplin used to be) and hastily bolted to the grills.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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