In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
...


Many thanks - copied to file for future reference! I'm still confused
by 'power'. This is presumably covered to a point with your
distortion criterion, but I remain to be convinced that most
amplifiers are by any means linear as the volume goes up.

How can they not be? Non-linearity causes amongst other things harmonic
distortion, so provided the THD is below 0.1%, then the linearity is
similarly assured.

I am slightly wary of the above statement. If you are using THD as a guide
I'd prefer to explicitly extend it over a range of frequencies and powers
*and* to various types of load. The reason being various types of 'dynamic'
nonlinearity which the figures might otherwise miss.

I'd also tend to use a THD+Noise value as otherwise effects like PSU
intermod might be missed as their components don't crop up at harmonics of
the test frequency in most cases. I've seen amps where the THD value was
low, but where there was much more LF garbage due to this.

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"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'...??

**You have failed Logic 101.


Good. You, OTOH, have failed to spot that your argument is a simple
categorical syllogism along these lines:

Red apples taste sweet.
There are no red apples.
Therefore there are no sweet apples.

(Where 'red apples' = 'ideal amps' and 'sweet' = 'no sound', in this
example...)

Easy, innit? :-)

As to whether lack of sweetness is undesirable (or inaudible) is a
matter for the individual...

Now, forget all that (it'll come, one day) tell me if you have had any
'hands on' with the Technics 3000 series SS pre/power combo?

It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures on
record (Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET on
the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more listenable)
sound. As the SET (according to the pundits here) produces enough
distortion to bend light and the Fidelios have little or nothing outside
the range of the human voice, I am intrigued as to what's going on?

Is it me?

(Note that both systems share all sources and exist side by side here -
I'm not concerned about *winners*....)

Keith G wrote:


Now, forget all that (it'll come, one day) tell me if you have had any
'hands on' with the Technics 3000 series SS pre/power combo?

It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures on
record (Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET on
the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more listenable)
sound.

Of course it did as it was full of lovely ear pleasing second harmonic
distortion. Psycho-acoustics in action.

Ian

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"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'...??

**You have failed Logic 101.


Good. You, OTOH, have failed to spot that your argument is a simple
categorical syllogism along these lines:

Red apples taste sweet.
There are no red apples.
Therefore there are no sweet apples.

(Where 'red apples' = 'ideal amps' and 'sweet' = 'no sound', in this
example...)

Easy, innit? :-)

As to whether lack of sweetness is undesirable (or inaudible) is a matter
for the individual...

Now, forget all that (it'll come, one day) tell me if you have had any
'hands on' with the Technics 3000 series SS pre/power combo?

It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures on
record (Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET on the
Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more listenable) sound.
As the SET (according to the pundits here) produces enough distortion to
bend light and the Fidelios have little or nothing outside the range of
the human voice, I am intrigued as to what's going on?

Is it me?

(Note that both systems share all sources and exist side by side here -
I'm not concerned about *winners*....)


It most likely *is* you, or at least, your preferences. Whilst it may be an
exaggeration (slight?) to say your Fidelios have nothing outside voice
range, or that your SETs have enough distortion to bend light, but
nevertheless, what I think is happening is that you find the more exciting
sound more to your liking.

S.

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:


Now, forget all that (it'll come, one day) tell me if you have had
any
'hands on' with the Technics 3000 series SS pre/power combo?

It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures
on
record (Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET
on
the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more listenable)
sound.

Of course it did as it was full of lovely ear pleasing second harmonic
distortion. Psycho-acoustics in action.



Lovely.

Makes me wonder why no-one has ever built an amp with a common pre
section driving two power sections - one SS, one triode - switchable via
a toggle switch with 'Excitement' and 'Accurate' labelling...??

:-)

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


Now, forget all that (it'll come, one day) tell me if you have had
any 'hands on' with the Technics 3000 series SS pre/power combo?

It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures
on record


Make that 'sets of'....


(Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET
on the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more
listenable) sound. As the SET (according to the pundits here)
produces enough distortion to bend light and the Fidelios have little
or nothing outside the range of the human voice, I am intrigued as to
what's going on?

Is it me?

(Note that both systems share all sources and exist side by side
here - I'm not concerned about *winners*....)


It most likely *is* you, or at least, your preferences. Whilst it may
be an exaggeration (slight?) to say your Fidelios have nothing outside
voice range, or that your SETs have enough distortion to bend light,
but nevertheless, what I think is happening is that you find the more
exciting sound more to your liking.


:-)

See my reply to Iain!!

(For radio voices - reverse all the above, however....)

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures on
record (Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET on
the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more listenable)
sound. As the SET (according to the pundits here) produces enough
distortion to bend light and the Fidelios have little or nothing outside
the range of the human voice, I am intrigued as to what's going on?

Is it me?

Almost certainly.

Plenty of people prefer the colour saturation turned up on the their telly
for that 'technicolor' look. So actually preferring some types of
distortion doesn't seem that unusual to me. That's why so many like vinyl,
after all.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

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

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
See my reply to Iain!!

Is he around again? Not got his post here.

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

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

"Ian Bell" wrote in message

Keith G wrote:


Now, forget all that (it'll come, one day) tell me if
you have had any 'hands on' with the Technics 3000
series SS pre/power combo?

It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and
distortion figures on record (Martin Colloms) yet, last
night when I was listening to a particularly fine 1958
recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor (Solomon), I
switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET
on the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting*
(more listenable) sound.

Of course it did as it was full of lovely ear pleasing
second harmonic distortion. Psycho-acoustics in action.

Please explain to me how one can play music through a nonlinear system that
has second harmonic distoriton without the attendant IM distortion.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
It is reputed to have some of the lowest noise and distortion figures on
record (Martin Colloms) yet, last night when I was listening to a
particularly fine 1958 recording of Grieg's Concerto in A minor
(Solomon), I switched from the Technics on the TLS80s to my 2A3 SET on
the Fidelios and got a much better, more *exciting* (more listenable)
sound. As the SET (according to the pundits here) produces enough
distortion to bend light and the Fidelios have little or nothing outside
the range of the human voice, I am intrigued as to what's going on?

Is it me?

Almost certainly.

Plenty of people prefer the colour saturation turned up on the their telly
for that 'technicolor' look. So actually preferring some types of
distortion doesn't seem that unusual to me. That's why so many like vinyl,
after all.


It's all 'reproduction', and it all 'distorts'.

It could just be that certain modes of reproduction produce a more
satisfying result. A painter's rendition, a musician's performance, a
poet's meter, a writer's (etc). These examples may result in a more
satisfying, more *realistic*, experience of the original event, despite
the fact their efforts are not technically facsimiles.

Is distortion always bad?