In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
Since you are obviously a vinyl lover, can you explain why on most of
my large collection of LPs there is a very noticeable change in audio
quality between the start and end of the LP?

Have you done a double blind test? You need to get the same track pressed
at 2 or 3 places on different discs at the same amplitude and then double
blind listen.

Why would you need a double blind test on a 'feature' that is so obvious?

Okay, I know it happens in theory but I never noticed when I listened for
it.

Perhaps you do need to listen for it.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

On 2007-05-14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article l, jaap
wrote:
I got to this opinion speaking with fellow musiclovers, who share a
passion for the best obtainable. Most got tube amps under 5W per
channel, some built their own, often accomplished by single driver
speakers.

Ah, so 'the best' means soft clipping to alter the sounds in ways you
prefer. I see. ...

As usual, it depends on details. For 5W (+7 dBW) driving rather
sensitive (but available) conventional speakers of 94 dBA/W sensitivity
you get unclipped peaks up to 101 dBA at 1 metre and maybe 95 dBA at
the listening position.

This still isn't enough for reproducing big orchestral (let alone rock
concert) peak levels as experienced in positions close to the front of
a concert hall. However for more sedate orchestral music it's possibly
enough. Of course occasional soft clipping may be acceptable to
some ears.

Then if you go for horns the peak levels can be much better. However, I
don't know about the sound of horns personally, having never heard a pair.

(My own philosphy is to avoid cliping as much as possible: My target is
at least 110 dBA capability at 1 metre before clipping - about 104 dBA
at the listening position - which is possibly still not quite enough
for Wagner but I'm sure the neighbours appreciate that).

--
John Phillips

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Sure, you've obviously got *no idea* how to set up a
turntable/tonearm/cartridge.....

I was probably setting up quality arms and cartridges in the
days
you
bopped to your Dansette.


Supposition and conjecture as always (your SOP) - I never owned a
Dansette...

Merely countering your conjecture that I have no idea about setting
up
an arm/cartridge combination with another, dear Keith.


No, you have provided enough evidence on this group to make that a
certainty...

Have I? Examples? Or does the fact I hear distortion on LPs that you
obviously don't lead you to think it's my player that's at fault?


You're the one who's *digging*....




But answer the main point.


Say 'please'....

Certainly not.


Fine..

rest disregarded

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(In any case, I have often stated that my knowledge of electronics
is
at
the 'it's a capacitor if has the phrase "not a resistor" stamped
on
it'
level and yet I am able to build or repair electronics equipment,
if
and
when I want....??)

Good grief.



My amps work (better than some made by *experts* it would appear) and
so
do my repairs...

I'd need a definition of 'work' too. By your definition of loudness it
might provide a few laughs too.


Get 'em while you can, Plowie - I'm nearly completely transferred to the
Nuvistor laptop. I can't see me hanging around in here once this machine
is retired - too damn tiresome on a laptop screen, not to mention the
****ty little keyboard...



Although how you manage to repair anything without being able to
identify
component values defeats me.

Deal with it....

I only hope you're not repairing things for others. Too many fires
around
already.


That remark shows how poorly you comprehend my posts and renders further
discussion with you *absolutely pointless*!!

(Which, of course, is no surprise given that you are absolutely
pointless yourself....)

"jaap" wrote in message
ll.nl

Just an opinion: history shows that despite 'progress'
amplification quality diminishes every decade. Don't
believe you can't do without this new class. A good
system dating from 1960 or 1970 or 1980 will beat any
plastic rubbish -whatever class- dating from 2007.

Interesting opinion, but what is it based on?

Sighted evaluation, no doubt.

Modern systems are louder, distort less, have wider bandwidth
and less noise than 1960s or 1970s systems, but haven't
improved to any great extent since the '80s. However,
they certainly haven't diminished.

Loudspeaker price/performance has definately improved in the past 20 years.
Absolute performance has improved as well.

The other day I demonstrated a nice turntable setup to
someone who had listened solely to digital audio. She
was surprised by the reality coming from old gear,
despite S/N THD and whatever cyphers modern stuff tries
to sell to the public.

Urban legend or the result of imposition on an unqualified listener.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so
is modern gear, and for relatively much less money,
size, power consumption and improved reliability.

Digital done well provide sound quality that goes where analog never even
pretended to go.

My opinion is based on human hearing and not on the
momentary technological approach from a-musical tecchies.

It's based on sentimentality and prejudice.

I got to this opinion speaking with fellow musiclovers,
who share a passion for the best obtainable.

Music lovers who have a passion for the best possible have a passion for the
best music obtainable, not the hippest retro-technology possible.

Most got
tube amps under 5W per channel, some built their own,
often accomplished by single driver speakers.

No way this sort of ilk can re-create realistic, broadband sounds

Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used
quality parts.

Nonsense.

The latter will probably outlast the
former by decades because of the poor quality parts used
these days.

No doubt there is cheap throw-away gear on the market. But there is some
incredibly good stuff kicking around as well.

Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the
scrapyard.

Agreed.

"Keith G" wrote in message

"jaap" wrote

As for the orchestra which is in need of 10 or more
watts to be reproduced correctly, this is again a (1970)
sales story. Right now I am listening through a 1.5 watt
amplifier giving me more than enough decibells to feed
the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or orchestra, no problem.
The problem is with the loudspeakers, not having made
serious progress since 1960.

I run two parallel systems: 100 SS Watts into 82 (84?) dB
speakers and 8 or 9 valve Watts into high 90s speaker -
the valve setup blows the other one away on the
*loudness* front!!

No prejudice there.

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(In any case, I have often stated that my knowledge of electronics
is at the 'it's a capacitor if has the phrase "not a resistor"
stamped on it' level and yet I am able to build or repair
electronics equipment, if and when I want....??)

Good grief.



My amps work (better than some made by *experts* it would appear) and
so do my repairs...

I'd need a definition of 'work' too. By your definition of loudness it
might provide a few laughs too.


Get 'em while you can, Plowie - I'm nearly completely transferred to the
Nuvistor laptop. I can't see me hanging around in here once this
machine is retired - too damn tiresome on a laptop screen, not to
mention the ****ty little keyboard...

I'm sure this means something to you. Unfortunately not to me.



Although how you manage to repair anything without being able to
identify component values defeats me.

Deal with it....

I only hope you're not repairing things for others. Too many fires
around already.


That remark shows how poorly you comprehend my posts and renders further
discussion with you *absolutely pointless*!!

Do you ever read what you write? I'd suggest you try again - it's at the
top of this post. If you can't tell a resistor from a capacitor you should
stick to low voltage battery operated equipment. Valve equipment fiddled
with by the totally unskilled can be a fire risk.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

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

"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.


Speaker improvements? Try getting hold of a pair of cheap, 30 year old
Tannoys/Rogers/Quads/KEFs, just for starters....

**I have. Except for the Quads, they're shockers. Every single one. And, WRT
the modern Quads, the old ones have severe limitations.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"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....???

Speaker improvements? Try getting hold of a pair of cheap, 30 year old
Tannoys/Rogers/Quads/KEFs, just for starters....

**Actually, 30 years is too tight a limitation. I did say 40 years. I say
this, because I modded a pair of B&W DM7-II speakers a few years back. After
replacing the old caps and inductors, they sounded very good indeed. They
employed many of the characteristics valued in modern speakers. They STILL
sound bloody good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"jaap" wrote in message
ll.nl...
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
honestguvnor schreef:
On May 11, 10:07 pm, max graff wrote:
I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining
that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical.

This is not a wise statement. I am sure you will find quite a few
readers prepared to bet you cannot hear the difference between a
reasonable class A amplifier and a reasonable class AB driving a
reasonable loudspeaker.

I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D
amplification.

This is a good question (assuming "digital" amplifier of whatever
class and audibly neutral under normal conditions) . I do not know the
answer and given the absence of any reliable consumer audio
publications and the absence of reasonable specifications from the
manufacturers it is not obvious to me where to look for an answer.

Obviously one could perform experiments oneself but that would imply a
pretty awesome loss of basic technical knowledge about the performance
of consumer audio in these broadband www days.

Anyone?


Just an opinion: history shows that despite 'progress' amplification
quality diminishes every decade. Don't believe you can't do without this
new class. A good system dating from 1960 or 1970 or 1980 will beat any
plastic rubbish -whatever class- dating from 2007.

Interesting opinion, but what is it based on? Modern systems are louder,
distort less, have wider bandwidth and less noise than 1960s or 1970s
systems, but haven't improved to any great extent since the '80s.
However, they certainly haven't diminished.



The other day I demonstrated a nice turntable setup to someone who had
listened solely to digital audio. She was surprised by the reality
coming from old gear, despite S/N THD and whatever cyphers modern stuff
tries to sell to the public.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so is modern gear,
and for relatively much less money, size, power consumption and improved
reliability.

S.

Hi Serge,

My opinion is based on human hearing and not on the momentary
technological approach from a-musical tecchies. I got to this opinion
speaking with fellow musiclovers, who share a passion for the best
obtainable. Most got tube amps under 5W per channel, some built their own,
often accomplished by single driver speakers.

**There is little anyone can do for seriously deluded individuals. Single
driver speakers (outside electrostatics) are utterly appalling.


Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used quality parts.

**You're not comparing apples with apples. Compare new with new. Modern
equipment offers better performance, better reliability, for the same cost
(inflation adjusted).

The
latter will probably outlast the former by decades because of the poor
quality parts used these days.

**Complete ********. Dollar for Dollar, modern components are much better
than older parts. Just examine a modern plastic potentiometer and compare it
to a carbon type. Same deal with capacitors, resistors and transistors. The
ONLY products which are inferior are valves (Chinese) and output
transformers, since the guys who used to build these things are dead.

Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the scrapyard.

**Complete ********. As service manager for Marantz Australia, during the
1970s, I was privy to some disturbing reliability reports. Products built
using early plastic pack output devices (ca: 1973-5) were suffering failure
rates approaching 100% during the three year warranty period. Modern plastic
pack devices now approach the reliability figures of hermetically sealed
steel cases devices.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com