In article , John Phillips
wrote:
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.

[snip rest of details]

I agree entirely with what you wrote. I am therefore curious about Jaap's
line of argument which seems to be that low power capabilities for the
amplifier are somehow inherently 'better' in his opinion in terms of sound.
Thus the inference... :-)

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

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
Why would you need a double blind test on a 'feature' that is so
obvious?

1) Because it isn't obvious to me, I've never heard it.

2) Because that is the standard reply to anyone claiming to hear an
audible difference between two things, is it not?

Ok. Have you any well recorded 'light' music from the '70s? The sort of
album which has a variety of songs on it all with an orchestral backing -
and also close to the maximum time you can cram on an LP? Perhaps by
Streisland, Bassey, Diamond, Neilson - that sort of thing? Well recorded
MOR pop without electronic gimmicks? If you can't actually hear the
difference in quality between the first and last tracks on this sort of LP
load them into your computer and look at them on a spectrum analyser. It's
quite revealing.

I'm actually trying to think of one which has a reprise at the end which
might give an even more meaningful listening only comparison.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote


If you can't actually hear the
difference in quality between the first and last tracks on this sort of LP


Yeah...??


load them into your computer and look at them on a spectrum analyser.



You *are* kidding - right...???


It's
quite revealing.


That certainly was (wot new?), but forget that stupidity and tell me what is
the correct Pipex 'hostname' and what 'username' it expects for ftp
transfers to my website - I've tried all the likely candidates and it ain't
having none of it...??



I'm actually trying to think of one which has a reprise at the end which
might give an even more meaningful listening only comparison.


Streuth! You've obviously got no work on today.....





--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"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.


Yours or mine....??

On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:06:54 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

That certainly was (wot new?), but forget that stupidity and tell me what is
the correct Pipex 'hostname' and what 'username' it expects for ftp
transfers to my website - I've tried all the likely candidates and it ain't
having none of it...??


dslftp.dsl.pipex.com

Login is your primary Pipex username, not including "@whatever"

If you've not used it before, I seem to remember having to activate
the webspace in the Pipex Control Panel. Maybe not.

"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Yours or mine....??

Good question. The claim that a 10 watt amp sounds louder and cleaner than a
100 watt amp only makes sense if there is something very wrong with the 100
watt amp. When it turns out that the reliably-audible defects tend to
cluster around the 10 watt amp, then doesn't the person making the claim
become suspect?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 07:36:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


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.

Yours or mine....??

Good question. The claim that a 10 watt amp sounds louder and cleaner than a
100 watt amp only makes sense if there is something very wrong with the 100
watt amp. When it turns out that the reliably-audible defects tend to
cluster around the 10 watt amp, then doesn't the person making the claim
become suspect?

Why shouldn't a 10W amp into an efficient speaker sound as loud as a
100W amp into a less efficient one? And, quite independently, why
shouldn't one pair sound better than the other?

The fault comes in when you invent the wrong reasons for one sounding
better.

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
news
On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:06:54 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

That certainly was (wot new?), but forget that stupidity and tell me what
is
the correct Pipex 'hostname' and what 'username' it expects for ftp
transfers to my website - I've tried all the likely candidates and it
ain't
having none of it...??


dslftp.dsl.pipex.com

Login is your primary Pipex username, not including "@whatever"

If you've not used it before, I seem to remember having to activate
the webspace in the Pipex Control Panel. Maybe not.


Not used it before? Wot TF's this then:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/

Scotch Mist?

(Can't believe you haven't seen any of the 10,000 - no, make that 20,000
links to that site I've posted over the last few years!)

Anyway, I've actually managed to get 'up there' since I posted but I still
can't see any files or folders yet! (I'm now wondering if the server site is
down - wouldn't be surprised, knowing Pipex!!)

Nevertheless, thanks for that! I knew that useless little **** Plowie (also
Pipex, I believe) couldn't/wouldn't come up with the goods - pointless *yap*
is all he's any good for! :-)

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message

On Tue, 15 May 2007 07:36:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

Yours or mine....??

Good question. The claim that a 10 watt amp sounds
louder and cleaner than a 100 watt amp only makes sense
if there is something very wrong with the 100 watt amp.
When it turns out that the reliably-audible defects tend
to cluster around the 10 watt amp, then doesn't the
person making the claim become suspect?

Why shouldn't a 10W amp into an efficient speaker sound
as loud as a 100W amp into a less efficient one?

Why would anybody in their right mind present this as a fair comparison of
amplifiers?

But all that amplifier weirdness aside, the high efficiency speaker can only
have equivalent bandpass if it is vastly larger.

Why would anybody in their right mind present that as a fair comparison of
speakers?

I've got it - let us make a big fuss over the fact that a 7 liter Cobra is
faster than a 35 cc motorbike. Obvious proof that 1970s technology is
superior, right? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Yours or mine....??

Good question. The claim that a 10 watt amp sounds louder and cleaner


Cleaner? Who said anything about that? (Interesting litle 'pop-up', that
one...)


than a
100 watt amp only makes sense if there is something very wrong with the
100 watt amp. When it turns out that the reliably-audible defects tend to
cluster around the 10 watt amp, then doesn't the person making the claim
become suspect?


Not nearly as suspect as someone who can make those suppositions on kit he
doesn't know/hasn't heard - *reeks* of prejudice that does, but I guess the
speakers' sensitivity figures flew over your head, as they did Plowie....