Building my own valve amp
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
If a part of that system (say: The amplifier) has audible faults (as
characterised by
appropriate measurements), then it may be discarded as unsuited for
it's purpose

Audible qualities of amplifiers are not the same as measurements - I
know you just refuse to believe this, and this is why it's impossible
to carry out any sensible debate with you.


It's impossible to carry out and sensible debate with him because he's
got a pretty big bug up his arse, but then if you were on China's
doorstep catching the full impact of the tsunami of cheap audio gear
maybe you'd exhibit the same sourness and predudice he does - he's no
different to a lot of people who know they don't like broccoli but have
never really eaten it....

Game, SET and match....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The mention of 'suitable speakers' is particularly apposite - for me
the
*magic* of SET amplication is best demonstrated when used with horn
speakers (Lowthers, actually) and when you factor in vinyl as the
source, you have the 'Holy Trinity' which (IMO) creates the most
*natural* sound of all.

If you need all three it simply means something in the chain is
cancelling
out problems elsewhere in it. Although just how you cancel out the
distortions from vinyl I'm not quite sure.



Hmm, 'best demonstrated' isn't quite the same as *need* but there you
go....

Building my own valve amp
 

Keith G wrote:
"Ian Iveson" wrote



Legitimised not just by the number of people who prefer the
presentation of SETs and appropriate speakers, but by the fact that
they form a recognisable *movement*.



What 'movement'??

There are a (very small) few who *get it* with SETs and, from what I can
see of it, a whole lot of people who don't....


I feel I'm a

forlorn voice in the wilderness when it comes to this kind of thing.



???

(*You're* a 'forlorn voice'...??)


Hailing as I do from Bradford,


Unlucky....





At least we have hills up here...

--
Nick

Game, SET and match....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I think you'll find that's more to do with the speakers than the amp -
the one thing horns do is *remove the veil* at the possible cost of
colouration while 'normal' speakers do the reverse from what I can see
(hear) of it....

I'd say the two are opposites. Colouration *is* the main part of the
'veil'.

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Ian Iveson" wrote



Legitimised not just by the number of people who prefer the presentation
of SETs and appropriate speakers, but by the fact that they form a
recognisable *movement*.



What 'movement'??

There are a (very small) few who *get it* with SETs and, from what I can
see of it, a whole lot of people who don't....


I feel I'm a

forlorn voice in the wilderness when it comes to this kind of thing.



???

(*You're* a 'forlorn voice'...??)


Hailing as I do from Bradford,


Unlucky....





At least we have hills up here...

--
Nick

I am reminded of a T shirt I saw a while ago saying "Wisbech Mountain Rescue
Team".........

S.



--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Game, SET and match....
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
The mention of 'suitable speakers' is particularly apposite - for me
the *magic* of SET amplication is best demonstrated when used with
horn speakers

I'm not a fan of horns - give me ribbons or aluminium drivers of some
kind. But the above is true. Horns add that dynamic sound with
stronger leading edges to notes. I listened to a SET/horn system
yesterday, and the piano was extremely impressive, with the percussive
quality of the notes captured perfectly. So horns do deal with one
aspect of SETs I find less than optimum - that slight mushiness that
you get with less sensitive speakers.


I don't know how many times I (and others) have posted here that the amp
and speaker *pairing* is paramount and that pairing coupled to the room
is, AFAIAC, what dictates the optimum. There's a lot of loose talk in
here from people whom I suspect are *conjecturising* and being led by
*measurements* that have nothing really to do with how a particular
setup sounds - IOW, going by what they *see* rather than what they
*hear*....

(Especially when they've *never* even heard the 'Holy Trilogy'.. ;-)

I posted these tracks of very old recordings to make my point that
*natural* doesn't necessarily have to be *accurate*:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/GuessWho_01.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/GuessWho_02.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/GuessWho_03.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/GuessWho_04.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/GuessWho_05.mp3


And now I have added another one to show that even *coloured* doesn't
have to sound *unnatural* and certainly not 'mushy':

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Another_One.mp3


(Remember you're getting the whole works here - up front and in yer face
from well-played vinyl, so tough titty about a little bit of crackle,
especially when some of it's *recorded in*...!! :-)

Game, SET and match....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I think you'll find that's more to do with the speakers than the
amp -
the one thing horns do is *remove the veil* at the possible cost of
colouration while 'normal' speakers do the reverse from what I can
see
(hear) of it....

I'd say the two are opposites. Colouration *is* the main part of the
'veil'.


Not in my book - I see (hear) colouration mostly as the 'quackiness'
that unfortunately manifests itself on the male voice at times (radio
presenters, usually) but the *veil* on ordinary speakers as the lack of
the clarity and edge (that horns have in abundance which, of course,
many people don't like) which leads to a comparative loss of detail and
lack of space, depth and 'air'...

I think one thing that needs pointed out *yet again* is that most (if
not all) SET/horn/vinyl users have ready access to ordinary speakers and
amps and (usually) plenty of *digital music* (I have them all in *daily
use* here) - it's a bit like when you're out on a 'bike - you get
****ing idiot car drivers talking as though you have never driven a car,
let alone owned/bought about 150 of 'em and driven no end of others
also!!

Building my own valve amp
 

In article , Ian Iveson
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

A good SET and its speakers deliver a legitimate, authentic
presentation.

Unless you are saying other amps are 'illegitimate' I am not sure
what the purpose would be of the first term you apply here. It isn't
illegal or immoral to use a SET so far as I know. :-)

Legitimised not just by the number of people who prefer the
presentation of SETs and appropriate speakers, but by the fact that
they form a recognisable *movement*.

I'm afraid that simply leads back to the same question that I was asking
about. Here you are using "legitimised" as if you'd already defined what
you meant by it being a "legitimate" choice.

If you mean, "acceptable (to some)", then that phrase seems clearer. Or
"preferred (by some)". But you are still using the term in a way that might
have a distinct meaning in other contexts. So unless you define your use
(or replace it with clearer alternatives) your statement above doesn't
carry you forward, I'm afraid.

Music is essentially a social enterprise.

Is it? Do no musicians play music to themselves when no-one else is
present?


It's creation and distribution have evolved over centuries. It's a shame
sociology was banned because it would be there, rather in the
fashionable psychoacoustics, that I would look for a resolution of the
Trevor syndrome.

Afraid I don't know who has "banned" sociology, or what point you are
trying to make. As elsewhere I keep getting the feeling that you are making
up your own definitions for terms as you write, and then not bothering to
explain them to your poor readers. :-)

Somehow everyone is aware that the presentation of music cannot be
reduced to metric indicators of performance, but no-one knows how to
fill the gap. Hence Trevor is on one side of a chasm, and the SET crew
are on the other.

Or perhaps he feels that "music" and "SET" are not synonyms. Nor is the act
of performing by real musicians the same process as the actions of an
amplifier when used to supply a signal pattern to loudspeaker terminals
when the amp is given a signal pattern at its own input terminals.

Nor am I clear what you mean by "authentic" when talking about a
device that is driven with an input voltage-time pattern and responds
by applying a (hopefully related) voltage-time pattern to loudspeaker
terminals.

If you mean, some people prefer using them, sometimes for some types
of music but not others. Fair enough. That seems a simpler and
clearer statement than saying they are "legitimate" or "authentic".
Or are you making some other specific point(s) which requires the
terms you apply to be defined more precisely for this context?

A new idea must employ some license, since all precise meanings of
words are by their nature attached to established notions.

Sounds impressive - like various of your statements. But it seems to mean
that you are doing what I describe above. Making up your own meanings for
words, and then not explaining the definitions.

The problem then is rooted in what can be paraphrased from one of your own
statements above.

Communication "is essentially a social enterprise". For it to work, the
source and the receiver have to share the meanings of the terms they are
using. Alas, if you make it up as you go along, and use your own 'private
world' definitions without telling your readers, communciation becomes
rather problematic.

If I had my old Dansette I might listen to Little Richard again
although maybe it wouldn't be the same without the tree house. So many
people had Dansettes then that, arguably, the combination is not just
legitimate, but authentic...

Such an "argument" would, of course, still depend on your ensuring we knew
what you meant by the terms. :-)


the Dansette in part defined the sound of
Little Richard. Perhaps for the genuine sound of the Beach Boys, you
need a Dynaco. That would not be to say that you shouldn't play them on
anything else...if all you've got is a Krell it'll just have to do, and
the necessity legimises even if it doesn't authenticate.

I don't go to several different concerts before deciding which one I
like best. I would expect to appreciate each for what it is, as long
as it's an authentic and legitimate presentation.

Indeed, but that refers to going to concerts, not talking about SET.
In that context "authentic" does have a plausible meaning, but I am
less clear what you'd mean by "legitimate".

So am I. I just mean there are important notions somewhere in the
vicinity of legitimacy and authenticity.

Alas, "in the vicinity of" doesn't help if you don't know what you are
saying, or are unable to communicate it clearly.

If I go to a concert and they say they are playing music by Sibelius,
how do I know they aren't lying, on the one hand, or automatons, on the
other? I want the musicians to be inspired and put their hearts and
souls into it so it makes sense in the here and now, but I also want
them to stick to the score and remain true to the spirit of Sibelius.
There is a contradiction here, and when I try to resolve it, words like
"legitimate" and "authentic" seem to crop up. "Reproduction" doesn't
enter into it...although "fidelity" seems to hit the spot.

Perhaps the problem is that you are confusing yourself by making up
difficulties which you can't resolve as you don't have the language clear
in your own mind. The above, does seem to me as if you are just using words
vaguely, and that may be a sign that your thoughts on the topic are also
vague. It is difficult to tell if you aren't communicating clearly.

TBH I don't know anyone who *does* "go to different concerts before
deciding which one they like". I, and others I know, got to different
concerts to hear and enjoy different performances

Good. That's a relief.

Is it that you regard it as sensible to have just one recording of a
work, and change from one SET amp to another in order to get one that
sounds like Beecham at the RAH and another like Boult at Croydon? If
so, would it not be simpler just to buy different recordings for
different interpretations? Or if reproduced music does not satisfy
you, just go out more? :-)

But it's not reproduced...it's presented.

Alas, people have by usage established the word "reproduced" in this
context. So as with the above, if you wish to communicate you have to
either use established meanings for terms, or define clearly the ones you
prefer. As yet you are using your own terms but not definining them beyond
saying things like they are "in the vicinity of" some other meanings. That
isn't very helpful if you want to explain your ideas, nor may it help you
form your ideas, I'm afraid.

I was just checking out "ambisonics", and read that, whereas stereo
reproduction aims to bring the orchestra into your room, surround sound
can bring the concert hall too. The closer you get to reproduction, the
more fragile the notion becomes, IMO. I want something legitimately
arranged to sound authentic played with my system in my room.

Not clear what that may mean, for reasons repeatedly outlined above. :-)


If I want to listen to a concert, I'll go to one. If there are no
concerts to go to, there's no point in pretending, I might as well admit
I'm stuck with room-music. That's OK, I like it. Considering most people
listen to room-music most of the time, it has its own authenticity, and
is perfectly legitimate in this epoch of privatised society.

Comment as per above.

There may well be readers who think they agree with you on various points
you make. The snag is that they may not be using the same meanings for some
of the terms you use, so the result is that no real communication or
agreement occurred. I had hoped you would be able to explain more clearly
as your line of argument looked interesting. So I am dissapointed if you
are unable to explain more clearly. However maybe others make more sense of
what you have said. To me, a lot of what you wrote looks plausible and
interesting at first glance, but seems vague when looked at with more care.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Game, SET and match....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I don't know how many times I (and others) have posted here that the amp
and speaker *pairing* is paramount and that pairing coupled to the room
is, AFAIAC, what dictates the optimum. There's a lot of loose talk in
here from people whom I suspect are *conjecturising* and being led by
*measurements* that have nothing really to do with how a particular
setup sounds - IOW, going by what they *see* rather than what they
*hear*....

No matter how many times you and others post it doesn't make it true. Of
course a poor amp might help the failings in a poor speaker or vice versa.
And of course plenty high quality speaker makers use amps tailored to
their speakers to correct mainly frequency response errors - but I don't
think this is what you mean.

(Especially when they've *never* even heard the 'Holy Trilogy'.. ;-)

I posted these tracks of very old recordings to make my point that
*natural* doesn't necessarily have to be *accurate*:

It just makes the point of what you *like* to hear. Nothing wrong in that
provided you understand it.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

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

Building my own valve amp
 

???

(*You're* a 'forlorn voice'...??)


Hailing as I do from Bradford,


Unlucky....





At least we have hills up here...

--
Nick

I am reminded of a T shirt I saw a while ago saying "Wisbech Mountain Rescue
Team".........

Which now would need to be in Latvian or Polish for anyone there to
understand it;!...

S.




--
Tony Sayer