Game, SET and match....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.


Are you saying it (amp/speaker pairing) isn't 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.


No.



(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.


No, you miss the point. Those tracks are to demonstrate 'natural'
although they are clearly coloured - due to age of recording and not
helped by being miked from the speakers....

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:19:06 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems. BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers
fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain


That isn't the claim we are seeing. The claim is that it is not only
audible, but "better" than undistorted.


Where are you seeing that?

I only claim a preference, I wouldn't dream of attempting to tell
anybody what is *better* - that's Trevor's prerogative, it would
appear....



And of course sensitive speakers filling a room with music at 1W has
nothing to do with SETs.


Indeed...

Building my own valve amp
 

On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

a tidy up

**You are, of course, incorrect. That won't stop you from lying and
misrepresenting my position, nor my words in the future, however.
You've made it into something of an art form. You are a lying piece of
****.

Iain needs to gauge better how to play you without breaking the
line....

**Not lying would be an excellent start. An ability he clearly lacks.

And you need to gauge better the company here - I don't think there's a
single regular here that bothers to post *lies*, Trevor...

(I though all that 'lying POS' claptrap had gone South with Pinky...??)

**Iain lied to and about Stuart too? Hardly surprising. Iain is incapable
of telling the truth.

Trevor. No cigar for English comprehension:-(

What Keith is saying is that the kind of invective you are now using
was Pinky's trademark, and disappeared (went South) when he did.

Iain

Trevor has a most novel view of what constitutes a lie. He accused me
of lying about j-fets in a debate about negative feedback. When I
protested that I had said nothing whatsoever about j-fets, Trevor
replied that I was "lying by not presenting their advantages over
tubes" [paraphrased]. I was stunned into silence...

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:55:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:19:06 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems. BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers
fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain


That isn't the claim we are seeing. The claim is that it is not only
audible, but "better" than undistorted.


Where are you seeing that?

I only claim a preference, I wouldn't dream of attempting to tell
anybody what is *better* - that's Trevor's prerogative, it would
appear....


Well, stuff like...
"There is no big mystery AFAIAC - valves give more clarity, 'air' and
*life* than any SS I've heard; SETs add more depth and better imaging
than PP, making the sound more *natural*...."
doesn't exactly read like "well it may be distorted, but I prefer it".
That is pretty much a "SETs are better", kind of thing.




And of course sensitive speakers filling a room with music at 1W has
nothing to do with SETs.


Indeed...


d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Game, SET and match....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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)

Doesn't really matter about the source? Don't you hear the same effect on
a bass etc in an opera? Or any other singer with a deep voice?

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)

They may have it 'in abundance' compared to ordinary speakers when driven
by one of your weedy amps - but it's not a characteristic of them. Clarity
is generally a lack of colouration and edge transient response. Which a
large single driver simply isn't capable of.

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!!

I think the one thing you're lacking is somewhere decent to listen to this
lot. The more I read from you the more it sounds like a crappy room.

--
*Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have *

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:55:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:19:06 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems. BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers
fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain


That isn't the claim we are seeing. The claim is that it is not only
audible, but "better" than undistorted.


Where are you seeing that?

I only claim a preference, I wouldn't dream of attempting to tell
anybody what is *better* - that's Trevor's prerogative, it would
appear....


Well, stuff like...
"There is no big mystery AFAIAC - valves give more clarity, 'air' and
*life* than any SS I've heard; SETs add more depth and better imaging
than PP, making the sound more *natural*...."
doesn't exactly read like "well it may be distorted, but I prefer it".
That is pretty much a "SETs are better", kind of thing.


OK, this is bordering on an exercise in semasiology but 'better for me'
is not the same as *categorically better* (based on measurements) with
the implication that it will be better for everybody else. I also reject
the requirement for a *public confession* along the lines of "well it
may be distorted, but I prefer it" with the implication that it is some
form of heresy - almost implies that so-called 'blameless' amps are
entirely free from distortion, doesn't it?

Rather than rely on arrogant declamations of 'superiority' like one or
two others are prone so to do, I have published any number of tracks
here for public consumption and, so far, no-one has come back with any
comment about audible distortion (despite some pretty ropey recordings
at times) or made any other form of negative remark - what, is everybody
just being polite or summat??

It all comes back to the fact there's a small few here who choose audio
kit on the basis of figures and not what they *hear*, AFAIAC - and, once
again, it's not like I don't have a number of PP amps here, both valve
and SS also....

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:22:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:55:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:19:06 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems. BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers
fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain


That isn't the claim we are seeing. The claim is that it is not only
audible, but "better" than undistorted.


Where are you seeing that?

I only claim a preference, I wouldn't dream of attempting to tell
anybody what is *better* - that's Trevor's prerogative, it would
appear....


Well, stuff like...
"There is no big mystery AFAIAC - valves give more clarity, 'air' and
*life* than any SS I've heard; SETs add more depth and better imaging
than PP, making the sound more *natural*...."
doesn't exactly read like "well it may be distorted, but I prefer it".
That is pretty much a "SETs are better", kind of thing.


OK, this is bordering on an exercise in semasiology but 'better for me'
is not the same as *categorically better* (based on measurements) with
the implication that it will be better for everybody else. I also reject
the requirement for a *public confession* along the lines of "well it
may be distorted, but I prefer it" with the implication that it is some
form of heresy - almost implies that so-called 'blameless' amps are
entirely free from distortion, doesn't it?

Rather than rely on arrogant declamations of 'superiority' like one or
two others are prone so to do, I have published any number of tracks
here for public consumption and, so far, no-one has come back with any
comment about audible distortion (despite some pretty ropey recordings
at times) or made any other form of negative remark - what, is everybody
just being polite or summat??

It all comes back to the fact there's a small few here who choose audio
kit on the basis of figures and not what they *hear*, AFAIAC - and, once
again, it's not like I don't have a number of PP amps here, both valve
and SS also....



I know where you are coming from - and I've had a listen to those
tracks, and I'm afraid I hear nothing natural about them. My test for
natural is whether I can believe there is somebody standing in the
room singing; they come nowhere near that.

But I do know where I get something that approaches that, and that is
from the equipment that I consider to be good. That is stuff that
reproduces what it is given without doing anything at all to the
sound. Fortunately that is stuff that measures well, so yes, I can buy
hi fi by reference to the figures, secure in the knowledge that if it
measures well, it won't screw my enjoyment of the sound.

If equipment has a "sound" that I need to audition, I don't want it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round here...

The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.

Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Building my own valve amp
 

Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round here...

Maybe I am missing something here, but there seems to be two camps, both
trying to claim ownership of the word better (well three at least, as
valve and vinyl are not together for all). But the problem seems to be
no one has talked about what they are better AT.

We have one group of people, who tend (understandably, to be from the
pro audio world) who argue that the better amplifier is one that has the
least effect on the signal, other than making it bigger (or changing it
from a voltage to a current source, anyway). And its easy to see why
this is a good thing, especially for use in monitoring situations. And
they argue (with merit) that they think this should also be the goal for
home use as well. I don't think that anyone on the NG would argue that
its unlikely for a valve amplifier to measure as well as a SS one.

The same goes for CD, it can be shown that the format is more than
adequate for audio reproduction, and the bandwidth and resolution is
more than good enough to produce on their outputs a analogue of what
went into the production of the CD.

Then we have the other group, that argue, that the better amplifier is
the one, that allows the ear/mind to recreate the illusion of the
original performance (cos thats all it is a illusion, there is no
performer there, its just a few things moving, and so moving the air).
In this group (And I place myself in there as well), the use of valves,
in some way (and Andy has expressed this better than I can) allows this
illusion to be much more convincing.

And again the same can be said for vinyl, I much prefer listening to
vinyl, and think (as others such as Keith do), that the resultant sound
is more engaging, and produces a stronger effect of "being there". but I
don't for one minute think that in absolute terms the incredibly crude
process of playing vinyl will provide anywhere as electrically accurate
reproduction of the originally signal.

I think valves and vinyl are better than CD and SS, thats just my
thought, doesn't mean anything much, certainly doesn't mean anyone else
is wrong, and doesn't mean my "better" is better (or even the same) than
someone else "better". So I think that objecting to the use of the term
better doesn't work anymore than saying its ok to have a preference.

Can't we just agree to differ, I know, silly idea....

--
Nick

Building my own valve amp
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round here...


The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.

Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.

d


To quote wikipedia

"Better is the comparative form of the adjective good"

No sign of any of the clear objective meanings you have placed on it,
its as subjective as any other comparison. The fact that you may compare
using objective values, doesn't make your comparison any more valid than
any other to any other person.

IMHO.

--
Nick