uk hi fi history website
 

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Odd, isn't it. In this day and age, some are still so unhappy with the
performance of power amps they seek to use ancient technology. Not to
produce something smaller, cheaper, more efficient etc.


It's partly a retro thing - much like clothes, cars and all manner of
tat that people like.

Nowt wrong with that either. A beautifully made valve amp glowing away on
the shelf is a nice ornament. I've got a Nagra on display for the same
reasons.

On performance, some (including me) like the sound produced by decent
valve amplifiers.

Wouldn't deny a valve amp can sound very nice indeed. Point being is it as
good or better than a decent solid state one.

Which basically means they are searching for a goal they can't define
and will never reach.


I think if you have an interest in 'hifi', that's not uncommon.
Certainly, for time to time, I think 'what if . . .' when listening to
my music system.

Trouble is it's all too easy to con yourself that the device you've either
spent ages building and or spent vast sums on is actually better. After
doing just that many rave about how perfect it is. Until they decide to
try something else, and the process repeats.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

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

uk hi fi history website
 

On 15/11/2016 09:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:


e.g. A few weeks ago I put my QUAD 2805s onto a set of '28p' speaker
stands. I think this has improved the sound. The stands consist of a stack
of seven 1p coins under each front spike of the speakers. These angle up
the output and get the beam centers closer to ear level at my listening
seat.

I have also found that adding some resistors in series with the amp output
seems to do a good job of faking the relatively high output impedance of
low-feedback valve amps. This interacts with the impedance of the speakers
and alters the tonal balance.


I hope you're using pre-1992 non-magnetic coins. My 63's came with two lengths of mahogany
which the previous owner presumably used for the same purpose.

As for the output resistor, why not be more adventurous and use a low-voltage light bulb
and a diode as well for the true asymmetrical SET sound?

--
Eiron.

uk hi fi history website
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
e.g. A few weeks ago I put my QUAD 2805s onto a set of '28p' speaker
stands. I think this has improved the sound. The stands consist of a
stack of seven 1p coins under each front spike of the speakers. These
angle up the output and get the beam centers closer to ear level at my
listening seat.

Rather surprising such expensive speakers don't have screw adjustable feet
- if they still 'beam' like the first Quads.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

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

uk hi fi history website
 

In article , Eiron
wrote:
On 15/11/2016 09:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:


e.g. A few weeks ago I put my QUAD 2805s onto a set of '28p' speaker
stands. I think this has improved the sound. The stands consist of a
stack of seven 1p coins under each front spike of the speakers. These
angle up the output and get the beam centers closer to ear level at my
listening seat.

I have also found that adding some resistors in series with the amp
output seems to do a good job of faking the relatively high output
impedance of low-feedback valve amps. This interacts with the
impedance of the speakers and alters the tonal balance.


I hope you're using pre-1992 non-magnetic coins. My 63's came with two
lengths of mahogany which the previous owner presumably used for the
same purpose.

Afraid I didn't check the dates on the coins. :-)

As for the output resistor, why not be more adventurous and use a
low-voltage light bulb and a diode as well for the true asymmetrical SET
sound?

I did once spend time testing an amp via a pair of fuses. This did make me
suspect they changed the sound. I then realised that, of course, their
resistances would be varying as the current level changed.

However with the resistors I was only really interested in the effect of
the impedance interaction on the frequency response.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

uk hi fi history website
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
e.g. A few weeks ago I put my QUAD 2805s onto a set of '28p' speaker
stands. I think this has improved the sound. The stands consist of a
stack of seven 1p coins under each front spike of the speakers. These
angle up the output and get the beam centers closer to ear level at my
listening seat.

Rather surprising such expensive speakers don't have screw adjustable
feet - if they still 'beam' like the first Quads.

When I bought my ESL63s I did get stands which raised them and let me alter
the azimuth angle. However these only would fit the 63s. For 988s I use a
stack of ex-63 'feet' to angle them back. (The feet became redundant as the
stands for the 63s replaced them.)

The spikes/feet of the 2805s do allow some movement to adjust azimuth. But
nothing like enough for the small room I use.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

uk hi fi history website
 

On 15/11/2016 09:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:
Odd, isn't it. In this day and age, some are still so unhappy with the
performance of power amps they seek to use ancient technology. Not to
produce something smaller, cheaper, more efficient etc.


It's partly a retro thing - much like clothes, cars and all manner of
tat that people like.

On performance, some (including me) like the sound produced by decent
valve amplifiers.

Which basically means they are searching for a goal they can't define
and will never reach.


I think if you have an interest in 'hifi', that's not uncommon.
Certainly, for time to time, I think 'what if . . .' when listening to
my music system.

There are cheaper ways than buying a valve amp to replace what you have,
though. :-)


Well yes, I don't often think about a valve amp! I've had a few, and
while I liked the idea and the sound produced was good, the hassle of
ownership put me off a bit. Still got one in the cupboard not used for
some years.

e.g. A few weeks ago I put my QUAD 2805s onto a set of '28p' speaker
stands. I think this has improved the sound. The stands consist of a stack
of seven 1p coins under each front spike of the speakers. These angle up
the output and get the beam centers closer to ear level at my listening
seat.

I have also found that adding some resistors in series with the amp output
seems to do a good job of faking the relatively high output impedance of
low-feedback valve amps. This interacts with the impedance of the speakers
and alters the tonal balance.


Interesting. But I'd have to be very fidgety to try something like that.


--
Cheers, Rob

uk hi fi history website
 

On 15/11/2016 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Odd, isn't it. In this day and age, some are still so unhappy with the
performance of power amps they seek to use ancient technology. Not to
produce something smaller, cheaper, more efficient etc.


It's partly a retro thing - much like clothes, cars and all manner of
tat that people like.

Nowt wrong with that either. A beautifully made valve amp glowing away on
the shelf is a nice ornament. I've got a Nagra on display for the same
reasons.

On performance, some (including me) like the sound produced by decent
valve amplifiers.

Wouldn't deny a valve amp can sound very nice indeed. Point being is it as
good or better than a decent solid state one.


I don't think that is the point for people who buy valve gear.
'Different', together with a high disposable income, is often enough.

That said, I do like the sound - but not to the point of actually using one.

--
Cheers, Rob

uk hi fi history website
 

On 15/11/2016 09:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:
There are cheaper ways than buying a valve amp to replace what you have,
though. :-)

We bought a new CD player last year. We auditioned it on their
multi-thousand-pound amp and speakers, and were surprised to find that
the Arcam _did_ sound better than the one we bought. Not a lot.... then
my wife vetoed it because it was also a net player...

But the good news was when we got it home it sounded better still on our
30yo amp and £600 speakers.

Andy

uk hi fi history website
 

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/11/2016 09:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:
There are cheaper ways than buying a valve amp to replace what you
have,
though. :-)

We bought a new CD player last year. We auditioned it on their
multi-thousand-pound amp and speakers, and were surprised to find
that the Arcam _did_ sound better than the one we bought. Not a
lot.... then my wife vetoed it because it was also a net player...

But the good news was when we got it home it sounded better still on
our 30yo amp and £600 speakers.


I had the opportunity to hear a CD on one of original Philips 14-bit
machines a while ago - a CD104 IMSMC.

Do you know I think it sounded better than the modern stuff - just as
clean and detailed but somehow just smoother.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

uk hi fi history website
 

Woody wrote:



I had the opportunity to hear a CD on one of original Philips 14-bit
machines a while ago - a CD104 IMSMC.


** CD players all have 16bit conversion, early Philips models used four times oversampling and two 14 bit converts to do the job.
Not bits went unused.


Do you know I think it sounded better than the modern stuff - just as
clean and detailed but somehow just smoother.



** The idea that early CD players had inferior performance or sound is a huge myth.


..... Phil