SET Asylum

Single Ended Triodes (SETs), the ultimate tube lovers dream.

Return to SET Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

McIntosh MI-200 amplifier

209.181.8.237
Posted on November 2, 2014 at 10:37:07
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 Bcguitar has posted a query about the McIntosh MI-200 push/pull triode output stage amplifier.

This amplifier was designed to operate shaker-tables on Gold Mining applications.

The MI-200 has been used extensively in Public Address and in Movie Theatre apps as well.

This amplifier has an outstanding, super wide-band output transformer. It also has several choke-input power supplies. Each unit consists of two chassis-- the Main chassis and the amplifier portion. These are monoblocks, designed in the 1950's.

Modifying this amplifier is quite simple, and the results are truly excellent.

Let's start with the in-house "MAC" tube sound-- polite, soggy in the bass, tonally correct, but with very little transparency. Listening is both boring and extremely non-offensive. The "house" sound-- just like any MC-60, MC-30, MC-275, etc. Nothing to get excited over!

To fix this gold mine of potential, you start at the beginning: disconnect the Global feedback loop-- forever.

Step #2 is to look at the filter caps in the power supplies. These are all electrolytics of ancient vintage. Almost anything available today is better. Years ago, I just tested the stock caps, kept the good ones in, replaced the others, and bypassed all with Rubycon Photoflash caps-- about 50uf each. Big improvement. I used series-parallel setups with small bleeder resistors to avoid over-voltage on the bypasses.

Step 3 is the amp has way too much gain, and way too little transparency. REMOVE the input atage (12AX7), and remove the stage it drives (12AU7)./

Replace BOTH stages with a single 6BZ7-- another twin triode. Just use one of the tube sockets already there.

This is your new input stage AND the phase inverter. Run this with one grid grounded and the other "hot"-- this is the input to the amp if run single-ended. If you're running it balanced, run both grids "hot"-- ungrounded.

Each grid gets an appropriate grid-leak resistor to ground, of course.

The plates go to the usual plate resistors, the two cathodes are paralleled. The cathode resistor (only one) to ground is chosen so that at idle, BOTH sections draw the same current (refer to your tube plate curves on the 6BZ7), with either grid (only one, the grid that is ungrounded, "hot") shorted to ground (single-ended input configuration.)

DO NOT connect a "current source" to this tube.

The next two stages following this first stage get current sources on their cathodes-to-ground. These are made from a MOSFET run as a current source.

Modded in this way, this old amp will come alive and absolutely stun you.

These are easy changes to do, and the results are spectacular.

Many of the things that I do to get perfection out of SET amplifiers are not necessary in modding this old beast of you're going to run medium-efficiency speakers with it. This amp is not practical for use on High-EFF. speakers!

---Dennis---







 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
I had the MI200s Dave Wolze modded, posted on November 2, 2014 at 16:22:15
bcguitar
Audiophile

Posts: 1328
Location: Maryland
Joined: March 2, 2005
 They were like sonic holograph projectors. They were featured in VTV magazine in the late 90s.

 

RE: I had the MI200s Dave Wolze modded, posted on November 2, 2014 at 19:24:52
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 Yeah..... Those MI-200 amps had a real output stage with a real power supply, something later tube amps lack to this day-- that is, except for a very few low power only S.E. amps.

S.E. amps can't even begin to hint at what those modded Mi-200 amps can do, unless very strict materials choices, layout, wiring, and power supply engineering is rigidly adhered to. Parts quality must also be the best obtainable.

The advantage of the MI-200 was the ultra clean output stage and the awesome output transformer, which coupled several driving stages right into the multiple-coil output trans. These different coils were all carefully time-aligned together, so that the end result sounded exactly like my S.E. amps do today. Lots of bandwidth, superb dynamics, the best highs out there, solid bass, and a certain "dead-right" feel that put music into the room as lifelike-- as you say, holographic.

What they had accomplished at the output, was summed up electrically like a truly excellent S.E. amp, but made out of a Class B Push/pull that also had a lot of power.

Alas, no one ever got to hear what they had! The first two screwed-up stages, the loop (Global) feedback, and super wimpy power to those first two stages guaranteed soft, mushy sound that lost almost all musical detail and dynamics. The thing could output over 450 watts and had almost ZERO dynamics! Capturing correct musical attack was absolutely NOT THERE at all!

Well, now you know one can learn to fix it, but today we are able to equal that level of performance with a S.E. amp that is designed to do the same things. Yes, the MI-200, successfully modded, was the inspiration for the Class A, S.E..

It was obvious that S.E. would be more direct-to-music, but it was also evident that every S.E. amp out there sorely lacked anywhere near the required levels of performance. That fact started the whole thing-- an independently thought-out S.E. design that would actually work right musically. The "MAC" MI-200, modded successfully, stood out as the trusted reference-- which nothing else-- at any price-- could provide..

---Dennis---



..



 

RE: I had the MI200s Dave Wolze modded, posted on November 2, 2014 at 19:57:59
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7295
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
 The only time I ever heard Magnepans sound good was with a pair of MI-200s driving them. Not, as far as I know, modified in any way.

Incidentally there's a lot of feedback in the output transformer itself, even without the global loop. I theorize that, because the headroom is so great, the distortion components are all quite low at reasonable power levels - so the NFB and P-P harmonic anomalies are not very bothersome. What you have left is the magic of triodes and possibly of thoriated tungsten filaments.

 

Nice read nt, posted on November 3, 2014 at 12:47:10
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 nt

 

Why no CCS in the input stage?, posted on November 4, 2014 at 09:51:24
dhieber
Audiophile

Posts: 50
Location: Illinois
Joined: November 17, 2000
 Dennis, what's the reason for not using a constant current source in the input stage? Are you looking for some deliberate imbalance?

 

RE: Why no CCS in the input stage?, posted on November 4, 2014 at 19:40:56
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 The input stage is dealing with low-level signals. Distortions placed into this stage (by any added-on, active circuit, of any kind) will be amplified so that one can hear the CCS degrading the amp's performance.

I will not build an amplifier that uses ANY kind of added-on device attached to a gain stage.

In modifying the MI-200, however, I'm not allowed everything.....! One has to work with what is there-- the amp's layout, wiring, and power supplies with umbilical cords. It is evident that this mess can never be ideal, so what are the practical things we can do to improve it without having to design a whole-new P/P amp-- with a total new chassis, etc..

A really good power supply, attached to a vacuum tube plate, does not need a CCS, further, the CCS isn't wanted-- it adds-in it's own distortion generation.

A CCS is nothing but s crutch, used to force steady operation of a load when the power supply attached to it is severely inferior to using the CCS. When that occurs, you have proof that the power supply for that stage is seriously deficient in powering the load under pulsed conditions.

With the "MAC" MI-200, we can get away with the CCS on the lower gain stages because:

(1) We are not using much of the amplifier's power-- Paul Joppa has noted this.
(2) As Paul Joppa has noted, we also have triode magic.
(3) This is a P/P amp, not a S.E..... Distortions generated by using a CCS on only the low-gain stages are mostly cancelled-out by the normal Push/Pull Common-Mode Rejection of extraneous noise, generated artifacts, and hum.

---Dennis---







 

RE: Why no CCS in the input stage?, posted on November 4, 2014 at 21:20:37
SteveBrown
Audiophile

Posts: 2454
Location: Portland, OR
Joined: November 14, 2002
 Do you see appropriate uses for a CCS? Like providing a higher Z load to the plate of a triode? And in that case, how does it increase distortion? They can present an essentially ideal load to a triode, and I've seen and heard benefits from this, but maybe I'm missing something?

 

RE: Why no CCS in the input stage?, posted on November 5, 2014 at 00:32:24
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 Hi Steve.

Common Sense Logic is the best form of theory in some cases.

I believe you are correct is preferring a high load impedance for small signal stage plates. This applies more to high gain stages, such as using a 12AX7, for instance. This tube is primarily a voltage amp-- it has little current delivery, but that voltage swing-- properly loaded, is really good-- it allows music to breathe and have lots of punch. I use the high gain in order to allow maximum voltage swing with minimal load induced distortion in one stage. One stage has fewer parts than more than one stage. This means a better amp in all musical areas..

So, since you can have a high-Z load without a CCS-- you can idealize the load Z simply by using the right plate loading, why do you need to get this thru CCS? You don't.

ANY added device, transistor, tube, or chip-- when attached to an operating vacuum tube-- adds its own distortions into the operating tube. This will occur regardless. ANY form of voltage or current regulator will always distort because it is not the gain stage. Instead, it is influencing the gain stage. That influence is a form of signal alteration-- distortion.

The right way to avoid this problem altogether is to make the power supply both low-DCR and minimally filtered. This allows said power supply to deliver the plate current ON TIME with the music pulses -- without voltage deformation-- that the stage demands when pulsed. In order to deliver this, power transformers and chokes need to be oversized current wise. The momentary overload portion of this current delivery is extremely fast and transient. Ordinary test equipment cannot measure its speed, or even begin to sense the change-- it occurs and is over with too quickly.

Some engineers theorize that they can "hear" these changes even though measuring equipment shows steady voltage. You don't "hear" it, you hear the RESULTS of it.

To sum up, an ideal load is fine, but much finer indeed is how you got it.

---Dennis---

 

RE: Why no CCS in the input stage?, posted on November 5, 2014 at 05:16:44
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "The momentary overload portion of this current delivery is extremely fast and transient. Ordinary test equipment cannot measure its speed, or even begin to sense the change-- it occurs and is over with too quickly."

On what basis do you make this claim? Standard test equipment can register changes at rates that are vastly greater than anything that could be relevant here.

Chris

 

What is the actual rise time in question here?, posted on November 5, 2014 at 06:16:33
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 I don't get it either. We are talking about music made with acoustical instruments aren't we? Where is this ultra fast rise time no scope on earth can measure coming from?

And aren't we talking about a 12AX7 here. Just how much current reserve do we need here?

And if I do want the fastest rise time from a plate or collector coupled amplifier, isn't a current source far superior to a resistor in that regard?

Oh, and Mr. Tube Wrangler, I would like to have the rise time question answered in standard engineering terms. Like milliseconds or if needed nanoseconds. That's all I understand. I'm not up on all the latest audiophile terminology found in "Six Moons" or "The Absolute Sound"

 

The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 07:37:44
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
 For you to open 'yer mouth after Dennis comes back after about a year of not posting here. The "usuals", you Gusser, come out of the woodwork and pile on !!

Dennis discloses a new way of splitting phase, done on his MI-200 mod, that NO ONE I KNOW has ever discussed, and you wanna "add parts", solid state parts no less.

Then you wanna dismiss the two magazines that have the nerve to tell you what something SOUNDS like, "The Absolute Sound" and a "Six Moons" review.

Maybe you should be thinking about and discussing how simple Dennis' technique is, to split phase. Isn't there an elegance in simple, "few as necessary parts as needed" design ? I think KISS rules.

I have said my piece on this, no more from me. Good day.

Jeff Medwin

 

RE: The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 07:51:06
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 "Dennis discloses a new way of splitting phase, done on his MI-200 mod, that NO ONE I KNOW has ever discussed, and you wanna "add parts", solid state parts no less."

Huh? No one ever discussed? It's called a "differential amplifier" or a "long tailed pair". Been around since what, at least the 1940s, in practical application.

Post BS and yes, people will call you on it.

Here is a page full of new ideas never discussed before!

 

RE: The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 08:11:48
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 Thanks, Gusser for putting up the phase splitter page. Yes, the venerable LTP has been around for a long time. I like what it does when I need a splitter that isn't a transformer.

The transformer type is certainly better balanced, but you have transformer losses.

No claims here for any of these, use what you need, people.

---Dennis---

 

RE: The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 09:13:54
Stuben
Audiophile

Posts: 669
Location: Guber Ohio
Joined: December 30, 2005
 The use of CCS with a LTP configuration has been documented as an improvement for quiet some time. If you don't want to use CCS for what ever reason...don't...

Have fun

Stuben

 

RE: The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 10:39:32
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
 Hi,

Dennis' approach does not use any negative supply on the tail. Gusser, I personally have never seen that before. Have you ?? Have others??

No negative supply and no CCS. KISS. Just careful balancing with Rs !!

BTW, it was the above differences as being unique - is what I was referring to. Yes, I am familar with a LTP, I used it in the very first amp I ever built from scratch, 1982, P-P 6B4Gs with a tube CCS on the input stage.

Jeff Medwin

 

Countless circuits, posted on November 5, 2014 at 11:17:37
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 There are countless LTP phase splitter designs that have no negative rail. And there are also CCS implementations that do not require a negative rail. I have built both types myself in tube amps.

Learn some basic electronic theory as to how this stuff works!

 

RE: The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 14:03:11
Al Noakes
 'with a tube CCS on the input stage.'

Surely that must have had a negative rail ? Otherwise , how did you meet the voltage compliance requirement of the CCS ?

Al

 

RE: The rise time is - One Day.......... Gusser, posted on November 5, 2014 at 15:15:04
Ray Moth
Audiophile

Posts: 2784
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Joined: November 10, 2003
 By what right do you challenge a fellow member's entitlement to question points made in a public posting on this forum? Does DF have some superhuman status that sets him above the rest of us? Are you a moderator? It's not your thread and you have no right to hijack it.

 

RE: "I think KISS rules.", posted on November 6, 2014 at 03:44:58
deathtube 667
 Based on the photos of your latest project, there is nothing simple about the things you and DF do with tube amps.

The amount of detail with just special wires, bypass caps, parts selection and arrangement, it is mind boggling.

I don't think too many builders spend time on magnetic leadout optimization either.

Only a few have the mental fortitude for such a build.

 

RE: "I think KISS rules.", posted on November 6, 2014 at 08:57:24
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 Just some explanation here-- the circuit is simplified to the msx.-- as is required to avoid loss of transparency and speed by avoiding unnecessary parts soaking up-- and distorting signal energy.

The whole effort is one of energy conservation (do you like great dynamics and capture of the attack-- (the leading edges of music-- what about instant shut-off-- the silence after a crescendo?).

How do you maintain perfectly natural musical instrument decay? Don't you like to hear all the musical details in the Band/Orchestra as well?

Do you crave outstanding musical bandwidth? What about the highs from screaming violins? Would you want that blunted like all other amps do? I'll answer that: Not after you've heard it done right!!)

So---oooo-- why not look at eliminating unwanted extraneous inputs into the signal caused by improper build/layout and poor or poorly placed wiring or too many stages or too many parts??

You like great music? Then, you have to BUILD the way to hear that!

---Dennis---

 

Metal fortitude?, posted on November 6, 2014 at 10:59:04
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 And neither LowMu or TubeWrangler had the mental fortitude to study and master electrical engineering.

None of you have produced and documented proof these silly tweaks make any different in the circuit performance. Nothing. All we get is what you think you hear.

And you Deathtube were doing very well with starting to learn the principles behind this science. You were starting to discover the truth and power behind competent electrical engineering. At least you made an attempt to learn.

What has now made you run back to tooth fairy land? Your blind praise of this junk science really detracts from the professionalism you were starting to build.

What is it you do again for a living? I seem to remember it was testing light bulbs or something on an assembly line? Is that what you want to do for the rest of your life? You have a chance here to get into analog circuit engineering if you keep up your hobby at the rate you were going. You don't need an EE degree to to EE level work if you can show demonstrable competence and knowledge. But falling back on this audiophile voodoo crap will get you nowhere in the professional electronics industry.

 

RE: McIntosh MI-200 amplifier, posted on November 6, 2014 at 13:08:11
LinuxGuru
Audiophile

Posts: 582
Location: European Union
Joined: November 11, 2008
 McIntosh Mi200 was designed and built by experienced and skillful specialists, its a pity historical piece of expensive vintage equipment was crippled by means of meaningless tweaking.

Apart from replacing aged/broken components, nothing else had to be done.

 

agreed, posted on November 6, 2014 at 13:22:11
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 There's a lot to be said for simply repair and restoration. In fact that's how you maintain the market value.

But I will say a few modifications based on technology that was not available when the unit was built can also be very rewarding. For example CCS components and large value electrolytics were not around in those days. The McShane Citation mods are an excellent example of a true value added well engineered upgrade.

The the mods described here are just butchery. And as I also believe they were done without any formal circuit analysis or measurements so the effectiveness of these so called upgrades are even more questionable. It looks to me like change simply for the sake of change so one can attach all kinds of audiophile voodoo to an otherwise very well engineered legacy product.

If the OPT's are so great, and McIntosh OPTs are, then take them out and build a new amplifier around them. That way they can be transferred back to the stock unit for resale.

P.S. That resale assumes the OPT's are electrically repaired only as needed and repainted. Once you cut them up and reassemble them with gaffers tape and tyraps, they are pretty much ruined as a valuable legacy component.

 

RE: McIntosh MI-200 amplifier, posted on November 6, 2014 at 14:18:00
Paul Joppa
Industry Professional

Posts: 7295
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: April 23, 2001
 I would not myself call it meaningless, or tweaking. The original design called for very low measured distortion, since is was a piece of laboratory gear that would be used to obtain measurements.

If it is re-purposed to audio, then reducing the number of stages and coupling capacitors, and reducing the feedback, are widely accepted ways to improve the subjective appeal. In the transition from lab to music, subjective appeal acquires a legitimate claim to greater importance. I am of course speaking as an engineer, not as a collector or historian!

Does anyone know who made the output transformers, or whether the design documentation might still exist somewhere? That would be the ideal situation, allowing a design to be developed specifically for the audio application.

 

+1, posted on November 6, 2014 at 14:54:57
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
 Thanks for answering my query.

I was unaware of that, others told me, after posting above, what I was not familar with ...and all along, I thought I knew everything !!

Regards,

Jeff Medwin

 

RE: Metal fortitude?, posted on November 6, 2014 at 16:38:49
deathtube 667
 "Metal Fortitude?"

Is that the new Iron Maiden CD?

Or is that Twisted Sister?

Don't worry Gusser. I will still post ARTA measurements for your review.

 

RE: Metal fortitude?, posted on November 6, 2014 at 16:51:42
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
 No careful Electrical Engineer would publish a post such as yours. Instead, he would be looking to improve his knowledge by looking outside the box, so to speak. Engineering changes as demand changes.

Your post is a set of assumptions ABOUT PEOPLE and about APPLICATIONS, NOT E.E. principles. What I learned from studying E.E. and Mining E. is that assumptions can cost dearly when an opinion, even if it's based on well-known and fully proven scientific principles, nevertheless PROVES DEAD WRONG-- in APPLICATION-- in the Common_Sense world. Really good engineers who can and do work in both worlds would have incorporated any new knowledge or ideas into their expertise beforehand, so that their results would be better..

That's what I do-- first, I engineer a product using the same knowledge that you have. Then, I look for ways to idealize it to the requirements that it is to meet in the APPLICATION WORLD-- where musical fidelity and total reliability trump, but do not exclude, design theory..

Why not question everything, get advice from anything that could make sense (YOU are the one who gets to decide whether you use it or not-- so why would you consider it a threat?). Why not MAKE SURE things get done right? Why get bent all out-of-shape irrationally when what you perceive as a threat is really something that could enhance your expertise?

Please note the on-going nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan.

The nuclear power plants in question were designed correctly by competent Engineers. I, however, believe that those plants were designed and placed wrongly-- dangerously so by fully accredited E.E.'s.

All of us have to live in the real world. Your competence in memorizing and applying E.E. knowledge that both of us have and use to develop products is excellent and is not in question here-- ever.

Your personal penchant for passing vicious, negative judgments on people, equipment and events that you have not personally met, tested, used, or experienced is in question.

No real engineer would jump to conclusions that simply discredit something before it is experienced and tested by actual long-term use and performance.. That would be decidedly against good engineering..

---Dennis---



 

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Whatever you say ., posted on November 6, 2014 at 17:33:13
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 Just more babbling on. Too bizarre to even comment on.

 

RE: Metal fortitude?, posted on November 6, 2014 at 22:22:23
Ray Moth
Audiophile

Posts: 2784
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Joined: November 10, 2003
 Yes, DT showed some impressive progress in recent threads and that was recognized by several respected members here. I'd hate to see him lose that.

 

RE: McIntosh MI-200 amplifier, posted on November 6, 2014 at 22:55:47
tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007
Whoa! Are you still worshipping the "Model A"?

Well, there's no need to. The MI-200 had an excellent output stage and a good-enough P.S. for it if that is upgraded, but not modified.

Most vintage amps use about 5/10 volt to drive to full output. This was done because people didn't want to pay for a GOOD preamp (one with up to 20V. output). Most of the gain was in the vintage amps.

This was, and is, a design mistake.

Modern amps have an ideal gain structure of 18-20 amp-factor, not the 45-to 50 that old amps used.

The modern amps allow much better signal-to-noise ratio in the connecting wiring between preamp and amplifier, commonly called interconnects. With a higher signal voltage in the connecting wire, the interconnect behaves much better. S/N is much higher, but also an added benefit is that wire needs to be properly energized in order to perform.

Think of it like a triode that normally uses 10 ma. plate current, ideal is probably about 7 ma. What happens when you run it at, say 1.5 ma.?

It loses sensitivity to signal in some ways-- its bandwidth goes non-linear. Wire does the same thing-- underdriving wire lowers signal-to-noise ratio.

Also, wire is going to absorb some distortions by itself-- from the room it is in. Raise the signal level in the wire (interconnect) and it starts to perform MUCH better.

This is why modern amps have less gain. They are going to be driven by a better, higher voltage (and S/N) signal.

Sure, you could turn down your preamp, or you could run a volume control at near minimum setting if you used a Blu-Ray player, etc., as a signal source driving an old, over-gained amp.. However, volume-control potentiometers sound best wide-open, not set at minimum volume.

Digital volume control? You MUST run that at near full volume setting-- if you use it to attenuate, you lose digits!

The old concepts for the two input stages in the MI-200 are bogus for other reasons. While the MI-200 sports a decent output stage and full-wave bridge power supply, the two input stages get crapola for power. They don't have a separate P.S. or a shunt-regulation. They're SERIES resistor-fed, with a filter capacitor.

Power supplies don't get any worse than that! Driver stages need fast, accurate current delivery on demand, not resistors placed in the power path..

The best way out of this whole mess is to eliminate the first two stages. This doesn't hurt anything, cosmetically, or in any other way.

One of the existing tube sockets gets the new input-phase inverter tube-- and looks just like stock. The other socket is unused.

I've used a lot of these amps-- about 28 of them, to be exact, since I designed and built Movie Theatres to use them in.

While I had some pristine ones, most of what I later bought were used and looked like they had been thru a combination Mud-Bath and wrecking yard complete with dog crap. That is their normal used condition, as they were used almost exclusively in Gold Mining operations. A few touches of sulfuric acid are nearly always present as well.

No, they're not done up in chrome or black paint, either. Just plain, ugly grey paint which allows rapid rusting of the steel chassis, which is also their normal used condition.

Restoring one of these is a MAJOR task-- all I did in my post was point out how to get it to perform so that you can use it to hear your music like it was recorded. In stock form, it's merely a P.A. amp with a fairly wide bandwidth, a good output stage, unwanted feedback which degrades it, and way too much gain for any modern application.

---Dennis---





 

RE: Metal fortitude?, posted on November 8, 2014 at 13:42:36
Al Noakes
 I personally believe that Fukushima was designed correctly apart from the backup generators which were located in the basement . These should have been mounted on stilts 60 feet into the air which would have given them reasons for concern from the outset .

Al

 

One would do well to study the seismic data before Fukushima for a vastly different take.~nT, posted on November 8, 2014 at 16:48:45
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 ~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

Perhaps you should enrole in an irony course ?(nt), posted on November 9, 2014 at 00:21:29
Al Noakes
 ...

 

RE: Perhaps you should enrole in an irony course ?(nt), posted on November 12, 2014 at 06:24:32
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 No irony involved, Al. There is ample proof facts were not broadcast via the media. There was NO 9.0 Earthquake... 6.8 to 7.0 are born through facts... there WAS a tsunami created. USGS files for that day {3/11} have been scuttled/tampered with as other people had the foresight to download the data shown on that day by the USGS before it was taken down.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Perhaps you should enrole in an irony course ?(nt), posted on November 12, 2014 at 11:51:02
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 So you are saying that a 7.0 would cause that large of a tsunami?

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah! Whatever you say ., posted on November 14, 2014 at 21:47:31
mach1
Audiophile

Posts: 399
Location: Brisvegas
Joined: April 24, 2005
 +1 - Let this stand as a dire warning to those who are contemplating ceasing their medication program without prior psychiatric advice.....

 

Page processed in 0.052 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]