|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.6.65.10
In Reply to: RE: Actually... posted by RC Daniel on July 05, 2012 at 00:28:30
Horses for courses....Miller means squat.
Be careful, don't go out at night, the BOOGIE MAN may get you.
Cheers.
Jeff
Edits: 07/05/12Follow Ups:
Jeff, You quoted your own post, above, wherein you first wrote "Miller means squat". That hardly suffices for citing an independent source to corroborate your blanket statement. When you wrote it the first time, I assumed you meant with reference to a Loftin-White topology. Now, when you repeat it here, it seems more another "rule" that cannot be questioned. Can you in any way amplify on your statement? Why does "Miller mean squat", in your opinion?
Lew,
Well, by all means, Miller must be considered in a design. I just like to be dramatic at times, picks up the Forum from the summer time blahs.
But in terms of Loftin White, a half of a 12AX7 will beautifully drive a 2A3 if you design the amp the way Dennis does, as a total design.
I have had several others on this Forum build L-W 2A3 amps, and when they, or their audiophile buddies hear the amps, there is NEVER ever a discussion of Miller. The amps kick butt and they are very pleased.
Dennis is optimizing the first zero to one Watt...where the high efficiency speaker is operating 99.9 percent of the time, and he is not worried at all about how well it drives the finals at three point five watts.
One other thing, I was privy to what the EEs measured as far as frequency response of Dennis' amps at the University, and Lew, it was spectacularly wide band and linear. One can hear that at the RMAF show if one listens carefully, or, in private installations.
IF the amp is fed really good source materials, it responds and is exceedingly honest and neutral. In the last six years, I think Dennis has only had two instances when his digital (barf) source was up to snuff, 2005 when S. Harrell flipped-out in his Six Moons review, and in 2011, third day, Sunday, when the Berkeley and new computer server settled down.
This year, Dennis will bring a good digital source again, Dennis redid the computer's power supplies, and he'll tote his Berkeley to the show. With that, his amps seem to have no limits on good material. By Sunday, its FUN Lew, really FUN. Ask Dave Davenport privately, he took in 2011.
Jeff Medwin
(1) I had a feeling you were playing the gadfly (and it worked).
(2) My query was not implicitly meant to cast a slur on Dennis' amplifier. I have never heard it.
I try to learn from this forum. To do so, I have also to figure out what is hyperbole (e.g., your statement about Miller capacitance), what is just crap, and what it is that I should retain. It's not always easy. Thx for your more tempered explanation.
My own lifelong approach to audio has always been to start with the speakers I like best and work backwards from there. Choosing the speaker first places some constraints on the choice of amplifier. A one-Watt amplifier just will not cut it with my speakers of choice, even though I/we recently made a huge advancement in improving their efficiency via a mod to the crossover which in fact allows one to do away with the crossover entirely. High efficiency is a worthy goal in speaker design, for sure.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: