|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.178.171.11
In Reply to: RE: Allen is not the only one who touted thinner is better... posted by gusser on January 28, 2015 at 10:42:18
does not exactly "lie", but it is generally only a close approximation of reality, because the theories or Laws that give rise to the math of physics are themselves built to describe ideal, isolated systems. However small the errors may be, there are errors. In most cases, we are aware of the sources of those small errors, but not always. Maybe inside that tiny uncharted part of the physical real world is where some of these otherwise inexplicable subjective observations live. Dare I say "Quantum Theory"? No, I don't dare.
Follow Ups:
This is an obsolete tube amplifier design that was retired by the commercial industry over 50 years ago. Yet you want to believe it holds some mysterious property that the evolution of modern electronics has not yet discovered?
I'm not trying to sound belittling, but comments like you just made always seem to come from people lacking higher level scientific educations.
Electronics and physics these days is on the brink of generating our own black holes. Do you really think all the secrets of physics are locked in a DC coupled 2A3 amplifier design from 1931?
I was not speaking to this amplifier design. I was making a general statement in response to your general statement that "math does not lie". I am not a proponent of any amplifier design. (In fact, I don't even know exactly what amplifier you are thinking of.)
"I was not speaking to this amplifier design. I was making a general statement in response to your general statement that "math does not lie". I am not a proponent of any amplifier design. (In fact, I don't even know exactly what amplifier you are thinking of.)"Well in that respect you are most correct. Calculus is by it's nature an approximation, not an exact.
Edits: 01/29/15
My education is just fine and still prefer the sound of one these obsolete designs to a mass market sub $1000 amp. For reasons of sound preference and not the engineering behind it, I'll take a good SET any day.
I make my own amps of a wide variety of configurations, I can understand the electrical principals involved and yet I still listen to SETs. Go figure.
You and many others like the sound of vintage SET's. I like vintage 1960s PP amps. But sonically accurate they are not.
And this constant drivel buy a few here to make these hobby projects the second comming is getting ridiculous.
"You and many others like the sound of vintage SET's. I like vintage 1960s PP amps. But sonically accurate they are not."
Sonically the ear/brain is far more complex than the oscilloscopes and digital FFT software that you would use to define accurate. Accurate to a meter is not necessarily accurate to a listener. You should acquaint yourself with psychoacoustic studies.
If I want sonically accurate, I have to go to a live performance because no amount of money spent or equipment bought is going to get close.
I hear very few people speak of how wonderful their room treatments are and yet they could get a much larger bang for the buck by getting their room treatments in order. I'm not talking about small stones or stick on dots either. I mean real sound absorption and diffraction in correct proportion. That can do more to improve your at home sound quality than a new pair of $1000 tubes or multiple bypassed caps ever will.
I guess that's off topic because this is tube DIY not the sound quality forum:)
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
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: