|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.157.136.4
Why does every third post here and in the SET asylum become a pissing match between Jeff, Dennis and there disciples (Kool Aid drinkers)and those that don't drink their particular flavor? as I suggest on the SET Asylum back in June:
"These silly arguments have been going on for far too long and get in the way of us trying to learn, build, and occasionally educate when we have something worth saying. Why do people think they need to comment on every subject when they happen to be in the Asylum? (because they're nuts???) Maybe it is time to split every Asylum into two, one for those who drink the Dennis/Jeff Kool Aid, and one for those who find it a bitter drink to swallow. Those with an open mind can peruse both. I for one find most, but nor everything they say to be somewhere between useless and BS as far as enjoying the hobby, but if I do not agree or find their blathering meaningless, I just move on. I learned a while ago in is near m*sterb*tion to argue with either of them."
Let take a vote!
Follow Ups:
Anyone who is not satisfied with American built low DCR amps there is another prophet to follow, this time from Russia.
Please see attached picture of 6W vacuum tube SET amplifier (called Maestro Grosso if I recall correctly) weighting as much as 250 Kg (551 lbs).
Having seen cabling, I can say for sure it is really low DCR design.
Happy building (and listening) :-)
Cpwill builds a fire and throws gas on it so he can complain about it being too hot.
At least Gusser had the balls to ask Cpwill's question for him.
Why can't some people read a post, take it or leave it, and move on?
Please!! Don't!! STOP!! Please don't!!...Please don't stop!!!
Let's see how long we can keep this silliness going, I think that the
original "low dcr" LSES posts go back to at least 2008. But...we can
do better!!
Can we make it to 2018?
2018? Nature will probably fix that!
Jeff Medwin and Dennis Fraker are good guys and great builders in the modern style of low powered SE tube amps.
They are influencing a lot of builders, you would see that if you were on their email lists.
I also enjoy working on traditional SE console amp circuits and phono preamps that are in a more vintage tube style.
I am happy that this forum exists, inspite of the bickering, it is still a good place to spend time.
dt 667
How did we start identifying low resistance power supplies as "modern" - I wasn't aware that they had eclipsed standard theory?Do we now have to have "post-modern" power supplies, with "relativistic" componants and "structuralist" elements, soon to be replaced of course by "post-structuralist" ones.....? Oh dear - I have some retro chokes! I need some neo-constructivist ones or I'll be accused of commodity fetishism....
The idea of "one" modern power supply makes me think of Philip Marlow:
‘Did you hear me! I said I was Clyde Umney, the lawyer.’
‘Clyde Umney, the lawyer. I thought we had several of them.’
‘You’re Marlowe, aren’t you?’
‘Yeah. I guess so.’ I looked at my wrist watch. It was 6.30 a.m., not my best hour.
‘Don’t get fresh with me, young man.’
‘Sorry, Mr Umney. But I’m not a young man. I’m old, tired, and full of no coffee. What can I do for you, sir?’
‘I’m Clyde Um –’
‘Don’t,’ I interrupted. ‘I might get hysterical...........
Edits: 08/21/12
It is silly isn't it. 60hz choke input power supplies being referred to as "modern".What is a truly modern power supply? How about an I-Phone charger. That little inch square cube that plugs right into the wall and gives us what 10-15 watts of power with virtually no heat generation?
Hmmm I wonder? Does any mass produced consumer electronic product these days still use a 60hz power transformer? Can you even still buy 60hz transformer based wall worts? Everything has gone switch mode.
How about the inverter technology with the backyard solar power station craze these days. Anybody think getting the last drop of efficiency out of that inverter is not "modern engineering".
Edits: 08/21/12
The term "modern" was not something I came up with.
It is just easier to type "modern" than to cite the major exponents of this style of SE tube amp building over and over again.
I think "modern" is Jeff's term, maybe Dennis too. I'm just disputing that there is such a thing as one single "modern" power supply, or in fact one single "modern" anything in tube audio. It's a slippery slope - modern capacitors, modern resistors, modern shunt regs, modern output stages, modern biasing arrangements............. I think you get my drift.It's not a question of whether it's "easier" to use the term modern - it's whether it makes any sense! It's creating a mythology about one particular style of building. That's just one particular flavour, not the whole milk shake.
Andy
Edits: 08/21/12 08/21/12
There are different versions of the "modern" PS configuration.
And there a different signal circuits being used by various builders.
There is no single definition of what "modern" is, but the low powered SE 2A3 DC LW monoamp versions seem to be the benchmark for performance.
dt 667
Deathtube and also Andy,
While it is true we generally are using the modern power supply approach with SE DC L-W types amplifiers, such usage is certainly NOT limited Deathtube to that type of circuit.
Andy, what Dennis and I have elected to call a "modern" supply, is one that uses elements of low DCR, low HY, and low C, so as to minimize storage energy when feeding the finals stage.
There exists two sub-headings that divide the term "modern" supply. First, there is the original "LSES" or "low stored energy supply", and second, there is a later development from that concept, called "Flywheel". Flywheel exists as a result of my Forum posts of Dennis' supply, and is the intellectual property of Henry Pasternak. The Flywheel term only pertains to the L1/C1 portion of a LSES supply.
Henry's Flywheel uses a very small L1, about 35 mHY is typical, and only about 15 to 20 uF for C1. Henry has demonstrated on this Forum to us that this parts combination offers measurably better voltage regulation, in dynamic terms, than a conventional choke input L1 that reaches L-Critical.
Dennis and I co-decided to name ALL supplies which use elements of low DCR, low HY, and low C as "modern supplies", as opposed Andy, to what people have used and built over the last 100 years.
There you have it, there should be no confusion anymore. I hope I was clear in expressing these names. Yes Deathtube, it is very convenient to use the term "modern", I agree !!
Andy, there presently exists two USA audio manufacturers who use a modern supply to my knowledge. The originator, Dennis Fraker of course, in the Serious Stereo 2A3 amp since 1989, and Larry D. Moore Esq., of Ultra-FI, in his Monoco 845 SE amp. There are however, a growing number of private USA builders who use aspects of the modern supply to their finals, and these individuals find it superior to traditional supplies reaching L-Critical.
Regards,
Jeff Medwin
Every design you have ever posted here was second-rate and fraught with defects. That you would refer to any of these mockeries of engineering as "modern" indicates how little you comprehend of the real, physical world or the science that underlies it all. It is to the detriment of every individual here that you have elected to continually spew this useless flotsam into what was once an inquisitive and reasoning forum.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Edits: 08/21/12
Gentlemen! I am trying to stay out of this until after RMAF 2012, but this one does require clarification.
I did not use, and do not use the term "modern" to describe anything that I do, design, or invent.
I believe that term came about totally without myself.
---Dennis---
There appears to be a bit of confusions between the two primary exponents of the "?" style of low powered SE 2A3 DC LW tube amps and their offshoots.
If not "modern", what are these circuits to be refered to as?
What broad definition can be applied for future discussions on this topic?
Deathtube,
No problem. It is solely "I" who came up with the term "modern" to describe ANY supply that encompasses Dennis' total-approach idea of,
........ "not just low DCR, but ALSO, low HY and low C."
I think we should continue use of the term modern, and one can call the older ways of doing a supply as "traditional" or "conventional".
I am being a good boy here.
If I called a conventional supply what I REALLY thought, it would be:
(1) "always out of time"
(2) or even better yet - perhaps the BEST : "incapable", "incompetent"
(3) or maybe, simply this: "the singer has grown buck teeth" !! :-)
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
or even better yet - perhaps the BEST : "incapable", "incompetent"So called "conventional' power supplies have served us well for nearly a century. Surely describing them as "incable" is inaccurate.
Actually, I would contend that most "modern" power supplies are switching DC to DC converters. Have you seen any consumer electronic device produced in the past 10 years that uses a power transformer? Not many.
"The singer has grown buck teeth"
The implication being that someone with buck teeth can't sing well?
Edits: 08/22/12
There are loads of different circuits in tube amps, all with different names - I think it's correct to say the one you are referring to is a type of Loftin-White. It's best to refer to circuits by name when there is already a name for it. Loftin-White dates from 1929 so it's a stretch of the imagination to call it modern.
As for the power supplies, Jeff has already given you the two terms he is using for it - "LSES" or "low stored energy supply", and a later development from that concept, called "Flywheel".
All these names are perfectly acceptable and much more precise.
Andy
Close Andy,But in NO way am I calling a Loftin White "modern". Modern is my made-up term to describe and encompass a power supply approach - (as opposed to "traditional or conventional"). See my above post.
Thanks for your contributions up here, excellent generally speaking.
I think its hilarious that a Loftin White holds promise today, as witnessed by many happy users of FI amps, Serious Stereo amps, and early Moth amps. It is hard to beat the Zen simplicity of just two stages, direct coupled.
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/22/12
How about calling your ideology 'unconventional power supply' or 'unscientific power supply' instead ? That would make more sense .
Al
Hi Al,
It may seem "unscientific" to you because you simply don't fully understand it, or "get it".
If you were to read the many posts by JLH and John Swenson, in a chronological order, you WILL understand the science of it. I can email that to you. Also, you can read the "Flywheel" aspect of this supply, first thought up and posted by Henry Pasternak in about ?? 2009 ?? and then his measurements and photos test session, a couple years later, where he proves and shows us all it has superior regulation. So, we have three respectable graduate EEs who have DIRECT experience (not just dime a dozen "theoreticians"), and all three seem to accept and define the new approach as being valid.
I totally agree with you, on the word "unconventional" as being very good, it is !! My selection of the word "modern" I like also, maybe a tad bit better, because it refers to a new idea, not a "alternate" idea that may be thirty years old.
Cheers,
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
I think you may be underestimating Al Noakes - he's an EE with years and years of experience building all kinds of tube circuits. That includes a number of low power SETs driving horn speakers. In fact he's by far one of the most knowledgable guys I know about tube audio. You don't talk down to Al - you ask him questions and learn from him, as I have over many years. He's one of my gurus.
Andy
Andy,
I also like Al. But he acts very rigid, and he wants to NOT even consider the compilations from other EEs, when I offer to send it to him.
From the compilations, any good EE with an unencumbered and open mind, would understand right away, the mechanisms of a modern supply. Only a poor thinker, would not understand.
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
"Any good EE with an unencumbered and open mind, would understand right away, the mechanisms of a modern supply. Only a poor thinker, would not understand".
Jeff, you keep mixing up the idea that EEs "don't understand you because they are poor thinkers with closed minds" with the fact that a number of EEs simply don't agree with you.
This is like saying "only a poor thinker with a closed mind would not like hip-hop music".
You can pile up any number of EEs who agree with you but sure as hell, others are going to pile up an equal or larger number of EEs who disagree with you. This situation is going to go on and on whatever you say - you've laid out your stall for your particular ideas. Some buy it, some don't.
Why not just leave it at that, without insulting EEs who don't buy your ideas?
I would not insult an EE who reads the compilations, executes (a) (b) and (c) below, and then doesn't buy it. That is their prerogative Andy.What I do like to insult is the likes of people, EEs or not, who
(a) DON"T read the EE's compilations, to understand it mentally
(b) DON'T build it, and do so properly
( Al to his credit, early on, tried ... or mis-tried LSES, and "screwed it up" by using oversize, overweight junk box potted parts and other mis-optimizations. THEN, he refused to put the correct $9.95 chokes in place to hear things properly "because shipping to England was too costly, on a two pound choke". Since that time, I went on to apply PSUD 2, and made improvements, because "one size" did not fit all, and I was aware of that.)
(c) DON'T listen to it, to directly experience what it does sonically.
Yes, I will challenge anyone who does not do (a) (b) and (c) above, IF they are making remarks that are critical to the supply circuit. They obviously are working with less than a full deck.
Quit the one liners and jabs Andy, you have not EARNED the right to do that, although anyone can say anything up here. If you understand, build, and listen to the circuit, in my opinion, you can tell us all whatever you want, because you DID THE WORK. Anything else is just theory and guessing.
I object to "theory-only" non-understanders, non-doers, and non-listeners.
This is most logical. End of story.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/24/12
Hi Jeff,It's not me who's confused here - I can see the situation quite clearly. You have a particular idea about a circuit you believe works well. That's absolutely fine. You're one of hundreds who have a good idea for a circuit. You publish your circuit like everyone else does. Some build it, most don't.
I use filament bias, as another example of a circuit. I believe it works well.
- Do I tell people it's the only way to bias a tube? - No I don't
- Do I tell people they're really missing out if they don't use it? - No I don't
- Do I tell people that Thomas Mayer uses it and he is a better EE than those who dont use it? - No
- Do I tell other EEs that if they don't understand why it sounds better they're narrow minded? - No
- Do I tell people that they have no right to comment on it until they've built it themselves? - No
- Do I call it the "modern bias" and insist it supercedes all other ways of biasing a tube? - NoI should add:
- Do I believe that whatever I say will have any effect on how you think? - No I don't. And It's not anything to do with whether I'm right or wrong either!Why I'm pursuing this I really don't know, to be frank, because I know in advance that if about 1,200 posts have had no effect then mine is highly unlikely to be any different. Maybe it's just in the nature of an experiment about rationality and I'm curious about experiments? Maybe I'm a nihilist. Maybe I'm a surrealist. Now there's a possibility......
Andy
Edits: 08/24/12
Andy,
One additional question,
Have I ever commented directly on your use of Filament Bias?
If so, show me where !!
Jeff Medwin
I remember Henry showing that the Flywheel has better regulation than a normal "C" input filter. Not better than a proper LC input filter.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
> There is no single definition of what "modern" is,
In technical terms It means recently developed, innovative.
So called low DCR supply (in fact, primitive CLCL topology backdates probably to the beginning of 20th century if not earlier) mentioned countless number of times have nothing to do with innovations. Additionally, it is so poorly engineered so is suitable only for low power SET with nearly constant current draw.
> but the low powered SE 2A3 DC LW monoamp versions seem
> to be the benchmark for performance.
May be for 1% - 3% of audiophiles and enthusiasts out there, and suppliers of boutique items serving this market, but for none of professional electronic engineers.
Don't believe me? How many professional recording studios out there using those 2A3 SETs (or any other SET) as reference amplifiers? 50%, 15% or 0.01% worldwide?
The last time I saw SET used by professional musician only as guitar amplifier, where all 2nd order harmonic distortions, highly colored sound, and soft clipping are very welcome.
I admit some people enjoying SETs, and I'm glad they are happy doing so, but this ancient old technology can be called modern or innovative only if compared to the door bell.
LinuxGuru,You don't "have it" yet, you do not yet understand.
You state the following :
" Additionally, it is so poorly engineered so is suitable only for low power SET with nearly constant current draw."
That is incorrect. Henry Pasternak has shown us that the Flywheel has superior voltage regulation, he measured it and showed this to us ALL on this Forum. Did you miss his posts, or, do you want to forget about that ??
Also, LinuxGuru, PSUD 2 step tests myself, and others regularly perform (Hasquin, Swenson, Moore, etc.) demonstrate clearly that the modern supply can have superior regulation, lower measured Z, than can be obtained with any traditional L-Critical configuration.
"Dynamic regulation".... seems to apply MORE to AB1 than to Class A1, doesn't it Linux ??
It is hard to obtain a Z lower than 400 Ohms with a traditional L-Critical supply, whereas a modern supply can obtain a Z of 100 Ohms or less. Tell us LinuxGuru, which Z will drive the current-hungry Finals stage better, 400 Ohms or 100 Ohms ???
You don't quite understand this, in your original post. Why don't you just send me your email address, so you can read JLH and Swenson, and we can end this silly stuff.
Regards,
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/21/12 08/21/12
Maybe we could have a function on AA that works as Facebook does. If you are tired of updates from a certain person you can "unsubscribe" from their posts. The content would be hard to read depending on the thread and how many times they posted but it would be refreshing.
The problem most people have is not with the low DCR power transformers and chokes; these are universally good (unless you don't have enough resistance to load your tube rectifier, but you should be using Schottkys anyway.) Nor do people have a problem with using only was much high quality capacitance as needed, pretty much everybody agrees with this as well.
However, a 12AX7 direct coupled to a 2A3, to me, is a bit of a tone control. So be it.
The only problem I have had is with the sub-critical micro-choke loading calling it choke loading. And my problem with it was more to do with the label than what it actually is. The circuit generates more B+ ripple than I like, but seems to work in the 2A3 circuit as designed, probably due to an element of noise cancellation.
Zen:
"Truth and words are unrelated. Truth can be compared to the moon, and words can be compared to a finger. I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger in order to be able to see the moon".
I try not to get hung up on words.
"The problem most people have is not with the low DCR power transformers and chokes; these are universally good"
The problem with these designs is that the low DCR chokes have insufficient inductance to properly filter the B+, and the inadequacies of the design are aggravated by the use of undersized filter caps. I've SPICEd these circuits looking back into the supplies, and the source Z is truly awful. They might be passable powering a Class A amp with constant average current draw (and I want to stress that *passable* is not the goal of high-end audio design), but their functionality as a voltage source over audio frequencies is otherwise unacceptable. This is junk engineering in every sense of the phrase.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Can you define what you mean by "awful"? Do you mean to say that the source Z is actually very high or very low, i.e., "too low"? If too low, why would that be a problem? Thanks for the clarification.
I would like to point out that "Z" is not what PSUD2 is modeling with the step response function.When JLH points out that it is hard to obtain a source Z of under 400 Ohms with a conventional / traditional L-Critical choke input he is mistaken.
What JLH is really looking at is "R" or "DCR", resistance. He's looking at the voltage drop for a given current increase that lasts longer than one cycle.
That's very different than "Z" or impedance (AC resistance). And what we really need to know is impedance over the frequency bandwidth of interest. PSUD2 will not tell us that.
The impedance of a PS filter is largely a function of the last cap in the filter no matter what else you might read here on the AA.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/21/12
What I mean is that designs using this concept generally do not maintain a low output Z over frequency. The problem appears due to both L/C resonance(s) and insufficient output capacitance. The latter appeared to be a particularly acute problem in the versions I SPICE'd, and practical designs with a reasonable number of filter sections are prone to generally high levels of ripple. I posted SPICE analysis here, including graphs, on at least two occasions in the past. Each was the result of a "Low DCR" power supply that was represented to this forum as being wonderfully innovative and sonically pleasing. Both designs were functionally deficient and unsuited for most purposes relating to audio power amplifiers.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
I get it.
In his post below, Jeff seems to be arguing the other way, using JLH as proxy. I do recall the basis for calculating the output Z noted by Jeff and wondering at the time whether that was a "kosher" way to do it, since it seemed to leave out the frequency dependence of Z.
Lew,
Don't worry, one bone, the frequency dependence of Z is not as bad as determining the Z of a supply by adding a BIG last cap. The cap competes with the output tube, and hogs the current when it comes time to recharge. The L-critical high DCR chokes resist charging. (Just re-read JLH). BUILD something like I suggest,(which some posting up here will not), I'm happy to assist, and it will all become crystal clear to you.
If you look for an answer, don't simply do it "theoretically", and listen to people with NO experience building and hearing the circuit !! Unless, you want to LIVE in the theoretical world only !! I want my amps to play back MUSIC , unencumbered.
Lew, think about T_Ks 211 SE amp he "designed", I think it has FOUR stages, TWO cathode followers, THREE series cap couples, and 145 Ohm DCR chokes feeding his 211 Finals. THINK about that, and what you experience in your audio building, and draw whatever conclusions that please you. Have fun, I do !!
Jeff Medwin
"Don't worry, one bone, the frequency dependence of Z is not as bad as determining the Z of a supply by adding a BIG last cap. The cap competes with the output tube, and hogs the current when it comes time to recharge. The L-critical high DCR chokes resist charging. (Just re-read JLH)."
Yes, I remember reading that at the time and wondering how JLH could possibly believe such a thing. Whether he is an EE or not, I think your trust in his judgment is sadly misplaced. As I've said before, you seem easily misled.
Ray,Sorry, but your judgement and opinion is incorrect again.
Besides JLH using this supply, and swearing by it, we have John Swenson, who most on this Forum consider to be one of the best guys up here. He too is an EE. How are you going to "talk THAT off" or minimize it!!
You can't, because a modern supply to the finals is about the best thing that has happened in audio in many many years.
Of course, it helps to HEAR what I am discussing, and NONE OF YOU NAY SAYERS HAVE EVER HEARD THIS, WELL EXECUTED.
Ray, by my last recollection, you have never ever heard a "made in the last 20 years" single ended amp. Anyone can post up here. If its in writing, and theoretical, and on-line, it must be true. No thanks, let me HEAR it please, thank you !!
There exists various additional users for this supply, who are excited and pleased about how it sounds.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/23/12
It is a simple matter to test it. Just insert a forward-biased diode between the last cap and the "finals" and see if it makes any difference. It won't.
"The cap competes with the output tube, and hogs the current when it comes time to recharge."
Only someone woefully ignorant of electronics theory and laws would say such a thing. The alternative to a low-Z filter cap is - as you apparently prefer - to conduct the insufficiently filtered ripple and noise from the AC line directly to the tube. All you've realy done is to devise the most expensive means possible to construct a poorly performing supply. There's a reason no respected audio pioneer has ever done this, and for you to believe that you've not only mastered, but in fact bettered, the proven designs of the past is nothing short of delusional. You're mad as a hatter.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Au contraire T_K. What you quote (above) of mine was written by a graduate E.E., who has a "superb" reputation here in the USA and world-wide, one of the better thinkers I have had the pleasure to read.
I may not have a direct quote, but certainly close enough.
You just don't understand.
Jeff Medwin
You're ALWAYS quoting others that have supposedly come before you.
Of which, there seems to be no shortage and "no shows".
And, none have reared their heads in your defense of this "ripple riddled power supply". Dare I say that in one sentence...RR and PS - FEH!!
Now, the blocking cap is hogging current?
I thought caps store V and L stores I (simplistically)
What next, the moon Alice?
As for "Graduates", there's plenty of M.D.s carrying accredited degrees which are nothing more than a license to kill!
How about some o'scope pics at C1 or L1 and so forth Drlowq.
My ears are bleeding just thinking of this.
Wheezer,You too don't understand. You have never read my compilations, that would help if you have an open mind.
What things look like at L1/C1, the first section of a well planned DOUBLE L/C filter, have limited meaning and is laughable to discuss. Ask me how things look at the filter's L2/C2 position Wheezer. That is the POINT OF USE, and what really matters.
At that point, a modern supply will KILL what most are using currently.
Higher ripple to the finals is usually not a problem. Out-of-time energy supply to the finals IS big a problem, if you seek realistic wideband dynamics, as I do.
It is PSUD2 able, John Swenson has measured it for us, and it certainly is audible to me and others who build and listen to both.
I rest my case.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/23/12
..and so forth.
But Wheezer, it doesn't matter at L1/C1 .... what matters is at the POINT OF USE, C2, that FEEDS the finals stage !!
Don't act so stupid, re-read below. Surely you understood what I posted.
Jeff Medwin
PSUD2 does a good job of predicting currents.
Here's the charging current through L1 when L1 has an inductance lower than critical.
Question. In the above example, what supplies the voltage and current to the circuit, when using a LCLC PS filter, while the diodes are both off?
Answer. The charge stored in the filter.
Here's the charging current through L1 when L1 meets critical inductance.
Question. In the above example, what supplies the voltage and current to the circuit, when using a LCLC PS filter, when the diodes never turn off?
BTW Both supplies are delivering about 60ma at similar voltages. Notice how high the charging current is in the first example. This is because of the off time. It has to make up for the off time.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Very well done Tre'.
It's depicting "modern" vs. reality.
Nice job of explaining this.
How did you get the graphs embeded into the post?
"alt + print screen" places a screen shot on the clip board.
Photoshop, "new" then "paste". (photoshop automatically knows the size of what's on the clip board)
I cropped the image to just show the graph, saved as jpg......
Loading multiple pics requires "preview post" between each pic.
You can 'copy' then 'cut' then 'paste' the 'image text' to the position you want the image to show up within the post.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'll give it a try. I'd like a plot of the current in to /out of the last filter cap with a stepped load, to debunk the theory that "the filter cap hogs all of the current"
Are you going to debunk Ohm's Law??Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/23/12
I intend to use a Pspice simulator to monitor current going into/out off the final cap in the filter. I recall doing this before - I may have posted it to the Asylum - but it won't hurt to do it again.
Do the facts scare you?
Not scared at all, if the additional analysis is intelligent.
Will people do their home work ??
BTW, I don't do PSpice.
Jeff Medwin
No, jsst Hasquin's law. The two are unrelated.
You can't debunk John. You would have to get up VERY early in the morning Ray. He is singularly gifted as a thinker, scientist, and EE, in my opinion. John Swenson, another fan of this supply, is in the same boat.Hasquin uses Ohm's Law as the basis in his explanation. Of course, YOU are like all the other "dummies", who never had a open mind to read about the approach as I suggested, to gain an understanding.
Any GOOD EE with an unencumbered and open mind, would understand right away what we are talking about, from these compilations.
You don't really care about audio excellence, you just like to try to mess with me in your spare time.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/23/12 08/24/12
Jeff,
I've read enough of JLH's posts to know that I disagree with some of them. It has nothing to do with Ohm's law.
I've also seen posts by John Swenson, who seems OK. I have no bone to pick with him. Is he really a fan of this supply?
You've also mentioned Henry Pasternack a few times recently, as if he somehow endorses your views about LSES or LIES, or whatever. I don't believe he does.
Ray,You, and others, are at a distinct disadvantage by not seeing all of JLH and John Swenson's posts in a chronological order, without all the "noise" and "rebuttals" added as a distraction to their posts, (noise generated 100% from people who have not tried or even heard these supplies).
The whole concept of a modern supply, as expressed by these two very talented E.E.s who took the time to build and explain to us the supply, takes on a clearer meaning, without the bickering. I would like to believe, we are all seeking the truth, try to be truthful, and hope to learn things by participating in this Forum.
For your information, John Swenson, from reading all his chronological power supply posts to date, currently USES this supply concept to his Finals, has for about six years now, and he absolutely LOVES it.
As for Henry Pasternak, I think he hates me, or, perhaps only how I act or how I think (or don't think) and what I say up here. But Ray, his whole concept of a "Flywheel" came indirectly from my own posts up here, and directly resulting from Dennis' ideas, circa 1989, of a LSES supply. I am indebted to Henry, as are others, for his original thinking and contribution to L1/C1 in the double L/C chain. Pasternak does not approve of me, or Dennis. Thats OK, I don't mind that. I like his idea and explanation.
That you mention "LIES" is very uncalled for. Lets try to be decent to each other, and NOT get into pissing matches, they serve no gain, and degrade the Forum experience. We are both better than that. I think I still have your email address in my server, and I will take the chance to mail you, both Swenson's and JLH's chronological posts, so you may read what they both say. I assume you would keep an open mind to my suggestion Ray. If I can't find your address, I will let you know.
Cheers, are you feeling better these days? Write to me some times.
Jeff Medwin
EDIT, More time has gone by than I recall. I don't have your address on my present server. Please drop me an email, address is above, so I can email you back the chronological compilations. Thanks. Open mind, fair, honest, straight communication, etc. :-)
Edits: 08/25/12
Jeff,
A very civil post, thanks!
My email address is ray_moth at yahoo.com. I'll read your compilation of the Hasquin/Swenson posts, thanks.
My point about JLH is that he has made some strange statements in the past, for which there seemed to be no basis. A number of EEs didn't see eye-to-eye with him, not just me.
I used the acronym coined by Doug Pickard, "LIES", not o be insulting but because it stands for what I consider to be a more accurate description (low inductive energy supply) than "LSES" (low stored energy supply). With those hefty caps it isn't low stored energy.
As to my health, I'm OK, thanks, though I'm still in a wheelchair. I hope you are enjoying good health and I wish you and Dennis a good Show at RMAF.
No caps are over 50 uF Ray, so lets get rid of that acronym please !!
I use 20 as C1 and 47 to 50 uF as C2. Its a combo of three low things, DCR, HY and C.
You have mail. Its a whole new thing to read their posts and experiences without the noise !!
I better turn a new leaf, life is short.
Mamma taught me better.
Jeff Medwin
Jeff, I have no "opinion" in this controversy. I am just trying to learn as much as I can from the arguments made pro and con. FYI, I have drastically reduced the DCR(s) of the inductor(s) in the HV power supply for my OTLs and lowered the capacitor values as well, to good effect. But I think it proves nothing, because I am still above the approved upper limits for the "modern supply". Also, I am not sure how the rationale for the modern supply would apply to a bipolar supply for a fully balanced PP amplifier (though I know you say it does).
What does "one bone" mean?
Lew,
One bone, my slang for one dog bone, or "one iota".
I am glad you got better results. You don't have to "prove" anything, nor do I. ENJOY the music more !! GREAT news Lew.
There is a common misconception that Class A1 has a close to constant draw from the power supply. Not so, it REQUIRES a modern supply, as do other configurations to the Finals.
Take a look at BOTH of the following two posts (I refer to below) to refresh your understanding.
Jeff Medwin
Also Lew, for understanding about problems with cap size, cut and paste this :
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/tubediy/messages/18/183144.html
.. AND... dynamic Z of A1, etc. :
"There is a common misconception that Class A1 has a close to constant draw from the power supply. "
You think it's a common misconception because you yourself didn't understand the concept of instantaneous current even a couple years ago. Now you're parroting other people like me who posted on this topic long before you introduced Jeff's Unfiltered Power Supplies. You're a hanger-on and a scoundrel.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
A far more appropriate tag than ‘modern’. Suggest we adopt JUPS instead.
nada aqui
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
" Also, I am not sure how the rationale for the modern supply would apply to a bipolar supply for a fully balanced PP amplifier (though I know you say it does)."The power supplies in a Circlotron are each operating single ended output stages.
A Circlotron is two single ended cathode followers with the load impedance bridged across the cathodes (or plates). Each cathode follower has it's own power supply.
That is not the same as a Class A, push pull amplifier where both tubes are feed from one power supply.
Assuming ideal, perfectly linear output tubes and perfectly matched drive signal and perfectly matched halves of the output transformer and only Class A operation......the power supply would not even know the difference between a no signal condition and full power.
The current in one output tube would increase from idle while the current in the other output tube would decrease by the exact same amount.
If each tube was set to idle at 60ma. there would always be only 120ma of current being drawn from the power supply.
Nothing is ever perfectly linear or perfectly balanced but the demand on a power supply of a Class A push pull amplifier is much less than the demand on a power supply for a single ended amplifier.
With single ended designs (and that includes the Circlotron) the power supply has to deal with a current draw that is dependent on the input signal.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/23/12
Tre', I was referring to the completely independent bipolar HV supply for the input and driver stages of my amplifiers, not to the output stage LV supplies. I do know the difference. As to the output stage supplies, which are not bipolar or balanced at all, I agree, I use no inductors there, only a gaggle of paralleled Panasonic TS-EDs for each phase, bypassed by Black Gate and MIT RTX and Russian teflon (progressively smaller values of these respective brands, of course).In my original post, I wrote nothing about the nature of the output supply in terms of balanced vs SE; what I wrote was only in reference to the input and driver stage supply. In that supply, equal positive and negative voltages are derived from the output of a FWBR, but whether mine is truly wired so to be "balanced" is probably open to discussion, based on stuff I have read on John Broskie's site. I have tried it wired as Broskie defines for a true balanced supply, and it sounds and works better the other way.
Edits: 08/23/12
" based on stuff I have read on John Broskie's site. I have tried it wired as Broskie defines for a true balanced supply"
Can you point me to John's take of a +/- supply. I'm interested in this.
Thanks
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The essential point he made is that for the bipolar supply to be "balanced", the first capacitor(s) (assuming capacitor-input) off each node of the FWBR should be connected across the FWBR, in series with each other, rather than to ground. Assuming C1LC2, only the C2s (and any parallel filter elements downstream from C2) are then connected to ground. I think that sums it up. Maybe if you go to Tubecad journal and search on "bipolar supply" or "balanced supply", you will find it.
Lew hi,
Did/does your PT have a CT?
I remember doing some bench testing together w/you on this subject.
Cannot recall the nuances though.
Regards,
Wheeze
I did a search but I haven't found it yet. Don't worry, I will.
"The essential point he made is that for the bipolar supply to be "balanced", the first capacitor(s) (assuming capacitor-input) off each node of the FWBR should be connected across the FWBR, in series with each other, rather than to ground. "
I'm having a problem with "rather than to ground".
Just off the top of my head......that is ground, the point in between the two capacitors (that are in series across the bridge).
I'm I missing something?
Thanks.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
You and Broskie seem to use the same or very similar symbology programs to create your schematics.
I think if the filter is only a single C, then the junction of the two caps would have to be connected to ground, as you show. I think (emphasis on "think") Broskie's point was made using a CLC topology, as I mentioned above. In that case he suggested to ground only the C2 capacitors. The C1s that span the pos and neg nodes of the FWBR should not be grounded for a true balanced supply. I hate to be in the position of quoting Broskie, but I cannot find the reference on TCJ, either. I will look more later tonight. Anyway, when I tried it both ways (grounding C1s vs not grounding C1s) in the bipolar supply for the front end of my OTLs, there were differences in the pos and neg voltages relative to one another, and the 'scope picture was different.
Not setting the ground point until the second set of "C's"?
I guess I need to find and read the article.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
That's it, as I remember it.
I tried it with C1s grounded (as shown by you in your first post) vs as shown by you above. Possibly because of the assymetrical current demands of my circuit (the negative half of the supply also serves to bias the output tubes), it seemed to work a little better with C1s grounded.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The discussion IS most often about the output supply, where Jeff is concerned, so your confusion is understandable. I should have been more clear in my original remark.
Correct Lew,The modern supply is for the finals stage. It has too much ripple for a front end stage of a conventional triode design.
Aspects of a modern supply could possibly apply to the front end, but it is too early in my experimenting with it, to know and work this out.
In a two stage DC amp Lew, where the output stage is "floated" say 185-190 VDC above the first stage, we get to beneficially use a "R-Dropper", which, with a 47 uF cap after it (R1 / C3), has maybe only one millivolt of ripple to the front end. The front end supply is also shunt regulated for B+ stability.
Jeff
Edits: 08/23/12
GREAT Post!
---Dennis---
Hi Dennis !
I can read here so many members different opinions related to Best ( SET ) Tube Amps PSU configuration , sometime Very opposed opinions !!!
But Nobody Never ask here one simple question :
What is the theoretically & practically the Reference point B+ configuration for Tube(SET)Amp PSU configuration ? , or what actually could be the Ultimate & Best ( Sounding ) one B+ Tube Amp PSU ?
My personal opinion is that the Reference point one & Best one B+ DC PSU solution it is hidden in simple everyday lead Battery !
For example : If we connect in series enough 12 V batteries ( or 24 V ) units than we can easy reach typical 300 VDC B+ to run normal 2A3 SET Amp !
No main Transf., no chokes , no elkos , no caps , no rectifiers of any kind , no ..... , just one purest HV DC power source with almost zero ohm of internal resistance ,with around of few Kilo Ampers of instant current delivering capacity , without presence of any ripple, hum , noise or .......
I think that only in this way we can make Amp Reference point B+ PSU for any sort of comparison with sample X , Y , Z .... of standard main AC powered B+ PSU .
Practical historical example :
In his final Amp setup legendary Amps designer Mr.Jean Hiraga has used two series connected big truck battery to power his ultimate` Le Monstre` A class SS power amp ! I don`t think that was accidental idea & solution .
Best Regards !
__
Enlightened Evolution-Astral Projection
What TRE did was point out the obvious to me-- as well as to others. Oh, yes, I was aware of it-- I designed BECAUSE OF it.... but TRE has put it into a logical explanation.
There are two different worlds here-- one-- the majority of DIY'ers-- are designing power supplies for Push-Pull, Class A amps. The L-Critical supply works well enough for those as long as they don't stray out of Class A mode.
As TRE pointed out, even the Class A-- SE amp draws plate current in surges-- according to signal input. This is why I called TRE's post a great post... TRE sees it.
This requires a battery-like power supply. The less internal series resistance it has, the less cap-recharging it requires, and the less inductance-induced bucking it has, then the closer to an ideal battery it is.
Now-- to the battery-- the only batteries I know of that don't suffer from serious diode-effects, varying internal series resistances, straying capacitances, etc., are FLOODED Lead-Acid batteries-- the old Car Battery, which you have kindly shown here.
This is the best battery-- sonically. There are two things to note-- no, make it 3:
(1) The battery can leak acid. (2) It is still a capacitor.... you can live with this in some cases, and (3) Wiring to and from the battery must be short and high-quality. Now, that last one is interesting! I have used umbilicals, and then treated the power, once inside the user-chassis, just like it had come from a normal outside P.S.-- it required clean-up again-- once INSIDE the user chassis. How much? Depends on how the magnetic and static influences inside your listening room are.
Once upon a time, you could take the battery rig outside town, and run the battery direct. Pristine!
NOT anymore! Just LOOK at that bristling, sizzling, sputtering, and intermodulating Distortion Generator sitting atop that Corn Silo over there-- or whatever! It runs Cell Phones-- and what else? No wonder manufacturers are installing AGM or other small Gel-Cells inside of components.
---Dennis---
Dennis Thanks for your response !Just want to say next :
Ben there try that , many years ago I experimented with relative small motorcycle lead acid batteries ( 5-9 AH ) to power both tube or SS Amps .
In both cases Sound reproduction from this Amps was Amazingly good !!!
Never boring , with always present that pure hyper sound quality , regardless which sort of music program was played , Always was the same , just Amazing good sound quality !
For example , I was able to hear any Sound shortcomings which com from the amps , and than was able in the same time to precise locate the problem and to fix that .
Sound was not strange wail covered like in case when I use the same amps powered over associated main AC PSU . Difference was huge !
Any way , is good to experience that pure battery PSU sound ! , since after that nothing was the same when I DIY PSU for my Audio stuff , now I have some very strong PSU Reference point , same as you !BTW , I never experienced any acid leakage problem or something like that with this small lead battery PSU configuration , one of my friend use this configuration even today , for years backwards , his lead batteries holds in average for 5-7 years .
Best Regards !
__
Enlightened Evolution-Astral Projection
Edits: 08/23/12
You're making me think again......
Something new is going to come out of this! I'll divulge it after RMAF 2012.
I asked myself "why not?".
Well, now, I have to answer that!
---Dennis---
Dennis
Yes Why Not !
But if you want to made this pure DC battery PSU Audio test than here is my few important remarks :
1) Always by the same tip of brand name battery manufacturer , but only dry deposed new battery !, so called `silver line` types is the best ones which usually know to last even for 8 years ! . There you well get H2SO4 solvent acid separately , so at your home or somewhere else you have to fill each battery cell with solvent acid to formate each battery ,after that procedure each battery need approx. 45 minutes to stand unconnected to be ready for use .
2) Be sure 1000% that you have some very good quality fuse holder with associated 35 - 50 A fuse placed near as posible to the one battery output terminal , since the level of stored energy in that relative high number of series connected batteries is Extremely High !!! , there every accidental long term DC power line short can cause power conductors melting & Very Nasty battery Explosion !!!
3) The best battery charging method goes with amperage of 1/10 of nominal lead acid battery capacity , for example : If you charge standard motorcycle 12 V / 12 AH lead acid battery than the optimum charge current is 12AH / 10 = 1,2 A max . This charging method assure the longest battery life . Battery recharging need to be done periodically only once at month or two .
Full battery charging is done when every 12 V battery reach 13 - 13,2 V .
Best Regards !
__
Enlightened Evolution-Astral Projection
Maybe I get something going by New Year-- or so!
---Dennis---
Lew,If you read the notes from EEs JLH and Swenson, (which I believe I sent you), source Z is systematically discussed, mostly by JLH.
He points out, it is HARD to obtain a source Z of under 400 Ohms with a conventional / traditional L-Critical choke input.
JLH then shows us how the "modern" (NON L-Critical) supply he uses can obtain a source Z of under 100 Ohms. 85 Ohms as I recall.
Then he goes on to pose a question to us all " Which supply will power the 300B Finals better, a source Z of under 100 Ohms, OR 400 Ohms ??"
Its all there in the compilations I send people.
I rest my case, on this point.
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/21/12 08/21/12 08/21/12
I said:
"The only problem I have had is with the sub-critical micro-choke loading calling it choke loading."
What don't I get?
It is a power supply.
I said that it does not smooth out the ripple enough for me.
"What don't I get?"
I put the error in quotes.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
"higher inductance at lower current." The discussion rarely centers around high amperage commercial voltage distribution equipment. A choke rated at 500ma and used at 100ma still works pretty well.You really don't believe that getting 5 henries of inductance at 200ma with 20 DCR will perform better than 5 henries of inductance at 200ma at 200 DCR? With the chokes actually measured rather than just going by what is printed on the outside.
Edits: 08/21/12
20 Ohms DCR, ahh.... now you are talking.
Are you kidding me Chis, TriodeKingdom uses 145 Ohm chokes to the Finals of his SE 211 amp !!! He has to desperately JUSTIFY his design choices up here and DEFEND his thinking, or lack thereof.
Jeff Medwin
Hi Chris,On the matter of the 12AX7 driving a 2A3 directly, I agree, it takes some special purpose engineering to pull off such a two stage. However, I have had several amateurs and experienced builders build such circuits in the last two years, some with coaching form me, and they all seem quite pleased with the results.
As for Dennis' amps, well, no one will come close to duplicating that I believe. After hearing it extensively for about six years in different settings, I personally think it is the antithesis of a tone control when executed by Dennis. Indeed, it is probably the most neutral and honest amp I have had the pleasure to sit in front of and hear.
On the topic of a modern power supply, I believe you are missing the key point. You state that "an element of noise cancellation exists". This has never ever been claimed. To us who use the design, we believe the supply works well primarily because of its refreshing ability to supply "on time" energy delivery to the finals.
If one reads the chronological power supply posts I compiled by EEs JLH and Swenson, it is difficult NOT to conclude that !! My offer to send the compilations still stands, for anyone who is inquisitive.
By the way, I want you to know, I generally enjoy your posts up here. You have a very good mind. You can be cutting, but I now understand that all, and you are always someone I read.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/20/12
"the supply works well primarily because of its refreshing ability to supply "on time" energy delivery to the finals."
That's an absolute fabrication. Most of the designs you've posted here do exactly the opposite, delivering large amounts of unfiltered 120 Hz. Worse, due to the power supply's lack of energy storage and low Z output capability, the finals are allowed to pump up and down with the supply to an extent that varies to extremes over frequency. I can only think that you and Dennis must be true aficianados of intermod and underdamped audio. Suggestions that anyone build power supplies in this manner do not belong on any forum dedicated to excellence in audio.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
As someone who started out in analog video systems and now works with high speed digital designs, I get really tired of this audio amplifier timing crap.Audio is slow! Sound is slow, 750mph. OTOH electrical energy travels at 66% light speed (in wire). The idea that path delay in [analog] audio circuits is critical is just hogwash.
Now I do obviously understand risetime and how excessive feedback can result in TIM. But that's not what is being proposed by Dennis or Jeff. TIM theory is way over their heads!
Edits: 08/20/12 08/20/12
The only thing that makes this hobby interesting is that there is more than one way to achieve something cool.
The list of people who post here whom I find as knowledgeable is rapidly dwindling to be counted on very few fingers. I don't think a John Curl, or John Lindsey Hood or Dick Sequerra or Rupert Neve would be caught dead here. Ray
"The gift of imagination is a gift of the Gods imparted to a few who receive innumerable kicks in the a$$ their entire life." Le Corbusier (Charles-Édouard Jeanneret)
nt.
Those solid state people are just intolerable. Those 10Y and 300B nuts aren't playing with a full deck. They wear funny shoes when they dance. Let's hate them. They butter their bread on the bottom side! You have to watch those people from Kansas! God, strike a match! We all like to feel comfortable in our beliefs. Intolerance is growing I believe. Ray
"The gift of imagination is a gift of the Gods imparted to a few who receive innumerable kicks in the a$$ their entire life." Le Corbusier (Charles-Édouard Jeanneret)
Anyway one looks at it, I get information that allows a better DIY design. Sometimes I forget or other times I simply have no experience. So, I still win with bickering or not.
We should be open to new ideas, and this Forum is a perfect place to post same.
CPwill, I have one comment for you :
Besides yourself, ALL of the people who are agreeing with you in this post, (1) have never properly built a modern power supply to experience it directly, and (2) ALL of these same people have never heard the amps of Dennis' we are discussing.
I find this observation worthy to bring to people's attention.
'Quite fantastic an observation ....and telling.
Jeff Medwin
1) Many EEs (like me) are not willing to spend a lot of time and money on an unsubstantiated idea that flies in the face of established theory.
2) Most of the populous are either unable or unwilling to fork over $15,000 for a pair Dennis' infamous amps, and so will never "experience" their sound, and therefore have to believe you "on faith".
Have you purchased a pair of Dennis's amps?
"Quite fantastic an observation" - Not really.
No, I don't have the funds to do that, I simply appreciate the product .
Well do you have the funds just for the parts? I think you do.You have known Dennis for many years. Help him with his rooms at shows. You relentlessly advertised his products over the years.
Surely if Dennis is a good friend he would build you a pair of his amps for the cost of the parts? At the very least he could supervise your construction of the amp.
Edits: 08/20/12
Hi Gusser,Can you loan me about 1.2 Grand for all the multiple film bypass caps for the Rks?? About 24 required, DynamiCaps, Mundorf Silver Oil and Golds??
Maybe I will just use Russian caps that Messers Mike Samra and Twisted would employ, for $90. That is doable !!
Still about 70% done, sitting in my living room, waiting for love, attention and a DIY Synergy speaker design by multi-talented JLH.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/20/12 08/20/12 08/21/12
Are you serious? 24 caps in parallel to bypass Rk of the output tube? How do all those caps fit in the chassis?
Six for each tube's Rk, four tubes for stereo. Carefully selected, by ear.
Jeff
$1200/24 = $50 per cap (on average). That's insane.
I'd love to measure the impedance over frequency of the result of placing six non-identical (I assume) caps in parallel.
Jeff,
I'd illustrate a method with which could you DC couple that last stage without the need for $1,500 worth of bypass caps, no bypass caps at all.
NO negative bias supply or DC blocking caps required, no big electro bias supply caps in the AC signal loop.
Stacked supplies, yes, and they cost alot less than $1,500.
You've barked on about this for too long. Let it go, your method sucks.
Have I heard it?.. well, I can tell you what I have heard enough of.
Shane
Shane,You seem to only be talking theoretically, and it seems like you are looking for Ferrari performance at a Yugo price.
If stacked supplies were really great, I am SURE I would adopt that method. But for my own various reasons, described below, I elect not to. There is NO free lunch Shane.
One BIG disadvantage in two stage DC circuits is that a stacked supply eliminated the use of an R-Dropper, and beneficially having 1 mVAC at the driver stage due to this NEEDED R/C. Another disadvantage is, that surprisingly - separate supplies, (TOTALLY unlike conventionally coupled amps), does sound WORSE in a two stage DC amp, I have built and A-Bed this in 2010.
Shane, a stacked supply on a two stage DC amp will "pass a signal", but I am seeking best possible performance level I know how to execute. Ferrari.
Capish ??
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/22/12
Jeff,
I actually have a Ferrari, two of them. The WRX really is quicker, more reliable, and handles better to boot. The best part is that it sounds better too. That nasal tone at between 6-9k RPM plain sucks - and for that reason it reminds me of your bias method. Ferarri - yes, I agree. "-)
Shane
has a downside. That is why there are a million different audio systems out there. No single product will satisfy everyone and for legitimate reasons.
Jeff,I think there are a couple of points you are missing here.
1) You frequently post about various methods in a way which suggests they are the only way of doing things properly. For a start, many of us build in different ways for different reasons, and we may not like to be put in the wrong. More significantly, there are a number of highly trained and skilled engineers here who will, understandably, refer to generic electronic theory and practice when what you say contradicts this.
2) You put forward the view that your system and that of Dennis sounds better than other people's systems. Not only can this rarely be proved - I mean, our systems span the world and are never going to be assembled in one room - but again, people who invest a lot of time and passion in their systems do not want to be told they're wrong.
Can I suggest that your response to this thread maintains your isolation - you're just re-stating that you are right. This clearly hasn't worked in the past and doesn't look likely to work in the future.
If you could shift to a position of "this is one way of doing it, for better or for worse" rather than "this is the only way" or "this is the best way" then I think a lot of the friction would go away.
It's your choice here.
Andy
Edits: 08/19/12
Andy,
You are one heck of an author, well written !!
Yes, I am aware of both your points, and I fully consider them.
Also Andy, I will not change a thing. My goal is to discuss the best way I know of to do things, and try to pass it on to others who might be interested. That is what I post about. High performance audio. ALL else is of little importance. If I "mentally unsettle" you or some of the readers, so be it. Growth can occur when our beliefs and understandings are challenged.
I am not here to coddle. I am not here to baby sit unimaginative people.
I get tired hearing whimpy and lazy whiners who don't build or listen, in a thread like this. I absolutely hate whiners.
All I ask is that people build something !!! LISTEN to it! How does it sound to you? Do you get a THRILL out of something that sounds really good? I still do !!
Sincerely,
Jeff Medwin
nt
I like the Grape when mixed with an extra 1/2 cup of sugar, then shaken with a 50/50 mix of Russian Standard vodka. The "Grapetini" is a favorite at summer time BBQ's around my house. It goes well with fish, chicken and even solid state.
It's probably safe to say that Jeff and the other guys who rant about the "Low DCR" circuitry have built and listened to many amplifiers based on the the technologies others are defending, but I doubt there are many who denounce the "Modern Power Supply" that have actually built or even had the opportunity to listened to one. I think I would like to experience it myself before passing judgement.
This is a DIY forum. Most are members because they enjoy the hobby, take pride in their builds and can produce top quality gear at a substantial savings. Because of this, I doubt there are many in this "Insane Asylum" who would be buyers on the retail amplifiers built by Dennis.
Mis dos pesos de mis amigos
I've stayed out of this argument for a long time because I believe it's pointless, divisive, and perhaps ultimately ruinous for this forum. Arguing with a prophet against his god and theology is senseless.
Jeff/Dennis supporters and defenders often charge that those who question their theories have never heard the resulting product.
I have and I didn't like them.
About four years ago - and this is an indication how long this has been dominating this forum - I attended an audio event in Vancouver, WA. Dennis was one of the vendors and I wanted to see and hear what all the fuss was about. I visited his room twice and spent about an hour each time. I have nothing to say about how they were designed or built other than that their appearance is quite ordinary. The sound isn't. He was playing a lot of country, which I like, but the very clear sound of Patsy Cline's tongue clicking off the roof of her mouth isn't something I want to hear more than once. Dennis has made it very clear that's the level of detail he designs and builds for.
Please note this is about sound preference for both Dennis and me - it's subjective, intensely personal, and also is the point that Jeff and Dennis distain and dismiss. My reaction may very well been to the digital source, a hard drive, Dennis used. I just don't like that sound, but even with an analogue source, it's highly unlikely I would have started saving toward the $15,000.
I don't think arguing with Jeff and Dennis to protect innocent newbies is necessary. We all had to learn, made mistakes, and had project failures. We learned and moved on. So will they. I think a dose of Jeff and Dennis benign neglect wouldn't be an all together bad thing, but on the other hand, they have created, ironically from egregious example, occasional chances for excellent learning opportunities by way of rebuttal.
The loss to the forum I really regret is the exodus of numerous former knowledgeable, informative, generous and literate posters, who I believe gave up in dismay.
Peace,
Doug
NICE POST, but you can eliminate the prophet baloney.
It sometimes takes more than two one-hour visits at one show, to really figure out what is going on.
It has taken me about five RMAFs, listening THROUGH some crummy digital, and some better digital, and crummy rooms, to satisfy my self-understanding of what the gear can do.
I understand your point, and I heard about that show, but sometimes the truth isn't blatantly obvious in a quickly set-up Audio Show hotel room.
That is just the way it is ! Thanks for posting none the less.
Jeff Medwin
When ever somebody does hear the infamous SS 2a3 and doesn't like it, we get a shovel full!
Jeff,
That was a gracious reply and I appreciate it. And not necessarily unexpected - I mean nobody who's owned three 356A s can be all bad, right?
And you're right about the "prophet baloney." That was gratuitous.
My first point was that Dennis and presumably you have achieved the sound you want. It's not the sound I design or build toward and my second point was that has to be OK. It's cool and a joy to share what we've discovered, maybe especially when we're wildly enthusiastic about it, but I think it's best when it's offered as a gift with no strings or demands.
Thanks,
Doug
Hi Doug,It was just one 1957 356A Super Speedster. But, I did have two, maybe three 1961 356B Super Roadsters, my favorite body style.
Information IS offered by me, always as a gift, with no strings attached.
(1) I have compiled a great set of notes from two of perhaps the best EEs on this forum, (and that ain't "Triode Kingdom and :Gusser" !!), John L. Hasquin, (the fellow who designed and built the mid bass horns for Romy The Cat), and John Swenson, most respected EEs, both of them. It is their explanation of modern supplies, and their testing and theory.
It has to be sent as an email attachment, and I am always pleased to do so, to anyone, IF people will send me their email address.
(2) I have written a fairly complete and very comprehensive article on how to build a SE DC amp, 2A3 style. It starts with the Asano and Shishido circuits, and proceeds from there. I don't offer it to everyone, but I would like to send it to you for your reference, since you seem to be "into it" and honest. No cost what so ever, buildable with wire-modded off the shelf parts from Hammond, Edcor, Traid, etc. I have had superb feedback from those who built it.
My email address is above, and I would need yours. I am quick on the return.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/20/12
At last we can agree on something with no qualifications. Having owned about 8 Speedsters and 3 Roadsters over a period of ~35 years, I too prefer the Roadster.
You also had a, what was it, an RS 550, No, a 550 Spyder !! THAT is cool Lew, you are the only 550 owner I know in my life.Never realized you had multiple Roadsters like me.
When I was a teenager, my older brother and I took the train to NYC and Stu (a junior at PSU) picked up a brand new white 1961 Roadster from Max Hoffman, and we drove it home. What a thrill. I was stuck on '61 356B Roadsters... from that moment on.
My last '61 had Speedster "BBAB" gears installed by Al Cadrobbi, and a hotter camshaft in it...was fun on the street, special !! Like a modern supply is, no, not really THAT good at all.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/22/12
I had just about every type of 356, including a '59 Carrera GT Speedster, as well as the 550. My 550 was two serial numbers from James Dean's actual car. The key word is "had". I am a Porsche has been. I don't like to think about the fact that I sold them all too soon.
Jeff,
You're still, regrettably, three or maybe four Porsches up on me.
Thanks for your offer of a compilation of the work by Swenson and Hasquin. I've followed their posts here for some time, especially Swenson's, even when it was well over my head.
And thanks again for the offer of help with an SET. I got started with those years ago, but have since gone over to the dark side - PP, pentodes, NFB. I know, the horror, the horror. I found I like what I call "enhanced vintage" sound. I haven't built any amps for at least four years and have been building tone arms and turntables, recently.
This has been an interesting exchange.
Doug
Doug,
No problem with vintage P-P. Hell, I use older stuff, and solid state , no problem for me at all. Whatever works, sounds good !! Also, I LOVE re-doing tonearms and tables.
My last phono change, earlier this year, was to have a friend re-bearing my tonearm, from steel balls to ceramic bearings. Holey smokes, it plays "the whole envelope" as they say in audiophile speak.
This is good, because since 1962, I collected a LOT of LPs, around 10,000.
Write to me email (Private Mail) sometimes. Cheers.
Jeff Medwin
he's telling you to shut up flabber lips.
This asylum has already been split once, when the non-DIY SET fans were banished to their own forum. (A noticeably more civil board, by the way - at least at the moment.)
I'll remind everyone again, we are all social creatures, looking for dialogue. If we weren't we would not be hanging around on internet forums! Replying to someone's post encourages them to post more.
Single ended triode is not the be all end all of tube amplifier design. For those that are satisfied with it they have reached a system end point that provides the sound qualities they are seeking but it's not for or to everyone's taste. The same with OTL amps different niches.
Excellent point.
It is indeed our own decision to engage, or not engage in a discussion.
Adam
“I was born not knowing and have only had a little time to change that here and there.” Richard Feynman
At first I tried to reason with Dennis, thinking he was confused.Now that I know he is delusional, the only reason I post is to counter the misinformation he spews.
Hopefully when he dodges the straight up technical questions I ask, the 'new to the hobby guys' won't buy into his BS and become confused themselves.
That's really the only reason. I gave up on convincing Dennis of anything long ago.
I know it gets old but can his misinformation go unchallenged?
Someone ask if I were an equal opportunity gadfly. I don't see myself as a gadfly but I am equal opportunity.
Just the other day I called TubeDepot because of the misinformation on their JJ 2a3-40 webpage.
It said something like "40 watts of Class A power" leaving the reader with the impression that one could get 40 watts of output power to the speaker.
The simple truth is, the tube is rated at 40 watts max. plate dissipation. That's very different than 40 watts of output power.
The person I spoke with was very nice. He understood what I was saying and corrected the website that very day.
I don't believe misinformation should go unchallenged. That only causes confusion.
I vote yes. Split Asylums would be fine with me. Or Dennis could just spend the money and get his own sponsored asylum and leave the other asylums alone.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/19/12 08/19/12
Here's a simpler solution than building another forum. Simply banish Jeff and Dennis to the tweaks and cable forums. They eat this stuff up over there.Keep the DIY forum focused on the engineering of tube amplifiers.
Now there's nothing wrong with unconventional ideas. The technological world was built on that and continues to grow from it as well. But if you are going to propose an unconventional idea as fact and ram it down our throats, you better have a repeatable and verifiable theory and test method. This "I can hear it and you can't on your low resolution system" is just plain crap.
Likewise I see nothing wrong with proposing a bizarre new theory as a question. "I did this and it sounded like that. I don't know why". That's OK too.
And one more thing. I for one an getting sick of the veiled advertising for Serious Stereo. There are many other vendors here who act in a highly professional manner with regards to their own products, McShane Audio comes to mind. And equally interesting, it's not really Dennis that is the problem here. He is actually quite good about not promoting his own products to make a point. Jeff on the other hand can't seem to get beyond two posts without mentioning the greatness of Serious Stereo. Get's old very quickly.
Edits: 08/19/12 08/19/12
Gusser,
You post this :
"you better have a repeatable and verifiable theory and test method."
I DO have that, and you were sent all the measurements and theory by me from your fellow E.Es, John Hasquin and John Swenson, two months ago.
"you better have a repeatable and verifiable theory and test method.".
Did not take the time to read it, as you said you would? Was there something in their test and procedures you didn't quite understand?
What you post, and what is reality, differ. How much time did you spend with the write ups??
I can report whatever I please, as long as I am honest and as often as I want, about Dennis' 2A3 amp build. It uses a "modern" supply, Dennis invented the approach, in 1989, and its existence, is proof, that the design works at the highest possible levels. I have no monetary interest in Serious Stereo, Dennis behaves well, but those amps use the supply concepts I ascribe to. Dennis deserves my accolades, I have auditioned his amps in a variety of venues over six years. It is easily, IMHO, the best 2A3 amp ever made in the history of mankind. So THAT is what you are screwing with Gusser, and I LIKE to remind you about it.
Its existence, disproves any of the nay sayers. Its a reality check !!
Jeff Medwin
> Simply banish Jeff and Dennis to the tweaks and cable forums.
Not so simple. This forum belongs to Stereophile, and the market this magazine is devoted to is full of blatant charlatanry which is a gold mine for too many.
Apart from banishing these 2 persons with their odd yet not harmful tweaks and theories, following the same logic one have to banish probably 80% of Stereophile content.
And after all there is a freedom of speech. We should not subject anyone to the silence/ban/censorship on the basis of disagreement no matter of subject (if not criminal of course).
"We should not subject anyone to the silence/ban/censorship on the basis of disagreement..."Why not? Other groups do. I was banned from the Nikon forum for politely suggesting that lenses made in China might not be as good as lenses made in Japan. Turns out the admins wanted product promotion, not discussion. In my experience, that's pretty common on Internet forums.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Edits: 08/19/12
> > This forum belongs to Stereophile,
Really? How so?
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
> > This forum belongs to Stereophile,
> Really? How so?
It may not be direct ownership (registrars of these 2 web sites are different), but close relationship is obvious. There are a plenty of other popular online forums devoted to audio, but this is only one where almost entire editorial staff of Stereophile is present.
I may rephrase "ownership" to "Stereophile gentleman online club" to be more precise on the subject.
of "where almost entire editorial staff of Stereophile is present."
Thanks!
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
> Please provide specific examples,
It is called Critic's Corner :-)
not Critic's Corner.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
It does?
I didn't know that. That puts things in a different light.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
FYI.
I alerted the moderator:
"Can you please confirm this?
Thanks .
While not physically harmful, some of these wild assed suggestions can be mentally harmful to a novice "just trying to have fun" which is often the quote used here.Example, telling people they need to trim stereo wiring within 1/4 of an inch. To someone that is using a soldering iron and wire strippers for the first time this can be daunting. Enough so to scare them away period.
Then to go on and further trash professionals who poses the experience and education, none of which the favorite challenger admittedly has, is just absurd. (Actually I think this helps though because saying publicly the EE community is backwards, outdated, and incompetent, just reinforces the person stating such is a loon. All you have to do is pull out your smart phone to see that!)
As for the 1/4 inch wire theory I do believe the followers of that really believe it. And they are correct too! An audio signal will get the the end of the shorter wire first, even within fractions of an inch. Physics proves that. Just look at any modern computer mother board. Look at the traces that are zigzagged like a sinewave! Well that's timing to make sure all the bits in a parallel buss arrive at the next latch at the same time. That is within the clock pulse stable window.
But due to their lack of deeper education and understanding these "audio experts" fail to grasp the concept of relevance. Just how much faster does the signal arrive in terms of pico seconds and how does that influence an audio band signal? Or even a PC motherboard from the early 1980s. Do you see those built in physical delays there? No, because at 5mhz buss speed, it was not significant. Certainly not even a remote issue in a base band audio device.
The often promoted concept here that "everything makes an audible difference" is just hogwash. Want proof? As I always say, just look at studio grade audio equipment. Why is none of this practiced there? Now you can say this is not reference grade equipment all you want but the fcat remains this stuff is what produces the reference grade material you listen too. CD's. LPs, whatever, don't come from heaven. They come from recording studios!
Edits: 08/19/12 08/19/12 08/19/12 08/19/12
I thought I remembered reading that Pink Floyd used something other than "Engineer Approved" cabling in their studio. A quick Google search turned up this from Six Moons. I believe there's other articles, if anyone's interested in finding them.
I have no axe to grind in this subjective vs objective argument. I will say that I come here more for the technical aspects than I do the tweaky stuff. I want to learn the basics. However, I will also admit that I have (or some would say I believe I have) heard differences among interconnects and speaker wire in highly unscientific, but otherwise blind listening tests.
I wouldn't have chimed in, except to interject that "none of this is practiced there" doesn't seem to be entirely correct. Maybe some studios are Kool-Aid drinkers, or maybe they heard something. I will certainly agree (based on your experience and my assumption) that most studios probably use "proper" cabling in the engineering sense.
My 2¢
"Crest National's new state-of-the-art 5.1 control playback studio consists of Halcro amplifiers, Meitner Labs multi-channel DACs and switching controls and Eggleston Works speakers.
Based on recommendations from top studio executives and mastering engineers, Crest requested a complete Shunyata Research power and signal cable evaluation system and ended up purchasing our Hydra power distribution center, Anaconda and Taipan power cables and the Constellation Series interconnect and speaker cables.
British Astoria Studio, owned by Pink Floyd's David Gilmour, is one of the most respected recording studios in the world. Astoria too uses a complete Shunyata Research power distribution and delivery system, as do Doug Sax and James Guthrie and recording studios in Japan and Germany."
I see no UL or other recognized test lab certification on the Shunyata power products.Why not?
These are expensive supposedly superior products yet they cannot hold even the most basic safety certifications?
All these proprietary insulation materials? How do we know they don't chemically breakdown over time? How do we know they are effective at line voltages?
Hmmm I can go to Wall-Mart and buy a $3 extension cord that has the official UL certification but $1200 and up for a power cord and I get no assurance it is safe to plug in? What's this crap?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, cost of the tests and a niche market. Tough. Get out of the power cord business then unless you can prove safety compliance. Stick with interconnects which are not regulated by safety standards.
And I especially like the new "Tron" series using the official Tron movie color scheme. I hope Disney sues the !@#* out of them! Get these charlatans off the market!
BTW, simply using UL listed connectors and even UL listed cable stock doesn't grant approval. Any cable assembly must be tested AS AN ASSEMBLED UNIT to qualify. Furthermore anytime you modify a UL listed product such as take it apart, or even cryogenic treatment you void the listing.
Edits: 08/19/12 08/19/12 08/19/12 08/19/12
Crest Audio in Hollywood! (now defunct)I happen to know the engineer that built that room. He is highly competent and accomplished. I saw that room when built and did ask why all the voodoo stuff.
He had a very good explination. Crest was one of the first companies to offer mastering of SCAD and other high end formats. Well the record company needs to sell this higher priced format. They need to demo the advantages to their high end dealers. So if you are building a listening / demo room, you better use the familiar high end products.
Very old saying at work again, When in Rome.....
Now here's mine: That new facility opened in December 2011 has no esoteric wire what so ever. Mostly Gepco and Belden. Technicolor is the largest DVD / BluRAy mastering company in the world. So next time you fire up a Dolby Digital True HD soundtrack, remember it went through ordinary communications wiring.
And once again show me the lab results of the claims these manufactures make. I think it's Shunyata that always shows waveform pictures as a artists rendition. Why? There were scope cameras since the 1960s and today even cheap scopes have digital image capture capabilities. If the results are that good why not show us the actual scope picture?
Edits: 08/19/12
My "highly unscientific" experience was when I was in an audio club years ago. We had four or five different interconnects, most of them DIY type. One guy would change out the interconnect between the CD player and preamp. He would tell us when he made a change, but it was otherwise blind to us as to which one was being used.
Four of us listened and wrote down our preferences. All four of us chose the same interconnect (a hollow sliver tube with Teflon spaghetti covering) as the best. If memory serves me, three of us chose the same one as our next favorite. Hardly scientific, but I found it interesting. It certainly eliminated the "These are the prettiest" or "These cost the most" bias.
That being said, when I wanted to learn more about working on tube equipment, I took a basic electronics course at a local community school. This was basic, AC, DC, resistance, Ohm's Law, etc. stuff. When we got to the part about electrons moving through wire I remember thinking "How can wire make any difference to the sound?" while learning the concept. And this was from an elementary course in electricity.
I can only imagine the level of doubt I'd have developed if I'd pursued an EE degree.
Interesting about the silver tubular wire. Where the heck did the guy get such a thing? There used to be, or may still be, a commercial audio wire that consisted of a copper tube. I always had it in mind to try copper plumbing tubing as speaker wire but never have (because as noted, I have kind of lost interest in the subject in favor of more substantive ways to improve my gear). Air dielectric of copper plumber's tube is a good thing, but the quality of copper is probably very low, and there's no insulation, unless you add some.
One of the guys in our audio club was a silver dealer. I believe John (the guy who made them) got the wire (or rather, tube) from him. He used a translucent Teflon tube over the silver, and Odyssey non-magnetic RCA plugs.
Here's one link, but I don't see sliver. I'm betting someone has it, if you're interested.
Now that I think about it more, two of the DIY wires in our experiment were Mogami microphone cable. One with two conductors (which I made) and another with a spiraled four conductors. The consensus was that the four sounded better than the two. That could have been attributable to better shielding, or less resistance.
I'm a skeptic about much of the magic mojo, I will admit. I know my post doesn't imply that, but I do try and keep an open mind. Start telling me that you put crystals inside your breaker box though, and you're going to see my eyes roll. Sorry.
that I cannot read most of the threads on Tweaker's Asylum without laughing. (However, the late Al Sekala used to post over there on Tweaker's, and he had to be taken seriously, as he was a brilliant guy.)
But I believe there are sound principles that may explain why some wire sounds different from other wire, in some instances (stranded vs solid core, differences in geometry, capacitance/inductance, characteristic impedance, etc.). I don't want to start a debate or participate in one, however.
LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I can only imagine the level of doubt I'd have developed if I'd pursued an EE degree."
Cool observations.
Thanks.
One of the audio rags (Stereo Review?) did a speaker cable shootout back in the early '80s. I wish I still had the article, because the conclusion after repeated double blind tests was that 18 ga. zip cord was every bit as sonically accurate for lengths of 25' and less (if memory serves) than the boutique wires, including very large Monster Cable with gold connectors and specially brazed ends. Above that length, all the way to 100', 16 ga. zip cord was as good as anything on the market. Some of us with years of experience already knew to anticipate such results, but it was a pleasant affirmation to see it in writing from a panel of recognized experts.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
So sue me; I hear differences among wires. At least lets say that I think I do. But I don't find much correlation between cost and sound quality, and by the way, those "very large Monster Cables with gold connectors" that were de rigeur in the 80s, were indeed shit. (I know, because I owned and used a 20-foot pair.) The best thing I ever did for my system back then was to dump those monstrous Monster Cables in favor of whatever wire came next. No surprise that 18-ga zip cord would sound better. And any way, to say that the 18-ga cable sounded "better" than the Monster Cables is to admit that there indeed are differences among cables in terms of "sound".
Exactly, I focus on the stereo gear, not big dollars in speaker wires. Duh.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I still hear differences among wires (but I don't stay up nights worrying about it).
A lot of times, when people hear a difference between speaker wire or interconnects, what they are really hearing is a clean connection. Cables and wires can often corrode, very slowly, and it isn't noticed over a long period of time, but when cables are changed, and a new clean connection is made, you can hear the difference.
I agree completely with what you say. That is why I make certain to clean the contact points of all connectors very carefully. Moreover, whenever practical, I remove connectors from the signal path entirely. No connector sounds as good as direct connection. I hear a benefit also from certain contact enhancers. Having said that, I still maintain that I hear differences among wires. Or at least I used to hear differences; I no longer do much experimentation on that level, now I know what I like.
Gusser, while I have no doubts in your professional experience and knowledge of electronics, you seem to be don't aware of some sales and marketing crap.
There is quite large boutique market driven be beliefs and stereotypes which have nothing common with engineering, science and even healthy logic.
A $30,000 leather hand bag, $1,000,000 watch, and $20,000 cable are all from the same boutique market niche. Those who sell that stuff have to create some kind of legend, belief, public opinion, press coverage, whatever. And those who buy it seem to be enjoying it.
It is not possible to stop this process, and moreover, there are no reasons to do so. Its a free market after all.
These marketing types prey on the uninformed. The less education someone has in electronics or acoustics, the more likely they are to part with money for the hyped product. They actually believe all the misinformation that floods the internet. And the more its repeated by other uneducated types, the more they believe its true.
By the way, has anyone heard the new loudspeaker drivers using boa hide diaphragms? Virtually perfect transient response. They can easily reproduce a 20kHz square wave. Very pricy, but worth every penny.
The $1,000,000 watch doesn't typically say it holds time better than a Wall Mart digital watch.The $30,000 hand bag doesn't boast to protect you items better than a K-Mart vinyl bag.
OTOH, the $20,000 cable often makes scientific claims that are not plausible, testable, or repeatable in the real world.
And when it goes too far, the Feds do step in.
1) The Monster cable scam at Circuit City years ago where they had a rig comparing a 50 foot roll of 14ga or so Monster cable to a 50' roll of 24ga speaker wire. Yep, the Monster cable does sound fuller and more lively!
2) The more recent scam at Best Buy where they had two identical TVs, one supposedly "professionally calibrated" by their extended service plan and the other out just of the box.
Problem is somebody like me looked behind the display and found the calibrated TV was being fed HDTV and the un-calibrated TV was fed with the SDTV output of the satellite box. I don't know if it was legal interaction by the local DA or just public embarrassment but they did end up scrapping that demo.
Edits: 08/19/12 08/19/12
God help the vinyl enthusiasts, but perhaps Dennis and Jeff belong in the Vinyl Asylum. After all, they do sound like broken records. Almost every post by others seems to come back to Kimber wire, direct coupling in a two stage design, low everything, and a precious few other issues in their contorted minds (it is an asylum after all). They just seem to hijack too many post, and then, you and your band of defenders of truth and justice need to come to the rescue, but move things further from the OP's topic.
BTW, I get your point about Jeff appearing as a none top well disguised incognito sales rep for Dennis. For almost a year I thought Dennis as Jeff imaginary friend.
.
You (and Triode Kingdom) are not alone. Check it out some times, the Fairy Queen banished Iolanthe for 25 years, she lived among the frogs !
London ffss OSA 1215, two LP set, great !! D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, one of my favorites Neff. All in this series are excellent, naturally recorded.
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/20/12 08/20/12
The forum issue was one of two incidents that convinced me Nikon no longer values the enthusiast market. So, I bought a Canon full frame (35mm) DSLR and a number of excellent *Japanese* lenses. It took nearly a year to sell off my considerable collection of Nikon gear, but it was the best decision I ever made. I have since shot tens of thousand of frames in the U.S. and Asia, many of which would have been nearly impossible with my previous equipment. Someday I'll thank Nikon for providing the incentive to explore other avenues. :)
West Lake, Hangzhou, China
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Edits: 08/20/12 08/20/12
I had no idea you were such a beautiful photographer. Wow - respect!
Andy
Thanks, Andy. If I get a few shots like that each year, I'm happy. :)
Do you shoot much?
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
I used to have a lot of Leica SLR stuff. I was never very good, but did enjoy taking photos - it's a lovely process, wandering about and trying to get your eye working artistically so you see things in a different way. My son's a designer - he's very visual. I'm a musician - very auditive. I struggle to express myself visually but I love art - the visual side is probably dormant in me. I'm more into making things. My Dad was an amateur architect - never stopped designing new houses. We spent a lot of my early years laying bricks in driveways and painting walls....
Andy
I believe the underlying talents for creating music and visual art are simply not related. I am also "musically aware," and I struggle with photography. Only after shooting thousands of rolls of print and slide film over the last 20 years have I finally achieved techniques in a few genres of the art that work well for me. Music, on the other hand, is something I have always felt and understood keenly. I'm no virtuoso, but sitting at the keyboards or picking up a guitar for a few minutes always recharges my batteries. :)
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
I do not feel bad. Like I said I benefit here at AA. Arguments? Brings forth a lot of ideas. Come to NYC and you will find everyone argues a lot- perhaps the most argumentitive city on the planet. Like they say here- 'forget about it'.
I worked and lived in NYC, Upper East Side, and Brooklyn Heights, from about 1997-1999.I grew up on the East coast, Trenton, New Jersey and Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
NY is more civil now, than when we were kids !
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 08/20/12
Cpwill: I thought the very same thing for quite a while. Has anyone actually seen the two of them together in the same place at the same time?
"but Patty can only see the sites a girl can see from Brooklyn Heights. What a crazy pair." It was amazing what the could do back then, and with Photoshop now.
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: