Improved Marantz 9??

RE: Improved Marantz 9??, posted on March 21, 2017 at 13:07:26
Salectric Audiophile Posts: 1358 Location: East Coast Joined: February 23, 2003	Circuit boards; big heat sinks indicating solid state stuff somewhere; generic quality parts on the circuit boards; horizontal mounting of all output tubes; cooling fans. No thanks!

RE: Improved Marantz 9??, posted on March 21, 2017 at 18:14:38

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

Well, you certainly have an easy one-- almost
ANYTHING will easily outperform a Marantz 9-- my
all-time candidate for THE WORST tube amp of all time.

I had several. And all the "Mac" stuff as well-- even
the biggies-- the MI-200 and the 1000 mono.

Back to the Marantz 9 and the "8".

The 8 used two EL34, had a two-diode solid
state rectifier, used ordinary parts and capacitors.

Like the 9, it was finished nicely in Brown-painted
steel. The "8"-- and its later improved model
actually had a tiny window on music. You could almost
stand to listen to it, and it didn't blow-up tubes
like the 9 which used 4 EL34.

The Model 9 was EXTREMELY unstable. Almost anything
would send one or more EL34 into running a "red" plate.
Thermal runaway, of course, and parasitic oscillations
Galore!

The 9 also had ZERO bass by today's standards, and it
homogenized music into a mish-mash of signal collisions,
all vieing for your speaker's attention. Unstable?
Ridiculously so!

To make matters even worse, capacitor-input imparted a
sort of "in a Tin Can" sound to everything it tried to
play, which it could not.

The stock amp was "voiced" so that what it did reproduce
favored the midrange and upper midrange. No, it didn't have
any "highs" by today's standards. By leaving out important
parts of music-- by accentuating the midrange and upper
midrange (by omission of most else), the Model 9 became
popular among some audiophiles of the day who owned speakers
that favored the amp's tuning....

Dr. Charles A. Halijak-- Dean of E.E. at Huntsville, Alabama
(Alabama State U.), used the Model 9 to teach students
WHAT NOT to do in designing an amplifier for music.

Various students devised "fixes" for the 9's-- shall we say--
less than exemplary performance. Basically, low-DCR chokes were
applied utilizing choke-input, all negative feedback was
eliminated, plate currents were reduced, a Common-Mode
cancelling network was applied across the power tube's
cathodes, and across all power tube control grids..
The "9" gained bandwidth, actual drive-power, and stability.

When all was said and done, you had a decent amp with 15 watts.
Of course, it had at least 10 times more power than the old
much higher watt rating because it was now a stable amplifier.

Those crappy old electrolytic capacitors also got replaced
by film or foil types, or by military-grade Oils such as G.E.
Pyranol, etc.

Better coupling caps also got installed and Gee Whiz! The
thing was starting to almost perform with a Stone-Stock
McIntosh MC-60-- which could be greatly improved also, by
applying the same methods.

-Dennis-

What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 18:57:15

Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12364
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001

...this surely explains current pricing of these vintage abominations.

I'm unaware of any of Dr. Charles A. Halijak's commercially successful audio designs. Got any links to info regarding products he designed and/or had a hand in designing and bringing to market? Schematic(s) would be really cool too.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 19:25:14

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

Re-read my last post-- I had left something out
and have put it in...

Charles was a EE professor and not commercial.

He was a genius in that he could think for
himself, and not get caught-up in the EE Gospel
of the "scientific" community of the day.

Charle's improvements were given out Gratis
to all who would listen, and were usually
student-proven in his lab.. As he got older, he
just sort of faded away.... his students revered
him to a man... One day Charles was simply gone.

He had died, and all of his former students honored
him-- as I did.

Charles and I had exchanged hundreds of pages of
letters that we had sent to each other over the years.
Nobu Shishido (Japan) was another of my contacts,
Nobu was always asking me questions and getting
out-of-the-box answers.

One day, Nobu too was gone. Nobu had a Heart Attack in
Japan while riding on the Subway. Nobu and his friends
had founded WAVAC-- a High-End amplifier and preamp
innovator. Nobu liked transmitting tubes and S.E.
amplifiers, as I did.

Charles was a push/pull man exclusively. We had all sorts
of arguments for/against either case. He got the best
measurements, I got the best sound.

Both men stand tall today. I don't have any of our old
correspondence as I lost all of it in a giant Forest Fire
which took-out my shops and home.

It's all still with me as memories, and all my tools
and test equipment are brand-new. Nothing in print remains
with me, but my older (2004- on) posts on TUBEDIY contain
everything you will ever need about amplifiers. Of course,
as in Charle's day, anything that deviates from established
"scientific" religion on the subject gets "proven wrong"
in a big hurry.

That's the world we live in. If you want something great,
start thinking about Common-Sense instead of what you are
everyday being told.

-Dennis-

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 20:08:15

hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4308
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006

Loving SET amps answers where you are coming from. Every amp has its type of colorations and you like lots of second harmonic a very pretty distortion. SET amps are very non-linear. They can't even reproduce a simple sine wave into a real load. Their topology(meaning it can't be cured) causes compression of the negative half of a signal relative to the positive half which is the source of the second harmonic.

If that's what you like it's fine but it's apples and oranges.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 20:43:58

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

I really never cared about what topology was in use,
but I Do want reproduced music to sound like the
recording that is delivered to the music buyer.

Basically, push/pull is a processor in that it
possesses Common-Mode (any voltage that is common to
both sides of a differential circuit) Rejection,
called CMR by engineers.

Differential circuits and balanced connections are
used by studio engineers to overcome the Common Mode
distortions that are in building wiring, etc., by
cancelling them out to some extent.

It is just common sense that this same circuitry
will also cancel-out any form of musical expression
that also occurs in the Common Mode.

So, with differential circuitry and balanced connections,
you are PROCESSING the signal-- Push/pull is a PROCESSOR.

This kind of processing is in wide use in recording
studios for one reason only-- it's quieter. Signal-to-noise
ratio is higher.

The severe disadvantage of processing musical expression
in order to obtain high S/N exacts a price: a LOT of the
music is attenuated because the differential circuitry and
balanced connections cannot determine whether the artifact
should be processed-out, or not. Any music signal/s that
is/are in the Common-Mode WILL be attenuated, period.

This process is NOT linear musically. It only MEASURES
linear in the portion of signal that remains, and this
is NOT the entire signal.

THE BEST recording labs are 100% Single-Ended. This isn't
practical on a commercial scale, so is only done by small,
extremely high-performance recording studios where noise
can be avoided in-house by using special high-quality
wiring, and very short wiring together with ultra-quiet
in-house power..

The reason S.E. can sound better is because the signal
isn't CMR processed. It's that simple-- it's Direct, not
processed, so it sounds more true-to-life.

In any Class A amplifier, both sides of signal are amplified-- a tube
or solid-state device can't conduct without both sides! (current flows when there is present both a PLUS and a MINUS).

The problem with push/pull is that the 100% complete signal
is divided into two halves in an amplifier. The signal reverses
every 1/2 cycle, so when the two halves are re-combined by
the circuit back into one-- the switching caused by signal
reversal (in any device) has had each side switched AND processed.

This cannot be linear musically, but people measure it so because
they are measuring the processed signal, not an original Single-Ended signal.

A Single-Ended signal is 100% complete. There are two connections
to make any circuit conduct. There are no "halves" in S.E. operation,
only the complete signal, with it's own internal reversals-- it isn't being FORCED into signal splitting..

The re-combined differentially balanced signal is also "complete" after
re-assembly by the circuit.

The only problem is that some musical artifacts have been processed-out.

People could, but they don't measure MUSICAL linearity.

-Dennis-

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 21:05:07

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"Their topology(meaning it can't be cured) causes compression of the negative half of a signal relative to the positive half which is the source of the second harmonic. "

Yes, that's true with most tubes but some DHTs are very linear with even spacing between grid voltage lines.

Especially if you keep the load line reasonably horizontal using a high impedance load (higher than would normally be spec'd if max output power were the goal) keeping the tube operation away from where the grid lines "bunch up".

One also needs a lot of inductance in the single ended output transformer (most output transformer don't have enough) to keep the load line from turning into a "beach ball" in the presents of low frequencies.

One way around that is to bi amp and filter the low frequencies out of the SET amp.

Tre'

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

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 21:17:44

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"Basically, push/pull is a processor in that it
possesses Common-Mode (any voltage that is common to
both sides of a differential circuit) Rejection,
called CMR by engineers."

No, push pull rejects any even ordered distortion created by the push pull (differential) circuit. It will not cancel any of the input signal.

"It is just common sense that this same circuitry
will also cancel-out any form of musical expression
that also occurs in the Common Mode."

There is no musical expression picked up by the microphone that occurs in the common mode.

The diaphragm outputs a single ended signal and it drives a single ended circuit that is coupled to the mic-pre through a output transformer who's secondary is connected through a balanced connection (that cannot cancel common mode signal because there is no such thing as common mode signal) to the input transformer of the mic-pre (that cannot cancel common mode signal because there is no such thing as common mode signal).

What a balanced connection does cancel is any noise picked up by the wire along the way, not the music signal or any part of the music signal.

Dennis, with every post you show more and more of your lack of understanding of how audio electronics work.

Tre'

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

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 21, 2017 at 22:44:30

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

Sure enough! Now, if I can just get
stupider still, I can arrive at the Ultimate
Amplifier-- one that uses NONE of your
1960's electronic theories!

Actually, that won't be entirely possible.

You're an excellent electronics theory man,
and believe it or not, I have learned some
from your posts.

I do, however, get off of the Standard City Rail,
if I decide that the roads running through the
Woods will work better!

Oh, I understand! Original thinking means that
I'm--- oh, what the Heck! Just call me stupid!

-Dennis-

I have learned 'a lot' from Nobu Shishido and implemented his ideas into my designs.~nT, posted on March 22, 2017 at 01:20:08
Cleantimestream Audiophile Posts: 7550 Location: Kentucky Joined: June 30, 2005	~! The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 04:13:51
PakProtector Audiophile Posts: 12363 Joined: May 14, 2002	No Dennis, we won't go calling you stupid. We probably will call you what you are: an amplifier salesman who preys on people who don't know any better. cheers, Douglas Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.

another cool DHT, posted on March 22, 2017 at 04:17:41
PakProtector Audiophile Posts: 12363 Joined: May 14, 2002	hey Tre' Check out the HY51, draw a 5k load( from a 10k a-a OPT running Class A ) around an idle OP of ~600V and 100 mA. Within +/- 30 to 35V input this pup is quite nice...:) cheers, Douglas Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 04:23:00
PakProtector Audiophile Posts: 12363 Joined: May 14, 2002	" If you want something great, start thinking about Common-Sense instead of what you are everyday being told." Dennis, we apply this to your writings every day...:) It works brilliantly. cheers, Douglas Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 05:55:56
RPMac Audiophile Posts: 377 Location: So. Mississippi Joined: January 3, 2005	What about the professional musicians that have found that all direct-heated triode single-ended amplifiers reproduce the sound of musical instruments most accurately? Do they not know any better? No, I'm not a musician.

How many folks have even heard an original 9?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 06:43:14

rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003

I remember hearing them in my "youth" and wondering what all of the fuss was about.

It was the looks of the thing that gets them. It is pretty. It has a meter on its faceplate! It was mono which was exotic for the time. There weren't too many of them made.

I remember looking at the schematic and thinking "there is lots going on here". Bill Johnson must have been inspired by all of that circuitry!

Anyone who thinks Mr. Fraker is an amplifier salesman should consider how many of those amps he sells in a year. If he was truly an amplifier salesman he would be making something the brayers would want to buy and at a much more affordable price.

I don't know why you bother, Mr. Fraker. So many of these replies remind me of that great observation of those too sure of their own knowledge: don't confuse them with the facts they have already made up their minds.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 06:47:34

cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009

"What about the professional musicians that have found that all direct-heated triode single-ended amplifiers reproduce the sound of musical instruments most accurately?
Do they not know any better?"

One would need to have a statistically significant sampling of professional musicians and their preferences before being able to draw any meaningful conclusions. If the sample is restricted to those who participate in the SET or Tube DIY forums at Audio Asylum, it may be a rather biased sampling of professional musicians as a whole.

Chris

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 08:03:43

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

Dennis, I do not believe that you are stupid.

I believe you will be able to understand, after watching the video linked below, that the CMRR of a differential amplifier will only reject the noise signal that is picked up in both wires equally (the only signal that is common mode) and will not reject any of the signal that is not common mode (the music signal).

I believe that if you really think about it you will be able to see that none of the input signal (the music signal) can be common to both wires but instead the music signal is differential between the two wires.

What we (meaning you and I) call music signal starts it's life at the diaphragm of a microphone.

Take a look at the circuit of a u47 microphone. The circuit is single ended. The music signal is the difference between the output of the tube and ground. The signal goes to a parafeed output transformer through C2 to the primary of the output transformer as a single ended signal. There can be nothing common mode up to that point. The other end of the primary is grounded.

The secondary of the output transformer is not connected to ground so the music signal is now the difference between the two ends of the secondary.

The two conductor shielded cable, with the shield connected to ground for shielding purposes only, connects the music signal to the mic-pre in what is called a balanced connection.

The mic-pre input transformer has a primary that is not connected to ground and will only respond to the difference between the two ends (the music signal).

Any noise picked up in the wire run between the microphone and the pre-amp will be equal in amplitude and phase in both wires (common mode) and that input transformer will not respond to signal that is common and therefore rejects it (common mode rejection).

So the noise that is picked up in the wire run is common and rejected while the music signal is not common (it's differential) and is therefore not rejected.

Having said all that, please understand that I am not trying to promote push pull amplifiers.

I, like you, believe that single ended amplification is the better way to go but for completely different reasons than the ones you stated above.

Tre'

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK9RKitkuh0

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 08:49:43

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Last time I checked Dennis is using a indirect heated high mu triode as a driver. So where you got DHT and musicians like set's is a mystery???

There is really nothing new here it is a direct couple 2 stage amp. This is probably not a bad thing at all, not a lot of parts to go through. But you had better like horn speakers. Remember no 845's for some horse power. 2a3 only and only a certain type.

If you have not been here long you will realize the most action you can get is when the math guys go after the subjective guys. The sad part is both sides jump on the extreme so no one learns anything.

In the old days we had some really smart math guys who would build and listen and report back what they heard. Now we seem to have absolute camps on both side trying to out alpha dog each other.

You might want to ask why the absolute camps on both sides way they would use a digital front end. Well we kind of know the math sides answer is but waiting for the guys in the other camp.

So to throw my 2 cents in!!! DHT's good vinyl good interstage transformers good powered coated steel chassis who cares and it reads great on a machine who cares. How that for the truth in bad English. So now you can attack my ability to write and conclude I am tone deaf.

Well I will let you guys back to the earth is flat vs 2 inches of wire debate. It is time for me to listen to my mathematical challenged system. Maybe I should powder coat my turntable platter???

Enjoy the ride
Tom

I have a pair of 1962 vintage Model 9's, posted on March 22, 2017 at 08:56:41

crooner
Audiophile

Posts: 2516
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: April 13, 2003

And they are the finest amplifiers I've ever heard. Easily besting my prior Marantz 8B. Triode mode is particularly astonishing. Voices and instruments have real body and palpability. And the highs are never harsh, yet all the high frequency content is there.

So yes, their legendary status is more than justified.

I was skeptical too until I got my hands on a pair!

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 10:07:17
gusser Audiophile Posts: 3649 Location: So. California Joined: September 6, 2006	With the right speakers and the right room, that could be quite true. But also consider the world has been push-pull since the early 1950s. Today we seem to be heading towards class D after 30 years of false starts with that technology. SE is a cult format reserved for hobbyists and some listeners who can extract the few benefits it offers. How many recording studios use SE tube amps?

Theory Man?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 10:49:50

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

You seem to conveniently overlook that fact that most of the "Theory men" on this forum are in fact professional electronic engineers and advanced technicians.

We go to work every day designing, troubleshooting, and applying circuits in all areas of electronics. And we get PAID to do it in the six figure range. Yes, that's what a good engineer or advanced technician can make these days - easily. And we make the decisions that effect the electronics industry on many levels.

Outside of a few misguided novices on this forum, nobody in any position of authority in the electronics industry is listening to you Dennis other than for entertainment value!

When I hear some irrigation farmer or small town theater projectionist question the competence of Sal Marantz, Sidney Corderman, Stu Hegman, it just makes me sick. Now nobody is above question. And if somebody here has a legitimate technical critique of these men's design decisions, that's fine. They weren't perfect and you must also consider they didn't have the resources we have today, like computer simulation on their desktop no less! Also such a critique must stand up to peer review starting here.

But this blind unsubstantiated trashing of these industry icons by a couple of members has to stop. It degrades the respect and credibility of this forum.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 11:12:02

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

I have no data on this, but I'll be willing to bet a lot of professional musicians, even those with positions in famous symphony orchestras, listen to Best Buy grade components.

Because the truth is commodity grade stereo equipment these days is quite capable of very accurate music reproduction. And that's solely due to the R&D that has gone into amplifier and speakers design over the past 90 years. Yes, that's right, advancements brought to us by the "Theory Men"!

Most audiophiles are about the equipment, not the music. The quality of the music for them is directly related to the price paid or the review in that worshiped audio magazine.

RE: Theory Man?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 11:17:33
PakProtector Audiophile Posts: 12363 Joined: May 14, 2002	His hero was an EE PhD...:) cheers, Douglas, quietly LMAO Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.

So he says?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 11:22:44

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

I can't find any references online to substantiate that.

All the proof on earth seems to have been burned up in a recent Montana forest fire!

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 11:36:28

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

Ever notice all these great men Dennis and DrLowMu personally consulted with are dead and gone?

Dennis giving Nobu Shishido design advice upon request? I for one don't think so!

RE: Theory Man?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 11:49:11

Eli Duttman
Audiophile

Posts: 10455
Location: Monroe Township, NJ
Joined: March 31, 2000

Was that particular PhD. of the guano piled high and deep variety?

The Laws of Physics are the same for all observers in all frames of reference. The bleats of Dennis and Jeff to the contrary do not overcome that fundamental truth.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has passed the test of every rational experiment.

Eli D.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:03:37
Eli Duttman Audiophile Posts: 10455 Location: Monroe Township, NJ Joined: March 31, 2000	There is another fact about musicians that bears repeating. They know the material and their minds fill in info. gaps. Sometimes, a musician is not the best critic of electronic equipment. If a lump of galena played music well, I'd use it. Unfortunately, galena is, at best, good for AM detection. Eli D.

RE: I have a pair of 1962 vintage Model 9's, posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:04:37
drlowmu Manufacturer Posts: 9730 Location: East of Kansas City Joined: January 10, 2005	It may well be the best you have heard. That is great !! I just don't know what all you have heard, to make any conclusion, from your post alone. Jeff Medwin

What?????????????????????????????????, posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:10:57

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Hey Gusser that is even over the top for you!!! Maybe more exposure to listening to these musicians you speak of.

My only question is why are you on a tube forum. Is it because us tone deaf musicians need more help in making a decision of what music sounds like? The good news for you is you can buy a 1000 watt class d amp broad for under a 100.00.

Do you think anyone who really HEAR and FEEL music is taking about 2 inches of wire. Maybe some research on your part in regards to what great musicians can hear and feel. I bet your findings might surprise you. I realize you have the universe figured out with your math models. I on the other hand think you may have missed a variable or two???

If you write like you do, to bait me, I guess I took it this time. Enjoy your digital transistor state of art best buy system. I need to get some snake oil today. PT Barnum is in town.

Tom

This is a bunch of B.S. nonsense...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:11:07

crooner
Audiophile

Posts: 2516
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: April 13, 2003

The Marantz 9 runs the tubes conservatively at 55 ma with 440V on the plates. The output tubes last a long time on it. I have been running two quads of NOS Mullards and the getter flashes look nice and shiny after 3 years of use, averaging a few hours a day.

The amplifier also runs very cool. After 3 hours the transformers are barely warm to the touch. All components run as conservatively as possible.

As for instability, it is rock stable needing only occasional bias tweaking. Remarkable considering the push pull parallel design.

The only minor criticism is the slightly over elaborate input stage. But this was done to facilitate connecting a phantom center channel speaker, which was a feature used back in the early 60s to combat the so called "hole in the middle" caused by the speakers of the day. An added side effect of this is the ability to invert the phase or polarity of the signal, which can come in handy at times...

I think most folks disparaging the amp, gave it away for peanuts back in the 70's and now are kicking themselves.

Or folks who cannot afford a pair...

RE: I have a pair of 1962 vintage Model 9's, posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:16:01

crooner
Audiophile

Posts: 2516
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: April 13, 2003

Let's just say I've been on this hobby since 1985. And I have heard some very fine amplifiers, including very expensive Audio Research and Conrad Johnson tube types.

And I have heard the Marantz 8B which I owned, and the Marantz 2.

The Marantz 9 is the best I've heard to date. When people talk about tube amps having "soft" clipping behavior with benign low order harmonics, they are generalizing. Not all tube amps are like this.

The Dynaco Stereo 70 doesn't clip very symmetrically. It runs out of steam and you know about it.

The Marantz 9 is so well designed you can't hear it clip. Even subjecting it to the loudest whacks of the widest dynamic range recorings (Telarc, etc.).

It comes at a price of course!

Have you figured out your scope yet?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:21:50

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

I said right off the bat that I have no data to back up my claim. But neither do you! I'm also sure there are musicians that do use SET amps and other very expensive gear. But what's the sampling? Neither of us know.

One on post you say audio engineering was what? only 89% good. The other 11% may someday uphold the claims of Dennis?

Yet in another post, you don't even know the basics of operating an oscilloscope or worse yet deciphering the what waveform displays!

So what qualifies you to make any statement of how advanced audio engineering has evolved.

I have no doubt that great musicians can "hear and feel" in music. But you seem to have no idea, or you refuse to acknowledge the performance levels of commodity stereo gear these days.

Tubes for me are an interesting hobby. But I am not so blind to say my tube stereo music amp is superior to a modern quality SS amp. I do it for the nostalgia and to explore a forgotten design art.

As for your scope thread I gave you two important things to watch out for in your measurements. Ground loops, especially with a phono preamp. And the difference between voltage measurement (easy) and current (difficult). You engaged with some of the other tips but seem to ignore mine. Fine. You don't like me and don't want to hear what I say.

But be assured your personal opinion of me does not change the laws of physics. Perhaps this is why you have such a skeptical view of test and measurement. You have no idea of how to do it properly, you get poor and conflicting results, so you write it off and scientific junk. Perhaps if you learned the science and engineering behind these measurements you would better understand how to use them properly.

RE: Have you figured out your scope yet?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 12:34:27
Eli Duttman Audiophile Posts: 10455 Location: Monroe Township, NJ Joined: March 31, 2000	The key word is quality. Much mass market SS equipment is absolute guano. Crappy tube gear, especially out of China, is being marketed too. Tubes, SS, or a mix of them? I could care less! System synergy is what I crave and there is more than 1 way to get it. I use tubes because they (IMO/IME) do certain jobs better than SS. If setup X works, great. Otherwise, NEXT! Eli D.

RE: Theory Man?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:02:04

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Have you ever built a full wave diode vs full wave tube rectifier. Maybe choke vs cap input. Maybe even some damper diode tubes. Then after did you put them in front of the amp to see if you could hear a difference????

I think I know the answer. They can pay you a million dollars a year to design what ever but unless you do the above you have no idea what it SOUNDS like. Maybe you should have taken a few debate courses and a little less math. Was Sal after money or sound? No doubt someone knows. I bet it was not you or me. Dennis comes up with some crazy stuff but that does not mean he is wrong here. A clue in the debate world this is call a hasty gen--------sion. The one thing we are pretty sure about is you have not heard a Dennis and Sal amp side by side.

Another clue in debate is never attack opponent. They will tear you a new one!!! The discussion is about circuitry and sound. Not about if you are farmer or 6 figure engineer. Bet there are plenty of farmers who make way pass your salary.

I could go on and on and on and on but if you do not get the point by now!!! Again why are you on a tube diy forum when best buy is just as good as you put it. Is it to save us poor souls from breathing solder fumes????

Enjoy the best buy sound
Tom

look closer...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:04:01

drlowmu
Manufacturer

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

Crooner,

55 mA. at 440 VDC P-K ( amp uses fixed bias as I recall ) is 24.2 Watts dissipation of the EL-34. Looking up Mullard data sheets, they list 25 Watts as the EL-34's Maximum plate dissipation, in pentode mode.

If my math is correct 24.2 Watts is 96.8 percent of Maximum. Can we truly call that conservative operation ??

Jeff Medwin

Huh?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:31:04

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

"Have you ever built a full wave diode vs full wave tube rectifier. Maybe choke vs cap input. Maybe even some damper diode tubes. Then after did you put them in front of the amp to see if you could hear a difference???? "

Of course I have! What tube hobbyist hasn't? In addition to that I have built many regulated HV power supplies. Even a tube based design. And yes I heard a difference, just as the theory predicted and prior art has proven. I found the theory dead on.

Dennis has demonstrated a very weak understanding of electronic principles here. That is a fact plain and simple. It has been debunked by numerous professionals here over the years. You wan't to give him the benefit of the doubt yet you lack that same technical understanding yourself.

And I though I made it clear I build tube stuff as a hobby. I don't listen to Best buy gear. But I also don't look down on those who do because their stuff isn't junk either.

plenty of farmers who make way pass your salary., posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:37:00
gusser Audiophile Posts: 3649 Location: So. California Joined: September 6, 2006	Yup I don't doubt that at all. But consider this: If I want to plant a small crop of corn, who should I take advice from? 1) The local farmer with thousands of acres of experience. 2) Some electrical engineer who dables in gardening on the weekends? Now flip that around!

RE: Have you figured out your scope yet?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:44:06

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Gusser I do not dislike you I do not even know you. The whole scope thing came about because no one could give me a answer to why a voltage drop across choke was different than a resistor. Just got the scope for phase angles I needed to check. I am the first guy to admit my lack of knowledge of scopes. But if you notice no one came up with a answer just more questions. I put up the pictures and there are some nice guys who are still trying help me figure this out.

So is simple terms ,so this small mind of mine can grasp, why does a tube sound different than a transistor? Why do different tubes sound different? Transformers and caps. We will stop there because most people can hear differences in these components. Forget about the mechanical differences and let's go on test equipment. We can pick something as simple as a 300b vs 2a3. Do the numbers on what ever machine show what it is going to sound like??? And if you came up with whatever red flag does that remain consistent for other tubes.

Is there a machine that can tell how a how a 845 will sound like with the b+ at 450volts vs 1200 volts. Or 50 ma vs 100 ma idle current. Really your only way out of this is to assume all the variables are in our heads.

Well I guess if I am living a sugar pill illusion then at least I want my favorite pill. Because in my illusion the pill's sound is consistent.

Infinity may be a wee bigger than you think!!!
Tom

RE: Huh?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:56:56
TomWh Audiophile Posts: 764 Location: Tucson Az Joined: August 7, 2003	Please show me the math, graphs or machine that told what you would heard??? Bet there is some real demand for that??? Also did you blind test the listening??? Those are your rules??? Tom

RE: Have you figured out your scope yet?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 13:58:27

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

"Is there a machine that can tell how a how a 845 will sound like with the b+ at 450volts vs 1200 volts. Or 50 ma vs 100 ma idle current"

Well yes there is! Now of course we can't tell how something sounds to one's ears. But are you aware that we have software available today that can take a .wav file, send it through a computer amplifier circuit design, even a tube design, and output another wav file that will contain all the distortions that amp's circuit adds. You can play that and listen to it, albeit you will also have the distortions of your listening rig added BUT that can be nulled out in a computer simulation as well where you can see extremely complex signal interactions and delve into them.

ALL WITHOUT A SINGLE PHYSICAL COMPONENT EVER BEING SOLDERED OR CONNECTED!

Now of course this is only as good as the software models programmed in. But we have 100 years of accumulated audio knowledge to build these models. and it's all based on mathematics, that's the only thing a computer understands. It does not understand music. But it doesn't need to either provided our mathmatic models are accurate - and these days they are pretty damn good.

Funny you should mention Sal Marantz, posted on March 22, 2017 at 14:05:02

rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003

Mr. Marantz was not a "trained" engineer. He was interested in good sound and he enjoyed tinkering.

He hired engineers to help him follow his audio muse.

Those products were outstanding in their time but to continue to think they are some kind of benchmark is absurd.

If that is the case the engineers have not done much in the last forty years. Have they?

Mr. Fraker and Mr. Marantz have much in common.

Mr. Fraker does not expect the engineers of mass market audio equipment manufacturers to pay attention to what he has found. They are going after very different things. I bet those concerned with good sound pay plenty of attention to Mr. Fraker.

A lazy man cannot make a great amplifier. I have not heard Mr. Fraker's amps but would love to. But I do know it takes many trials to come up with something truly fine. Much easier to get a device to spit out good numbers and consider it done than to have to consider every aspect of an amplifier from components to layout WITH CONCERN for sonic quality first and foremost.

Why not?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 14:14:58

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

Now my ears probably are't good enough. but I'll bet there are people who can estimate the db loss at certain frequencies. You could then plot that out based on their empirical observation. Then compare that with the known frequency response curve you programmed into the test.

Now if you want a machine that tells us whether I liked the music or not without any input whatsoever. No we can't do that. But here we are talking about personal taste. That cannot be quantified.

The evenness of a frequency response can be quantified. After all if it couldn't, then a hearing test would not be of any value.

Furthermore the performance test of an audio amplifier is rather simple. It must preserve the applied waveform in every area except gain. Now what is every area? Sure sinewave, square wave sweeps, and pink noise will not tell us all. And to a large extent that is what the hobbyist is limited to. But we have the capabilities of truly analyzing the 106 piece orchestra "waveform" in much detail today to spite what one person here often says. Any digital audio workstation can do that.

How do you think all these compression algorithms were developed. Yeah, yeah, we are talking about crap MP3 and other compressed formats on an audiophile forum. But you can't ignore the technology that was required to accomplish that feat.

And neither was David Sarnoff!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 14:25:46

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

But look at the empires both of them built. Sal may not have been an engineer but he sure as hell understood their value and hired some of the best. As did Sarnoff.

How many amplifiers has Marantz sold in the history of the company? How many had Dennis sold? Doesn't look like much in common to me.

And who said these classic amps were state of the art? I sure didn't. Compare them to a modern SS amp in measured performance. Today 0.001% distortion is achievable in a consumer product. They couldn't do that back then so I think it;s safe to say audio engineering has advanced quite a bit.

I have worked in the broadcast and later the Hollywood studio business of 35 years. The absolute top recording studios are in Hollywood and Nashville. I have never heard the name Dennis Fraker in any studio technical discussion. How many commercial customers are using his products? Who are the recognized audio manufactures that consult with Dennis? Surely with all the RAMF awards somebody would have brought him on board by now?

Of course I have! , posted on March 22, 2017 at 14:30:41
Jim Dowdy Manufacturer Posts: 1518 Location: Atlanta, GA Joined: July 22, 2000	Many of us have...but that does not imply that the theory is therefore 'dead on.' A 4-tube bridge of mercury vapor rectifiers operating into an L-filter sounds best 99.9% of the time. Does this comply with your theory?

Absolutly! , posted on March 22, 2017 at 14:40:39

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

We know the MV rectifiers have the lowest voltage drop of any tube rectifier. So we then know we will get a stiffer supply.

It a well known fact that tube rectifiers in power amplifiers sag. This modulates the audio signal. The less voltage drop, the less sag.

Now you can have RFI problems with MV tubes, but that can be remedied as you probably have done.

Saul not "Sal"..., posted on March 22, 2017 at 14:49:57
Steve O Audiophile Posts: 12364 Location: SE MI Joined: September 6, 2001	...once or twice is an understandable typo, more than that is not.

RE: look even closer..., posted on March 22, 2017 at 15:22:09
Steve O Audiophile Posts: 12364 Location: SE MI Joined: September 6, 2001	...the 9 is a UL design so current is combination anode and g2. Anode dissipation is 25W and g2 is 8W for combined 33W. So the 9 runs the EL34s ~ 72% not 97%. Reasonably conservative if not the "ideal" golden ratio dontcha think?

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 15:30:39

RPMac
Audiophile

Posts: 377
Location: So. Mississippi
Joined: January 3, 2005

Tom, I thought I remembered reading that you were a musician and preferred SET with DHTs. Andy Evans is who I was referring to for all DHT SET...(hope he doesn't get dragged into this).

My system amps are BottleHead kits. I can set it up 3-stage DHTs or with a IDHT driver by swapping power amps. Over several long listening periods, I always prefer the all DHT.

I agree with Gusser that the speaker and room have the most impact on the sound of a system.

I went from SS (a Nelson Pass design)to tubes because I would get up and turn the SS down after a while... I never do that with tubes except when the wife says to.

It is amazing that people argue so much about something as subjective as how something sounds.

RE: Have you figured out your scope yet?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 16:02:54

sideliner
Audiophile

Posts: 208
Location: NYC
Joined: August 22, 2013
Contributor
Since: December 15, 2023

ALL WITHOUT A SINGLE PHYSICAL COMPONENT EVER BEING SOLDERED OR CONNECTED!

Now of course this is only as good as the software models programmed in.

Now, that's a nice cop-out after the 'bold' statement in capitals! Gusser, seriously, what are you doing in a tube forum? I am sure you can get a good mid priced receiver from one of the big box stores with .0001% distortion and be happy. If you're an objectivist that's fine, you can rest comfortable in the fact that the numbers and the 100-year accumulated knowledge in audio, will tell you all you need to know and just enjoy the music without a worry of what others believe. Yes, it's really that simple!

Make no mistake, I am not sticking up for Dennis here, nor do I agree with a lot of what he says, but taking it to the other extreme is not where it lies either, IMO of course.

It's not a cop out!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 17:01:42

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

It's called not spreading BS. I showed the state of the art with modern circuit simulation, actually this is as least over 5 year old technology. But I also called out the issues with the advanced technology and how it's not a perfect solution either.

If more people here would do that rather claiming their latest installation of a 2in silver wire "raised the roof" in performance, this place might be a little more respectable.

And I never said I use a mid priced receiver. I do own two, one in a bedroom and the other for the family room TV 5.1. But that's not my listening system or my TV watching system either.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 17:36:50

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

There's nothing wrong per se-- with any of the explanations
I've read here. In fact, I think this is an excellent
discussion, but there is more!

Common-Mode finds its way into every part and every
wire, and every application in audio that is operating near
any source of alternating current OR musical energy..

Differential circuitry and balanced connections reduce
Common-Mode, as you well know.

I do not disagree with the THEORY or APPLICATION of
differential circuits or balanced connections. Fine--
we can agree here, but that is only a tiny surface
discussion-- the whole picture is much more.....

What you're not addressing is the fact that splitting
a common-mode signal into two halves and then re-assembling
it is not perfect-- it cannot be.

I think we can all agree that differential circuitry
reduces (attenuates) all common-mode-- signals, distortions,
and the common-mode that is music.

In a differential system output, you don't just get 1/2
plus 1/2 to form ONE. Since no build or wiring is perfect,
and no device is perfect, there is also Common-Mode mixed
in with it. The common-mode always contains both distortions
and musical artifacts... There is NO way to tell which is
which-- music can and does do anything that distortion does.

While the sum of the two halves of a common-mode signal
that has been split into two halves does equal a Single-Ended
signal mathematically, it does not consist ONLY of a true
differential output. The output is mixed with what Common-Mode
and differential distortions are left after the Common-Mode
attenuation of the differential circuit has taken place. The
output has also attenuated musical artifacts that are found
in the common-mode.

Engineers measure some of these things as various distortions--
aberrations from the desired "perfect" output, which would be
devoid of all Common-Mode.

That never occurs in real world equipment, and it never
occurs in music, either..

Single-Ended operation is all Common-Mode. You can filter it,
but you can't process-out the Common-Mode because that is
your musical signals! NOTE the Plural here...

The advantage of S.E. operation thus becomes obvious:
there is no Common-Mode processing/reduction of the
constantly changing musical signal's Common-Mode content.

Some of that common-mode content is musical artifacts,
not distortion.

What could be simpler? The S.E. signal is not
differentially processed, so there is no way to suppress
the common-mode content of the signal that is musical
artifact..

-Dennis-

RE: Have you figured out your scope yet?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 17:50:01

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"why does a tube sound different than a transistor?"

Because their transfer functions are different.

"Why do different tubes sound different?

Because their transfer functions are different.

"We can pick something as simple as a 300b vs 2a3. Do the numbers on what ever machine show what it is going to sound like???"

Using a volt meter and having the knowledge of the load impedance, knowing the idle current....to a large degree, yes.

"Is there a machine that can tell how a how a 845 will sound like with the b+ at 450volts vs 1200 volts. Or 50 ma vs 100 ma idle current."

Knowing that and the slope of the load line, to a large degree, yes.

But it's not a machine, it's knowing the operating condition (voltage, current, load line) and having a knowledge of audio electronics.

It's truly amazing how much the math will tell you about an amplifier and how it will perform and (with some experience) how it will sound.

Published plate curves are really pretty accurate so the harmonic distortion can be predicted.

With a curve tracer one can trace the curves for the exact tube he intends to use and build/tweak the circuit around that knowledge, basically make it do whatever you want it to do.

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

RE: It's not a cop out!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 18:23:47

sideliner
Audiophile

Posts: 208
Location: NYC
Joined: August 22, 2013
Contributor
Since: December 15, 2023

Sorry, but it is a cop out. State of the art is just that, offering perfect results consistently, not results predicated on this, that and the other, or when the stars are aligned. How would anyone ever really know that the input parameters based on whatever conditions/assumptions are perfect, so as to render the output also perfect? Think about it. Even if you hit on the perfect, you would never know it.

Besides, you haven't "shown the state of the art" you've only claimed that it exists. Who's the arbiter on that conclusion? What is it based on? Let me guess; very low distortion numbers, right? So you're using your original proposition (namely that numbers rule) to prove that... numbers rule! I hope that the irony (not to mention fallacy) here is not lost on you.

Also, I never claimed that you listen primarily to mid priced receivers as I don't know what your system consists of. I merely said that if numbers is all that matters, then there are reasonably priced components with stellar distortion numbers that should provide state of the art performance on a 'beer budget'. Win-win for you! That's the logical conclusion to your argument, don't blame the messenger.

RE: It's not a cop out!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 18:31:51

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Of course it was a cop out you said you would do it with machines then said we my have some software problems and maybe the guys who write the software are deaf and we could go on and on and on.

Now let make this real simple for us challenged musicians like myself. Tell me what machine or math model will tell why.

1. 2a3 300b 845 el34 kt88 6550 6l6 sound different. So show number differences then without listening tell me what I am going to hear. Next go ahead and listen to hear the differences and plot the sound with the numbers. Next find tubes with numbers close to the other tubes and see if they always sound the same.

2. Do the same procedure for transformers caps etc... Let's talk in absolutes. For example a 300b has numbers xyz that has a sound of ABC. So if you want something that sounds like a 300b all you have to do is test for xyz. You are smart enough to get the idea.

You have side stepped all the real issues on everyone posts here. You will take people who can hear and play music to task because in your world differences do not exist. Now it is time for to give us real numbers and explanations how a tube etc... will sound in a circuit with out ever hearing it.

So again this where the rubber meets the road. If you can not do the simple task of telling how one component change can effect sound good luck when comes to the whole picture.

So waiting for the answer if you come back with another post off topic we will know how much you know about real music.

Tom

State of the art is perfect?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 18:37:52

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

How did you come up with that? Nothing man made is perfect and never will be. Where I come from "state of the art" is the best you can do with modern tools, components and knowledge. And it keeps getting better but it will never be perfect.

I think you missed my point entirely. I didn't say an amp designed via simulation is perfect. I was attempting to show how sophisticated modern circuit design tools have become. That based on these endless claims here by people who do not even work in any electronics field claiming what we can and can't measure accurately these days.

It is a fact that the professional version of Spice programs can do this level of simulation. That's is to process a .wav of other audio file through a simulated circuit and "record" the output into another file for analysis.

Now who can design a better amplifier assuming comparable skill levels. Somebody soldering parts together and listening. Or someone armed with these tools?

BTW, I posted my "beer budget" system up top.

I'm not following you!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 18:51:46

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

Where did I say differences not exist? And I never claimed to know the fine art of music.

There are known distortions and their sonic signature can be identified. And those distortions can easily be predicted in simulation today. So if simulation says a 300B has X distortion at said operating points, building the circuit will prove it does. Provided the computer model for the components are accurate and as always they are not perfect. But neither are real components. However the accuracy of the models is very good - especially for an audio amplifier.

An audio amplifer is not a musical instrument. It's job is to amplify an electrical signal. The closer the output signal is the the input signal, the better it is.

Different tubes and components sound different because the react differently to the electrical signal going through them. What else could it be? These differences can be measured. Perhaps not all today, but you would be surprised of how deep we can go with waveform analysis. Again especially in the low audio bandwidth area.

And if by listening you hear something different and describe it. Chances are a good audio design engineer can point to the circuit parameters causing it.

Tell me something: How do you feel about DBT? Do you think that is a valid test for hearing differences in components?

RE: I'm not following you!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 19:47:26
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17297 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	"There are known distortions and their sonic signature can be identified. And those distortions can easily be predicted in simulation today. So if simulation says a 300B has X distortion at said operating points, building the circuit will prove it does" I think you're talking way above Tom's pay grade. Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 19:54:53
hahax@verizon.net Audiophile Posts: 4308 Location: New Jersey Joined: March 22, 2006	It isn't the device. Triodes can be very linear. It's the topology of single ended and no device can fix that. I've confirmed that with some very good designers including some that produce single ended amps but make them because they like the sound. They are non-linear even with super linear devices.

RE: I'm not following you!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 20:59:24

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Tre you really think I can not follow the bullshit distortion argument. Go back and read what Gusser wrote about best buy and musicians. That is what got me in the bullshit debate. Go back and read how his great machines and software where going to make this great amp out of numbers.

Now he is back peddling. And of course no real answers. You might ask your self with your SET midrange how does that stack up with his best buy beliefs. Seeing that you are so much smarter than me go back and read his post that got my poor feeble mind going. Here is just one of the great sentences "Because the truth is commodity grade stereo equipment these days is quite capable of very accurate music reproduction." Well if you believe that and the rest of the nonsense in that post I would ask you why you are also on a DIY tube forum. Gusser finally admitted he has no tubes in his system now.

Seeing you have all the answers why do you use tubes and Set circuits for your midrange and highs??? Forget best buy go on eBay for 5.00 Us you can get a 100watt class D amp board btl and stable to 2 ohms.

I could go on and on but I have to give this low pay grade mind a rest. All this side Stepping is making me dizzzzzzzzy!!! Notice I did not bring up digital front ends. God I love distortion!!!

Enjoy the best buy ride
Tom

RE: State of the art is perfect?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 21:09:03

sideliner
Audiophile

Posts: 208
Location: NYC
Joined: August 22, 2013
Contributor
Since: December 15, 2023

How did I come up with that you ask? Your previous post's entire theme, part of which I quoted above, is how advanced our capabilities have become both in measurements and simulation abilities that we can basically predict and/or measure anything we wish. You didn't explicitly state perfection, but you certainly implied at least near-perfection. So please don't backpedal now by saying that state of the art is just the best of our current knowledge base. It certainly is that, no argument here, but that is not the way you presented it.

Here's the thing now that you've somewhat clarified what it is the you're trying to say: I will agree with you in that we have the means to design proper circuits without much effort (assuming that one has the proper experience/knowledge on how to use the tools available). Since we are afforded this 'luxury' we should strive to properly engineer circuits to minimize all sorts of distortions. I am an advocate of this approach and that's what I strive for, to the best of my abilities of course.

However, certain topologies or class of audio electronics if you will, have hard limits (well sort of) on how far you can go in eliminating non-linearities while still sounding subjectively good - I Know I just lost you. And this is the whole point; measurements can often times sorta predict what we hear but at other times they fail and quite miserably so. The case of the SET is one such example. Once you properly design an SET amp by following the rules of good engineering practice, you're still left with quite a bit of distortion. The ear however doesn't hear it as such, well at least for some folks. You could design it with 3 or 4 stages using global and multiple local/nested feedback loops and get the distortion real low, but the sound will suffer.

I don't expect you to agree with this last part, but this is my experience - I simply can't deny the subjective, realizing full well that the objective portion is an integral part of designing electronics.

BTW, to clarify, I never called you system a beer budget one. I was trying to make a point about a high performance at a low cost system in the general sense.

RE: look even closer..., posted on March 22, 2017 at 21:47:32
drlowmu Manufacturer Posts: 9730 Location: East of Kansas City Joined: January 10, 2005	Yep. I looked quickly. I forgot that it runs ultra non linear !! Thanks. Jeff

Not back peddling at all!, posted on March 22, 2017 at 22:16:02

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

A Best Buy $400 AV receiver is capable of very accurate music reproduction today. I stand behind that statement.

I said nothing to the effect that good tube amps are not,

Care to explaine why my statement is wrong?

And I took the tube LCR biamps out of mt HT system. Just not practical. But my music amp is still a stereo KT66 design. I even have a tube surrounds synthesizer, a tube Hafler matrix!

I'll post some pics of my retired tube LCR amps tomorrow.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 22, 2017 at 22:45:22
JKT Audiophile Posts: 612 Location: Midwest Joined: November 26, 2002	I do have to point out that air is a nonlinear medium for the transmission of sound waves. Take a look at the adiabatic pressure/volume curves. The same thing happens, compression of one half of the cycle and elongation of the other half resulting in second harmonic distortion. "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, then speak and remove all doubt." A. Lincoln

But consider this?, posted on March 22, 2017 at 22:45:38

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

You state that SE tube amps sound very good. And I have built a few myself albeit strapped Tetrodes, not the classic triodes. My experience was so-so. But I also did not have the right speakers or high quality SE OPTs.

But if such were true, where is the commercial application of SE triode amps today?

Why are they strictly a hobbyist curiousity these days? The classics were the WE theater amps of the 1930s. Yet today most commercial theaters use Crown or QSC. Why?

RE: Improved Marantz 9??, posted on March 23, 2017 at 02:04:05
LinuxGuru Audiophile Posts: 582 Location: European Union Joined: November 11, 2008	Quite complex schematic for a parallel push-pull (I prefer simpler design), yet it is job done very well.

RE: look even closer..., posted on March 23, 2017 at 04:02:37

PakProtector
Audiophile

Posts: 12363
Joined: May 14, 2002

I am not sure that that 8W is reasonable whilst the anode is run to 25W. The g2 grid posts are equipped with radiators at the top, which could allow this. U-L seems to leave EL34's run at high voltage to push their screens into having glowing spots, which is not what I'd call ideal.

While taking on design work in the past, U-L curves are not very much more linear than the pentode curves, though these curves have only been published at AB1 voltages. That would require a significantly higher load than is available to achieve Class A operation, and for that I will cap reasonably available at 10k a-a.

IMO, the primary benefit to U-L is a reduction in device output impedance; the plate resistance is lower...:) The next time I have the hoods up on my 813 monoblocks, I am going to run them full pentode, with their g2 at B+, with the plates i*R of the OPT primary less. Dropping the g2 voltage as current goes up *WITH THE 813* at 600V is not quite optimal. Or I will put them back to running the 4E27's...LOL
cheers,
Douglas

Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.

Maybe ..., posted on March 23, 2017 at 05:59:47

Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12364
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001

...Problems can occur if all max ratings exist simultaneously: 800V/25W anode, 500V/8W g2 but that's far from the case here. Also note that these values are from the conservative "Design Centre" rating system, not today's more prevalent "Design Maximum" system . FWIW, data sheet calls out 30W combined anode+g2 in triode mode @ 500V. Overall, since subject amp is ~ 450V, 33W seems a reasonable max rating and 30W a conservative one.

Bottom line is that 24W in a 9 is a safe and conservative value.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 23, 2017 at 06:20:27

hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4308
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006

I know and Nelson Pass mentions this. So you're compensating for the air, a tone control for the air? But the topology of single ended still adds one more type of non-linearity to the non symmetry of the air.

I will ad that since no amp is totally linear we end up picking the one we like, hopefully from among the better, more linear amps. It's just that this non-symmetry bothers me when I think about it. And I think it needs to be pointed out that this is meaningful especially given the normal bias of those who like SET citing its simplicity and that it doesn't split the signal and put it back again. SET is more of a trade off than its lovers claim

As for me my bias is for a push/pull triode amp with no overall negative feedback. Plus it allows reasonable power output for todays lowish efficiency speakers.

RE: Absolutly! , posted on March 23, 2017 at 06:26:01
dave slagle Manufacturer Posts: 5430 Location: NYC Joined: April 27, 2001	If one wants to keep in the technical realm the MV tubes have a constant voltage drop independent of current so unlike traditional diodes (both solid and hollow) they do not provide sag. dave

Thanks Steve for the technical clarification (nt)..., posted on March 23, 2017 at 07:57:36
crooner Audiophile Posts: 2516 Location: San Diego, CA Joined: April 13, 2003	.

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 23, 2017 at 08:14:18

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"It isn't the device. Triodes can be very linear. It's the topology of single ended and no device can fix that."

Can you give a technical explanation for that claim?

If the tube was perfectly linear (and none are) then there would be no mechanism for producing harmonic distortion, whatever topology.

With push pull the even order harmonic distortions are canceled but not the even ordered harmonic distortions.

Push pull brings it's own set of challenges.

Either way, HD is caused by the non-linearity of the device.

I believe that you have been misinformed.

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

RE: plenty of farmers who make way pass your salary., posted on March 23, 2017 at 10:41:59
dave slagle Manufacturer Posts: 5430 Location: NYC Joined: April 27, 2001	What if the local farmer uses genetically modified corn to increase his output for federally subsidized ethanol output and the engineer grows organic corn for his family to eat? dave

RE: I have learned 'a lot' from Nobu Shishido and implemented his ideas into my designs.~nT, posted on March 23, 2017 at 11:24:19

drlowmu
Manufacturer

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

Yes, precisely.

I have known Dennis Fraker for three decades now. Over the years, in our conversations, he brought up Nobu several times. I got the impression that while DF " may " have gotten an idea or two form NS, more likely NS was helped by DF. But this doesn't matter that much. What follows is my point :

That these two guys were friends, audio friends, exchanging ideas, is with out a single doubt in my mind.

Jeff Medwin

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 23, 2017 at 11:28:26

JKT
Audiophile

Posts: 612
Location: Midwest
Joined: November 26, 2002

Perception of sound by the ear/brain is a complex phenomenon as studies have shown. What appears to be more linear on paper may not be perceived as so. That said: my personal system is fully differential, triode, zero feedback, transformer coupled input to output. Even the output stage is set up as a diff. pair with a CCS "tail" (forced class A). There are many on the forum who avoid transformers because of their distortion. I happen to prefer their distortion to that introduced by capacitors. Each to his own.

"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, then speak and remove all doubt." A. Lincoln

RE: plenty of farmers who make way pass your salary., posted on March 23, 2017 at 11:32:24
drlowmu Manufacturer Posts: 9730 Location: East of Kansas City Joined: January 10, 2005	Nicely said Dave, good thinking !!! I got it !! Beautiful. Jeff

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 23, 2017 at 13:12:22
hahax@verizon.net Audiophile Posts: 4308 Location: New Jersey Joined: March 22, 2006	I might like your amp. A friend who finally gave up building his own amps would have built like you describe including a transformer at input as the phase splitter. He said it's the only way to get a symmetrical phase splitter. And he tried burning up tons of parts trying to build a great phase splitter.

RE: plenty of farmers who make way pass your salary., posted on March 23, 2017 at 14:34:11
gusser Audiophile Posts: 3649 Location: So. California Joined: September 6, 2006	Well that would depend on whether my small crop of corn is for Ethanol or to eat wouldn't it :)

And I personally owned Marantz 9 with OEM Rack Mount faceplates, posted on March 23, 2017 at 16:36:29

drlowmu
Manufacturer

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

'Have personally owned and heard Marantz 8Bs, and owned and heard my own pair of Marantz nines, with the beautiful, uber-rare factory-original rack-mount faceplates.

Was listening to an ALTEC 604 at home, 41 years before you have discovered this Hi Fi hobby in 1985.

Jeff

RE: And I personally owned Marantz 9 with OEM Rack Mount faceplates, posted on March 23, 2017 at 16:48:57

crooner
Audiophile

Posts: 2516
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: April 13, 2003

Actually I discovered this hobby earlier than 1985, but I was too young to pursue it. It all started with my Dad's stereo system in the early 70s...

I am attaching a picture of my system today.

The Marantz 7C on the carpet is a custom unit which I rebuilt with a Khozmo 48 step remote control attenuator, Arizona "Cactus" PIO caps and schottky diode rectifiers. I alternate it with a 1959 all stock original preamp (gold faceplate).

The speakers are Chartwell 15 ohm LS3/5A's which interface particularly well with the 16 ohm tap of the Marantz 9's...

RE: And I personally owned Marantz 9's with OEM Rack Mount faceplates, posted on March 23, 2017 at 17:39:38

drlowmu
Manufacturer

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

Cool Vintage system. Thanks for the picture.

As I re-look, I must have owned those M-9-Rs about 1978. I never had them on my Tannoy Monitor Gold 15s. The more I think about it, I had them running on Single and Double KLH 9 ESLs.

Here is a ( bad ) photo of me broadly smiling in 1978, as I was taking home my second pair of KLH 9s. I bought this pair from Bobby Casner, a mailman who lived on Venice Blvd, in Venice, CA . I drove them ( carefully, on back city streets, slowly ) to my place in West L.A. - The same place that Alan Sides used to visit.

Have fun, I sure do. For 2017, its a DIY two stage DC SET JJ 2A3-40 amp, powering ALTEC A7-800s, with 395 pounds of concrete mass - loading per 825 enclosure. 515Bs and 802Ds. No preamp, an attenuator.

Crooner, add about 45 pounds of concrete patio blocks, on TOP of each of those small speakers. It will play WAY more focused in the midrange, and will be the most effective audio tweak you have ever experienced.

I go to Lowes, and a 16.5 pounds patio tile, is only about $1.57, ten cents a pound. At my Wal Mart, $1.37 a piece. TRY three, on each box, I promise you, you will be hooked for life !! That speaker, (all speakers), is rattling around, all over itself !!!

Jeff

May be true, but for a different reason., posted on March 23, 2017 at 19:22:17

sser2
Audiophile

Posts: 2571
Location: Pittsburgh USA
Joined: July 30, 2003

Here is an anecdote about Svyatoslav Richter, a famous 20th century pianist. This is from his memoir book.

Richter loved listening to recorded music, but his "system" was a compact portable grammophone of the most despicable variety. Many of his guests asked, how he, a top-notch artist, could be content with such poor quality of sound. To which Richter answered: "I don't care about quality of sound, I care about quality of performance.

In my humble experience, the quality of performance may come through from a worn-to-death acoustical 78 rpm recording further crippled by digitizing and noise reduction.

Many professional musicians enjoy their Best Buy equipment simply because they are unaware that anything better exists. That does not mean Best Buy stuff is good. It is not.

A lady friend of mine, herself violin player in a string quartet, once commented on the sound of my system. "It is unnatural", she said, "it sounds as if we are in a big hall, but in fact we are in a small room. It is schizophrenic".

RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs...., posted on March 23, 2017 at 20:44:32

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

This makes sense. A good transformer or choke will
out-couple even the best capacitors, and one can hear
that-- the reproduced sound is closer to the recorded
sound.

Transformers roll-off both highest and lowest
frequencies.

I think this "rolloff" concern is mainly a theory
that is technically correct, but has less practical
application in home audio.

I like an amplifier to sound true to the characteristics
of what is being played through it. In practical
terms, if you can get some decent output INTO THE ROOM
going down to 60HZ or so,. and can get highs to SATURATE THE
ROOM up to about 11.5KHZ, you're in business-- VERY good
business, sound quality wise.

The best approach to wiring and component construction
is to build for a wider practical bandwidth for both, then
worry about the parts and the circuit..

The actual parts in the circuit-- and the circuit itself
can exhibit rolloffs at both ends as long as we have that
60HZ-11.5KHZ range actually saturating the listening area.
Component quality easily trumps measured frequency
response here.

This is very hard to explain properly, but it works well.

In my view, highs aren't propagated properly into a listening
room by MOST of today's home audio speakers. Dispersion is
OK on some models, but if you want highs THAT WORK, then you
need large H.F. transducer surface area-- very large-- to
load your highs into the room properly and WITH ENOUGH ENERGY
for the room.

Enter the large panels, large ribbon tweeters, and horn-loaded
theatre-style units. Small domes may measure OK, but they aren't
the real deal.

Most people can't believe what an old S.E. amp with severe
rolloff after about 3800HZ can do with highs in a theatre--
The highs are there.. Clear, powerful and WAY above the amp's
rolloff. Why? The speakers are GOOD speakers... solidly
built transducers with large surface areas.

People theorize all the time about all of this-- to little
avail most of the time. If you're after real true-to-life
audio performance, then you have to go after the ideas and
components that actually deliver an honest performance.

The only thing that can out-couple a good transformer
is a good piece of wire-- that would be Direct-Coupling.

-Dennis-

Saul Bernard , posted on March 23, 2017 at 20:50:53

drlowmu
Manufacturer

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

Nice Jewish businessman. Mike Moffat and he spoke in 1978, at Ike Eisenson's San Diego store. Dahlquist speakers, Saul chain smoked. Mike was cool, as always, followed Saul's talk, my buddy Mike !!

See N.Y. Times write up. Humble beginnings.

Jeff

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/saul-b-marantz-85

?, posted on March 23, 2017 at 21:06:37
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17297 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	. Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

When they get aroound to putting all that in good engineering English, I will read it., posted on March 23, 2017 at 21:48:12
Timbo in Oz Audiophile Posts: 23221 Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia Joined: January 30, 2002	:-) Warmest Tim Bailey Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

+1, posted on March 24, 2017 at 02:05:02
91derlust Audiophile Posts: 1101 Joined: December 25, 2014	. "Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems to characterise our age." Albert Einstein

Where's the Speedster now?, posted on March 24, 2017 at 08:05:34
Lew Audiophile Posts: 10911 Location: Bethesda, Maryland Joined: December 11, 2000	Probably gracing the garage of some collector after having received a megabuck restoration, and, you can be sure, with bumpers. Back then, we knew that the no-bumper look was the coolest.

RE: Where's the Speedster now?, posted on March 24, 2017 at 08:16:55
drlowmu Manufacturer Posts: 9730 Location: East of Kansas City Joined: January 10, 2005	Not a Speedster. I had a 57 Super Speedster, paid $400 for it with a rusted out floor pan in '67, and no motor. That is one of my ( three ) 1961 356B Super Roadsters. I liked the 1961 model a lot. That in the photo was painted Cadillac Fire Mist metallic Silver, great paint on it. 2000 Chrysler Mini Van..... now a days. Jeff Medwin

My personal favorite 356, the Roadster, posted on March 24, 2017 at 12:00:03
Lew Audiophile Posts: 10911 Location: Bethesda, Maryland Joined: December 11, 2000	I've owned several. I also preferred the 1961, because most of those were made in Belgium, actually in Liege at D'Ieteren Freres. One of my dearest friends is a native of Liege, and I have seen the old factory during one of my visits. I owned #89333. Or was it #89332? Or does it matter?

rolled off at 3800Hz, posted on March 24, 2017 at 15:28:42

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

Maybe I have the wrong speakers because I can hear the highs when they are not rolled off but then they go way when they are rolled off.

This file has a 3800Hz filter applied about half way through this short clip then, after a short time the filter is removed.

Tre'

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

http://www.dock.net/tre/3800Hz.wav

RE: rolled off at 3800Hz, posted on March 24, 2017 at 20:19:59

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

My apologies-- I should be more clear.

The problem with highs in a room is how
to get the H.F. energy to propagate well--
that is-- involve the whole room with enough
energy to drive that room....

I understand what you're talking about when
you refer to tones. In that we can and do hear
the different tones.

The problem arises when one tries to involve
a whole room. Small-surface transducers can
get the tone and bandwidth right, and at near
field, one can hear the tonal differences, but
these small-area transducers do not have the
power and dynamics to drive the whole room with
those tones.

One of the amps that I had that rolled-off so
severely was the Western Electric Model 91A.
With the right transducers, you could not want
any more high-end energy. A cymbal clash, for
instance, was complete despite the amp's limitations.

This only happens right when the correct Western
Electric transducers are used with their amp. It can
be stunningly good, and very accurate across a wide
bandwidth-- most all of human hearing.

Without those transducers, you'll not get the energy
that W.E. intended to put into a theatre audience.

With the recent S.E. amp revolution (started by Japanese
Western Electric Theatre component collectors), Japanese
collectors began resurrecting what Americans had forgotten
existed: movie-theatre sound. The Japanese wanted this
even in their tiny apartments!

Today, we're mostly trying to get the whole human hearing
range measured accurately inside components without any regard
for the room or the listener. Theatre people had to involve
the audience or sell fewer tickets. Japanese collectors,
tired of their own "perfect" measured equipment, snapped
up old American and German transducers, amplifiers and tubes.

Some even went so far as to use old Sprague electrolytic
capacitors, and Allen-Bradley Carbon-composition resistors--
things that add distortion to music. If the Americans did
it, then collect it and use it to sell equipment using it
back to them-- and be able to pay for collecting the "good
stuff", old theatre gear.

When a frequency rolloff involves hearing only tone, it is
immediately obvious. When H.F. CONTENT (should I say CUBIC
FEET of air affected by "highs"), is discussed, perhaps it
could be better understood that mild frequency rolloff is
not a factor, or it is ridiculously easy to correct if it is--
in the listening room..

Many people think that there's too much "highs" in a room
when the air volume affected by higher frequencies reaches
a certain upper limit. This is also true at the low end,
but it displays differently.

Amplifiers and transducers are at their best when they,
together, can drive a room completely acoustically. Good
equipment can deliver the entire human hearing range as
long as it has the speed and dynamics to get it done.

This can be done with amps that measure linear across
20HZ to 20KHZ. It can also be delivered accurately by
amps that are down at 80HZ, and put out almost nothing at
12 KHZ. What happens depends on the room and the trans-
ducers that are used in that room.

I realize that all this talk doesn't relate very much
to what we are told and sold today. Bandwidth and linearity
are cheap, accurate room coverage is costly, and involves
very few audiophiles.

It is possible, however, to experience the delights of
a good movie theatre system in the home. If you do use
large-area transducers, you will require that either the
amplifiers or the source components are going to have to
be rolled-off. Otherwise, people will tell you that
horn-loaded transducers are "yelling" at them.

What is more true-to-life? A tiny H.F. transducer being
driven beyond 22KHZ desperately stressing, straining, and
being driven way too loud in order to get some "highs"
into a room--

OR-- would you maybe prefer a nice theatre transducer
being driven to only 11.5KHZ-- or less than that--
smoothly and effortlessly, with terrific dynamics
delivering all the "highs" that one could possibly hope
for, stand or ever want?

Doing music reproduction effortlessly, dynamically,
and in a non-fatiguing way demands theatre-style gear.

It's the province of amplifier rolloffs, mini-watts
and large-area transducers.

Human hearing bandwidth is easily accommodated with energy
to spare. You don't need super wide bandwidth, or
extra claims to linearity.

What you DO need is to engage the
listening room fully.

Most source material and amplifiers are long on bandwidth
and tone. What they're short on is true-to-life dynamics,
perfect event-timing, and a sense of presence-- total room
coverage that converts the listening room as much as possible
into the recorded venue.

Large panels, theatre speakers, etc., are
designed to get this job done. What audiophiles
call "near-field" listening calls attention to
tone over much more important dynamic contrasts
in music.

There always will be different personal tastes
on how to reproduce music. Fortunately, most
people can recognize a good thing when they hear it.

-Dennis-

RE: rolled off at 3800Hz, posted on March 24, 2017 at 22:34:19

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"It can also be delivered accurately by
amps that are down at 80HZ, and put out almost nothing at
12 KHZ. What happens depends on the room and the trans-
ducers that are used in that room."

The amplifier is a equalizer as well as a amplifier?

"It is possible, however, to experience the delights of
a good movie theatre system in the home. If you do use
large-area transducers, you will require that either the
amplifiers or the source components are going to have to
be rolled-off."

Yes, I see. That is exactly what you said.

We should all be using speakers that do not have a flat frequency response coupled to amplifiers that also do not have a flat frequency response.

Kind of like how when a LP is made they cut the bass and boost the highs and then in the phono preamp a reverse EQ is applied to get us back to flat.

Dennis, that is just brilliant.

Tre'

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

RE: I'm not following you!, posted on March 24, 2017 at 23:07:14

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17297
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"Tre you really think I can not follow the bullshit distortion argument."

I'm a little confused.

You understand all about load lines and spacing between grid lines along the load line and how and why that creates harmonic distortion?

If you follow all that then please explain why you call it bullshit?

BTW My commit about you was only in reference to this one statement, not all the rest of what you and gusser might be talking about.

"There are known distortions and their sonic signature can be identified. And those distortions can easily be predicted in simulation today. So if simulation says a 300B has X distortion at said operating points, building the circuit will prove it does"

As soon as you convincingly explain to me how calculating the HD based on plate curves, operating points and load lines is BS, I will see that I was wrong.

Thanks

Tre'

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

Hmm, well Richard C. Heyser's pay grade is far above anyone here and he said..., posted on March 25, 2017 at 00:56:33
Cleantimestream Audiophile Posts: 7550 Location: Kentucky Joined: June 30, 2005	"You out there, Golden Ears, the person who couldn't care less about present technical measurements but thinks of sound in gestalt terms as a holistic experience. You're right, you know" this from a Consummate 'meter reader' who is an electrical 'giant', {whom we are all indebted to for his utilization of fast Fourier analysis} The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

RE: rolled off at 3800Hz, posted on March 25, 2017 at 04:39:56

PakProtector
Audiophile

Posts: 12363
Joined: May 14, 2002

hey Tre', when I was a wee lad, just learning how to design speaker enclosures, my pop told me of a demo he witnessed. This demo had an impossibly small, impossibly wrong properties, speaker making what appeared to be music down into the low bass. There was actually no low frequency content...the engineers putting on the demo had built a processor to create the harmonics of the LF content, rolling off in a precise slope. The listeners ears heard no LF, but their computers filled in that bit of information for them...

IOW, you can be fooled, either on purpose, or by accident...LOL
cheers,
Douglas

Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.

RE: I'm not following you!, posted on March 25, 2017 at 08:23:30

TomWh
Audiophile

Posts: 764
Location: Tucson Az
Joined: August 7, 2003

Hi Tre

I only reason I got involved in this mad hatter tea party was Gusser comes on a DIY tube forum and tell us poor naive souls we can not hear only his machines can. Then if we state we can he sites the old tired DBT. Again assuming, I for one, have no formal training in research.

I have no problem with using distortion as one of the variables on our quest for the holy grail. I have a lot of Crowhurst literature. I have plotted more than one load line in my day. I problem I have run into this a lot, the math solutions and theory do not match what I am hearing. Weather it be ccs's cathode followers, a simple cap or resistor that may not be needed etc...

So many others and my self have concluded base on real life experiences that If it can measure good sound bad or measure bad sound good, we must be measuring the wrong thing. This would imply we maybe do not KNOW all the variables. This does mean your load lines and homogeneous spacings on your tube curves are not a tool you want in your tool box.

I will not insult you with reasons why things sound the way they do because I think there are far to many variables known and unknown to go there. What I will tell you is most the commercial stuff is just plain bad. Even at a high end shows if 10% was worth listening to you would be lucky. My only explanation is people who design this can not hear or money get it out the door etc... Also it may be the market demands loud and bright and corporate America is feeding its appetite.

If you go back just thru Gusser posts on this thread he tells us that he can put together as good as any thing just with the numbers. So I asked him to show me the numbers the machines would pick up to show me how a 2a3 vs 300b vs 845 vs kt88 vs 6550 vs el34 etc... All sound different. And different makes of the same tube sound different. So if the tube curves will give us this information then we should know how the 300b sounds different than a 2a3 etc...

Tre ours tastes, in music reproduction, may be a little different. But I bet we get where we want to go when we sit down and listen Oscar plays that grand piano and we think for a moment he is there. You have always been a asset to this forum and try to help. Others want to play alpha dog games. I admit I took bait. So now I am off to build another 3 phase motor controller for the big motor for the big platter with a big bearing.

Enjoy the ride
Tom

RE: rolled off at 3800Hz, posted on March 25, 2017 at 09:26:31

tube wrangler
Manufacturer

Posts: 2484
Location: USA
Joined: January 29, 2007

I can't blame you.

I didn't say it was brilliant, did I?

Transducers aren't linear, listening
rooms aren't, and our hearing certainly isn't.

But many audiophiles and their engineers
demand it anyhow.

Perhaps I could describe it this way:

Go out in your yard and take a look at
the weeds and flowers that are there.
Some smell very nice, some look pretty,
and some are so good, you can eat them.

Deer, rabbits, and other animals love
them. But take a look at them-- they're
all different-- each and every one.
There isn't any Linearity at all! NONE!
But, it IS a good flower-- etc.

Now, let's find a LINEAR flower. This is
easy. Just go over to Wal-Mart, Target, or
whatever, and get some of those artificial
plastic flowers. Those Dudes ARE linear.
Why, they're all made alike-- if they're the
same ones. If they're different ones, then THOSE
are all like each other.

The problem is that they don't smell like
a real, non-linear flower, and Deer certainly
won't eat them. But they ARE linear!

OK- audiophiles like linear. And engineers are
oh so happy to accommodate their tastes. Whatever
the market desires can be engineered by someone.

Movie theatres, however, must cater to
natural occurrences in nature and recording scenes.
They also have to cater to the non-linear human
hearing in their theatre patrons.
You can sell tickets when you involve the
theatre-goer in the picture, the sound equipment
had better disappear....

That is how we got our ALTECS, JBL's, Klangfilms,
even W.E. and RCA theatre transducers. They weren't
designed for audiophiles, they were designed to
address our non-linear world and interface with
our non-linear hearing.

Surface area. Coverage area. That's the Fun-Factor!

That's all there is to it-- get it to mimic
the real, non-linear world as best you can.

-Dennis-

Really Dennis?, posted on March 25, 2017 at 10:53:28

gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006

Now you are an expert on home theater audio?

"It is possible, however, to experience the delights of
a good movie theatre system in the home. If you do use
large-area transducers, you will require that either the
amplifiers or the source components are going to have to
be rolled-off. Otherwise, people will tell you that
horn-loaded transducers are "yelling" at them."

I showed you my HT above. Let's see yours!

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/tubediy/messages/25/25433

Dennis , I'm saving this. (nt), posted on March 25, 2017 at 13:02:29
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17297 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	. Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

Page:

[ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Tube DIY Asylum

Improved Marantz 9??

202.40.157.7