|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.181.8.237
In Reply to: RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs.... posted by hahax@verizon.net on March 21, 2017 at 20:08:15
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-
Edits: 03/21/17 03/21/17 03/21/17Follow Ups:
"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"
Edits: 03/21/17
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-
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.
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17 03/22/17
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.
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
...once or twice is an understandable typo, more than that is not.
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?
Edits: 03/22/17
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
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!
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
Well that would depend on whether my small crop of corn is for Ethanol or to eat wouldn't it :)
Nicely said Dave, good thinking !!! I got it !!
Beautiful.
Jeff
"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.
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?
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.
Edits: 03/22/17
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Edits: 03/22/17
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!
Edits: 03/22/17
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"
Edits: 03/22/17
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-
.
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
"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
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.
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17 03/22/17
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".
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
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.
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17 03/22/17 03/22/17
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
"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"
Edits: 03/22/17
"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.
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 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.
Edits: 03/22/17
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
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?
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17
"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"
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
"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.
"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"
Edits: 03/24/17
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
"... 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."
Sorry, but why do you say "old tired"? It is old, certainly, in that it is part of the standard kind of procedure that has long been used in many areas of investigation where one has to disentangle observer expectations and biases, and in areas where the human senses and mind may be misled in all kinds of subtle ways.
It is maybe an inconvenient truth that humans are much less able to discriminate between subtle differences under double-blind conditions than some people would like to believe. But pretending that these failures can all be put down to some inadequacy in the DBT setup, and pretending that the differences really are audible even when neither the DB tests nor measurements combined with general understandings of audibility thresholds support the idea that they are audible, is really just burying one's head in the sand.
The denigration of the DBT methods by those who want to live in a fantasy world in which every inch of wire is audible could indeed be called an "old tired" reaction. But there is nothing "tired" about the DBT method itself.
Chris
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.
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17
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.
Edits: 03/22/17
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.
Edits: 03/22/17
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.
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?
Edits: 03/22/17 03/22/17
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.
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.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: