Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: What an astonishingly insightful (and iconoclastic) assessment of some formerly revered designs.... posted by tube wrangler on March 21, 2017 at 22:44:30
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.
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.
...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?
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
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?
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 !!
"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.
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.
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???
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...:)
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.
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!
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: