| Author |
Thread: Archive through December 05, 2004 |
    
Silver Member Username: Larry_r
Naples,
FL
Post Number: 240
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 03:23 pm: |
|
Jan, et al. In my eternal (maybe "infernal?") quest for product that clarifies CDs and DVDs, I have gone out on another creaky limb - and have ordered some product from the Zaino car polish people.
BIG LAUGHS HERE - I KNOW, I KNOW! OK? (grin)
As some of you know, I've talked with the company president, and learned that many audiophiles use his products in the same manner as I've been using "Vivid."
Should get my supply by Thursday, and will post my reviews and other comments. IF the Zaino plastic cleaner/tweaker works as well as - or better than - Vivid, it will be a great thing for all CD-owners, for they will be able to treat discs for about 1/10th the cost of Vivid! And from what the president tells me (obviously, he's biased!) discs treated with his product have even better "optical qualities."
OK, gang - don't you secretly want to get more and better sound out of those discs with the "perfect sound forever" on them? Huh?
Remember - I'm much too far away from all of you for even one of Rick's old thunder-sticks to reach me! (grin)
More anon . . . |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Silver Member Username: Ojophile
ON
Post Number: 163
Registered: Jun-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 03:56 pm: |
|
Sem,
Spector will need a "wall of money", considering he has hired Robert Shapiro as his defense attorney.
What breakup are you talking about? We're just behaving and reacting like a typical family. 
Larry, my friend, you flatter me no end. But if you can pack and send up some Florida sunshine my way, I'd be most grateful. It's cold heah, and it ain't fun. And it's not even officially winter yet --- really. "Allegory" is just so nice to use; it sounds educated. 
Sem and Larry, keep up the wry humour. We could always use some comic relief.
I'll check out Discoveries later.
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2552
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 04:55 pm: |
|
Well, it looks like the Old Dogs reunion tour is off.
Ghia, I laughed and laughed. Thank you.
Best to all.
Back on Sunday.
PS Rick, No I have no idea what this is about, either. Will give it some more time. Please talk to Varney. I have to get on a plane tomorrow, and I sure hope the pilot thinks there is a real sky out there, also runways, other traffic &c. |
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 342
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 05:18 pm: |
|
I’m sorry to read such discord on this thread. Despite the varying points of view of the Old Dogs, I’ve always sensed a real fellowship among the members. I hope the differences don’t supersede this fellowship. Ghia is right, as usual, in her previous post about the divisive mood of this country and the world in general. This forum doesn’t seem immune to this inimical mood, despite the intelligent, good-hearted people who participate. There just seems to be a lot of acrimony in the air, fueled by, in my opinion, self-righteousness. I’d be the first to admit to thinking I know better than others. That may explain why I was so upset over the recent election results. For some of us, there is nothing more precious than our well-reasoned opinions, even if it costs us friends and makes us enemies, or in this instance, potentially destroys an online community.
As some of you may know, I haven’t been posting as often as I used to. Just been spending time “getting perspective” as Jan put it. I'd like to share a verse I came across recently from the Tao Te Ching, which I hope you take to heart (or ignore if you so choose):
I have just three things to teach:
simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and in thoughts,
you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.
My apologies for the digression. This is way off topic. I will shut up now.
Larry,
Got your PM. I’ll send you a response. I just wanted to send this message to all, especially those who are thinking of leaving.
Peace.
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New York
USA
Post Number: 665
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 06:00 pm: |
|
Ghia, Sem, Larry, Don, and 2c,
Well said all!
So if everyone is finished barking, growling, snorting, stalking, and defensive posturing, let's get back to being the loveable, and may I add ADOREABLE pack that we are. There just is no ALPHA or pecking order in this pack. Any questions?
2c-I thought I was the only Buddist here (LOL!) |
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 344
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 07:17 pm: |
|
Rick,
Your post is a prime example of the adorability of the pack.
You ARE the only Buddhist here. I've got a lot to unlearn. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New York
USA
Post Number: 666
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 07:30 pm: |
|
LOL! THANK YOU............. |
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1157
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 08:17 pm: |
|
This is a bit more than a simple "Hi!" sorry about that :-)
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?
Basically, it boils down to the fact that I have a low tolerance for arrogance, untruths and BS. So the fact that some of you here view the former as a virtue made me feel it might be quite difficult for me to continue participating here as an "Old Dog."
Jan, your last post was very good and heartfelt (you do have a heart don't you :-)) - seriously, I mean it, I'm not being facetious in the slightest, But this: "There are more important things than this forum to get upset about." gave me a bit of a chuckle.
Do you mean that we let any issues we might have slide by because they pale in comparison to 'things that are wrong in the world?'
I think (my opinion mind you) that's a bit too much to expect from anyone - even you. With any problem there is always one that is worse; that doesn't mean it cannot be discussed, debated, or vehemtly argued over - let alone solved. One has nothing to do with the other, though it all sounds terrific philosophically wise. Being at one with one's self or with the world and all that zen stuff is wonderful and enlightening etc but we need to get real also. We don't all follow the same tenets, not all of us have the same degree of patience and we all can only hope to be forever compassionate (thank you kindly 2C for those words).
We are all of different character and many are much more tolerant than I. Take Larry for an example, in the 'other side' thread on the subject of Amps, he argued to John A about what attributes a recording engineer should or not have. Larry, clearly showing more experience in this field, allowed John A to trample on his opinion most likely to prevent another long-winded epic rebuttal. If that is the case I take my hat off to Larry (as I often do) but I would not have been so giving to John A under those circumstances, because in my opinion, and I'm certain Larry's opinion is similar, John A was wrong in his. That's another story.
Was I wrong to defend Kegger and myself against Jan's arrogance? According to many here, yes! According to me, no! The difference in our characters define us as individuals - a clash here and there has to be expected and all the problems in the world have neither the capacity to solve the differences nor have any relation to them - that's my opinion, of course.
All this rubbish would have been long forgotten by now if the references to Kegger's and my admonishment to Jan's arrorant manner had not kept popping up in his posts. They were taken as jibes (regardless of the intent) and to try to prevent a misrepresentation of what Kegger and I deplored in Jan's manner, we resumed to set the matter straight.
Both Jan and John say they are mystified and cannot relate to what we are on about. I can only accept that is a little misleading because we have explained it over and over in plain english. It has, in my opinion, nothing whatsoever do do with what subject matter Jan was discussing even though Kegger kept bringing his views up about it. Jan insinuated we were calling him arrogant because we disagreed with him. Wrong! It was purely and simply the manner by which Jan put across his view, a bit like this: this is the way you do it instead of: in my opinion, this is the way it should be done, or this is the way I would do it. Sounds trivial doesn't? But, in the context of this type of thing occurring over and over again, something had to give and it did. I was never looking for an apology only a fair portrayal of what the fuss was about.
I do not dislike Jan or John A for that matter - in fact quite the opposite and I think that is common knowledge here. I have great respect for them both. I am not without sin and I can take it on the chin (as they obviously can also) when I'm wrong. What I do dislike is what I stated earlier and if I am in trouble for defending against misrepresentation than so be it - I will never cease to do that. In future I will try to be a bit more tolerant of other people's peccadillos and keep mine to a minimum.
My apologies for upsetting all you good people and though I appreciate your words immensely, looking for them was not on my mind . As far as I am concerned this matter shall remain in the "what's past is past" basket.
Jan, and you also John, I extend my hand.
And Ghia - don't you drop out on account of this hiccup - because that's all it is - hopefully as this has (or will), things get sorted out in the end. The embarrassment for all this nonsense exploding out of nowhere is mine and mine alone. You are the 'mother' of our family here - don't abandon your pups. They may be old dogs but they still aren't weened.
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_r
Naples,
FL
Post Number: 242
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 09:13 pm: |
|
I guess I'm a "wuss." For those of you who do not know what a "wuss" is - well, it's the "polite" version of a word which is anathema to the female sex, and generally considered a seexual slur. But in this case it means a person who opts out of a fight, and bows and scrapes and tries to make the best of a bad situation.
It has been mentioned that I sorta "gave in" to John A. in one of his postings. Yep. Did. Had no reason to extend an argument that, in my opinion, had nowhere to go and no life of its own. So I caved. Took the dive. Do it many times.
Unfortunately for me - and Mer will back this up - I do not have a strong ego. Been in the presence of too many really awesome men and women in my day - and have determined that, compared with them, I am a "commoner." Not stupid, just in a place that, relative to their accomplishments, means little in the Grand Scheme of Things.
I could teach all of you a lot about script writing. Studied it. Did it for 34 years. Got lots of awards, including an Emmy. OK? So? So what?
the "what" is that I have some precious knowledge, and valuable experience, which I am glad to share - free, yet!!! But I have no intention of preaching to you that I am somehow "above" all of you just because I worked very hard and had some really horrible times whilst doing it.
So - when I say "I could teach you a lot about script writing," well, I am only offering you my experience and what may pass for "expertise." Does that make me arrogant? Only if I phrase it in a manner that is demeaning to you.
Writing, as I have said, is fraught with mis-interpretations. Take my above phrase: "I could teach you a lot about script writing."
If you picture me up on a podium, looking down with a sneer on my face, you have every right to say: "what a jerk! Who does he think he is?"
BUT - if I hold out my hand and say in a clear and simple tone "I could teach you. . ." then the overtones are quite different.
Classical 1 was quite ready to shout that he had an inheritance, that he made lots of money, and that he raced sailboats. OK. Did that make all of you happy - did you feel that he was a good guy and a great companion? Probably not.
I could also tell you that, in years past, I made a very good living. So do most of you. It's all relative. But if I say that, I would hope to couch it in a context where you interpret it as "I'm very thankful that I was able to earn a lot of money to provide for my family."
Diff-runt emphasis. Different approach. Different reaction on the part of the reader.
Arrogant crops up a LOT on this forum. that's a sign of egocentric expression. Most men do it. MOre than do women. Cockadoodle doo and all that.
Many of you are more intelligent than I am. Heck, probably all of you are. I know my wife is. She is one of those "Mensa" folk. I am not. I have often asked her how she deals with a husband whom she considers less "brilliant" than she is. She answers: "because you are honest, and true, and considerate, and because you have so much to offer that I do not have." Well. . . I still can't solve her math problems. And she still can't make a house plant live - or sail a straight line - or spell worth a damn! If it were not for me, she'd never be able to submit her papers - she can barely spell "cat." But I lose every Scrabble game. I lose every philosophical argument. I lose my car keys - but that's another problem! (grin)
Am I making any sense here? I'm asking for patience, and understanding, and a bit of "air" between ideas. And yes - before any of you challenges me - I have had more than my share of really dumb responses on this forum. And have admitted to them. And have learned from them.
OK - I'm out of air - and Scotch. Time to sit back and think some more.
God bless all of you. I mean that. And I hope that my feeble meanderings may have some influence on future postings and considerations on this forum.
Respectfully. . . |
|
|
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1158
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 09:29 pm: |
|
Larry,
You use words much better than I. My reference to you was meant as a compliment of the highest order. I'm saying while you are tolerant, I am easily heated into action - and obviously, it can get me in trouble. I sorry my words made you feel to have a need to explain. You don't and you are a scholar and a gentleman my friend. Merri would be proud no matter how high her IQ.
BTW - You're not the only one with a smarter wife :-)
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_r
Naples,
FL
Post Number: 244
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 09:59 pm: |
|
MR - sir, your words did not make me feel the need for explanation - they were well-written and I did appreciate them. I had a need to expand on many of my previous comments about my "place" on this forum, and how I try to deal with what I often see as ego-talk - or the writings of intelligent people who have little clue as to how their phrasing and "attitude" will be received.
Actually, I came "back" to this forum on the strength of what Classical 1 was doing in Colorado - testing the "Vivid" product at about the same time I was. Got me back here - and now, thanks to you and others whom I feel comfortable "relating to," it is generally an enjoyable environment.
You will remember my sometimes heated reaction to John A.'s postings. On one occasion, I simply read his posting wrong - my fault entirely.
But in past times I've been angered to the point of Scotch-spilling (an expensive bit of anger! GRIN) because I thought him pedantic and high-minded. Indeed, I once walked off this forum based on some of his postings. It was that bad for me.
Sigh. So, even I - at age 68 - (chronologically only. I'm really 28!) have my childish moments.
Oh, yes - I'm glad you have a wife smarter than you are. Having a "dumb blonde" wears out very, very quickly!!! I know. Had one once. . . (ahem)
More anon. . . |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1903
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:42 am: |
|
Interesting reading of one mans journey through
amplifier design and realization!
"anyone intersted in what 1 man has discovered about tubes should read it"
I will link the rest on the bottom of the page for anyone intested in going farther!
________________________________________
August 1996
I guess before we get into the design you're going to need to understand a little about myself to understand why no one has else has tried such a thing. I do not have an engineering degree hanging on my wall. I am an artist/inventor with a passion for good sound. People have been known to say "He will try things you would never in a million years have considered" referring to me. I consider that my strongest asset. I have a lot of creativity and am very stubborn. I have arranged my life style in such a way so that when I get a vision I can enjoy the spontaneity of it, and act on it right away. I do not enjoy being side tracked by the demands and expectations of techno junkies for the simple reason that it dilutes my focus. I think a lot of artists are like this. It would be like an art critic calling to ask what kind of clay you used so he can decide if it's worthy of his time to come and look at the sculpture. I usually don't worry about specs simply because I have discovered over the years that good specs don't guarantee good sound. I just listen to whatever it is as I go. Things like the difference in sound between two identically rated capacitors of different brands, or tubes, etc. are very important in my experience, yet no specs can seem to suggest there is any difference.
High Fidelity Engineering has a clear focus that revolves around preserving the forgotten past of hi-fi in the 1960's before it took a major step backwards from the perspective of sound quality. By that I mean that since the invention of non-discrete IC based solid state receivers, over all sound quality has declined when compared to the older tube counterparts. Believing this gets harder and harder with each generation. Kids don't know what records are, and they think tubes are light bulbs. And quite frankly it is completely impossible to relate to the kind of sound quality I'm talking about unless you've been exposed to it. Kind of like a man trying to imagine what it must be like to be pregnant and give birth, something he'll never know... at least not in this lifetime.
If you're the average person with a stereo - even a fancy new surround sound stereo then you enjoy the company of approximately 98% of all the people reading this... and I'm sorry to say that presenting this amplifier in a way that you can grasp (because it goes against everything you know) may be no less complicated than a pregnant man.
The passion behind this idea for me comes from the desire to expose the common man owning the common stereo - to the magic of triodes, with a secondary objective of messing with the common audiophile who believes specifications are the 11th commandment. Someone should have done this long ago but because of the unorthodox thinking required to pull off such a feat I don't suppose other companies wanted to take the risk. For example if I tried to market a 6 watt amplifier with around 10% distortion who would take it seriously?
An entry level "audiophile" amplifier that would be affordable to the masses has been my dream for many years now. To find a way to make it affordable and make it appeal to the average person is obviously the difficult part. The passion to do so comes from past personal frustrations of not being able to afford what I want and not being able to enjoy what I have because I've heard what I want! (been there haven't ya!) I can assure you most of us have a hard time justifying the crazy amount of money required to obtain a true high fidelity system.
The general perception of an audio system to the masses is pretty much anything you could find at a "digital ready" electronics supermarket. Well guess what... the masses all have ears as good as any audiophile and the ability to appreciate the same things that result from high end listening. Those who've never been exposed to three dimensional high fidelity can hardly be chastised for not appreciating the difference between the two, or for not being aware that there is a profound difference.
The science of sound and harmonic resonance is far and away the most complex and least understood science on earth in my opinion. I would say that the monumental joint effort of all the people and the equipment required to send up an Apollo mission would be simpler than building a perfect playback system. It takes significant effort in design and a significant quality in parts to achieve good sound. It should be pointed out that the HIGH END audio market is oppressed with the monumental and expensive task of improving the high fidelity playback system we commonly refer to as the "stereo" and that is why a respectable stereo system costs between 15 and $30,000.00 Gee, that's about the price of an automobile!
September 1996
My objective with this design is to get the absolute highest quality... harmonically in-tact sound in the hands of the wanna be audiophiles. My research and experience over the years has taught me that tube circuits are the way to obtain this objective. If I were designing this on paper with specifications in mind I would have chosen solid state circuits. I really prefer the natural sound of tubes and while I have heard some solid state amplifiers that I could enjoy, they start at about $7500.00. The market is SATURATED with solid state gear and as I said, I don't feel it is the format necessary to complete this goal.
Up until this summer I have been building Class A1 push-pull tube amplifiers of various designs with the intention of marketing one as the entry level amplifier. The part I've been wrestling with (like all small manufactures) is keeping the cost down and yielding terrific sound quality. Success usually seems to go to those who have achieved the correct balance of compromise (understanding of course that everything in audio is a balance of compromise).
The push-pull tube amp designs seem to be the most popular because they can be fairly inexpensive to build, have plenty of power, and sound quite good when compared to mid-fi solid state gear. I really thought the answer could be found in a push-pull design for those reasons.
This summer while playing with single ended tube amplifier designs for my own personal stereo, I stumbled into some results that forced me to take a real second look at exactly what are watts? You know you read these adds for those five watt triode amplifiers that start at around $5,000.00 and go way up from there and wonder why would anyone pay that much for such a thing if it only has a few watts?
Lets just say some enlightenment from the audio spirits came upon me and it was enough to realize that at a normal listening level most of the musical content can be found in the first magical watt of power. I then realized that the priority in high fidelity reproduction should be focused on that first watt. I have been trying to truly understand this for some time now, and in particular been trying to define in my own research the reason why solid states watts seem less that tube watts to the ear, yet equipment measurements would indicate that they are capable of achieving the same amplitudes.
Solid state stereo gear has a tendency to sound thin, and quickly run out of headroom (clip) when pushed. Tube amps are very different. If you compare a 40 watt tube amp with a 100 watt solid state amp or receiver, the tube amp will put more music in the room, and get louder every time. You will find that at nominal listening levels the loudness button is needed to get the solid state amp to sound full-bodied, yet the tube amplifier sounded warm and full with a dead flat signal. This is a great example of how "watts" are not "watts" and a prelude to a secret only the most advanced audio gurus will share / and that is that specs in audio gear mean nothing.
Why is it that a 10 watt musical instrument amplifier such as a guitar amp will in real life (and on stage) get loud enough to split your brain in half, yet it seems to take mega bucks and major stereo gear with 100's of watts to reproduce the same sound in your living room, a room that remains a fraction of the size of a live performance? Perhaps it's because everyone is going about it wrong, confusing convenience with performance.
October 1996
Enough rattling on... Two weeks ago I completed prototyping the circuit for a single ended low power tube amplifier and have been listening to it ever since. The schematic is at the top of this page. At this stage I have already decided that this will be the chosen design for the project. The actual cost will decided by the cost of the output transformers. One of the main reasons single ended tube amps are so much higher in cost than their push pull counter parts is that the output transformers are completely different. In a single ended design the output transformer must be designed to handle the DC current at the bias point, so a special transformer must be used. It features an air gap that optimizes the coupling at low frequencies and the DC current that serves to lower the permeability of the core. Without the air gap, the iron will saturate under too little DC bias to accommodate the needs for a single ended triode. Too much gap will reduce primary inductance so that the lowest frequencies will not pass without attenuation.
All other things being equal, the output transformers (or IRON as I call it) has the final say in the resulting sound quality. When you're looking at different iron for a design, you find that the standard push-pull output transformers range in price between $75. and $400.00 ea. (per channel.) and you find the single ended output transformers range in price from $150. to 1200.00 ea. That BTW is why the single ended stuff is so expensive.
I have a 50 watt (ea. channel) tube amplifier that I built up to a reasonably impractical extreme and I have been using that as my personal reference piece. It powers an efficient pair of speakers in my main listen room (over 90dB) and in all honesty (with feedback off) sounds better than any other push pull amplifier I have compared it to. In fact a version of it was my original idea for this project, and has been for years because I liked the sound so well..
My specific design goal has wavered a bit in the past months as I get ready to do this. If I am going to market a tube amp to people who have never had the joy of listening to one, and given the solid state, cranked up with the loudness on and tone controls engaged listening habits of those people, how should it sound? Do I go for power so it will stomp their past systems, or do I go for pleasure so it will reveal to them the inner levels of music. In other words, do I give them what they already have but just a lot better, or do I give them an opportunity to discover a magic in music that they are unaware of. It really gets into a psychology issue, one that I have pondered for almost 10 years now. From a business standpoint I would make more money with the prior.
This is what happened... to completely solidify the decision. My new little single ended amplifier will run in either Pentode or Triode mode. In Pentode it benches 5.7 watts, and in Triode it does 1.8 watts RMS pure class A per channel. Because of the front end, and additional gain stage in the design it is possible to get louder than you could ever believe is possible with 5.7 watts. Anyway, ever since I switched the little guy over to triode mode, I have not had any desire to switch it back. It is the most natural real sound I have ever heard in this house. And the eerie thing is that it achieves a nominal listening level high enough to be exactly the same listening level I have been accustomed to. that's 1.8 watts Vs. 50 watts which is the same as a hundred watts or more in a solid state receiver. The enormous improvement in quality has made this new little amp my full time personal listening amp. My good ol' favorite just got bumped. As for the psychology issue, I will be going for the magic.
In my observations over the years the reason people turn the volume up to the levels they do, is to gain the effect of physically feeling the music. This effect is the motivating reason for turning it on, and this effect is the ONLY effect that the quality of equipment has to offer so it's no wonder. Once you have spent an evening with premium gear like this little triode amp, you find that the physical effect you were accustomed to happens sooner and at lower volumes because the even order harmonics are in-tact and free of odd order harmonics found in solid state circuits. Then the big one hits you, another more profound EFFECT happens in addition to the physical effect - emotional effect. So you have one that strokes your body, and one that caresses your inner self adding a new found joy to the experience of listening to your stereo.
November 1996
Having my strongest talent in speaker design I have thought long and hard about the statement: "Your speakers have the most effect on how your stereo will sound - replacing your speakers first gets the most improvement." Being a speaker designer the temptation to accept that has always been strong, however I have been slowly and consistently disproving that to myself year after year.
It is in my opinion the amplifier that makes the most difference in the sound of your stereo, and then your other electronics. I can safely say that your speakers are probably the least contributors to the sound rather than the most if your listening to good tube gear. It is not however usually NOT true when listening to mid-fi solid state gear. If you gave me a choice of a good tube amp and a pair of Bose speakers or a mid fi solid state amp and a $24000.00 pair of Wilson Watts, I would choose the Bose and the tube amp because it would sound better. I know blanket statements like this are hard to digest, but I believe it to be true from my own experience.
There are things in this design that some engineers would whine about, perhaps lots of things, but I did what I did... to achieve the desired sound. Audio is so much more complicated than a square wave response on a scope. I feel a significant part of the complexity can be found in the topology of the circuit itself. Understanding that all matter in the universe resonates, including conductors such as wire, adds an exiting new level of depth to it. I should imagine a circuit would not be unlike a piano with all of its notes. Combining the right ones (based on their fundamental tones (resonance) in a way where the harmonics of those resonance's are complimentary determines how pleasing the outcome is. Since on the bench there is no real way to measure molecular resonance or see its effect on the flow of electrons it is impossible to know exactly what is going on. If we could become electrons and jump in for the ride, how smooth would it be? Would it be violent? How many times would you hit you head? And when we both popped out the other end of the circuit at the approximate same time would one of us be battered up and the other one no worse for the wear? And if so why? These are the things that intriguing me. Now that you have an idea where I'm coming from, I will spend the remainder of this log going over the design itself with the intent of helping anyone who cares understand the reasons why I did the various things I did with this design.
http://www.decware.com/zenamp.htm
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 01:41 am: |
|
"In my observations over the years the reason people turn the volume up to the levels they do, is to gain the effect of physically feeling the music."
In contrast to what the writer suggests, I found, through the years, the reason most people turn up the volume on their systems is to try to hear something that isn't there. The mass market components seldom get the music right and the listener thinks that by turning it louder, they will somwhow get back what has been left out. As the writer continues, the best thing most mass market products can do is have a switch that goes to "OFF".
"The passion to do so comes from past personal frustrations of not being able to afford what I want and not being able to enjoy what I have because I've heard what I want!"
I would again slightly disagree with the statement. The passion of the type of sound reproduction the writer seeks should come from having heard the real deal. Listening to live music is what inspires great designs in my experience. Comparing to other HiFi gear is a lesson in frustration or merely flexing one's ego; but, that is often, as in the later comparisons of his amp to an Adcom, where many designers start.
Kegger - This is a bit of a change for you if you agree with many of the ideas the writer proposes. For example, the amp is more important than the speaker. This is also back to single ended, but with a EL84 instead of a 300B. Where are you heading with this information?
For someone who is coming across this article and design for the first time and had the tenacity to read the entire piece, what, in your opinion, Kegger, should they take away from this?
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 01:52 am: |
|
Rantz - From your post of 8:17 I'm not quite sure what side of your hand you're extending. I'll take what you have to offer and try not to misinterpret your comments. Peace.
"We don't all follow the same tenets, not all of us have the same degree of patience and we all can only hope to be forever compassionate ... "
What say we all give that a big "try" for the Holiday season ... at least.
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2555
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 02:27 am: |
|
Brief one before leaving. Hand taken MR, and shaken warmly.
But...
"Larry, clearly showing more experience in this field, allowed John A to trample on his opinion"
No, express a contrary one. That is all I did. With respect, and thanks, to Larry. As to you. Please take a look: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 01:16 am on Transcending Hi-Fi.... If this is the post to which you refer, I am still at a loss.
If I state, here and now, that I still hold the view I expressed there, which I do, does that amount to arrogance?
...I have a low tolerance for arrogance, untruths and BS. So the fact that some of you here view the former as a virtue...
My position is that I am not sure how we can recognise these things for what they are, especially "untruths".
Neverthess I think there are untruths. If I understood you, Kegger, and Varney correctly, there are none, at least in audio.
So, honestly, I am puzzled. There is no guile or spin in that last remark. It is the simple truth concerning my position.
Rick, 2c,
Re Budhism, please check out Varney's postings on the thread linked above. Fascinating, I thought.
I cannot resists a quip, scared as I am of flying. I travelled to Australia a few years ago on Thai Air. Lots of attention to cultural detail; plenty of gongs and so on on entering the cabin. Makes a pleasant change from "The Four Seasons", I thought. As the 747 accelerated for take-off, the female cabin attendants were quite calm, but nevertheless appeared to be praying.
I did not find that at all reassuring.
All the best. |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1904
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 02:30 am: |
|
I just found it intersting reading from the perspecive of someone
building and learning as they went. "kinda like me"
"The passion of the type of sound reproduction the writer seeks should come from having heard the real deal. Listening to live music is what inspires great designs in my experience"
Again this is where we butt heads! "not meaning in a bad way"
But for me what motivates me to strive to build or purchase something
I consider better really comes from other equipment I've heard
that I go "wow that sounds amazing".
That's how I got into tubes in the first place.
The high end shop in my area has some incredable equipment I can't afford
But would love to build or own.
I'm really getting intrigued by the so called incredable tube amps.
And I'm thinking of building something different "for me"
I read all the time of these truly amazing flea power amps as something
truly awe inspiring and I'd like to see for myself.
And I have come to the conclusion the amp "can" be the most important
part of your system. meaning like he said a resonable solid state amp
verse a tube amp.
I believe the tube amp will make more of a difference on the system.
But in a solid state system I believe the speakers can be more
effective on achieving your sonic goal. "if that makes any sense"
But through my own trials that's were im at right now!
But maybe if I had a truly amazing solid state amp I would think different.
I would hope if someone read this article they would feel the passion
in what the designer has experienced that might intrigue them to investigate.
If they were inclined to be thinking of going into tubes
or at least see what others feel is the better amp for music reproduction,
Be it tubes in general or the type of amp being described.
It actually knidof scares me to think a 7watt or less could do me justice
as I like my music a little on the louder side!
But I'd like to find out.
When I said I wanted to step back from the forum and let you guy's go at it.
Was really not wanting to get into any debates for awhile, but to just relax.
Maybe slow down and do some other thinking!
I'll have no problem carrying on some discussions but I'm debated out right now!
Deabates seem to turn into arguments and I'm not much for arguing.
Sharing knowlage or opinions back and fourth is one thing but I'm burn't
out on the whole debate thing! |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1905
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 02:35 am: |
|
The above is a reply to jan about the post:
" Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:42 am:" |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1906
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 02:53 am: |
|
ok the last one I'll put out for awhile!
_______________________________________________
Gordon Rankin, Wavelength's Single-Ended Man
Jonathan Scull, January, 1996
Jonathan Scull: Gordon, please tell us what you see as the basic difference between single-ended and push-pull.
Gordon Rankin: Well, first let me tell you that we actually used to build push-pull amps—they were EL34-based units—for a good five years before we tried our first single-ended amplifier. In any case, as a musician I would say the detail of the output of a single-ended amp seemed more pure and less distorted in some ways.
Scull: How did you get single-ended, Gordon?
Rankin: I'd gotten a pair of single-ended transformers and a bunch of tubes from a kid at the University of Cincinnati, and in there were single-plate 2A3s—they're very hard to find. I wired up a simple single-ended amplifier and listened in mono. Surprisingly, I found the sound was more exact. Its presentation was more true of a live performance. I guess in engineering terms you could say there are a lot of reasons why one is always better than two, two better than four, and so on. In fact, not having to worry about splitting the phase and integrating it into the output stage has a big impact on the sound too. And of course push-pull cancels even-order distortion. But in the end, push-pull just didn't seem as natural and balanced-sounding to me as single-ended.
Scull: You're saying that having both odd- and even-order distortion products in the output is an important aspect of single-ended's sound?
Rankin: You know, distortion is a part of life. The reproduction of sound will always include distortion products—both even- and odd-order. Any type of reproducing device will exhibit distortion in its output. And canceling even some of it can have a detrimental effect to the sound itself as a whole.
Scull: Gordon, can you describe your circuit for us?
Rankin: Sure, all our amplifiers are made up of only two stages. If we could do it with one stage, we'd do it! We use the 6SL7 family in the Cardinal series as the front-end driver and gain tube in an SRPP circuit—that's shunt-regulated push-pull.
Scull: The input stage is push-pull?
Rankin: Yes, that's right. Actually it's both the input and gain stage, so we consider that a single stage. Then you have the 300B, which is the output stage. We did some engineering on it, and implemented certain things differently than in some other designs, but the Cardinal's input is primarily an SRPP circuit.
Scull: What's the difference between the special edition XS version and a standard Cardinal?
Rankin: Let me tell first you what's the same. The standard Cardinal has silver input wire and primarily the same resistor complement as the XS. The output wires are standard in both, and the power transformer itself is pretty much copper-oriented in both.
Scull: Uhhh, yeah, but how do they differ, Gordon?
Rankin: Well, the regular Cardinal has an all-copper primary. The Cardinal XS has an output transformer that's a mixture of 20% silver and 80% OFC copper. I'd also played around with Siltech cables, especially their chassis hookup wire, and that stuff is really nice—probably the best internal hookup wire I've found to date. So we wired the Cardinal XS with Siltech and Kimber.
Scull: Why both?
Rankin: The Siltech is such a heavy gauge of silver that in some places I had to use the more flexible Kimber—the KCAG—a 20-gauge seven-strand design.
Scull: Lets's talk input tubes for a bit.
Rankin: Sure. There's about 100 different 6SL7s, like those manufactured by Sylvania, RCA, some European brands like ECC35s, and CV 569s. Philips bought Sylvania in '85 or '86, you know. But the tubes I've felt the happiest with are the Sylvanias. Matter of fact, in my opinion, the Sylvania tubes in the 6SL7 and the 6SN7 family have done the best job. We ship the Sylvania 6SL7WGT in the standard Cardinal, but you can also have the 6188, which is actually a 6SU7. The difference between them is that the two sides—it's a twin-triode—are heavily matched in a 6SU7, but everything else is pretty much the same as a 6SL7. But the 6188s are actually a little different. The plate impedance of a 6SL7 is roughly 50k ohms, but the 6188 is more like 25k ohms, and so it's got a better drive capability. It's an extremely nice tube—detailed and very fast. Because of the low plate impedance and high gain, it drives the 300B better than any other 6SL7 we've ever tried, including the 5691.
Scull: When ordering a Cardinal, do customers have the choice of input tube?
Rankin: We're shipping with the Philips Sylvania 6SL7WGT on the standard Cardinal, but we're pretty relaxed about it. We provided some of those hard-to-get 5691s for a long time. Fortunately they're much easier to find now. The US Government freed up an enormous supply of them recently. They finally figured out they had all these tubes lying around that they were unlikely to ever use. I just heard that Mike Matthews at New Sensor picked up 5000 6188s, and Steve at Angela Instruments has 5000 of the 5691s.
Scull: And with the XS?
Rankin: Then you have a choice of anything we have. Typically we sell them with the Mullard 5AR4 rectifier tube, which is branded by Sylvania and RCA. Almost everybody rebranded that tube because nobody made it better. Then there's a choice of input tubes between the 6188, or, for a more lush sound, they can have the 6SL7WGT.
Scull: Or for greater lushment, the RCA red-base?
Rankin: Yup, the red-base 5691 or, getting back to a more neutral sound, you can have the black-base Sylvania 5691. I prefer the 6188. Of the 5691s, I like the Sylvania better than the RCA, because the RCA gives a more rounded, slower sound. The Sylvania sounds much faster.
Scull: Moving to the output stage, let's talk 300Bs.
Rankin: Okaaaay. The standard issue for the Cardinal XS is the VAIC, and it's a very nice tube for a number of reason. Just by the feel and texture of the tube—its heavy base and glass—you can tell they've spent a lot of money in the design and construction. We also offer the Cardinal XS at a reduced price with the Golden Dragon 300B Super. When you're talking 7 or 8W, the output tube can make a difference of a couple of watts! The VAIC VV30B actually adds 1.5 or 2W without changing a thing—no biasing, no nothing. You just drop it in.
Scull: Speaking of biasing, how's it done in your amps?
Rankin: We do self-bias with all our tube amplifiers because we feel that the bass response is a lot faster and more realistic like that.
Scull: You prefer that scheme to fixed biasing?
Rankin: Yes, for fixed-biasing you need to supply a negative voltage, and you've got to use a meter to set it. Self-biasing uses a simple resistor on the tube—as more current passes through it, the voltage increases and therefore the tube biases itself. This actually helps in the area of clipping and low-frequency response. You see, when you fix-bias an amplifier, the tube becomes a lot harder to drive. You're driving the input to the tube, and you're driving the negative supply.
Scull: What about overall capacitance?
Rankin: Well, we use a Pi filter, which means you can get away with very low total capacitance. I don't believe in huge caps—it slows down the sound. In the Cardinal we use no more than 80µF of capacitance.
Scull: Since your amps are pure single-ended, let me ask how you feel about parallel 300Bs.
Rankin: I actually used to make an amplifier called the Twin, and that was a parallel single-ended amp. We came out with it because for a while our customers were using speakers that the Cardinal, at 7˝ to 9W, just wouldn't drive. While I was designing and prototyping the Twin I noticed that at some point one of the tubes in the pair starts to take over. So you get this shearing effect—one tube will only be driving about 20% of the time, and the other in the pair will take over the rest of the job. You know, you can never truly match a set of tubes perfectly. They're mechanical devices, after all. Within the tolerances that you're looking for in the solid-state world, it would take 1000 to 2000 tubes before you'd get even two to work the same!
Scull: So parallel 300Bs need perfect matching?
Rankin: Yes, because you're driving one side of the transformer with both tubes. That's also why parallel 300Bs are more expensive—you've got more driver tubes and circuitry, and more stages overall. But a number of people who'd bought the Twins went for more sensitive speakers and switched to Cardinals. They've understood that straight single-ended actually works better than parallel 300Bs.
Scull: What do you hear as the differences between the two 300B circuit implementations?
Rankin: Parallel 300Bs are great for dynamics, but you lose a little of the clarity and information in the midband. You can hear this easily at louder listening levels. Of course, by then you may not care—maybe you're not listening carefully while you're cleaning or gallivanting around the house. But when you sit down to listen, it's very apparent. In general, parallels just don't sound as lush as single-ended.
Scull: So you're convinced that 7˝ to 9 big ones are all it takes to make music?
Rankin: Yes, in fact the first amp we ever built was with the 845—you know, the big transmitter tube. I'd designed push-pull amps for years, so I also thought that you had to have the watts. That amp had a 6SL7 driving a 300B driving an 845! We don't make it now because they weighed 85 lbs each and actually took over 400 hours of my time to build. But the big transmitter tubes were great in the mid- and low bass. They're perfect for subwoofers—the 211s and 845s are the best things in the world for that. They have a real driving force because of their extremely high voltage. It just takes home the cows!
Scull: [laughs] Tell me, Gordon, how long have you been taking home the cows?
Rankin: We've been a business since 1981. We were building speakers back then when I graduated college with a degree in Electrical Engineering. I have degrees in music and physics as well. Building speakers was hard to do and time-consuming—matching drivers and so on. If we had the desktop computing power we have now back then, I'd probably still be designing speakers today!
Scull: So, Gordon, can a push-pull audiophile find happiness with single-ended triodes?
Rankin: I think so, I mean, I did—I was transformed!
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_r
Naples,
FL
Post Number: 246
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 09:04 am: |
|
G-day from Swampville (yawn) - well, after reading Kegger's articles, uh, I think I'll hang out on Discoveries. I understand music, even if John and I have absolutely no agreement on most aspects of it (grin) - while I have nearly zero understanding of what the heck Kegger and Jan are debating! Nope. . .
My newest CD "glop" is due here by UPS today, so will quickly find out if: 1-it rots CDs or
2-it works as well as or better than "Vivid."
Me thinks 2 is better than 1 ! !
Do any of you get the "MusicDirect" catalog out of Chicago? If you do - KEGGER, I'VE FOUND T H E CD PLAYER FOR YOU! Look it up - called a Shanling CT-200 - and heck, it only costs $2,700, BUT - BUT - it has tubes a-plenty and glorious BLUE LIGHTS all over it. worth every penny!!!
Mer and I were thinking of sending one to you for Christmas, but then she worried that you might be Jewish, and thus consider the Christmas gift an insult. So we're not sending you one. (double grin)
More anon. . . |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1907
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 09:49 am: |
|
Larry, Yes I've seen there cd player's they are absolutly beautiful!
JohnA has mentioned them before as something he found interesting.
But like you said a little on the pricey side.
So far the most I've spent on a single piece of equipment is $1000
And I think I've been able to find some excelent equipment in there.
Good day to you sir!
By the way I'm not jewish so if you'd like to rethink! |
Silver Member Username: Larry_r
Naples,
FL
Post Number: 247
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:21 am: |
|
Kegger: Well, I told Mer that we might change our minds and send you one, after all. However, she pointed to the check book and asked me to add up all that the two of us will have spent this year on our collective teeth problems.
GULP - With my two crowns and one root canal, and Mer's two crowns - total: $4,750.00
As in OUCH!
Maybe, my friend, you won't be getting a Shanling after all. . . GRIN.
BTW - my Doc-friend just called to say that the Sunfire receiver his wife "fried" is not repairable. That according to the manufacturer. He filed an insurance claim - but don't know what he'll replace it with. He says not another Sunfire. Guess he doesn't trust his wife's coffee-balancing? Hmmm. . . It must be nice to be able to afford a $4,000 receiver. I'll never know.
More anon. . . |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:29 am: |
|
Kegger - "Again this is where we butt heads!"
Sorry, thought we were discussing.
"It actually knidof scares me to think a 7watt or less could do me justice ... "
Obviously, a case of being in need of more sensitivity.
"Or for greater lushment, the RCA red-base?"
Kegger, I'll give you fair warning; I've seen what happens to people when they get hooked on "greater lushment". It's not a pretty picture.
So what is it going to be, Kegger? S-E or P-P?
Amazingly, the forum will not allow the last two letters of my post to be put in print without the hyphen! But I can type screw. Wowserss!
|
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1908
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:36 am: |
|
larry you should find out if he definatly wants to go reciever again
or if he wants to try seperates (prepro and amp or amps)
maybe we could give him some things he might not thought of or be aware of!
like if he wants to try seperates he could go with a nice 2channel
amp for the front speakers and another for the center and surrounds.
something like that maybe or something else alltogether from
a suggestion from someone else.
Anyways let him know if he'd like to utilize your contacts on this board
that were here to help! |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1909
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
|
Jan I meant this:
"Kegger - "Again this is where we butt heads!"
Sorry, thought we were discussing."
were we seem to be different at.
That's why I put "not meaning in a bad way"
meaning that you seem think one way and I another.
(a difference of opinion)
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:41 am: |
|
Here's the math lesson for the day: (this will be on the test, so take notes)
Kegger - Triode math -
1 = 104
2 = 107
3 = 110
4 = 113
5 = 116
6 = 119
7 = 122
8 = 125
9 = 128
If I remember correctly, 120 is threshold of pain, 130 is a jet taking off from 50' away, and permanent damage starts at about 110. This and a 300B and all our posts to Kegger WILL START LOOKING LIKE THIS!
Larry - I've done the math in my checkbook too.
2 = Mer's part
7 = Larry's part
0 = I can cover
0 = John will kick in
Looks like your only 9 away from Kegger geting one heck of a Xmas present.
|
J.Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:43 am: |
|
Kegger - That's what I thought too. YEP!
|
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1910
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
Jan so your suggesting 104sens speakers?
I would agree.
But I have so many other speakers that I'd like to try
I'd hate to be locked in on the klipsch I own.
Yu know what I mean?
If I get this incredable sounding amp I'd like to try all my speakers on it.
(and have good solid volume without having to completely crank the amp)
That's the delema I'm contemplating. |
Silver Member Username: Larry_r
Naples,
FL
Post Number: 248
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:50 am: |
|
Kegger: Will pass along the ideas, with thanks to you. Just not sure what he wants to do.
Jan V. - OK - I understand - but is there any way to increase the numbers in the "I can cover" and "John will kick in" listings? Hmm. . . that would surely make Kegger's present more of a "universal" player, wouldn't it? (grin)
Just asking. . .(slyly)
More sometime. . . |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:55 am: |
|
I know most of you have already been down the 6SU7/5691/6188 route and have made your decisions about fixed vs.self biasing. Kegger and I can go on with this on the side while the rest of you move on where no man or Ghia has gone before.
I would like to restate my question of a while back and see if anyone cares to get involved in this discussion.
If we can agree there is a communication that occurs during a live recording session (which I obviously do believe); what are the clues we, as listeners, pick up on that informs us this was happening during the recording session? In other words, what are you hearing on a recording where the artists really clicked and made something special happen as it was caught on tape? Conversely, can you say, if those clues aren't there, the recording session lacked something? What, if any, examples of this can you provide for the group to hear for themself?
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:57 am: |
|
LAR!!! John and I are already picking up half the numbers! How much more do you need for Chrissy's sake?!
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New York
USA
Post Number: 667
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
Morning All,
Nice to see the "DOGS" at least woofing at each other again.
Kegger-Jan,
As I become more interested in tubes, I have found the above posts very interesting. I have one observation or opinion if I may. For many years I thought the speakers were the most important piece in the chain. I changed my mind to the amp, and then to the source. Now I am totally convinced that the most important piece may very well be the preamp. If anyone wanted to immediately change the quality of their system with one piece of gear, put a tube pre-amp in the chain. That said let me ask a not so simple question. Can you describe to me what I will hear the difference to be with push-pull tubes and a SET?
BTW- On the subject of tube amps and low watts-I remember reading Nelson Pass saying "it's the first watt that counts". |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 1911
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:23 am: |
|
The only way I can describe what I hear as a difference rick:
Would be a smoothness to the sound.
Jan could probably give you others.
But the only true set's that I've spent any time with don't
seem to be the true incredable sounding audiofile ones
So I still have to learn the real difference!
And as far as the preamp you say, I may agree with you on a solid state
amplified system.
Pr | |
