JSharp

Wolfram - Answered here - http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=590487#590487

Duh. I didn't even think of using the keyboard shortcuts. They work fine. Right click is what's broken. I gave up on IE years ago. My boss trusts IE so little, he banned it's use from our company network as an undue security risk. I have to agree with him...

I dealt with mine 10 years ago the last time I moved. I made sure I moved to a place where the closest one is 1/4 mile away... []

Am I the only one here who is not using IE and because of that the only one who is having problems? []

It's effectively unusable with Mozilla/Netscape. You're unable to cut and paste into the reply window.

I'm quite familiar with the EMI that ends up on power cords since I design equipment for living that has to be tested for FCC compliance. But the jump from this - to this - isn't just a small creek you're jumping over. It's the Grand Canyon. Or the Atlantic Ocean. For there to be a difference in sound quality, there has to first be a difference in the cable's ability to shield. IOW, it's ability to filter any signals other than the 60hz power line it's connected to. Then that difference has to pass through the filtering that the attached equipment contains, and the power supply ( a circuit designed to produce filtered DC power from the 60hz AC line ) and end up on audio circuitry in such a way that it could change the way the the signal is handled. Then, that difference has to be large enough for the listener to identify it. Given the poor quality of most of the power supplies that are used in audio equipment I suppose this is *possible* But I'll wager in a double blind test that there isn't a person alive who could tell the difference with the EMI levels that are typically seen on power cables...

Ok, I'm new here so indulge me... Are there really people who claim to be sane, and yet believe they can hear a difference between a correctly sized $3 Chinese IEC cord and power cables that cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars?

Great. So all we need to do is make the drivers infinitesimally small and we'll have flat response omni-directional radiation? As long as we live in a 3D free field, we should be all set right? Could we eliminate the free field requirement by having any surfaces in our world be 100% anechoic?

IM, or TIM? Or some distortion more obscure that we don't measure? A lot of the older pro amps like the Crowns have pretty low IM levels even at low output, yet people say how harsh they sound. Not to question them because they're mostly right, I'm just trying to understand why...

---------------- On 8/25/2005 8:22:49 AM PrestonTom wrote: Regarding the original topic about Cryo-voodoo.... This is nonsense! Folks would do better by spending their energy on speaker set up and room treatment (those efeccts are not voodoo - they will make a difference) -Tom ---------------- I couldn't agree more. It's not nearly as mystical but a lot more effective and much much cheaper than the latest audiophile fad...

---------------- On 8/25/2005 2:49:49 AM djk wrote: It's too much work for the end result. VanAlstine has the right idea for a dead one. Gut it for the chassis and supply, then do a fresh design. ---------------- Agreed. The board layout of something new is the easy part since I do that for a living. Designing it is the hard part since I've never done any large hi-fi audio amplifier design. Everything I've done is digital and low level audio. eBay will probably be the answer I end up going with. Or keep mine around in case I ever want an amp for a sub...

---------------- On 8/24/2005 11:03:10 PM DeanG wrote: A tube is plastic, metal, and glass -- and all three have different rates of expansion and contraction. To me, it just sounds like stress. ---------------- I'm not familiar with the process on anything other than metals. On metals, a further heat treating is required after the cryo treatment to complete the stress relief process and maintain the material properties. I don't know how you'd do that with something like a tube. I'm afraid you'd either not get be able to heat the metal sufficiently for full stress relief, or if you did, I don't know how you'd keep the nonmetallic components from losing some of their properties. I've had work done by these guys - http://www.300below.com/site/home.html

---------------- On 8/24/2005 10:09:15 PM Seadog wrote: There is sound material science behind the cryo treatment for some materials. I know a guy that has a business that does this. I've seen the "machine", and it is pretty simple, basically a big deep freezer looking thing with piping to allow liquid nitrogen to fill it up - of course after you have put in all of the stuff that you want to freeze at extremely low temperatures for about 24 hours. Credible studies have proven that strength and durability for some materials is improved after the treatment, especially some plastics, and even some metals. I have no idea how or if it could improve the performance of an audio tube. Perhaps it could extend the life?? ---------------- A lot of metal parts are cryo treated. Things in the aerospace industry, high stress parts for use motorsports, and firearms are three I can think of off the top of my head. I even have a rifle that was cryo treated. But making an audible difference in tubes ?!? Place me in the *very* skeptical section.

---------------- On 8/23/2005 6:46:05 AM djk wrote: "well where's DJK ...?????" Short on sleep. Been busy working on old military GPS and avionics gear, had to pee in the bottle a couple of weeks ago. BGW uses the LM318 in inverting mode, 70V/µS, vastly better sounding than the 1V/µS µA739 found in the same vintage Crown amps. If you have a 'C' vintage or newer BGW750, a cap upgrade will make it sound better than 99.9% of most hi-fi amps. Quieter fans are available. The Crown D60/75 and the PSA2 are OK, you can keep the rest. The amplifier that PWK measured as having the lowest TIM distortion he had ever measured (in the DFH Vol. 16, No. 8, Sept '77), was the BGW100. While the BGW measures great, a cap upgrade will make it sound even better (the Crown D60/75 will also sound better with similar attention). Unfortunately there is no easy upgrade for the µA739 Crown used, or the quasi-comp output stages in the early Crown and BGW models. The caps do make a big difference though, and costs are very low for the DIY owner. ---------------- With my limited knowledge of power amps I looked at the schematic on the DC300A and it looks like short of making a new input/driver board I don't see how you could change much to make it better. Maybe removing the all the compensation parts and making a small board to fix the pinout that holds a modern internally compensated op amp. What do thay call that? Lipstick on a pig? I just bought a used D75A. I'm interested to see if my old ears can tell the difference between it and my ancient DC300A or the chip amp I built.

---------------- On 8/21/2005 8:25:55 PM Duke Spinner wrote: i don't think any S/S amp ... can beat the low level spec's of the D45 at that price level, hell even add a couple grand there's No competition ---------------- Even the older and higher output Crown amps have good specs at low levels. They're also extremely quiet electrically. From a DC300A Series II data sheet - Intermodulation Distortion (IMD): (SMPTE-IM 60 Hz and 7 kHz) Less than 0.05% from 0.01 to 0.25 watts, and less than 0.01% from 0.25 to rated maximum average power. The older non-Series II models have similar specs. Yet people complain about how they sound in a home audio system. Why? Too much bandwidth, response too flat, slew rate too high, damping too high? What?

---------------- On 8/19/2005 10:30:19 PM colterphoto1 wrote: $1200 for those? Are you kidding me? The logos are on different sides, bet the tweeters are too! ---------------- I don't know if it's different with the hardwood models, but my '73 decorators have the hi freq components on the right side as you face the front. They're both that way.

I had a Thorens TD-160C. IIRC the TD-145 is almost identical with the addition of auto arm lift at the end of the LP. The suspension isn't anything to write home about as far as isolation, and the arm is fairly high mass. The later model arms moved the headshell/tonearm connection back near the pivot to help some. Same amount of mass but less polar moment. A lot of people at the time were buying those turntables and replacing the tonearm with something better. Be careful if you remove the headshell to install a new cartridge. The headshell/tonearm pin and socket connection setup, specifically the socket assembly, is ultra fragile. And I wouldn't try to use any high compliance cartridge with it. The Thorens was considered one of the great audiophile tunrtables back in the day, but mine was such a PITA I ended up buying a Sony Biotracer to replace it which I still have...

---------------- On 8/21/2005 11:26:37 AM Duke Spinner wrote: unfortunately, the build quality on Crown stuff far exceeds the advances in circut design....ensuring thire ton's of them still working it's the worst of the early S/S stuff the Op-amps that were in there, were all that was availible back then ... replacing tem will benefit the sound, but i would look for anything else ... ---------------- The IC-150 circuit actually doesn't look horrible if you modify it for use with modern parts. You can dump the output blocking caps and get rid of all the nasty op amp compensation circuitry since the original parts were uncompensated but the 627's are. And it's a just a single op amp in the signal path of each channel.

---------------- On 8/20/2005 9:40:51 PM dragonfyr wrote: ---------------- ... $750 shipped... ...how I got to that number, I was just going to buy a new Crown D75A ---------------- http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif"> http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif"> Please do not spend $750 for a new D75A!!!!! Even I am opposed to that, and these amps have been workhorses in studios for years! You should not need to spend more then ~$175 for a mint condition D75A!! Shop around and be patient! They appear quite frequently! ---------------- I don't know where the $750 number came from. You can get brand new ones all day for $450-$500. I haven't looked for used ones yet.

---------------- On 8/20/2005 11:04:43 PM dragonfyr wrote: ---------------- On 8/20/2005 9:48:29 PM Duke Spinner wrote: Get Rid Of The ICY-150 .....! you'll like that DC 150 a whole lot better .... Sorry but that is the WORST sounding product Crown ever made .... ---------------- They are a bit strident! How's that for understatement!? ---------------- I'm hoping it'll be better with the Burr Brown OPA627 parts, new caps, better power supply, etc. If it's not, I'll sell it.

---------------- On 8/20/2005 8:16:20 PM Duke Spinner wrote: No substitute for an audition .... i don't mean to beat the Crown thing to death .. QSC plx series are good amps Crest ... makes GREAT amps lot's swear by BGW it just happens i've used Crown 30 years, why change..... 70% of your Studio playback ... is Crown , 'n JBL.. well maybe 60% today, there are soooooooo many "monitor " manufacturers ... in any event, the D-75 spec's above are typical of ALL Crown products right thru 5000 wpc ---------------- Not to mention you can buy a brand new D-75A for $450. If you need more power you can buy 2 of them and run them bridged ( although the distortion increases ) and still spend under $1K...

---------------- On 8/19/2005 9:57:20 PM garymd wrote: ---------------- On 8/19/2005 2:59:31 PM JSharp wrote: I don't care one way or the other about "tube upkeep" even if it does exist. This is a hobby. I did mean just a power amp. I'll probably keep my old IC-150 preamp for a while. I have parts coming to mod it since it's easy - OPA627's, polypropylene caps, fully regulated supply, etc. ---------------- You could sell the pre to help pay for the 233 or something like it. Just a thought........ I'm guessing it would be hard to find nice Dynacos in that price range. ---------------- I mod stuff. I have to. So I have to keep things around to allow me to do that...

---------------- On 8/19/2005 7:14:45 PM jt1stcav wrote: Are you happy with the Crown sound? If so, then go look into the D75A. Also a used McIntosh MC250 or MC2100 (50 watts and 100 watts respectively), for warm, tube-like sound from classic SS amps. And Carver TFM-35x would also work great with your Cornwalls (I know), along with Carver's M-400t, M-500t, M-1.0t, etc. Consider Adcom as well, like their GFA-5400, or Aragon's 2004 MK2. BTW...except for the Crown, all these amps have been used by myself and my brothers. ---------------- I'm not unhappy with how what I already own sounds. The Crown stuff is pretty "hard edged" though with the Cornwalls. I did equipment for a few of the local rock bands in the 70's and this is the kind of stuff we used there so it was logical to end up with that at home. And this is what live music equipment sounded like then. It needed the ability to play at high levels with low distortion which meant lots of power into horn loaded speakers, etc. And if you were in a studio you used the same kind or electronics but less power and speakers like JBL L100's This thread has been informative but it makes me smile in a way. I've almost come full circle. I got in late enough that I never really listened to any tube stuff back then. In the 70's a person could have gotten as many of the old Dynacos as they wanted for almost nothing. People were nearly throwing that type of equipment away. I really wish I have paid more attention then instead or being caught up in what everyone else was using and what I "knew" I had to have.... Thanks for all the replies!

---------------- On 8/17/2005 4:54:58 AM Frzninvt wrote: I don't have that problem! I use a pair of DBX 3BX-DS 3-Band Dynamic Range Controllers that restore what was originally robbed in the recording/mastering process. If you have not tried one of these units you quite honestly do not know what you are missing. Do not use any of the older 3BX units as they are not as refined and smooth as the final "Digital Series" version is. Here is a link to one that I am selling so you can see the specs and what it is capable of doing. I have two and I get "0" noise or artifacts in my system. Try one you'll like it! If you don't all you have to do is put it back up for sale and get your money back. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5798705997&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 My Alpine 7998 has similar circuits for MP3 playback or weak recordings but it is only an on/off button with three levels but it makes a big difference. I actually used a DBX 3BX-DS in my IASCA competion car back in '95-'96 with a modified sine wave inverter and man the judges were impressed with the dynamics and impact the system was capable of. ---------------- I'm a believer in these types of expansion units. I've been using an RG Pro-16 unit for 20+ years. Set to a reasonable amount of expansion, 10db-12db, you don't even know it's there. Except for the improved dynamics, impact, and lower noise. I just bought a DBX 1BX series III from eBay to see how it compares to my old RG...

---------------- On 8/19/2005 3:09:16 PM robster wrote: My Scott 233 MINT NOSValves rebuilt with wood cabinet for $750 shipped, would sound great with Cornwalls,I'm using it with Chorus II's now. Selling to pay for VRD's. Cheers, Robert ---------------- It's above my price point right now. To tell you how I got to that number, I was just going to buy a new Crown D75A but I figured I'd like to hear what other options I might have. Now everyone has me thinking a lot more which is exactly what I wanted...