Fjd
-
Posts
1718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Fjd
-
-
It seems like a good time for another glowing tube picture.
.
-
Here are the diyAudio links referred to above.
Wiener TPA3118
This was an interesting thread on how the wiener amp developed.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/267039-proper-tda3116-pcb.html
Lots of great builds (a few that I really liked below) over on the DIY Audio site buried in those threads and it looks like several favor the CineMag input transformers. I've also seen the Jensen JT-11P-1 input transformer used in conjunction with various chip amps too. There a several really interesting options for the power supply too and I've read the wiener amplifier card can be run easily on 24V too.
-
1
-
-
I totally agree and this is somewhat strange. You can look at various bench tests and conclude that the upper Denon AVR's do in fact edge out the Marantz AVR line on power. They may even exceed in noise floor numbers too. Some people scoff at this, but every little bit helps and isn't that what we are all looking for.....
Having said that, I would swap my Denon 4311 AVR for a Marantz 8802 dedicated pre in a heartbeat.
I bought my girlfriend the Marantz SR5009 that allows her to connect all of her network stuff and Scrappy's Klipsch RP 5.0 speaker setup for her apartment a while back; and she seems to be extremely pleased with the setup. When I start working on the larger system, I'll probably go with separates and have been looking at the Marantz AV8802A or AV7702 mkII.
-
1
-
-
It seems to me like my LaScalas like big beefy amps with lots of overhead, and not a lot of digital processing.
If you just had a big stereo amp connected through your mains that you could switch to for music, you would be surprised. Even better a beefy tube amp like a McIntosh MC275. Niles makes some switching stuff that can allow you to share those speakers with the main AVR.
Ya, this is another thing I have considered, that's another reason I was considering upgrading to something with pre outs I wouldn't mind getting a nice external amp for the La Scala's.
Though the spec's on the La Scala's say the maximum continuous wattage rating for them is 100 which is what my current receiver pushes. Would it be bad to push more continuous power to them than the recommended?
In relation to driving La Scalas with more power than recommended, I would read the following "Dope from Hope" articles that can be found at the link below from the Klipsch education page:
http://www.klipsch.com/education/dope-from-hope
Vol. 7, No. 5, June 1966, "Blown Tweeters"
Vol. 8, No. 1, July 1967, "Guarantee Void!"
Vol. 13, No. 1, January 1973, "Fuses for Loudspeakers"
Vol. 13, No. 2, June 1973, "Speaker Destruction"
Vol. 14, No. 2, May 1974, "Power Ratings"
Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1977, "Amplifier Ratings to Drive Klipsch Systems
PWK once said, "bragging about how much power your speaker can absorb is like bragging about how much fuel your vehicle can burn."
-
They were about six feet tall and the response went way below 65hz
Was it Nelson Pass's design? If so I would love to hear those monsters.
Frugal-horn.com is a smaller version. Maybe a good projectsomeday.I have personally heard a single point driver horn speaker set up. They were about six feet tall and the response went way below 65hz. I would have bought them if I had the means and space, because they sounded fantastic.
Looks like they weren't cheap http://www.dagogo.com/maxxhorn-immersion-floorstanding-speaker-review.
There is a sub-forum at diyAudio called Full Range I am looking at. I think something like these could be built.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Just because I thought they looked cool, if I had the room and the extra money at the time, I had the opportunity about two years ago to buy a nice pair of Hedlund back-loaded horn speakers with Lowther DX4 full-range drivers. I remember when the Hedlund design was really popular for the Lowther DX2, DX3 and DX4 full-range drivers but had not given it much serious thought when first introduced.
However, as with anything audio, there seems to be trade-offs and compromises. While we would not have the same time-alignment issues with the full-range driver set up such as the Lowther / Hedlund combination, I believe that the modulation distortion is much higher on the full-range driver set-up as compared to horn loaded loudspeakers such as the Khorn, Belle or La Scala.
The other aspect that is difficult with the full-range driver set up, is when you want to turn the knob up and listen at levels that approach concert level, Khorn and La Scala can handle the concert peaks, while the full range set up, not so much.
Time align the Khorn, Belle or La Scala drivers within that quarter-wavelength measure at the crossover region, and you may just have the best of both worlds.
-
1
-
-
They like something from a James Bond flick! Very nice! As you know my amps were built with COST NO ISSUE attitude! I often listen with lights down low and just see the glow from the tubes. They bling in the sound department! BUT YES YOURS do look amazing!
I got the pre from
Discgolfer123. did the late night 8 hr drive to get them! TIM WAS AWESOME in his help with this!One clarification is in order. The actual gold plated pair belong to another forum member and is something that I think really looks cool with the gold plating and cocobolo wood used on the base. I didn't have gold in the budget and decided I liked USNRET's "black liquid gold" plating when he put his VRDs up for sale.
-
These amps have more staying power in my system than anything else. The Magnequest upgrade takes these to a place where only the best amplifiers dwell. No joke.
I've used MagneQuest transformers on a few projects (DS-025, FS-030, TFA-2004 Jr with Cobalt/M4 pinstripe laminations and one of the EX models with nickel laminations) and a few of the Electra-print transformers (including a pair of 5K 8ohm air gapped silver winding transformers that I picked up on the secondary market cheap and have now re-purposed for my build of Maynard's Little Sweetie mono blocks); and have come to believe that with tube amplifiers, there seems to be huge dividends in buying the best transformers that I can afford.
I need to see where I can raise some cash for the MagneQuest upgrade on my VRDs. I'm curious if Craig is using the S-271-A or a model not listed on the MagneQuest site?
Sold getting shipped today to 2Bmusic Enjoy
Thank you so very much! I will enjoy. Do you think I need to check/adjust the bias?
Congratulations on purchasing the VRD mono block amplifiers. I haven't been online for several weeks due to some fairly extreme work commitments (that has another week or two to run its course) and the last time was around when you were having issues with matching the preamplifier that output less than 2V to the horn monos that required the 6V input.
eth2, on 05 May 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:
Now you need the tubes.
***** SO HOW GOOD ARE THE NOS VALVE TRIO****** (?) OR HOW WELL DOES MY SET-UP HONOR PWK?
I have great tubes in a three amps. I listened for a while after work last night. It was Damn hard to stop,and go to bed knowing I had to get up for work in am. I would say the NOS VALVES pre and amps bring the search for truly amazing sound to an end.
Thank you once again to all who made this possible!
I'm happy for you , wish you lived closer Id love to hear your setup . 14 h 58 min away
Wow, I thought your NOS Valves preamplifier was already gone, but it looks like 2Bmusic found a NOS Valves preamplifier to go along with the VRDs?
Now that he has the amplifiers, all that is left is to add some bling. Of course, gold plating similar to this pair may just need to be the next upgrade he makes.
-
1
-
-
The wisenheimer responds, "What is the most important leg of a three-legged stool?" But that doesn't help.
WMcD
Now talking about three legs does make me wonder where this woman buys her shoes; and if she has to buy two right and one left or two left and one right or three left, etc.?
-
Choose the loudspeaker first, then address the appropriate room acoustic issues in relation to the loudspeaker choice. Does your listening experience leave you with the feeling of something being off key, timing is wrong, the bass seems to linger, there are unbalanced time decays, peaks and valleys in the overall frequency response that can be easily heard? Well, it just may be room acoustic issues that a new amplifier or a new preamplifier can never solve.
As long as a person has a grasp of how AC voltage moves between pieces of gear and understands impedance matching with the gear selection, the formal preamplifier as we know it may not even be necessary in many music reproduction systems. However, it seems that you will need an amplifier to provide some level of voltage gain, an amplifier that can play nice with the loudspeaker impedance curves and an amplifier that can handle any music peaks you will want to reproduce and experience in relation to your music selection, among other criteria.
Here are a couple of PWK classic white papers to keep in mind when building a music reproduction system.
In “Dope From Hope, Vol 4, No. 3 August 21, 1963” PWK indicated that “In quality or accuracy, all loudspeakers err by greater or less amounts. Comparison between them is not the best way to evaluate them. Comparison with live sound would be much better when and if possible. Then one would not judge which sounds best but which sounds most like the original. If the original sounds bad, then surely, so should the reproduction.”
In “Dope From Hope, Vol 5, No. 1 Feb. 24, 1964” after the proper loudspeaker selection, PWK outlines that room acoustics are the second most important/critical aspect in achieving good audio.
I'm really not an amp guy. But why be quiet?
In my view the pre amp is in a very friendly environment. The load is friendly and pretty constant. It does not have to produce power to speak of. They are all operating Class A. They just produce some voltage gain. (Yeah, some op-amp are push pull.)
This means that there is no great technological problem. An inexpensive one should do well. I haven't see a distortion level on pre-amps but there is no excuse for distortion in such undemanding environments.
As always, I'll point out that except for the new digital age, there are probably a dozen Class A low level amps in the chain between the microphone and the input to your power amp. They do well and the last one on your rig does to too. It is not going to ruin things
OTOH, the power amp has to do just that, produce power. The speaker load is variable with frequency. This is more demanding on the technology. Therefore, you should expect to have to spend money there to get good results.
WMcDPower amps and the like are one subject. Not addressed here.
But I still wonder about the chain of electronics e.g. microphone amps, mixers, etc., which were used to produce recording, in history, we admire or maybe less so. This is all low level processing.
Over the years the equipment is tube or transistor, operating in Class A. The equipment uses capacitors and sometimes transformers which are subject to love and hate. But that is what we've got just before the signal is stored and distributed, by any number of means.
For example, you can say that tubes or transistors or caps are good or bad in my pre-amp. Yet the signal has probably been processed through multiple stages of equipment using the devices which are praised or vilified. That can't be un-done.
As an extension, do we really think that a pre-amp is going to do more harm or good than all the proceeding ones? It can't cure anything.
If here is one last stage of small amplification using similar devices and topology in our living room, how much can we hope to accomplish?
WMcDTo borrow an iconic phrase from Ten Bears, "there is iron in your words." Yep, I just got done watching the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and decided to read a little.
You sure outlined way too many variables to even think about all of the potential impacts when considering the audio reproduction chain as the initial capture of the performance all the way to the output from the speaker in a home listening environment.
In my experience at the “home” level, for a well-implemented system, well-engineered circuits constructed into amplifiers with quality parts of the appropriate specifications, whether tube or solid state, will appear to exhibit more similarities than differences on my Klipschorn implementation.
Wow Gill, I always enjoy reading your posts as you always know how to cull the “wheat from the chaff”!!!
The multitude of variables that cannot be controlled or even identified seem so overwhelming! Thinking about it from the perspectives you have outlined, it seems that we are essentially converting the acoustic pressure of a performance into an electrical signal, meaning that every recording begins with a microphone and ends with a loudspeaker, along with hundreds upon hundreds of potentially mediocre parts that include opamps, capacitors, wires, cables, resistors, transformers, etc., etc., etc.
In some respects, this seems to mean to me that there just isn’t a “holy grail” gear component, whether it be amplifier, preamplifier, cable, power cords, etc., regardless of what the audio industry reviewers may tend to have you believe. Shocking news indeed!!!
In addition, another piece of shocking news, is how easy it can be to come to the conclusion that most of the source is “crap” too once a person reads the “loudness wars” and “missing octave” threads.
All the preconceived "stereo-types" (another poor attempt at a pun) from my youth utterly smashed, shattered, broken into unrecognizable pieces; and spew across the lawn like a strong fall wind blowing old, dead, dried leaves (at least the colors can be great).
Is it any wonder that my forum signature is really my attempt at parody or mild satire about the audio industry? Yea, I know, keep the day job!
It has become perfectly clear to me that there just isn’t a “holy grail” gear component; and one component in my home cannot necessarily undo any of the twisting, mangling, disfiguring, contorting, dirtying, cleaning, and reconstructing of the AC voltage that occurs long before it gets to my gear.
["Listening to music is often a holistic, multidimensional experience that includes emotions, reactions, and involvement in the music."]
Experiencing any form of art, including music, is such a personal experience that is unique to that individual; and that personal experience cannot necessarily be reliably bottled, measured, quantified and homogenized for mass consumption in any way, shape or form. The experience cannot be correlated solely to a DBX test or an audio magazine subjective review.
"it is important for us to remain cognizant of the fact that we are always looking through a small window on a very complex experience and to remain forever skeptical of our own conclusions and methods and as well as remain open-minded about the conclusions of others." - Bob Katz engineer of the Chesky recordings
I firmly believe that the ear (e.g., a “trained ear” and even an “untrained” ear) can enjoy the music reproduction experience; and along the way detect very small differences that seem very inconsequential on the surface. I certainly cannot find fault with those that just use their ears and go with what provides the listening experience they are looking for and try not to question the person's individual selection of gear. However, I try to remind that although the ear can detect very small differences, the brain (and this applies to the brain of the “trained ear” as well as the “untrained” ear) may not exactly know what specific aspect of the music reproduction chain to attribute the difference. All bets are off whether something will work for me until I’ve heard something in my listening space.
["They make miniature tubes and miniature loudspeakers, but they have yet to come up with a miniature 32-foot wavelength." – PWK]
Regardless of what they try to dupe you into believing with all that Shakespearean prose called a “review,” you just can’t change physics. We never could and we never will.
It sure seems like great entertainment can be had for all.
-
2
-
-
Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier. Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter.
More insight for Paul's game.
I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.
Here are lines from the last review I read.
More dynamic at the macro level [solid state punch vs tube amp] and about the same as you scale down to the micro level [both solid state and tube amp can resolve the micro detail in the recording].
Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. [solid state portrays similar ability to image but tube amp has the edge on the 'realism' of the image]
A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. [while the tube amplifier is distinctly better at the "realism" the solid state amplifier is no slouch in its own right]
The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. [there again, less "realism" with the solid state amplifier vs. the tube amplifier]
The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. [this might be the 3rd harmonics that are characteristic of solid state and sometimes noticeable vs. the less intrusive aspect of 2nd harmonics in tube amplifiers]
There is a nice sense of air and space [solid state does a very respectable job of rendering the ambient information I the recording, but the next phrase gives the edge to the tube amplifier]
Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music [as above, this gives the edge of "realism" to the tube amplifier, although the solid state amplifier is "very nice"]
A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. [all in all, a very respectable solid state amplifier, if you are into solid state amplifiers, but it seems like this reviewer will keep the higher end tube amplifier when all is done]
WTF?
Wow...Your ability to ferret out meaning from this is very scary!
Nope, instead of using words that seem like they could be found in certain renaissance-period poetry (or maybe one of Metropolis' acid trips), I just typed the most common "stereo-typical" common-person descriptions that have been stated thousands upon thousands of times across various internet forums.
Pulling weeds is more entertaining.
I agree and I switched from reading reviews to pulling weeds back in the 1990s. Although the vocabulary may change, reviews today do not seem much different than they were 40 years ago.
-
Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier. Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter.
More insight for Paul's game.
I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.
Here are lines from the last review I read.
More dynamic at the macro level [solid state punch vs tube amp] and about the same as you scale down to the micro level [both solid state and tube amp can resolve the micro detail in the recording].
Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. [solid state portrays similar ability to image but tube amp has the edge on the 'realism' of the image]
A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. [while the tube amplifier is distinctly better at the "realism" the solid state amplifier is no slouch in its own right]
The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. [there again, less "realism" with the solid state amplifier vs. the tube amplifier]
The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. [this might be the 3rd harmonics that are characteristic of solid state and sometimes noticeable vs. the less intrusive aspect of 2nd harmonics in tube amplifiers]
There is a nice sense of air and space [solid state does a very respectable job of rendering the ambient information I the recording, but the next phrase gives the edge to the tube amplifier]
Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music [as above, this gives the edge of "realism" to the tube amplifier, although the solid state amplifier is "very nice"]
A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. [all in all, a very respectable solid state amplifier, if you are into solid state amplifiers, but it seems like this reviewer will keep the higher end tube amplifier when all is done]
WTF?
-
Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier. Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter.
-
Over the years I have gained some experience (e.g., either own, owned in the past, or had opportunity for extended listening session) with the following tube-based preamplifiers that I believe would fit well in a quality music reproduction system. I do not have much “shoot-out-type” comparison experience with this list as I tend to acquire based on the goals I have for the specific system implementation.
The usual mentioned on the forum:
Juicy Music Peach
Juicy Music Blueberry (early version, "on-steroids" version, and extreme version)
NOS Valves NBS preamplifier
Examples not typically mentioned on the forum:
Convergent Audio Technology (CAT) SL1 (IMO, one of the classics)
Audio Research LS25 (6922 tubes)
Audio Research LS25 Mk II (6H30 tubes)
Audible Illusions Modulus 3A (IME, need quality tubes and eats weaker tubes for lunch)
Manley Labs Shrimp
ModWright SWL 9.0SE
Cary Audio SLP98 (Line Stage uses 6SN7 similar to SLP05 and suspect sonic signature may be similar)
Lamm LL2
Tube Research Labs (TRL) The Dude (IMO, nice implementation of 6SN7 tubes)
Audio Research LS26
Audio Research SP10 (uses twelve 6922 tubes, and IME, needs quality tubes and it seemed to devour weaker tubes quickly)
Audio Research SP11
Harman Kardon Citation I (complete restoration)
Disclaimer: In relation to any forum member or anyone reading these threads and lurking; I cannot determine, and do not profess to know, if you will experience any system synergies; I have not performed any type of analysis to determine if my list of preamplifiers will be appropriately gain matched and impedance matched when used in any music reproduction systems other than my own.
In addition, I do not remember the model of VAC amplifier that eth2 ultimately purchased and is currently using, I do not remember what loudspeaker (e.g., horns, direct radiators, combination, etc.) that eth2 is driving with the VAC amplifier, where the loudspeakers are located in his room, the dimensions of his room (length, width, height), how loud eth2 typically listens to music, what kind of music that eth2 typically listens to the most, and have not done any evaluation of preamplifier specifications in relation to eth2’s music reproduction system.
Hopefully the list is informative and thought-provoking, prompts further research and investigation by anyone looking to purchase a tube-based preamplifier, and is not intended as insult or otherwise in relation to anybody’s choice in music reproduction system components!!!
-
2
-
-
Corners.
Done, they are closed in
Dave: Just want to be sure what 'they are closed in' means. Just because the backs are closed does not mean that they don't have to be in corners. Also the closed backs should be sealed at the top of the base bin to the corner with a triangle that would measure about 6.5 x 6.5 x 9 1/4". This was incorporated in later Khorns. Also don't forget 3rd path - Bob Crites - solid, economical upgrades
Another consideration is how the work was done to close the back. I've seen a few where the person inserted the panels within the horn space itself, and essentially reduced the expansion rate of the horn. I haven't seen anyone take measurements before and after; therefore, I do not know how significant of an impact the, technically, smaller horn would measure.
Here is a link to a very informative FAQ thread on obtaining the best imaging out of corner horn loudspeakers.
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/131163-corner-horn-imaging-faq/
Here is a link that looks interesting for another Klipschorn tophat solution. Does show a lot of measurements and the data sheet for the horns shows the polar response. This is the same guy that did the high-end crossover work for Volti Khorn upgrades (and I believe maybe for the Vitorra) and I've been thinking about having him design a passive for my Community M200 and VHF100 compression drivers (haven't finalized the horns yet).
http://www.northreadingeng.com/baffle_insert/R2_Klipschorn_baffle_insert.html
Main page with links to various custom work and photo essays.
http://www.northreadingeng.com/
Here are the polar response curves for the horn from the datasheet. Note that North Reading uses the B&C DHM50 (a very nice compression drive) with the Selenium (JBL subsidiary) HM3950 horn. I've attached the data sheets below.
.
-
A fellow who knows hos stuff. Great job!!!They look a lot like JBL L100T
I had a pair of the JBL 250tis, the pyramid looking ones in teak. They sounded great but were power hungry.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
I think you will find that the L100T will be on the "power hungry" side too.
-
They look a lot like JBL L100T
-
with regard to the above statements. I say this with humility and hope for finding the truth...
I played Bella Flecks "FLIGHT OF THE COSMIC HIPPO". This work will tax all equipment that tries to reproduce it. In playing that music I can tell you with full certainty the following:
When I say best sound possible, I am taking about music that sounds as close to original as possible.
My big ben 4 ~6 watt SET did not have enough to power to reproduce bass notes as well as a 25 watt p/p amp. This makes sense big time.
........ the Khorn with its incredible dynamic range will "most likely" ( maybe---- maybe not) perform best with bi-amp.
An SET for top side and SS for lows..... or some equipment similar. As for how this will sound, one would have to try it and see.
***** THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD******
WITH REGARD TO All the above talk about this and that. WELL it is important to compare apples to apples. What I mean is that one should take one song that has the full spectrum of frequencies ( 20 hertz to 20,000 hertz). This song should be played through all equipment in question. Why because audio engineers will vary settings as recording or mastering is being done. DOESN'T it make sense to compare you know values?
Agreed, that a comparison on an "apple to apple" basis appears to make sense and stress both amplifiers in relation to how you like to listen in order to evaluate how they perform in relation to your listening habits. However, this information now begs the question regarding how precise did you match the gain of each amplifier in your comparison?
In my experience, some people tend to forget about "level matching" or "gain matching" when comparing amplifiers. Even very slight differences in gain between amplifiers can be audible as I have found that precise level matching can be more critical than most even realize. In certain situations a 1 dB difference can change a person's perception of an amplifier.
In general, when gain levels are different, it seems that many will tend to conclude that louder music, even if it's just slightly louder, will almost always sounds better to them than the quieter music.
My big ben 4 ~6 watt SET did not have enough to power to reproduce bass notes as well as a 25 watt p/p amp.
The curiosity is killing me. What is this 25 watt push pull EL84 amplifier?
In case you did not get it from what I wrote previously, Quick Silver horn mono's. TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR...they sounded great. but $2,000 better than the yamaha rx A1030... not so much. If I did not have the yammy 1030, the horn mono's are keepers!
AND the fact that I have the Yamaha RX 1030 is accidental. I had been wanting a Macintosh or Pass amp. I never thought I would have the money to buy one, and in fact did not ( at the time) . BUT i needed an amp. I looked on CL and this 1030 which I knew nothing about was for sale brand new used less than a week. I offered the guy $400 and he took it. I connected it to my ( new to me) lascalas and it sounded good. Thinking that tubes would sound better I saved up and bought the Big Ben. Since that is a buy it and you keep it, I kept it. Although it sounded a small bit better than the 1030, again it was not worth the money as far as sound improvement goes.
Then, 2 yrs later, I got to listen to khorns. I was blown away by the improvement! BUT NOW the BB 6 watt SET just was not enough for the BASS when comparing to the yamaha 1030. So now you know the rest of the story.
This thread lost me. Do you still have the Quicksilvers? If so, what 12DW7/7247 and power tubes are you using? Your preamp may not be optimal for the Mono's and that may be why the 1030 sounds good....the preamp section is matched to the power section. I have found, over the years, that a preamp and amp from the same manufacturer is they way to go. However, there are always exceptions.
FloridaBoy makes an excellent point and it ties into the question I had asked earlier about gain matching the comparison amplifiers.
Please keep in mind that the Quicksilver Horn Mono Amplifier has approximately 18dB less gain than Quicksilver's standard amplifier. I could not find specifications on the Yamaha 1030; however, I suspect that AVR receivers probably have higher gain figures and lower input voltages to achieve full power vs. the Quicksilver mono amplifier or tube amplifiers in general, which is one reason why I asked how you did your gain matching.
I tried to find the output voltage of the Emotiva Stealth DC-1 and I believe this may be the first time I've seen a DAC that doesn't list its output voltage and impedance on its specifications page.
I know that it is promoted as double duty as a preamplifier and these types of basic specifications are important in understanding the voltage gain of the preamplifier portion of the unit; however, maybe the primary purposes is DAC/Headphone amplifier since there appears to be plenty of headphone output data.
For example, the XDA-1 specifications show a nominal output voltage of 1V RMS (balance output is more), for which 1V RMS would not be sufficient to drive the Quicksilver horn mono amplifiers to the full potential. While the Quicksilver horn mono amplifier has a nice input impedance of 100 Kohms, the Quicksilver horn mono amplifier has an input sensitivity of 6V.
Also, did you use the Emotiva Stealth DC-1 with the Yamaha internal amplifier section (probably not the mismatch to the degree I suspect with the tube amplifiers) or the Yamaha internal preamplifier with the Yamaha internal amplifier (where you would have no mismatch)?
-
1
-
-
PWK Papers: http://www.klipsch.com/pwk-papers
"Distortion in Audio"
Note especially PWK's comments on harmonic and intermodulation distortion in relation to amplifiers.
In all of audio including amplifiers my ears and experiences tell me there are "Bugs" that we aren't measuring for and are yet to be discovered..!!!
Knowing the fact that all amplifiers have "Bugs" I have to say the well designed Low Wattage Single Ended Triode and Single Ended SS(First Watt F3) are presently the least "audibly" infected when paired with my Jubs in my room.
miketn
The F3 is really a nice amplifier and I remember that I enjoyed reading your review of that amplifier.
Lately I’ve been trying to match components (whether tube or solid state) that have very low noise floors and low distortion levels, specifications not solely achieved through high levels of negative feedback.
Although I’m still a few months away, next on deck is what appears to be a well-engineered line stage developed on the DIYAudio forum using a 4P1L tube that is actually a pentode tube but has direct heated filaments and wired as a triode resulting in a very linear tube with very low noise levels for the line stage circuit.
The 4P1L tube line stage will provide 7dB of gain and I plan to see how it matches up with my First Watt F3 amplifier that has 12.5dB of gain. This line stage is not necessarily an easy implementation as the 4P1L can be very microphonic, but once the various “triggers” that cause a tube to ring are engineered out of the implementation and the 4P1L is wired as a triode, it looks like it will be a line stage that meets the current criteria of low noise and low distortion.
It should be fun.
In addition, while by no means an absolute, I have given a lot of thought about the aspect of people generally concluding that the lower watt amplifier has the "better" sound. For example, I can't count the times I've read where a person has a 300b then listens to the 2A3 and concludes the 2A3 sounds better. Then the 45 comes along compared to the 2A3, and guess what? Of course, the 45 has the better sound. I've read similar conclusions about the 71A tube and the 1626 tube in the Darlington circuit. Etc., etc. etc.
What does this all mean? Is there any correlation or validity to the aspect that in each instance the lower power amplifier is ran much closer to its maximum, thus generating additional second harmonic distortions? I know this is general and not all amplifiers have the same level of distortion at full output, but it does seem to be an interesting phenomena to consider.
Somewhere I had read a signature on one of these audio forums where the signature said, "shape the sound." Personally, as much as I use "accuracy" in attempting to evaluate gear, I also love having choices and assembling “situational systems” to meet different listening objectives.
Frank, thanks for your insightful contributions to this discussion! How do you find the time to write such long explanations? As to the conclusions that some have made about the best sounding tubes, they are really invalid unless the same output xfmrs were used, at the very least. And, there are a multitude of other variables which can affect sound, such as the frequency response created by specific values of coupling or bypass caps, the amount of nfb used (if any), the output tube's plate resistance, characteristics of the driver, and so on, that it becomes impossible to create a really controlled comparison. As to lower power amps sounding better than their higher power counterparts, I can only say that in my experience the best sounding units are those which employ tubes designed for service in the ubiquitous table radios of days gone by. And they maintain this amazing sound whether used at a fraction of their output power, where the distortion is extremely low, or closer to their maximum. I have no explanation for this; yet, a 6V6 for example, using the same output xfmr and circuit characteristics, and matched to the same power output, doesn't sound as good to me or many others who were listening. As to shaping the sound, I know few who don't do that in some fashion. Every person for whom I've ever restored a vintage amp with tone controls uses them to create the sound they prefer! Every custom amp that I design and build has some means of adjusting its sonic characteristics to suit individual taste, speakers, and room characteristics. So, what constitutes "accurate reproduction?" There's no point in having equipment with the proverbial, flat, "dc to daylight" frequency response if it sounds like garbage to the person who listens to it. I'd rather listen to distortion which allows me to enjoy music to its fullest, than no distortion which sounds like finger nails scraping on a chalkboard. Speaking of distortion, you mentioned the 1626 Darling amp. I once ran loadlines for that tube and, with the recommended circuit parameters, I think the 2nd harmonic distortion was around 15% at full output. Yet, folks who use those amps usually say that they have never had a more enjoyable listening experience.........
Maynard
Lots of stuff circling in my head and since I don’t have the time to write often, when I do write, I like to make the most of it.
Makes sense, and I agree that there are an exponential range of variables that will never be controlled in evaluating the audio reproduction chain or in trying to determine if there are explainable reasons why certain gear is chosen over others. From the outside looking in, we just don’t have enough information, and I suspect, the person making the selection has not even truly identified the reasons “why” themselves.
Part of my intent with many of these posts is to draw out the specific experiences from the very diverse backgrounds of our forum members. While I often lay out thoughts and concepts that can perk the interests of the technical people with the skills and understanding of electronics, I also try to give a few thoughts on the music aspect itself.
Many times the posts I read in the threads have led to a whole new avenue that I choose to explore resulting in new insights that may be of some relevance to others. In other instances, such as in the OP’s original quest, I hope the different views and experiences expressed will help raise additional questions and awareness, to help the person better evaluate if they have made the correct correlation for the issue.
I believe that the variables you have outlined often do not make it to a level of conscious consideration, similar to Gil’s post below where I responded to Gil that “there is iron in your words,” (although, I’m not sure anyone actually caught the pun in connection with quoting “Ten Bears” and all of the iron in tube amplifiers using transformers).
Power amps and the like are one subject. Not addressed here.
But I still wonder about the chain of electronics e.g. microphone amps, mixers, etc., which were used to produce recording, in history, we admire or maybe less so. This is all low level processing.
Over the years the equipment is tube or transistor, operating in Class A. The equipment uses capacitors and sometimes transformers which are subject to love and hate. But that is what we've got just before the signal is stored and distributed, by any number of means.
For example, you can say that tubes or transistors or caps are good or bad in my pre-amp. Yet the signal has probably been processed through multiple stages of equipment using the devices which are praised or vilified. That can't be un-done.
As an extension, do we really think that a pre-amp is going to do more harm or good than all the proceeding ones? It can't cure anything.
If here is one last stage of small amplification using similar devices and topology in our living room, how much can we hope to accomplish?
WMcD
To borrow an iconic phrase from Ten Bears, "there is iron in your words." Yep, I just got done watching the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and decided to read a little.
You sure outlined way too many variables to even think about all of the potential impacts when considering the audio reproduction chain as the initial capture of the performance all the way to the output from the speaker in a home listening environment.
The multitude of variables that cannot be controlled or even identified being so overwhelming, relates to the reason why I tend to post that I firmly believe that the ear (even an “untrained” ear) can detect very small differences that seem very inconsequential on the surface; and I certainly cannot find fault with those that just use their ears and go with what provides the listening experience they are looking for. However, I try to remind that although the ear can detect very small differences, the brain may not exactly know what specific aspect of the music reproduction chain to attribute the difference.
Actually, I never really liked the word “accurate” since, there again, 15 different people will have 15 different definitions of “accurate.” However, long before this book/movie on “50 shades of grey,” at least for me, I tended to believe audio reproduction was there first, with “50 shades of realism” and anyone should be able to find their own comfort zone on this type of continuum without criticism of others.
50 shades of realism may help negate the negative connotation attached to “inaccurate” and (going with my earlier high-definition TV analogy) we can decide for ourselves if we want the “cartoon” version of Daphne Blake of Scooby Doo fame, or if we want something with a touch more realism, such as the Sarah Michelle Gellar version. However, even 50 shades of realism has its flaws. For example, it seems that today the ideas about music are not the same as when I was a kid and there may not be as much exposure to live music that conveys presence through voice and acoustical instruments alone.
More and more, “we” as a whole appear to be synthesizing sounds and music that seem to have no actual real counterpart in the “live world” and during this avenue of change we seem to be losing the benchmark perspective of “realism” in relation to the “live event.” There was a thread on gaining “perspective” with audio gear by comparing with other gear and many in that thread seemed to shoot down my thoughts on developing perspective by gauging reproduced acoustical music against a live acoustical music event. I thought either none had actually been to a live acoustical music event or maybe my posting had been translated into a foreign language, I just don’t know. Well, that is another topic for another day and back to my aspects of realism.
At least for me, the concept of 50 shades of realism isn’t really much different than PWK outlined in “Dope From Hope, Vol 4, No. 3 August 21, 1963” where PWK indicated that “In quality or accuracy, all loudspeakers err by greater or less amounts. Comparison between them is not the best way to evaluate them. Comparison with live sound would be much better when and if possible. Then one would not judge which sounds best but which sounds most like the original. If the original sounds bad, then surely, so should the reproduction.”
Let’s expand PWK’s views on “comparison with live sound.” The most common benchmark or quote that I read is related to Harry Pearson (of “The Absolute Sound”) where his stated benchmark was “the sound of live, unamplified music occurring in real space.”
In this regard, although “real space” can mean a variety of settings as different as a concert hall compared to outdoor settings, we are looking at music and voice from actual acoustic instruments and people singing without electronic amplification and without any sound reinforcement systems.
To borrow a term used by our own Dave Mallette and apply it here, we may be getting closer to the musical “TRVTH” in evaluating the realism of the reproduction. Now let’s look a little closer at “shades of realism.”
For example, when thinking about shades of realism, how well can a person’s audio system get the “general” beat, rhythm, melody and harmony correct or resolve enough detail and cues from the recording in relation to the actual score of the musical composition (of course, for this section I’m assuming the piece is played to the original score and captured in the recording).
On a side note, ever notice how many people “loosely” use the acronym PRAT for the comparison of how one “loudspeaker sounds in relation to another type of loudspeaker” instead of evaluating the realism of the music reproduction in the context of the inherent PRAT (pitch, rhythm & tune; or pace, rhythm & timing – take your pick) that is reproduced in relation to the live musical event that closely follows the actual score of the musical composition?
I use the term “generally” because there will be systems that do these aspects much better than others. For example, in something like the melody that essentially relates to the notes played at different pitches or even repeated pitch may not be entirely distinguishable, but different systems will still tend to resolve enough detail to distinguish the pitches or maybe enough cues related to duration or rhythm that should help a listener recognize the melody.
Regarding rhythm, since it will not always represent the ‘periodic beat’ over the entire musical score, can the system resolve enough detail to determine that a guitar may actually be playing the opposite of the beat?
How well does the system resolve detail in relation to the harmony where the 'lead' voice and instruments playing melodies can be distinguished from other voice and instruments that accompany the lead but are doing something else (e.g., essentially hearing the detail of different notes played at the same time)?
How well can the system resolve the distance between notes where a listener can determine whether the harmonic relationship is one of consonance or dissonant? Is there enough information being reproduced in enough detail where a listener can actually feel the sense of relaxation or feel the sense of tension that may be scored as part of the harmony?
How much realism is there to the fundamental frequency and overtones? Does the timbre, tone quality and tonal accuracy of the instrument sound real? I’m straying to amplified music a bit, but I can’t distinguish when a Gibson SG guitar is being used from evaluating the timbre, but my brother can pick out the Gibson SG every time.
I love the differentiation and nuance in the various instruments related to the individual bass notes that gives me a sense of “realism” with the Klipschorn loudspeakers vs many speakers that seem to only produce the sense of “one note” bass.
There are many more aural cues that may be in the recording, but I tend to stop around this point. I don’t feel the need to hear the ambient aspects of the auditorium where the music was recorded, since a certain level of “realism” in my “listening space” is fine. I also, do not feel the need to hear the sweat dripping from the performer’s forehead onto the soundboard of the acoustic guitar. I just do not find these things important; however, I realize that there will be others that seem to and that’s fine with me.
As a final test to determine if my system can resolve a portion of the points above for a fairly nice representation of “realism” in the music, I would have little get-togethers with some of these “well-trained ears” that I know, and often times, when one of them is familiar with certain nuances of the live music that may not generally be heard in reproduction systems, they will tend to pause and state something like, “wow, that recording sounds pretty real” and often not even realize why.
Some of the nuance in live music I can hear and identify, much of it I cannot. For example, I cannot tell you the wood used to make the soundboard on an acoustic guitar or the wood used to make the piano by the timbre of the sound of the instrument being played and certainly would not be able to identify in a recording, but seem to have found a couple of friends over the years that can.
None of what I can hear or cannot hear impedes any of the enjoyment I derive from music, and ultimately, while I like to experiment and test in order to increase my understanding of things, I try not to make anything about this an obsession.
.
-
1
-
-
Yes , if someone wants we can talk . But I don't want to have Tom keep making me cases so I thought I'd just tuck it away for now . Also case would raise my price
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would Tom mind making more cases???
That's what I was thinking. I'm sure Tom enjoys the work. Although, I think A1UC is tired of discounting new cases far below retail prices since he isn't one of those unauthorized dealers getting them at discounts.
-
they are in zip 10305.
Location?
I deleted everything but the zip code from the original post. The zip code is Staten Island, NY. Funny, but I move out of the area and all kind of deals come up.
-
Is ATT U-verse, provided over fiber optic, worth the hassle of dealing with AT&T?
Our neighbors have some pretty deep pockets. We live 15 miles out of town, they are developing 40 acres and wanted internet access for the neighborhood (theirs). I'm told they are paying for AT&T to bring a fiber optic line to them. (I've not yet spoken with them to verify this)
They're going to run it down the road (the conduit was installed this past week). It's going up their hill and to the "back side" of their property.
Their back side, butts up against our back side. Without having measured, I'm guessing the distance from their terminal point to my house would be 1/8-1/4 mile as the crow flies.
They're trying to contact someone to find out the incremental cost to bring the line on over to us.
I'll admit I'm intrigued on tapping into a fiber optic line however:
1. I have detested dealing with AT&T over the years
2. I understand that I would have to pay for the laying of the fiber optic line to us (and as of yet, have no idea of what that might cost)
I told the wife, If it's $1,000 then it might be no big deal.... if it's $25,000, well, I can buy a lot of months using my satellite internet for that kind of cash, even if it is slower.
Anyone know if making the homeowner pay to install the fiber optic line is typical?
Anyone have Uverse over fiber optic able to brag on how great it is?
I haven't had much time to follow this transition since I wrote the post below and will be interested in the actual experiences people have when they start using the fiber optics services. Fiber optics is a very logical conclusion since it can provide exponential bandwidth over what was previously possible with copper; however, as you noticed, we are still dealing with the massive corporations and it will be difficult to determine what will ultimately be provided to the end user and at what cost..
IPTV, the new 'cable' coming soon
Quality IPTV is coming on strong so much sooner than most realize. However, I believe that there is still some “posturing” going on over the actual infrastructure that will deliver all of the “content” and “streaming services” that needs to resolve itself before we see a large scale adoption. I do believe it will be here and in place before the driverless cars in the other thread and once the infrastructure falls into place and becomes more efficient and profitable, you will see many more content providers and more equipment providers enter the marketplace.
If interested in why I believe Google may play a large role in the backdrop needed for this next revolution or frontier of internet technologies, search “dark fiber” and look who has been quietly buying all of the unused fiber optic cable around the world. You will find that Google and Facebook have been buying much of the unused fiber optics. Google started purchasing on a large scale back in 2005 and now owns over 100,000 miles of fiber optic cable routes globally.
The demarcation point was probably the “Telecommunications Act of 1996,” which is described as an “Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”
Before 1996, the telecommunication companies were regulated; however, with the Internet and new technology on a steep and consistent spiraling rise toward the sky, the government "handed over" the regulation of the telecommunications companies to regulate themselves and develop the U.S. data infrastructure.
After about $25 billion in tax breaks, this extensive fiber optics network was developed; however, the dot-com crash brought many of these companies down and many underwent mergers and bankruptcies, essentially, eliminating these companies before they even had a chance to set up the necessary hardware to interact with the fiber-optic lines.
Essentially, there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of miles of “dark fiber” related to the network of fiber-optic cable built in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
During that period of time, telecom giants such as AT&T and Verizon (formerly GTE) bought up many of these companies for pennies on the dollar (including the respective fiber optic networks) and the interesting aspect here is that both had huge vested interests in keeping copper wires around for a while longer, since copper wire was used by their "cash cows" known as DSL and wire-line telephone services.
For years now this expansive network of ultrafast cabling has gone essentially unused with a huge upside of untapped potential. Only recently has the “copper cash cow” essentially run its course where you are finding that these companies have begun offering consumer-level fiber-optic television, phone and Internet services.
Essentially, copper is fast becoming obsolete due to demand that is driven by "skyrocketing Internet video traffic, requests from the financial sector for ever-faster trading connections, and soaring mobile phone use - which has to be tied into landline networks."
This brings us back to Google and Facebook buying up huge portions of unused fiber optic cable that the huge telecoms don't own.
However, while the “faces will change,” we all will still be dealing with massive corporations in the end. Progress at its finest!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303863404577285260615058538
-
Hmm. Some semantic pot holes have appeared in the road.
Distortion is not necessarily bad, and often results in an interpretation of being "more realistic" by the user. By objective measures, Maynard's amp with 5% 2nd harmonic undoubtedly measures worse than 2Bmusic's Yamaha in a multitude of ways. So on a certain level I find it impossible to regard single ended tube amps as simply "amplifiers" as they're adding something that wasn't in the recording. That's just a fact. (And yes, I realize that 5% 2nd harmonic is consonant, largely masked by the fundamental, and basically inaudible.) It's also a fact that many who have experienced both prefer the "process" that the tubes apply.
When I say best sound possible, I am taking about music that sounds as close to original as possible.Some would posit that the magic of the original performance was bastardized the moment the sound was captured by the mics, in which case a little tube amp processing embellishment on playback is a-ok. Accuracy to the original is a laudable goal, but never achieved. If that's the goal, then go by the book: only use amps with low distortion, low output impedance, and enough power that clipping is never an issue, and enjoy the resulting dry, clinical sound. Or try one of Maynards designs, which definitely add a bit of wetness and real-life-resembling spatial qualities (IME only SE amps do this trickery).
Bi-amping may work, provided the amps don't have too much divergence in their sonic character. A lyrical sounding SET up top may audibly clash with a tight, dry ss amp on the woofs. That was my experience, at least. The puny amps weren't as strong down low, but there was a certain roundness of tone from the tubes that was lost with ss. Another experience I've had is that the small tube amps seem to be able to handle eq (bass boost) rather well, with less handicapping of overall power than I expected. Have you tried to simply eq your bass?
Didn't realize this was still here, left over from the old forum...an old measurement of a SE/ss bi-amp setup. Sure looks to me like room modes are of far greater concern than any tube amp misbehavior (although those harmonics definitely do result in subtle tonal colorations).
I'm sure PWK would ridicule this discussion, I can see him asking if we intend to play our records as though they were guitars, but it's his own fault for giving us the speakers amenable to such ridiculous (as well as fun and educational) approaches in the first place. If I didn't own Klipsch speakers first, I would never have gone down the tube rabbit hole. DIY, do it inexpensively, have fun with it. (Not trying to be preachy with that, just sharing experience to help 2B and whoever else navigate the terrain and avoid the puddles.)
I’m curious if the second harmonics are really inaudible or a contributor to the “bloom” that characterizes a SET amplifier with higher levels of distortion or if it has anything to do with the air gap transformers used in single-ended designs? I have to think that someone has tried to measure it somewhere for a better idea as to what may be audible for some type of average level hearing acuity.
In another post I had expressed a view that, in general, I believe that most manufacturers (especially those making mass-produced products) will go to extraordinary lengths to “claim” accuracy, for what appears to be done in order to give consumers some level of “assurance” that they are buying products that are “accurate.”
With human nature being what it is, I believe that the general consumer doesn’t want their friends (or anyone on the internet) questioning them on why they bought an “inaccurate” stereo system (whatever “accurate” or “inaccurate” may actually mean). Peer pressure or maybe advertising pressure at its finest.
I personally believe that in most situations, you can easily find that most systems are just not accurate; and, in those indelible words of Bill Murray spoken in the movie Meatballs, “It just doesn’t matter.”
Where I believe that certain aspects of the problem comes into play, is all of the “conditioning” that we continually go through for the goal of 'accuracy.' I see that some in this thread seem to be freely admitting that maybe accuracy isn't the goal; and in most situations my goal is not necessarily “accuracy,” at least not for every situation. However, in general, I encounter very few individuals that are able to admit to themselves that maybe a significant reason why they enjoy a certain amplifier is because it has its own 'sound' that works well with their speakers and works well simulating what they find important in a music listening experience.
As you seem well aware, there is a lot of internet chatter everywhere regarding second harmonic distortion and it is up to debate (or some type of testing) whether these distortions are audible or not; however, very few will readily admit this is most likely an amplifier “inaccuracy” (by definition?) in the form of its harmonic distortions.
Of course, I suspect that there will be people reading this and thinking to themselves, “Well this is a bunch of BS, “my” amplifier doesn't distort like that...my amplifier is as accurate as they come.” However, I would hope they have enough of an open mind to do a little research on the topic (I think I’ve given a good start here and in the high power amplifier thread); and then ask themselves if they really know with certainty that this is the case” or “are they making an assumption that the amplifier cannot be inaccurate because they enjoy it, therefore, it must be “accurate”? I don’t know, just more food for thought at this point.
From another perspective, the recording of an instrument will have captured the actual overtones/harmonics that the instrument originally produced in the live session. Now feed the signal of the recorded instrument into the amplifier and given the levels of harmonic distortion of the amplifier, it seems reasonable that the distortion will in effect become a new fundamental that has been added to the harmonics of the original instrument. Is the amplifier "accurate" or "inaccurate"? Of course, I know what Bill Murray would say.
I have a few more items tagged for reading related to air gap transformers vs. transformers in general; however, in many respects, it seems that the amplifier that 'blooms' typically has a higher level of second order harmonic distortion and as a result will typically be creating “new” harmonics of what was originally a harmonic rather than only reproduce the harmonics of the original instrument on the recording.
In addition, while by no means an absolute, I have given a lot of thought about the aspect of people generally concluding that the lower watt amplifier has the "better" sound. For example, I can't count the times I've read where a person has a 300b then listens to the 2A3 and concludes the 2A3 sounds better. Then the 45 comes along compared to the 2A3, and guess what? Of course, the 45 has the better sound. I've read similar conclusions about the 71A tube and the 1626 tube in the Darlington circuit. Etc., etc. etc.
What does this all mean? Is there any correlation or validity to the aspect that in each instance the lower power amplifier is ran much closer to its maximum, thus generating additional second harmonic distortions? I know this is general and not all amplifiers have the same level of distortion at full output, but it does seem to be an interesting phenomena to consider.
Somewhere I had read a signature on one of these audio forums where the signature said, "shape the sound." Personally, as much as I use "accuracy" in attempting to evaluate gear, I also love having choices and assembling “situational systems” to meet different listening objectives.
Disclaimer: As used in my various posts, "concert-level," “115db SPL at the listening position,” “SET,” “Push-Pull,” “solid state,” “harmonic distortion” and other terms were not used or meant to be taken as mandates or absolutes; and not used or meant to be taken in any disparaging way by any forum member or by anyone reading these threads and lurking. As always, please note that the information presented by this author is meant for fun, hopefully informative and thought-provoking, and is not intended as insult or otherwise!!!
-
1
-
-
I think we have somehow created our own “red herrings” that we are now chasing upstream. In many of the articles where we have jumped to conclusions that Paul was promoting one type of amplifier topology over another, our conclusions appear to be incorrect and he is really expounding upon how well-engineered his Klipshorn speakers are. When it comes to amplifiers, I believe that PWK was primarily pointing out a simple mathematical relationship and facing an economic reality of the times he lived.
After reviewing a multitude of evidence for which I have outlined a few key points in more detail below, I tend to hold the view that I don't think PWK can be used as an advocate of low powered SET amplifiers any more than he can be used as an advocate for mid-power solid state amplifiers. Although, in one of the “Dope From Hope articles” he does state that “In a typical living room or small theater, our present all-horn systems offer concert-hall levels with a mere 10 watts peak input.” There again, PWK specifically stated 10 watts, not 5 watts, and I believe his statement was a tribute to the engineering of the loudspeaker in that it could reproduce concert-level SPL with fairly low power (e.g., doing the math), not an endorsement of any specific amplifiers or amplifier topologies.
The simple fact of the matter was, is, and always will be, the Klipschorn speaker efficiency allows a person to use very low-powered amplifiers if that type of amplifier meets that person’s listening requirements, regardless of whether that choice is SET, SEP, Push-Pull, solid state, or otherwise; and as I have noted in other posts, the Klipschhorn will reveal very quickly if the amplifier sucks or the source sucks or both suck.
Really really great and sensible post. I commend you on your time spent doing research!
fjd that post was incredible!!! You did a great job on that one!!
Thanks! I shortened the original post to save on bandwidth. Here is what I believe to be a worthwhile read. At the link is an issue of “High Fidelity” magazine from December 1956 and Page 4 starts an article related to G.A. Briggs of Wharfedale Loudspeakers giving a demonstration on October 3, 1956 of “live and recorded music” in Carnegie Hall to about 2,500 in attendance. Page 9 starts a section of the article where PWK in conjunction with Gray Research and Development Company did a smaller scale demonstration of Klipschorn loudspeakers on October 9, 1956 in Hartford, Connecticut at the Bushnell Memorial Hall. I find it interesting to read an article that was written so close to the actual event.
http://vintagevacuumaudio.com/vintage-magazines/high-fidelity/1956-12-high-fidelity.pdf
Actually, I’m not in this trying to correct misinformation on the internet, that’s an impossible goal. However, I do believe that if people are genuinely interested in the technical aspects that PWK has considered in developing the Klipschorn and the design decisions and trade-offs that were considered, PWK's Dope from Hope series is well worth the time it takes to read. It seems that a few of the attachments to certain documents on the Klipsch main website may be missing, but with internet search capabilities, I was able to find most hosted on other websites.
In many respects this is a fun mental exercise in trying to understand the decisions PWK made and the actual trade-offs that he had considered. Of course, the posting of PWK’s table outlining amplifier wattage in the “high power amplifier for heritage” thread and some of those comments really got me thinking about a few things. I guess in that thread at the link below I was researching how PWK concluded that two watts were sufficient to fill a room with concert-level peaks inherent in the music, not trying to figure out if he had a preference or recommendation.
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/163148-high-power-amplifiers-for-heritage-speakers/
When revisiting all of PWK’s writings and other publications that were written during that time, it became clearly evident that PWK was, first and foremost, an engineer building a high-quality high-performing loudspeaker capable (not to be confused with “mandatory that everyone use it this way”) of producing concert-level sound of 115dB SPL at the listener position.
In “Dope From Hope, Vol 4, No. 3 August 21, 1963” PWK indicated that “In quality or accuracy, all loudspeakers err by greater or less amounts. Comparison between them is not the best way to evaluate them. Comparison with live sound would be much better when and if possible. Then one would not judge which sounds best but which sounds most like the original. If the original sounds bad, then surely, so should the reproduction.”
In “Dope From Hope, Vol 5, No. 1 Feb. 24, 1964” after the proper loudspeaker selection, PWK outlines that room acoustics are the second most important/critical aspect in achieving good audio.
I did not have any pre-conceived notions of what I may find, just that I would post what I did find. In all of my reading I found no evidence that PWK was promoting one type of amplifier topology over another, or even made any comment regarding that he liked the “sound” of one type of amplifier topology over another. In fact, liking the “sound” of an amplifier seems like it would have been counter-intuitive to how he believed a loudspeaker should be evaluated (excerpt above from Dope From Hope, Vol 4, No. 3 August 21, 1963).
Dope From Hope, Vol 16, No. 3 March 1977 dedicated an entire issue looking at the distortion that Dr. Matti Otala found in the early solid state amplifiers and did offer thoughts on the impact to the music reproduction. This may be the only place where PWK did a general comparison of tubes vs solid state, where he concluded that Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM) found in early solid state amplifiers impacted the sound and needed to be engineered out of solid state amplifiers.
The quote verification search actually started last fall when I wanted to add a legitimate PWK quote to my signature and was trying to verify several audio related quotes that I found interesting and were often attributed to PWK. During the quote verification process, I find it rather staggering how many quotes on the internet are either incorrect or never made, attributed to the wrong individual or have been completely skewed out of context from the context in which the author had said or written the words.
Regarding the 5 watt amplifier quote, since I could not find a shred of evidence he said it or the context in which he may have said it, I had hoped Maron (most recently "Zako" on the forum) could provide some insight; however, with his passing away last October (may he RIP), I believe that the forum lost the “last gray haired eminence with ties to all of PWK's wrecking crew of tin foil hat experimenters.”
If the quote was actually said, given that PWK was an engineer designing and building loudspeakers (with a design goal of reproducing concert-level sound of 115dB SPL) and outlined why he believed that room acoustics were the second most important/critical aspect in achieving good audio (Dope From Hope, Vol 5, No. 1 Feb. 24, 1964), I suspect he may have been criticizing the amplifier manufacturers of his time.
Disclaimer: As used in my various posts, "concert-level," “115db SPL at the listening position,” “SET,” “Push-Pull,” “solid state,” “harmonic distortion” and other terms were not used or meant to be taken as mandates; and not used or meant to be taken in any disparaging way by any forum member or by anyone reading these threads and lurking. As always, please note that the information presented by this author is meant for fun, hopefully informative and thought-provoking, and is not intended as insult or otherwise!!!
-
with regard to the above statements. I say this with humility and hope for finding the truth...
I played Bella Flecks "FLIGHT OF THE COSMIC HIPPO". This work will tax all equipment that tries to reproduce it. In playing that music I can tell you with full certainty the following:
When I say best sound possible, I am taking about music that sounds as close to original as possible.
My big ben 4 ~6 watt SET did not have enough to power to reproduce bass notes as well as a 25 watt p/p amp. This makes sense big time.
........ the Khorn with its incredible dynamic range will "most likely" ( maybe---- maybe not) perform best with bi-amp.
An SET for top side and SS for lows..... or some equipment similar. As for how this will sound, one would have to try it and see.
***** THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD******
WITH REGARD TO All the above talk about this and that. WELL it is important to compare apples to apples. What I mean is that one should take one song that has the full spectrum of frequencies ( 20 hertz to 20,000 hertz). This song should be played through all equipment in question. Why because audio engineers will vary settings as recording or mastering is being done. DOESN'T it make sense to compare you know values?
Here is a combination that I found to be a fun experiment. The First Watt F4 (I would suggest reading the manual Nelson Pass has posted to the First Watt web site) in a "bi-amp" setup and drive it with a single-ended tube amplifier as Nelson Pass describes in the schematic below (and his operating manual) where the single-ended tube amplifier directly drives the mid/tweeter and drives the F4 that in turn drives the woofers.
A single F4 will give 25 watts (50 watt peak) per channel into 8 ohms and 40 watts into 4 ohms. However, wired as a mono block the F4 will give 100 watts. The First Watt F4 has zero voltage gain, which eliminates the need to "gain match" with the single-ended amplifier. Essentially, one way to think about the F4 is having a "component" approach to your voltage gain and your current gain. Basically, the F4 can be thought of as a refined power follower, it will essentially push the same voltage out that you send into it, but it will feed much more current through the load than the single-ended amplifier, if, or when, needed.
I see this same concept of tube for voltage gain and solid state (usually mosfets) for current used in some of the high-end headphone amps too.
As I mentioned, in another set-up that I experiment with, I essentially use my DHT SET amplifier as the "voltage gain stage" directly into the F4 and try to maximize the aspect that the F4 is such a simple Push-Pull circuit with no negative feedback, very low distortion levels and only a miniscule 50uV noise level. In this regard a lot of the characteristics of the DHT SET amp that I find very favorable will come through. I like to think of it kind of like a "SET on steroids" in some ways, but also noting that it looses only some very small aspect of that intimacy that DHT SET can provide in those near-field lower-level listening sessions.
On an important side note, there are various implementations of "adaptors" out there as the DHT SET output will need to be adapted to the RCA input of the F4. Also, due to the F4's high input impedance (47,000 ohms), a resistor (~ 20 ohm, 5 watt resistor, but some have used anywhere from about 15 ohm - 22 ohm depending on how they like the sound) is needed across the SET outputs since the SET only "sees" the F4 and not the speakers. On DHT SET amps with multiple taps (i.e. 4, 8 or 16 ohm) there seems to be some diversity on which tap sounds best; however, I suspect that is more related to system synergies.
The catch? The F4 has reached the end of the 100 unit run that Nelson Pass had set and is no longer available new leaving the option of watching the used secondary market or building a DIY clone. If you find this interesting, the F4 is well-documented on the DIY Audio site with build guides and a lot of troubleshooting information. In addition, the DIY store stocks most of the hard-to-find parts.
-
1
-
Amp porn
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted · Edited by Fjd
The Harman Kardon HK775 (mono blocks) and HK770 (stereo version with less power) series of amplifiers that hit the market from 1980 through 1983 were high bandwidth, high slew-rate amplifiers built only with discrete components and a minimal use of negative feedback.
I believe that this series of amplifier benefited from the “trickle down” effect of Dr. Matti Otala’s engineering work on the legendary, no cost constraints, Harman Kardon Citation XX amplifier.
The HK775 was a fully symmetrical DC circuit design with quad differential cascode, a very large toroidal transformer, two 15,000uF capacitors in the power supply, discrete components only, and a protection circuit that was outside of the signal path.
.