maxg

Funny you should mention coasters - I have about 20 CD's that are now coasters - and 10 DVD's... I wonder if the analogue versions make the coffee taste more realistic?

I think most people agree that listening late at night does sound better but as to why..... There are so many factors at play aside from the cleaner power and the lower noise floor it is hard to tell whether it is the listener or the system that is "performing" better. It is fully possible that it is actually a combination of both. Helps if you are sitting / reclining comfortably too.

At the risk of bringing who knows what down on my head. Been here since 2000 from memory - about 4,500 posts: Run-ins with the forum "police" - none (see note below). Being on the wrong end of a baiting session I took seriously - none. Requests to have someone else banned - none. Fights - not really. Excellent enjoyable discussions - lots. U-turns on my own opinions in audio - who knows - quite dizzy most of the time. Number of times I have not been able to log in through forum technical problems - 1,232 (just guesssing). (Note : I would be relatively happy to have a run-in with Ami in a Policewoman's uniform. No real issue with handcuffs either come to that - but SWMBO might curtail my on-line persona thereafter..)

I am having trouble correlating a good system making a bad recording sound worse than a bad system does. I can understand that the difference between a good recording and a bad recording may be more obvious on a good system but ultimately even the bad recording should sound better on the good system than the bad one. Did anyone follow that? I am not even sure I did! Anyway - as a classical music/opera listener who uses almost entirely vinyl I can say I have good and bad recordings. I can also say that I listen to both - as the music/performance takes over in fairly short order. In other words a poor recording only bothers me for the first minute or so of playback (especially after listening to a good recording) and then I forget the quality issues and get into the music. What has never crossed my mind is to take a poorer recording - copy it to a CD and play it back on my JVC boombox. However bad the initial recording it will not sound better on that than on my main system. As for "re-creating reality" my take is that the only thing you can really achieve is to gain a semblence of what you think a given piece of music should sound like. Aside from the obvious - were you there at the original recording session question - and if not how on earth do you know what accuracy is there is the further question that even if you were there how good is your audio memory really? With my own system my criteria are pretty much as above. I want a violin, for example, to sound like I think it should. Circumstancial evidence points to my being fairly accurate with my assessment. Of all the aspects of simulating reality probably the most abstract is soundstaging. On one level whilst I can fully understand those that say soundstages, due to the nature of the recording process in many cases, is totally artifical I would ask the simple question - why stereo? The biggest change stereo brings over mono is that it allows the recreation (creation?) of a soundstage. It is a step nearer to creating a convincing "being there" feel to listening to music. Of course - Paul is correct when he says that attending a live classical performance rarely yields the sort of soundstage and detail in playback that one might achieve in playing back a recording. I wonder, therefore, if it is a crime to suggest that in terms of the purely musical experience that actually listening to a system can be better than reality? Could it be that possibly we are not merely recreating reality, therefore, but actually improving upon it? A good recording should represent the "best seat in the house". Further possibly the best seat in the best house - with the best performers, at their best, available for your listening pleasure. This is a rare pleasure live (certainly where I live) but quite common in my record collection. My conclusion, therefore, is this. A good system (defined as one that sounds the way you want it to sound) will allow, subject to the recording quality, a near perfect listening experience. It should also maximize what you can get out of a poorer recording. If it cannot do those 2 things - then possibly that system is not such a good system for you afterall.

I have to hang my head in shame here - I am sorry to say I own no sealed records - except one which I have 2 copies of and opening it would be churlish. If the other ones dies however - it will remained sealed until such time as I want to hear it and then - poof - there goes the virginity..... Thing of it is - I made a decision a long time ago that I bought records to listen to - and not to collect. In other words I dont care what it's worth - how does it play. I have ripped open $600 lps before now to listen to them (my Amused to Death cost Tony that much - sealed) along with a Cantate Domino (original Proprius run on thin vinyl - amazingly making it worth more than the thick vinyl version) of similar money. Now they are worth 20% or so of the original cost I guess. Some time ago Fini had come across a box of operas and such which he was kind enough to send to me. There were 25 box sets in all of which 2 were sealed. I had planned to keep the Norma/Callas sealed - but that lasted a week. Sadly it was a dreadful condition record (despite being sealed) of a poor recording of a not great performance. Can't win em all. So - having got all that off my chest - am I OK to continue rummaging through my wife's drawers for lacey underwear? Thebes? Thebes? Why are you running away.....?

I cannot see soccer taking off in the US - god only knows it has had enough goes at it. As an ex-pat Englishman, and ex-resisident of Manchester - lifelong supporter of Manchester United (where Beckham originated prior to going to Real Madrid) I am a bit of a soccer nut (although we call it football over here). Beckham is 31 - not over the hill even in Europe - although only a few years left in him at best. I watched him when we was a 19 year old playing for ManU - not, imho, the most exciting to watch - except from dead ball situations and the odd cross. Basically if Pele couldnt do it (nor George Best - the real best player ever IMHO - also ex. ManU) then I dont see Beckham doing it. Soccer is just a game the whole world plays and watches except the US - live with it.

"Mine sound better, look better (by far) and are built much better than anything you could buy at over 3-times the cost. " Sound better? Would have to hear them. Look better? Only in a kitchen. Other than that - Doc - a speaker doesnt have to be ported to play low bass - although it would depend on the drivers and their sensitivity as to how low they can really go - I would expect 50 Hz or so should be eminently possible - assuming his 104 dB figure is bogus.

Oh you want a group hug, huh....

Sorry Gregg - missed this one the first time round. Hmmm....Faure - I am no expert on him but I did go through a French kick a while's back (more Debussy, Ravel, Delibes etc.). I only have a couple of Violin Sonatas on Philips vinyl - if memory serves. Interestingly enough I do not have Pavane - so thanks for pointing that one out - I will remedy that situations when time allows. I thought I had his version of Clair De Lune but in fact I have Debussy's - so I may never have heard his. You can find out more about him at http://www.naxos.com/composerinfo/331.htm there are links to his discography so you can probably listen to parts of the music from there. Sorry - other than the above I drew a blank.

It doesnt. No-one is claiming that any amount of work outside the box is going to change the characteristics of the copper inside the box. What some are saying, however, is that the copper on the inside - presumably soldered in place - is effectively irrelevent to the music. What may matter more is the path of the signal from the amp to the speakers - however that is done. Each option (from having the amps in the speakers to having the amps in a different room have trade offs).

OK - my turn. We have an amp and we have speakers. Generally speaking I would guess that any benefit to be had from having the shortest possible connection between amp and speaker would be off-set to a greater or lesser degree by having the amp that close to the speaker in the first place. Aside from powered speakers most implementations attempt to put some distance between speaker and amp. For this you need to use a wire (usually). This wire will be subject to all the usual scientific stuff like resistance, capacitance and, potentially interferance. If it runs near power cables you might get inductance in the speaker wire, for example, which is probably not a good thing. When buying a wire, therefore, one should take into account both the gauge of the wire and the insultation (as much to keep stray signals out as your sound signal in). Obviously the length of the wire would also be a facotr in choosing both gauge and insulation. Once you get into materials used for the wire things can get a little more esoteric. Silver is more expensive than copper but its oxide is still a good conductor of electricity (whilst Copper oxide is not). This can be important at the connections of wire to amp and speaker over time. I cannot comment on braiding options / solid core / oxygen free etc. etc. These may or may not make a difference ultimately.

Trying to needle me Paul?

For convenience, I've put the two posts together, to save on scrolling. Present day thinking: "Feedback is very useful in servo and control applications, but never in amplifiers for audio. It can not and does not improve tone, but only improves objective measurements." Earlier thinking: "I have built several amps and preamps with no feedback. I would say I have some first-hand experience with the performance tradeoffs and the sound. There are times I like that sound and times I don't. Sounds good on some speakers, not as good on others. Improves the mids but the lows suffer. Improves openness as the expense of distortion of tone. What's hard to grasp about that?" Another point that is difficult to reconcile: Earlier thinking: "Also, let's be VERY clear that there is a substantial difference between "global feedback" and "local feedback," and lest anyone is kidding themselves, the "no feedback" designs DO use feedback, only locally." But present day reference is to "no feedback." Does this mean "no feedback" or does it mean "local feedback"? Also I can't help but note the slams against classic Klipsch speakers and SET amps in the earlier post but don't know if these, too, have been rendered inoperative by virtue of continuing learning. Very early on in my career on this forum I decided a tag line that would cover my *** would be a good idea. If I look at my early posts and my later posts I think I have moved far more than Mark in a similar time period. Thankfully - my sig says I can. I think I might start renting it out for some of the longer serving members.....

So now you think the source is important huh, Nah, I wouldn't go as far as to say that......

Max LOL!! So when am I shipping one the Greece[] Craig When Tony sells his Yamaha monster which he has lent to me (and I sell my old amp).

The original title of this thread is "Choosing an amp on the basis of tone". This appears to be EXACTLY what SET lovers (although not uniquely) do. Jeff, I am not sure if it has been spelled out sufficiently - but at the volumes you are listening to the distortion from the amps is not the problem. You are at the limits of the speakers and these will distort the sound horrendously- whatever is driving them. I would suggest that if you want to listen this loud - stay with the Crown - it does the job. Alternatively - take a forray into car audio - car systems can reach 160 dB+ so you can really rock out (and thank God you are a continent away from me).

VRF - Valve Rollers Fantasy. VRWD(TNI) - Valve Rollers Wet Dream (Tissues not included)

Funnily enough it was Michael that first pointed out to Christos that he was using the Zerostat wrongly - he had been doing it that way for decades apparently. He has since admitted his mistake - and actually posted on the ACA forum about it - and the proper usage. Everyone can still learn something in this hobby of ours. As for my system - not eye candy enough to make it in - and my best component - the table - has the same arm as Christos so there didn't seem to be too much point in including it. I also lack that flywheel.....maglev, however, is on the cards in the near(ish) future.

i-cod (as in the fish) - I was thinking of expanding the iCod joke to incorporate your love of fishing but Michael sneaked it in before I could expand on the pun.

Max, Every time someone refers to my amps as Dynaco's I grit my teeth. If two amps both having an option to be run in Ultra linear makes then Dynaco's then I would say they're must be something in the neiborhood of 3000 different Dynaclones available on the market today. My amps could easily be described and would actually be more accurately called. Marantz, EICO, Fisher, Scott, Pilot, Stromberg Carlson and Dyna clones. The output section having a Ultra Linear option and two other very small items are the only thing my amps have in common with the Dynaco amps everything else is completely different even the Transformer to some degree and by design. I can pick some small things from just about every vintage audio company that are sinilar with the VRD amplifier. The one thing it does not share with these vintage counterparts is a mordern strong and stable power supply. Now if I could just find a 100% reliable current production rectifier tube!! Craig Probably true Craig - I just needed a "D" for the iCod.

I have been watching this thread develop but have not as yet, commented. I do not think it is that easy a decision. From the little I know on the subject I think the main issue with the Technics is that standard arm - which is designed more for robustness than sonic integrity. The arm on the Rega is the better IMHO. The Rega does not suffer unduly from speed stability and in the majority of cases you would probably find VTA adjustment to be more of a pain than it is worth. I do have VTA on the fly adjustment but almost never used it. About 2 years ago I set it to spot on for a 160 gram record and left it there - so it is only slightly out for 120 and only slightly out for 200 grams - not enough to make a sonic difference with my cartridge. Any micro-variations you might get in a belt drive table can be offset against motor rumble from a direct driver unit. On either of these units you can rest easy - neither are a particular issue. On the one hand - the Rega is the budget audiophile's choice - the accepted pathway to enlightenment and all that. On the other hand - replace the arm on the technics and prepare to be amazed - if a little off the beaten path. Looking at the 2 units as a value for money proposition is even more confusing - there is a hell of a lot of very clever technology that went into the Technics to solve the direct drive problems. All of this R&D has long since been reclaimed - were this a new design I would expect a price tag 4 times its current sticker. The Technics also wins the lbs for $ ratio - hands down. Against that - it is hard to get much better sound for your $ than you can with a Rega. Tough choice.....

Thanks for the heads up Paul!!! Sadly - I already have this album on the original Apple label - which I got for $8. I just never spot these bargains......

Let me see. My guess: Integrated Craig Ostby Dynaco based amp. Portable, tube based, the fisherman's friend. In other words: The iCod. []

Yes - I have seen that review - havent heard the other amp (Haflter wasnt it?) so I cant comment. I am not running the Yamaha passive pre but a tube pre-amp from Klimo. Sounds nice with the amp - better imho than the passive. There was a brand new boxed ex demo MX-D1 on ebay in the UK a few weeks back - 1200 pounds buy now - about $2,300 plus shipping. Not a bad price for an amp like this. Who, 30 dB peaks - 60 dB dynamic range? Not very common - as you say the music would be a limiting factor here - before the system.Pop music on the radio has about a 10 dB dynamic range. Miost classical music fits happily into about 20 dB, Huge dramatic pieces may need 30, go crazy and call it 40, - but that is peak to peak, still a long way from your picture above.

Sorry about that Islander - you are acutally one of the first people on this forum I have met that have heard of thisamp. OK - first off - I dont actually run Heritage with this amp - I have home built speakers that are a mere 91 dB/w/m sensitive. Evern with these I would never use more than 10% of the output of the amp - well - maybe 15% on a really wild day. Funnily enough I do think there is a KHorn owner here that has at least tried this amp - if he does not actually own it - I will try to find out more and get back to you on it. As for sounding better than your receiver - I would expect it does - a little [] There are a few out there that regard this amp as one of the very best in the world - at any money - almost entirely B&W owners of course.