Tizman

I haven't found one....

Hi All. Just wondering if anyone has a photo of the La Scala II without its speaker grill? I am curious to see how the mid-range and tweeter horns are terminated at their mouths on the LS II, and haven't been able to find a photo online. Cheers, Tiz

Good idea. That way way you won’t have to hear any opinions or about any experiences other than those that are the same as yours. By the way I don’t have to prove anything to you. Whatsoever. I have my own experiences, and I choose to share them in this forum. You should join a forum for “audiophiles” that can only hear the difference between measurements. That should make for some interesting reading.

The idea that wires need break in is a far cry from the idea that a component that is mechanical needs break in. A loudspeaker driver is made out of materials that move, have compliance/flex etc. These sorts of things change once used until they get to the point where change is minimal over time. Thinking otherwise is just plain dumb.

Damn! I thought I was crazy...

In the article, Loesch refers to a paper that I looked up and read a while back that explains why a very well regulated supply is a good idea, even for a SET amp. My amp will use a (different) filament regulation circuit, one for each 300B, and one for both C3Ms, (Rod Coleman’s), so all voltages going to the circuit will be regulated. Seperate power supply chassis with an umbilical to the circuit chassis, so no AC in the circuit chassis.

http://community.fortunecity.ws/rivendell/xentar/1179/projects/legacy/Legacy.html Here you go. This is the amp I’m in the process of building. I’m not sure if you could call it “typical” though.

The zero to 10 watt range takes up the majority of the meter, but 10 to 100 is a small segment. A more useful approach would have been to have the meter scaled with more range between 10 and 100. The 600 doesn’t make any real sense, but it might make marketing sense.

Oops. I looked at the link, and it appears that SET refers to a two amplifier set. So I don’t know what the topology is on this one.

The Western Electric website refers to the 97A as a SET. This is likely to mean that it is 8 300Bs in parallel. At a normal transformer ratio of 2500K Ohms to 8 Ohms for one 300B, 8 tubes would use a transformer ratio of 312.5 Ohms to 8 Ohms. It is much, much easier to produce a very high quality output transformer of this low ratio. My guess is that a big part of the circuit in this amp is dedicated to keeping all 8 tubes in balance for parallel operation. An interesting approach. The new WE 300Bs are going to cost around $1300 a pair, so a tube set for this amp would be $10400!

That sounds like fun. It could be either topology, depending on the class of operation. I did a bit of reading on the 97A. It seems to have little resemblance to any of the old WE amps, and the 97A designation is a new one.

Is it single ended parallel or push-pull? I can’t seem to find anything about the topology.

Yes. The more feedback the better. The turd should smell, look and taste as much as possible like a turd. A bit of push-pull crossover distortion helps to make it extra smelly and vile. Forget about the apple and enjoy.

Let’s say that you have an apple. That apple is the original musical performance. You then eat the apple. The apple goes through you, is processed by your digestive tract, and comes out the other end as a turd. You then cut that turd into two pieces, one piece is on the right, and one piece is on the left. That is the stereo representation of the original apple. It’s not the same as the original apple. Obsessing about linearity is effectively trying to make the turd be a linear representation of a turd, not of the original uneaten apple. Isn’t it better, given that you have a turd to work with, to find a topology that makes the turd seem more like an apple rather than striving for an exact representation of the turd?

I recently upgraded my ACAs to the new spec (1.6) that is currently for sale. It (they, actually as mine are mono-blocks) sounds even better than it did before. Highly recommended! Not quite a SET, but pretty darn close and, at 8 Watts a channel, similar to a 300B output.

I wholeheartedly embrace the things that I have heard in my system that make my listening experience the best that it can be, to my own ears. Nothing more, and nothing less. You have no preference, yet feel free to comment on other people’s preferences. That’s what is wrong with your posts.

This from someone who has never, by his own admission, heard a SET in his own system. How closed minded your religious anti-SET fervour is. It’s your loss ODS123. Or maybe not. After all, ignorance is bliss. Right?

My primary issue with this and other articles about SS vs valve anps is that, almost always, all articles assume that what is being reproduced, as in a stereo recording, is perfect/ideal. This is not the case. Stereo is a construct that is in no way a perfect representation of the musical event (in the best case) that was recorded. If you work under this assumption, that is that stereo is a flawed representation of a musical performance, conversations about fidelity become somewhat pointless. The source material is by definition a distorted representation of the actual performance. The question then becomes what amplifier topology best works with a stereo recording to make it a more believable representation of the musical event? The target is shifting, slippery, and difficult to meaningfully quantify. You need to hear it yourself and make your own aural observations and conclusions. There is going to be a bit of trial and error and personal taste mixed in to the final decision of what sounds best. Pointing to the “science” when discussing amplifiers, and ignoring the flawed nature of the stereo source material doesn’t lead to anything useful.

Yes. The balance control completely ruined any chance of hearing a difference. I’m glad you finally figured it out.

I'm feeling a bit tired and cranky. Maybe I have mono?

No. That puts you in the smart class. I'm assuming that when you do this, you listen to one speaker at a time, right? If you can compare two speakers by listening to them both in mono at the same time, you belong in the genius class. Also, I'm just talking out of my derrière to get a reaction from ODS123. Which worked.

I suggest turning your head towards the one speaker that is working. Bam! That is now the center. Perhaps also turn your chair to face the one working speaker so that you don't get a crick in your neck.

Come on. It’s just 5 more pages. Okay I’ll help out.... Listening to mono through two speakers is dumb. It unnecessarily adds the issues inherent in the reproduction of every stereo recording to the reproduction of a mono recording that wouldn’t normally have these issues. Try mono through one speaker. It sounds much better whether is was recorded that way originally, or some sort of a summing circuit was used to make it mono.

LOL. 5 pages to go. Good work ODS123!

Will do. I have the JBLs and a couple of pairs of Renkus Heinz SSD1800 to try out on 511B, 811B and the 14”X 10” B-52 horns from Parts Express on clearout. I’m very curious to see how they all compare.