maybe tubes are not that great? I do not know! HELP!

[NOSValves]

 

 

 

 

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.    

 

 

 

No I got that from your earlier post...the confusion is that you keep stating 25 watt EL84 amplifier. The Horn Mono do not use the EL84 and a pair of EL84 could never make 25 watts unless run in all out nasty class B operation. So you repeadly mentioning a 25 watt EL84 amplifier really had me scratching my head. Glad we got that cleared  up. The Horn Mono's are EL34 amplifiers...

[A1UC]

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/audioreviews.html

I've actually talked to Srajan Ebaen on few occasions Craig. Maybe you can discuss how your 30 year year old design you have copied is so much better than anything they have ever heard with him and send him one of your amps for a review. You can fool the less knowledgeable members on this forum with your sales pitch at every chance you get but you will not be able to stay in a room with real amplifier designers.

I would love to see the square wave response you were bragging about from an independent unbiased lab. Your avatar pretty much says it all.

Also I thought we had an agreement but I never thought you would abide by it. The only market place you have is this forum and the members here but only the ones that do not understand amplifier technology. How you get away with pitching your product when others are not allowed to do so is beyond me.

Not trying to start a war here. Just an honest question that deserves answer....

Have you ever heard any of Craig's amps? If so, what did you not care for in listening?

Thanks for your consideration.

. Edited April 11, 2016 by A1UC

[richieb]

Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

 

 Now them is fighting words!

Easy there Big Fella - last thing you want is to hook up with 392 cubic inches of Dodge Hemi power.

Craig raced a 440 cid Camaro that ran sub 10 second quarters. The current crop of FCA hemis would not scare him.

I don't ever recall a "stock" Chevy of 440ci so we are comparing apples to oranges. Nor would Any stock Camaro run in the 9's.

Apples and oranges again. Unless you confused the ci displacement with the mighty Dodge 440's of yesteryear.

I bet the current stock SRT 392 Would scare his stock Camaro, not his racing version.

[mike stehr]

yay Mopig!

[NOSValves]

 

 

 

 

Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

 

 Now them is fighting words!

Easy there Big Fella - last thing you want is to hook up with 392 cubic inches of Dodge Hemi power.

Craig raced a 440 cid Camaro that ran sub 10 second quarters. The current crop of FCA hemis would not scare him.

I don't ever recall a "stock" Chevy of 440ci so we are comparing apples to oranges. Nor would Any stock Camaro run in the 9's.

Apples and oranges again. Unless you confused the ci displacement with the mighty Dodge 440's of yesteryear.

I bet the current stock SRT 392 Would scare his stock Camaro, not his racing version.

 

 

 

The current 100% stock ZL1 Camaro would and does out run any factory stock Hemi powered vehicle ever produced without breathing hard.... Chevy ruled the race world always has and always will!! 

Edited April 9, 2016 by NOSValves

[NOSValves]

 

 

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/audioreviews.html

 

I've actually talked to Srajan Ebaen on  few occasions Craig. Maybe you can discuss how your 30 year year old design you have copied is so much better than anything they have ever heard with him and send him one of your amps for a review. You can fool the less knowledgeable members on this forum with your sales pitch at every chance you get but you will not be able to stay in a room with real amplifier designers. 

 

I would love to see the square wave response you were bragging about from an independent unbiased lab. Your avatar pretty much says it all. 

 

Also I thought we had an agreement but I never thought you would abide by it.  The only market place you have is this forum and the members here but only the ones that do not understand amplifier technology. How you get away with pitching your product when others are not allowed to do so is beyond me. 

Not trying to start a war here. Just an honest question that deserves answer....

 

Have you ever heard any of Craig's amps? If so, what did you not care for in listening?

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

??????????  Any Reply

 

 

 

I think I can take an educated guess at that...Nope he hasn't. He is just an axe grinder that can't stand someone making a living doing what he loves... or the other option is he just hates anyone with a different opinion then his own. Pick your poison.

 

"Note this is my opinion nothing more nothing less..."

 

What kills me is not one single time have I mentioned my products or services in this thread... but some how I get accused of pushing my products or services no matter what I do unless of course I agree with everyone in here... which without being a complete hypocrite is impossible to do..... its like some how if you happened to be in the audio business around here you are suppose to not have an opinion on anything...or your a blatant profiteer that only has the opinion to fill your wallet...what a crock of sh!t! 

[A1UC]

Interesting how this question was avoided

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/audioreviews.html

I've actually talked to Srajan Ebaen on few occasions Craig. Maybe you can discuss how your 30 year year old design you have copied is so much better than anything they have ever heard with him and send him one of your amps for a review. You can fool the less knowledgeable members on this forum with your sales pitch at every chance you get but you will not be able to stay in a room with real amplifier designers.

I would love to see the square wave response you were bragging about from an independent unbiased lab. Your avatar pretty much says it all.

Also I thought we had an agreement but I never thought you would abide by it. The only market place you have is this forum and the members here but only the ones that do not understand amplifier technology. How you get away with pitching your product when others are not allowed to do so is beyond me.

Not trying to start a war here. Just an honest question that deserves answer....

Have you ever heard any of Craig's amps? If so, what did you not care for in listening?

Thanks for your consideration.

?????????? Any Reply

I think I can take an educated guess at that...Nope he hasn't. He is just an axe grinder that can't stand someone making a living doing what he loves... or the other option is he just hates anyone with a different opinion then his own. Pick your poison.

"Note this is my opinion nothing more nothing less..."

What kills me is not one single time have I mentioned my products or services in this thread... but some how I get accused of pushing my products or services no matter what I do unless of course I agree with everyone in here... which without being a complete hypocrite is impossible to do..... its like some how if you happened to be in the audio business around here you are suppose to not have an opinion on anything...or your a blatant profiteer that only has the opinion to fill your wallet...what a crock of ****!

. Edited April 11, 2016 by A1UC

[A1UC]

Craig you are pathetic. I have nothing more to say to you or your business practices or your overpriced amps. Your customers would have been better off buying one of the Chinese Yaqin amps on Amazon for $700 and had a better sounding amp and pocketed $2500. There are plenty of Dynaco clones selling for less than $1500 from a number of places. I notice you have not commented on sending your amplifiers for a review or lab either. Scared of what the result might be? You just want more comments from me where you can go and cry to the moderators about how you have been done wrong. Getting into a technical discussion with anyone scares you to death and you result to insults and one liners.

Edited April 11, 2016 by A1UC

[A1UC]

.

Edited April 11, 2016 by A1UC

[dtel's wife]

This thread will not get locked, but those who violate the terms of service and continue with personal attacks will be issued warning points.

This is the second warning by a moderator in this thread. Knock it off.

Edited April 9, 2016 by dtel's wife

[jimjimbo]

The truth hurts, huh. You sound like a spoiled child. As far as I am concerned the moderators can turn this site into the NOSValves show because he has run off plenty of good sense members over the years with his antics. Get him away from this site and he is a joke. He is the one that is ruining this site for everyone else. He is one a mission to get me banned and he should have been banned for the way he has conducted himself over the years. He will keep needling me until he succeeds. I was not going to say anything else but that is not his way to let things go. Any potential buyers of a new amp ask yourself do you want to do business with this type of guy. 

 

 

Craig you are pathetic. I have nothing more to say to you or your business practices or your overpriced amps. Your customers would have been better off buying one of the Chinese Yaqin amps on Amazon for $700 and had a better sounding amp and pocketed $2500. There are plenty of Dynaco clones selling for less than $1500 from a number of places. I notice you have not commented on sending your amplifiers for a review or lab either. Scared of what the result might be? You just want more comments from me where you can go and cry to the moderators about how you have been done wrong. Getting into a technical discussion with anyone scares you to death and you result to insults and one liners. 

Go Away

 

Yes please.

[A1UC]

.

Edited April 11, 2016 by A1UC

[Matthews]

Any potential buyers of a new amp

 

Tool Shed Audio is second to NONE, IMO of course.  I currently have two TSA units with 2 more custom mono blocks being built as we speak (mid May arrival).  TS Matt's builds are the cats meow!

Matt ♪ ♫ ♪

[A1UC]

Wow those sure are pretty

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NOSValves]

 

Any potential buyers of a new amp

 

Tool Shed Audio is second to NONE, IMO of course.  I currently have two TSA units with 2 more custom mono blocks being built as we speak (mid May arrival).  TS Matt's builds are the cats meow!

the twins3 (Medium).jpg

Matt ♪ ♫ ♪

 

 

 

I agree! Top notch for there intended purpose and gorgeous to boot! I wish I could hire him to do some of his cosmetic talents on a custom one off basis myself! 

[richieb]

Dodge Hemi power rules!!!

 

 Now them is fighting words!

Easy there Big Fella - last thing you want is to hook up with 392 cubic inches of Dodge Hemi power.

Craig raced a 440 cid Camaro that ran sub 10 second quarters. The current crop of FCA hemis would not scare him.

I don't ever recall a "stock" Chevy of 440ci so we are comparing apples to oranges. Nor would Any stock Camaro run in the 9's.

Apples and oranges again. Unless you confused the ci displacement with the mighty Dodge 440's of yesteryear.

I bet the current stock SRT 392 Would scare his stock Camaro, not his racing version.

 

 

The current 100% stock ZL1 Camaro would and does out run any factory stock Hemi powered vehicle ever produced without breathing hard.... Chevy ruled the race world always has and always will!!

Come on Craig - comparing apples to watermelons again. Yes ZL1 compared to any stock Hemi, even my 6.4/392, is no contest.

The comparison is STOCK ZL1 to STOCK Challenger Hellcat being both are supercharged. THAT is the comparison. And good luck -

[NOSValves]

I think the Camaro would cook it easily...has there been a comparison? I'm not too much up on the car thing anymore. Gave up that wallet sucking hobby nearly 20 years ago. wish I'd of done it 40 years ago!

Edited April 9, 2016 by NOSValves

[2Bmusic]

CALLING JUSTIN WEBER! 

 

My TT came in today. Spinning wax revealed what my memory was looking for.  I still want to try a different tube amp and the  FW F7.

Maybe like some one said " a different pre-amp ( other than my current Stealth DC-1)"

 

 

 Hey Justin, You can let me try the Casablanca ... if your amp succeeds,  look at all the press you would get!  Of course I am willing to pay for shipping each way if they are not what I am looking for.

[tube fanatic]

Dave, you may also want to give Steve Deckert a call and talk to him about your amp needs/concerns.  His company offers a 30 day in-home trial:

 

http://www.decware.com/newsite/homepage.html

 

Are you sure you don't want to try a kit build?  This one has been around for quite a while and is supposed to be very good.  And, it certainly opens up an avenue for modification with different output xfmrs, etc.:

 

https://www.tubesandmore.com/products/K-502

 

 

Maynard

[Fjd]

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.

 

.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Fjd