Parrot Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Hi Wolfram, I do not think you will be disappointed. Here is an informative and insightful review: http://highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=16280004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Ah, now I see why they call him the Anti-SET Craig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Why do you say that, Neo? Craig didn't say anything at all anti-SET here that I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Neo, I have no problem with someone liking SET I'm sure it sounds absolutely gorgeous in its range! I do however have a problem with people claiming it transcends the laws of physics or is absolute do all format it just simply is not even its biggest proponent has agreed its not. I have no problem if people want to believe its the king of moderate listening levels! But when they start saying its awesome at 105dB in a large room its just overboard! Then later say he had to step back! Will it hit these levels absolutely! Will it hit these levels cleanly? I know one thing if it does its one miracle that is for sure!! Im sure GOD does not kindle to doing miracles inside a SET amp. That is all I'm saying. I mean a BOSE system can hit those levels does that mean its truly an accurate reproduction of the performance? Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Craig, It is certainly a remarkable result - I have said as much in an earlier post in this thread - but not a miracle - not even a bending of the laws of physics. What we all tend to ignore in this forum is the effect of the room itself on the presentation of music and I am not refering to size of the room. The materials that go into its constuction, the method of constuction, the furnishing, carpeting, floors, wall coverings, number and type of paintings, distribution of windows, doorways and who knows what else will all contridute to the degree of absorption and reflection of sound. As a result of this you can find wild variations in the volume at fixed distances from a system in a given room as against that same system in another room without moving the volume control. If Jazman is experiencing only a 4 or 5 dB drop across his room to his listening position then the result is not impossible. Surprising yes - but lets hold back on screaming miracle till the man walks on water (or parts it according to your fancy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Contridute? MY ducking fyslexia is playing up again. Please read contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Max, Are you missing my point also?? I'm not saying that the Moondogs could not hit 105dB peaks. I'm saying that an amp with major reserve capacity playing at the same steady state volume would have hit much higher peaks! Like maybe 110 or maybe more of course I think this may have had old Jazzman diving for the bomb shelter! Im saying that the Moondogs were surely heavily in clipping but remember DHT SET clips very gracefully so this may sound just fine and Jazzman may love it but obviously he didn't if he had to step back ! The point is that with 3 watts the presentation of such music at these types of levels is not realistic just because Jazzman says they are! His testing is purely subjective and argumentative! Basically flame bait and useless.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Craig I'm sure some chest beaters will be out soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Yes Craig - I did miss your point completely. My bad. As for Jazman stepping back I think we should put that down to the volume solely and not to his avertion to suddenly introduced distortion. Frankly I would cite my listening position further back at these levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Not me its absolutely breathtaking on my system at these levels! Although I probably would never do it for 2 hours for sure! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 I am quite sure that in a same size room as Jazman's, depends on room's layout, the acoustic property could not have rendered more then +/- 3dB change in dynamics level. Perhaps someone can conduct the same experiment with 30W amps and measures the "real" peaks. Then and only then we'll know for sure whether the 3.5W SET amps clip or not. Something you should also take note, depends on the design of the 3.5W SET amps, they could potentialy reaches 8W of music; so with 104dB speakers at the listening position, it is quite possible to reach 105dB peaks without clipping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Bottom line is that it IS only how it sounds and only what it costs that matter. Yet as we delve deep into the details of the debate, we extract pearls that lead to deeper and richer understanding of how music is made and reproduced. All amplifier manufacturers should make their frequency response and THD curves easily available. It is important to note the difference between maximum output and rated power. The maximum that an amplifier can put out into a certain load is quite different than the nominal rating. Some superlative monster amplifiers are capable of output several times the simple 8 ohm rating at certain levels of THD. Bottlehead Corp. for example, says my 2A3 Paramour monoblocks produce 3.5 watts, but that is at a 5% THD. This seemingly high level is tolerable because the THD of tubes is said to be the right kind of THD. The Bottlehead 2A3 Paramours total output is actually closer to 6 watts (who knows what THD is at that level). My 70s vintage Class A solid-state Pioneer M-22 dual monoblock amplifier is rated at 20-watts per channel at its lowest THD point on the THD/power curve, yet the chart shows that it is capable of 60-watts maximum output. So amplifiers can not be judged merely by their rated covers. I have no doubt that the 2A3 amplifier can reach 105dB peaks but from what average C weighted slow reading is that? 90dB? I have no doubt that tube amplifiers have soft clipping too. So even if flea-powered tube amplifiers run out of headroom, this can make their clipping sound natural and musical. One argument for tubes of course is that all amplifiers have some clipping at the enormous wattage required to accurate reproduce actual music peaks at high volumes. It is important to remember that the typical CD has some 15db between the average musical content and the reproduced peaks. This is a very restricting factor in the process of trying to recreate the live event. When an orchestra can suddenly go from mid 70s dB levels to quick musical crescendos of 130db, the recorded medium needs a lot more than a mere 15 to 30dB of headroom. CDs for tweaking audiophiles should have 60dB headroom from average to peak! Of course that would require much more powerful amplifiers. As it is now, a flea powered 2A3 Paramour monoblock playing average music levels in the mid-70s on big ole horns can easily reproduce the fast 85dB peaks required by musical content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Colin, The Max output rating is another touchy thing. It is usually only available for Milliseconds! This type of music explodes and sustains these peaks for sometimes minutes! For instance the Max power output on my Dynaco's is 120 Watts in UT do you think I have ever seen even a 100 watt bulb lite on my RMA power meter. No way! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Colin, This particular recording is very demanding, way more than normal dynamic range, which is why I recommended it to Jazman. It goes from barely audible above a quiet room's noise level to stunning impacts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Bey Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 "ducking fyslexia".... great. I listen to Mahler and can say that my 8 watters are able to give me a heart attack (or what feels like one) quite easily. I have no doubt that a 100 watt amp would be louder. This is simple math, isn't it? But I would never listen to an amp 100% of the time for 2% of the music's sake. Get headphones, make everybody happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Randy the point just flew way over your head completely !! Read the posting carefully and you will get the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 See Craig, it doesn't really do any good to fix your spelling, and take twice as much time writing out your posts. Aren't you glad? This proves the problem isn't yours. Hell, it doesn't even look like most got anything out of the other thread -- talk about denial. O.K., a pair of Doggies does 100+ peaks. So what? I myself I had already established this was possible using simple math. The issue here is the cleanliness of the peaks. Just because you think it's clean, and it's not hurting your ears -- doesn't mean there isn't clipping. Maxing out a set of Class A triodes means there is ZERO headroom, and certainly not the five-fold increase needed for unclipped waveforms. We proved this in direct comparisons using the Eico and Canary to the Pilotones and MK III's. Simply, the more available power -- the higher the peak reading on the meter. The Canary, at steady state 95db, threw peaks at 105db. The MK IIIs, at steady state 95db -- threw 110 and above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Au premier temps de la valse Toute seule tu souris déjà Au premier temps de la valse Je suis seul mais je t'aperçois Et Paris qui bat la mesure Paris qui mesure notre émoi Et Paris qui bat la mesure Me murmure murmure tout bas Une valse à trois temps Qui s'offre encore le temps Qui s'offre encore le temps De s'offrir des détours Du côté de l'amour Comme c'est charmant Une valse à quatre temps C'est beaucoup moins dansant C'est beaucoup moins dansant Mais tout aussi charmant Qu'une valse à trois temps Une valse à vingt ans C'est beaucoup plus troublant C'est beaucoup plus troublant Mais beaucoup plus charmant Qu'une valse à trois temps Une valse à vingt ans Une valse à cent temps Une valse à cent ans Une valse ça s'entend A chaque carrefour Dans Paris que l'amour Rafraîchit au printemps Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Une valse a mis le temps De patienter vingt ans Pour que tu aies vingt ans Et pour que j'aie vingt ans Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Offre seule aux amants Trois cent trente-trois fois le temps De bâtir un roman Au deuxième temps de la valse On est deux tu es dans mes bras Au deuxième temps de la valse Nous comptons tous les deux une deux trois Et Paris qui bat la mesure Paris qui mesure notre émoi Et Paris qui bat la mesure Nous fredonne fredonne déjà Une valse à trois temps Qui s'offre encore le temps Qui s'offre encore le temps De s'offrir des détour Du côté de l'amour Comme c'est charmant Une valse à quatre temps C'est beaucoup moins dansant C'est beaucoup moins dansant Mais tout aussi charmant Qu'une valse à trois temps Une valse à vingt ans C'est beaucoup plus troublant C'est beaucoup plus troublant Mais beaucoup plus charmant Qu'une valse à trois temps Une valse à vingt ans Une valse à cent temps Une valse à cent temps Une valse ça s'entend A chaque carrefour Dans Paris que l'amour Rafraîchit au printemps Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Une valse a mis le temps De patienter vingt ans Pour que tu aies vingt ans Et pour que j'aie vingt ans Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Offre seule aux amants Trois cent trente-trois fois le temps De bâtir un roman Au troisième temps de la valse Nous valsons enfin tous les trois Au troisième temps de la valse Il y a toi y a l'amour et y a moi Et Paris qui bat la mesure Paris qui mesure notre émoi Et Paris qui bat la mesure Laisse enfin éclater sa joie Une valse à trois temps Qui s'offre encore le temps Qui s'offre encore le temps De s'offrir des détour Du côté de l'amour Comme c'est charmant Une valse à quatre temps C'est beaucoup moins dansant C'est beaucoup moins dansant Mais tout aussi charmant Qu'une valse à trois temps Une valse à vingt ans C'est beaucoup plus troublant C'est beaucoup plus troublant Mais beaucoup plus charmant Qu`une valse à trois temps Une valse à vingt ans Une valse à cent ans Une valse ça s'entend A chaque carrefour Dans Paris que l'amour Rafraîchit au printemps Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Une valse a mis le temps De patienter vingt ans Pour que tu aies vingt ans Et pour que j'aie vingt ans Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Une valse à mille temps Offre seule aux amants Trois cent trente-trois fois le temps De bâtir un roman Une Valse à Mille Temps, Jacques Brel (this could translate by "The 1000 steps waltz") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Dean, Its the same old thing .... you can lead a horse to water The crazy thing is I could careless if people like SET I will sooner or later own one myself. I bet in there sweet spot a great SET amp would sound absolutely awesome! The point from the start was they do not do all things well and unless a person can have 2 systems like Kelly does then SET is very limiting if you really want to listen to heavy transient type music at life like sounds whether it be Rock and Roll, Symphony or country . While with a good Push Pull is very good at all volumes just maybe not the ultimate for lower volume listening or more intimate music(girlish) Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 ---------------- On 12/4/2003 2:15:27 PM Randy Bey wrote: "ducking fyslexia".... great. I listen to Mahler and can say that my 8 watters are able to give me a heart attack (or what feels like one) quite easily. I have no doubt that a 100 watt amp would be louder. This is simple math, isn't it? But I would never listen to an amp 100% of the time for 2% of the music's sake. Get headphones, make everybody happy. ---------------- Not LOUDER per say, more Dynamic, definitive transients, that is what I'm understanding. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Hey Craig, You know what this whole thread reminds me of, trying to make someone understand how a high stall converter won't do its job unless you gots horse power in front of it. Maybe bad analogy but it works for me. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.