Aw, there ain't no Sanity Clause!!!

[Mallette]

Well, a revolution is on. Like all such affairs, some will embrace it, others will fight it, and still more will stick their headphones on and turn them up with their eyes closed.

Class D is here, and some of the sound you are hearing is millions of dollars going up in smoke and, (sadly, but stuff happens), many small audio builders who catered to us persnickety audiofools will need to find work in other areas. Soon, Soundblaster will have an Audigy with 8 channels at 100 watts each for 300.00 (that's a prediction, not a fact), and will will equal or better the sound of 50,000.00 gold soldered p2p works of art. The amplifier is now a commidity. At least we won't have to suffer crappy amps when we visit Uncle Bob...though, of course, the speakers will still suck.

Is the 'horn next? What if this guy in california is on to something? The usual suspects in the forum have poopoo'd his invention as "already been done" and "deficient in bass" without either hearing it or seeing the specs. What if it can deliver the full audio spectrum p2p without being heard by the person reading Whitman next to you? Perhaps while they are listening to something else entirely?

In the space between PWK's original design and today we've gone from Univac to 300,000 transistors on a quarter inch space, and sometime next year, a terabyte will be stored on a square inch chip non-volatile and no moving parts. Quantum computing, whose potential is both astounding and disturbing, is quietly promising to make that 300 megatransistor chip look more like an abacus than a Univac.

Folks, there ain't no Sanity Clause in our hobby. Those who willfully blind themselves to new ideas are already dead, but refuse to lie down.

When it returns, my ST-70 will still have a place of honor in my system, just as my 1936 RCA radio console graces the living room and reaches out clearly to tune signals where no current AM radio can find anything but intersteller noise. However, it will be a piece of nostalgia and a tribute to genius constrained by archiac technology. When my wife and I cuddle and listen to jazz and blues, it will still add to the atmosphere with its warm glow and rich textured sound. I hope my son or daughter keep it working and hand it down to their grandchildren, and I will try to explain to them the significance.

Frankly, I am not sure I'd have recognized the qualities of Class D if I'd first heard them at WalMart or Circuit City. Might have bought one just cause they are cheap and HT is not an area where I throw much money. However, when the grand masters of this forum endorse something, Dave listens. I have no sacred cows, just a desire for the best possible reproduction available.

What would PWK say? I'd like to think he'd say "I'm looking forward to hearing that!"

Dave

[triode]

I had a Bel Canto Digital Amp on loan once and tried it out in my system. it sounded 'thin and veiled' and I was not impressed. Digital will not replace my tube amps. While I'm sure it would be listenable compared to a lot of solid state receivers, I see no competetion to fine tube amps.

[Mallette]

I am not familiar with the Bel Canto and have no idea what is under the hood, so cannot comment. However, your statement implies it is the only one you've ever heard. Have you heard more than one tube amp?

"Competition" is not the issue here. You are the first person in this forum to say you've heard a class D (and I am taking it on your word the BC is class D using either the TI or Tripath circuits which are the only ones we've discussed) and didn't like it.

I NEVER question another persons ears. It's both arrogant and metaphysically absurd. However, I certainly question the Bel Canto, as my respect for the golden eared elders of this forum and their opinions on the TI and Tripath circuits, as well as my own experience, strongly suggests that the BC is either badly executed or based on very poor technology.

Dave

[dragonfyr]

Regardless of each of our feelings and preferences, we do need to recognize that we are in a contracting space. High end audio is NOT experiencing growth! Quite the contrary. Just look in your phone book and try to find dediated high end AUDIO centers. If you are lucky you will find several. Too many of us will not!

And tube technology is definately in this category. Oh sure, you will cite this example and that example and wax philosphically regarding tube vs ss topologies, etc.. But I know from my own experience that except for a small association of folks, that the resources necessary to maintain and address issues with the equipment are becoming much more limited. And its not encouraging when we celebrate the 'hanging on' of technologies that we otherwise readily made fun of! How often was tube technology readily ridiculed compared to our ss advances when the cold war was in full swing? A future oriented venture? Hardly! And except for companies such as Groove who bought all the GE fab equipment and are now producing tubes, there are no major ventures expanding into the tube space.

So, while I would love to be able to tell you "it ain't so", I think I should instead remind you to enjoy it while we can.....

And another indication of things to come...Just think, the younger folks think MP3s are revolutionary high end! Yeah, and in the same spirit, you need to excuse me as I need to get busy ripping all my 'stuff' to cassettes!

These are the good old days! Enjoy them while we can!

[TBrennan]

Dave--Triode seems to be declaring a matter of Faith and Dogma: "Digital will not replace my tube amps"

He seems to imply that even if he were to hear a digital amp that was better than tubes he wouldn't acknowledge it as such.

[Mallette]

>Just think, the younger folks think MP3s are revolutionary high end!

Yeap, and I remember when freeze dried food was gonna revolutionize cuisine. In my experience, listening to MP3s is like trying to EAT freeze dried food without adding water. The fact is that, as has been true now for over a century, the vast majority of people do not really listen to music, but the mainstream tenor (no pun intended) of the times. The MP3 and the Ipod are just the 8 track of the early 21rst century. Within 5 years it will be technologically feasible to put every single pop song every recorded on an Ipod at once. For a dime, you'll unlock whatever piece you want to hear via wireless internet. I am not kidding here...it is coming.

That is no threat to those of us who revel in the delicacies of harmony and the texture of a brush rubbed on a snare. This same technology allows me to produce a DVD-A that equals LP in fidelity, and surpasses it by being able to deliver Virtual Presense using surround channels. Within a few years, I will be able to deliver 4 or more channels to you at 24/192 using BluRay and other hi-density storage media that will have so much space as to eliminate the need for any kind of compression or encoding.

You are correct about the good old days...but I would add "the good old days are JUST BEGINNING."

Dave

[jt1stcav]

Didn't PWK wholeheartedly accept transistorized amplification in its heyday? I believe so.

You have to be openminded with this audio hobby of ours; to be able to explore new technologies in sound reproduction for the sake of music. We can do this today with the latest digital chips, and still be ever faithful to what brought us here in the first place.

I too, have my small collection of antique tube radios my dad restored for me that I continue to fire up and listen to, and yet I also embrace satellite XM radio! I still enjoy listening to cassette tapes I recorded back in the mid '70s on my latest Nakamichi, yet I also lust for the very same recording remasterd on SACD and played back on the latest 24bit-192kHz disc player. 200 gram vinyl will never die, nor IMO will the beautifully scuptured, belted, acrylic 'tables these LPs are played upon. I may now also enjoy my music being performed from French-made domes and cones, but I'll never be disloyal to my Cornwalls and their horns!

Thank goodness for people like Craig who resurrect vintage EICOs and Scotts, and for manufacturers like Cary, Manley, VTL, and VAC who continue building vacuum tube amps and preamps in this digital age. Praise be to those like Krell and Mark Levinson who continue to improve MOSFET technology. A hearty thank you for Klipsch and Avantgarde for continuing and improving on horn design, for B&W, JM Lab/Focal, Dynaudio, and Wilson for perfecting domes and cones, for Magnepan and MartinLogan for flat planar and electrostatic technology...and on and on.

We can be fanatical of a certain type of technology or topology, but for the sake of the music we all enjoy; we should not under any circumstances neglect or be disrespectful of other technological designs out there. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

FWIW...

[Audible Nectar]

I agree JT. The more people who attempt to push the envelope, the better, regardless of path chosen. You never know when someone will hit the bullseye. You never know - it just may work.

I, for one, see a future in digital because it is power/electrically efficient - it may end up being the best choice in a future of high and rising energy costs. In a future where the extra power that tube gear consumes could pose a problem (kind of like SUV ownership hurting the wallet at the pump currently), there could very well be benefits to digital besides what is immediately obvious. And given that our Klipsch are highly efficient, those will never go out of style or obsolescence.

Imagine running a whole HT on a car battery.......

[Erik Mandaville]

Thanks for that, Dave!

So this was a recent post. For some reason, every time I try to do a search I get an error message with '0' matches (?)

I am really amazed at the sound quality of the inexpensive Teac, which must be not unlike that of your new Panasonic -- which has many more feature, as well, for an even better price considering what you get with it.

It's made me rethink a whole bunchathings I used to think about.

Erik

[Mallette]

Don't forget my comments about the point to ear audio transducer invention. There may be nothing to it, or it may just be the replacement for the Klipschorn. PWK said he'd build a smaller box when somebody reduced the length of a 32hz wave. Many do not have the room for them big ol' horns, and others do not have the money.

While it is unlikely that anyone will find a way to reduce the length of a 32hz wave, someone may find a more efficient way (or may already have done so!) to get it to your ear.

Like the morning glory horns before them, the mighty K's will someday be rendered obsolete.

Dave

[Parrot]

----------------

On 4/24/2005 12:31:33 PM jt1stcav wrote:

We can be fanatical of a certain type of technology or topology, but for the sake of the music we all enjoy; we should not under any circumstances neglect or be disrespectful of other technological designs out there.

----------------

But if we must accept everyone's viewpoints out of political correctness, what about the viewpoints of people who, as part of their beliefs, refuse to recognize contrary viewpoints?

[Parrot]

----------------

On 4/24/2005 12:51:22 PM Mallette wrote:

Like the morning glory horns before them, the mighty K's will someday be rendered obsolete.

----------------

As PWK said, that day will be when the laws of physics are changed. An earbud just ain't the same thing as a loudspeaker.

[sunnysal]

I expect mallette that while your message is valid your example sucks...the "california guy" is basically rehashing a technology that was already established and it will only handle a very limited frequency range. it is not poo pooing to point out the limitations of something to help others put it into perspective. Guys, take my word for this, don´t throw out your k-horns yet due to mallette´s california guy and thank the lord that "the usual suspects" still hang around here. tony

[jt1stcav]

----------------

On 4/24/2005 12:52:22 PM Parrot wrote:

But if we must accept everyone's viewpoints out of political correctness, what about the viewpoints of people who, as part of their beliefs, refuse to recognize contrary viewpoints?

----------------

There will always be singleminded folks out there that won't accept change; that's their loss! I'll be as accurate as possible in my beliefs, but I also won't shove it down their throats. It's just my opinion, afterall; hopefully they'll listen and make up their own minds and realize they can have it both ways...

[Mallette]

OK, let me throw a bit of water on before the flames get out of control.

Parrot: As PWK said, that day will be when the laws of physics are changed. An earbud just ain't the same thing as a loudspeaker.

Since I made no mention of earbuds, I must assume you did not understand I was talking about either non-airborne or transfrequency modulation methodology, not some new loudspeaker. I, too, used the same PWK quote and it holds today and always will...for loudspeakers. However, to assume the loudspeaker will always be the best way to hear music is to, as our grandfathers did, assume fire will always be the best way to heat your food. Microwaves are, in a way, transcoded heat.

SunnySal: Hang on, man. I specified poopooing by people who'd not read the specs, heard the device, or viewed the plans. If you understand the technology and say it does not work or cannot be improved, I believe you as I neither understand it (other than some vague concept that it is like radio in send sound point to point via an intermediate frequency), nor have I seen the specs or heard the device. I also said that this guy's technology may not work or be the answer, but it will come, just as FTL or transdimensional travel will come. One rule of prophesy has almost always been correct...if we can immagine it, we can, and eventually will, build it.

Dave

[sunnysal]

I agree with the "imagine it now and it will soon be" philosophy, we have seen(and will continue to see) science fiction made reality.

BUT physics has not been bent much, I just want to make sure we keep persepctive.

BTW you can visit the us trade and patent office to see the current (and past) patents for this technology (it really is pretty much the same stuff, but with improved DSP...and you can visit the company´s web site http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html

to learn more.

the goal stated by these guys is to try to get as close to 500hz-20khz as possible. the best range right now is 7khz-10khz for reasonable distortion, etc. I expect that the physical properties of air, etc. are the limiting factors, perhaps insurmoutable, perhaps not.

I like what is going on much more with digital amplification, where scientific limits are not the main factors...regards, tony

[Parrot]

----------------

On 4/24/2005 1:48:57 PM Mallette wrote:

One rule of prophesy has almost always been correct...if we can immagine it, we can, and eventually will, build it.

----------------

I agree you did not mention earbuds. But I don't trust doctors and scientists enough to let them put an audio receiving device in my brain or ear or whatever. Anyway, it's all pretty vague at the moment, so . . .

To argue against your rule though, Star Trek transporters have been imagined for 40 years now, but they will never happen. I heard the physicist guy lecture who wrote a book on the science of Star Trek. He said the amount of energy that would be needed to transport someone was more energy than exists in the universe (if I remember correctly). Point being, yeah, it looks neat on TV, seems reasonable, but is impossible and always will be. Sure, audio is simple as can be in comparison, but not everything is possible.

Regardless, I thought the future was already here, with the Bose Acoustimass Wave Radio?

[Mallette]

Thanks, SS and Parrot for realizing I was not being critical of you, only those who jump from assumption to conclusion without going through the space in between.

I like what is going on much more with digital amplification, where scientific limits are not the main factors...regards, tony

Bear in mind there WERE scienfific limits until recently. Not too long ago they appeared insurmountable.

Parrot: 40 years? Insignificant on the time scale. I don't want this to get too far off topic (so this will be all I will say on this on the forum), but unless something bigger than us stops us or we do in ourselves, we have untold millenia to figure out things like what keeps us on the planet (always amazes me that people think science know this...it doesn't. Just has a name "Gravity.") I never listen to "scientific prophesy" at all. The SciFi writers have proven themselves FAR superior to scientists in visualizing future technology. When scientist show repeatable fact...then, I pay attention and believe that for X case, if you Y, you'll get Z. Beyond that, all bets are off. One of the great scientist is quoted (and I can't attibute...but this is too good for me to have made up) as saying "When an old eminent scientist says it cannot be done, he is almost certainly wrong. When a young scientist says it CAN be done, he is almost certainly right."

Dave