NOSValves Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 ---------------- On 4/30/2005 11:30:56 AM fini wrote: Craig, You lost your sense of humor? ---------------- No I would just as soon you left me alone. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Correction on Lonesome day there were 11 musicians playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg928gts Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 I disagree Craig, it sounds just as ugly on both of my upstairs systems. McIntosh/AR and Scott 299/Cornwall. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with topology, it's simply an engineering thing. I think you're right about the complexity difference between the two recordings, and that illustrates perfectly what I was saying about the kind of music I like to listen to on my systems, regardless of the topology of the amplifiers. By the way, the last time I saw Steely Dan live, there were 15 musicians on stage. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev313 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 While I am no fan of Springsteen, ACDC, or Aerosmith and have no knowledge of any recent recordings, I agree with you, Craig, that SET can become bogged down at times. I'm not exactly sure that it has to do with the "complexity" of the music, if we take that term to mean the number of musicians playing, however, as large scale orchestra work sounds great on my 2a3 or 45s. The new Tom Waits album sounds like absolute poop. For the anti-Waits crowd, I'm referring to quality or recording as opposed to the music. Anyhow, it may be that the symphonic pieces allow the good aspects of SET to shine by way of compensating for decreased dynamics of slam whereas "modern" or electric instruments do not allow for the good parts of SET to show and leave only a muddled mess?? I don't know, but I like it. On a related note, I also heard some Audio Note monoblocks recently. Shinri 300b SET driving AN-E/LX Signature speakers (the high eff. models) with an Audio Note transport and 4.1x Signature DAC. I think that set-up would set one back about $60k, but WOW, never heard anything like it. The detail and resolution at low levels was amazing. At volume, well...I was stunned. Really, I think Klipsch Heritage and new DAC cheapie CD players produce an amazing sound, but this was something else. Something else in a very very good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 ---------------- On 4/30/2005 11:48:50 AM greg928s4 wrote: I disagree Craig, it sounds just as ugly on both of my upstairs systems. McIntosh/AR and Scott 299/Cornwall. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with topology, it's simply an engineering thing. I think you're right about the complexity difference between the two recordings, and that illustrates perfectly what I was saying about the kind of music I like to listen to on my systems, regardless of the topology of the amplifiers. By the way, the last time I saw Steely Dan live, there were 15 musicians on stage. Greg ---------------- Greg, We were talking about Steely Dan? All I can say is that Lonesome Day sounds great on my system while the Kick Drum is not as pronouced as stiff upper lip the other drum work in the song is incredibly clear. Just because the engineer/artist choose not to have the kick drum pronounced does not qualify the recording as bad. It may not be the way you preferred it to be recorded but then were into the Opinion thing. Again your other systems are no where near on the level of $ or detial to build quality and modern components as your SET system. Keep in mind if a major company sold the amps you had Jeff build they would easily hit 8K just like the amps I build would easily be in the 5K range. I repeat you need to hear spectacular PP on the same level as you invested in your SET and I really think your missing out. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Mike, You know if you have nothing to add to a completely civil debate why such a smart a$$ post. This is the type of thing that ends up with these civil discussions turning into mess. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Hey Craig -- keep cool, okay? Maybe it's just personal preference, but I've never thought any of the Springsteen recordings were very good. Everything is there, but they just sound ... thin (for want of a better word). I remember one of the early Stones albums (one with Honky Tonk Women I think it was), had a note on the cover to play it loud. The balance was good no matter what level you played it at, although it was great loud. The Springsteen doesn't sound right at any level (to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Marvel, I'm not being uncool and suggesting I am is what will quickly make me uncool. Post saying nothing but , adds nothing to the discussion. If he finds the discussion boring or whatever then don't click the topic. Yes I absolutely agree many of the Springsteen recordings are horrible especially his more popular tunes over the years. But in this case I disagree. I attended this tour live twice 20' back centered. I know what it should sound like and on my system it actually sounds at least as good as live and maybe better. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurenc319 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 hi, Great thread. A question, where do pp triode amps fit in the spectrum, not a SET, but they use triodes with low negative feeback or none, and how about the pentode pp amps with a psudo triode mode. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Larry, Several forum contributers, including me, use pp, triode amps. Mine has no feedback. Some others do, some don't. PP is a very effective, and flexible topology. One very important and not often mentioned advantage is the transformer supports only audio, and not dc bias magnetic flux. Once a pp amp is driven into class B operation, feedback becomes absolutely necessary. Since, in order to achieve greater power, most pp amps operate class A/B, they use feedback. I believe it is the feedback that is the real differentiator here, not as much the topology. A class-A, no feedback pp amp has much of the advantage attributed to parallel-feed SET and more power. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Can we talk about networks now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 I currently use SET, but I've listened to loads of PP, SS, and until recently digital. And I like 'em all! There wasn't an amp I've owned that I didn't like, and I've enjoyed all the upgrades and their differences in sonics. I still play my pipe organ music loud, even with only 8 watts through 91dB sensitive Triangle towers! Right now I'm listening to the latest remastering of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut"...DAMMIT! All I gotta say is that I like what I hear with my current gear. My ears are content, I'm diggin' these tunes, and all is well in my own lil' world. Is that such a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev313 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Do you really need crossover upgrades to listen to Aerosmith and ACDC? (kidding!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 ---------------- On 4/30/2005 4:37:37 PM DeanG wrote: Can we talk about networks now? ---------------- Why they all sound the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Do you really need crossover upgrades to listen to Aerosmith and AC/DC? Hey, there's nothing better than clean noise. I can't believe this thread has gone as far as it has without falling apart. I still say there are so many variables to juggle with this subject that predicting or suggesting a preference is impossible, and a person just has to simply try the different approaches to see what works for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 ---------------- On 4/30/2005 6:19:37 PM DeanG wrote: I can't believe this thread has gone as far as it has without falling apart. ---------------- The moderators deleted a personal attack posting on page one, which probably helped on that score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Oh darn, I missed it! Why they all sound the same! Amplifiers? Yeah, I think I can agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted April 30, 2005 Author Share Posted April 30, 2005 ---------------- On 4/30/2005 4:37:37 PM DeanG wrote: Can we talk about networks now? ---------------- Yes, Dean. I was going to post on that very subject. I mentioned it earlier, but I thought the Audio Note mono blocs I heard, sounded better on a single driver horn design. For those who wish to know, the loudspeaker concerned was the Loth-X Polaris, which is one of the smaller floorstanders made by Loth-X. I also heard this amplifier with the Avantegarde Duo and the Wilson Audio Sophia (although the Sophia wasn't nearly as sensitive as the others, it was very easy to drive). I thought the Avantegarde was a waste of time with the Audio Note. Nice mids and highs but when the bass kicked in - it sounded strange, mismatched. There was enough loudness though for more simple tracks. The Sophia sounded great. Totally cohesive from top to bottom but lacking the drive and sheer db's to properly enjoy music at reasonable listening levels. The Loth-X was the best of the lot with the Audio Note. It was cohesive, and went loud enough. I thought the Audio Note just sounded more comfortable. So therefore, with so little power to play with, is it not so that unsympathetic crossovers would suck what little juice there is, leaving a flat and distant perspective that others have heard and disliked. I'm thinking that such low powered amplifiers may even be more amenable to no crossover at all. Edit: I have to say this though, as soon as we threw in more power, the whole picture changed. At the same listening level, or as near as we could get by ear, everything sounded more punchy, and with greater bandwidth. And this was with all of the loudspeakers mentioned above. This is not to say SET didn't sound nice. I have never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 The whole business of dB level, volume, and loudness can be misleading. It isn't a matter of whether one can attain such and such a dB level with a particular amp. After all, as I've mentioned before, I can attain SET-level dBs out of my two-inch built-in TV speaker. The important thing is what music sounds like at a particularly robust dB level using a low-watt SET amp. One can love the result, it's just personal taste after all, and there's no accounting for that. Some call what they hear MAGIC. MAGIC is an acronym for music made Mushy, Anemic, Gelded, Impoverished, and Compressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts