How will my system benefit from a tube amp?

[Arky]

I would rather just sit down and enjoy some tunes.

Me too but i'm lazy.

[anarchist]

I don't know, did you skip the twenty, thirty, forty posts in which mas was attacked and mocked?

Mas' posts themselves were all mocking and no substance. No one else needed to attack Mas.

I recall one in which MDeneen referred to him as a liar.

Quite disingenious here. MDeneen said his posts were reflective of one of two options - lying being one of them.

On a personal note, it was kind of refreshing to see a flame war that I was not the focus of, but then of course Anarchist's paranoia got into overdrive and he figured everything was my doing, as usual.

You are never the focus, you are the protagonist. Paranoia? Let me remind you my yellow feathered friend:

mas, Whatever you do, don't bring up the fact that a 6DJ8 is a noisy preamp tube.

Which was then followed - probably after a PM or two - by Mas yapping about the 6DJ8 for several posts and bemoaning Mark owning a business. I think I have seen this same strategy employed previously.

Check tubes out for yourself, but stay away from SET whatever you do.

Good advice for a newbie albeit prejudicial but it would be a reasonable expectation someone's first foray into tubes shouldn't be at the most limited end of the spectrum.

And the other question that needs an answer is Where did the bow tie go?

Mark has gone contemporary. I like the new one.

Paul, you are so easy. I find it disconcerting when I actually agree with you on occasion. Fortunately, most of the time you make it difficult to do so.

[Deang]

The good news is we have identified another clique with an identified membership. So we now have the set clique, the no-set clique, the pro-jub clique, the no-fugly-speakers clique, the circle-jerk clique, and the please-write-something-that-is-intelligible clique. Membership in one clique isn't necessarily exclusive and some birds fly the coop from one to the other.

The irony in all this are folks trying to lecture a proponent of measurements and science. Its a riot (albeit moronic) watching an objectivist being attacked for being a subjectivist by objectivists who can't explain the science behind their subjective and generalized assertions. Frankly, I don't think they even understand what they are trying to prove or disprove anymore and it was entirely irrelevant to the original question in any case. I am sure many have been enlightened by all the drivel cloaked so pedantically.

I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard reading a post.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/install/sac/n26_4/nyquist/nyquist.shtml

Everytime I read about that stuff it's always in the context loudspeakers. I guess mas is saying complex acoustic measurments of this type would show how the amps are affecting the sound acoustically. O.K., sure, but how does that help us here and now? Anyone around here have the test equipment and facilities to do this? I know this, it's a hell of a lot cheaper just to try a tube amp and see if you like it.

[cjgeraci]

"And secondly, are you interested in replacing your tubes every so often and dealing with the bias and warming everything up before listening and all that crap associated with tubes? It quickly becomes a full time endeavor keeping the things running in their linear range. Some love that tinkering part of the hobby - I would rather just sit down and enjoy some tunes."

Have you owned a tube amp for any extended period of time? The above is not representative of the tube experience. Most tube owners do not have to (or want to) frequently replace their tubes, and you do not have to warm everything up before you start listening - it helps but most tube amps sound close to optimal within minutes and "very good" right at turn on. Additionally, a good quality rebuilt vintage or new tube amp is reliable and needs biasing (a relatively simple procedure) every month or week or so (depending on the amp and user's preference). It is not a full time endeavor to keep a tube amp running optimally.

I run both, and while ss are easier to use and maintain "e.g. no maintenance," I would not say that there is "all that crap" associated with maintaining and/or operating a tube amp.

Carl.

[Parrot]

O.K., sure, but how does that help us here and now? Anyone around here have the test equipment and facilities to do this?

Gee, I wonder who in this thread might just have the test equipment and facilities to do this? Could it be the guy who the Bad Cowboy wouldn't give any data to, perhaps?

Anyway, Dean, it's nice to see you maintaining an open mind, and not maintaining that physics doesn't exist, unlike several others, who are in denial just because they don't understand it.

It's funny because I once was closed to new ideas myself, until my mother took me aside and said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Paulie Parrot, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." That stuck with me and I no longer try to fly away or bury my head in the sand when faced with concepts I've never dealt with before.

[maxg]

A Porsche 911 is a great car - but not so much use when you have 2 dogs.

Let's see...one in the front seat and the other in the trunk. What problem?

Mas,

There's an engine in the trunk.

All,

Now - I have been away from this thread for about 2 hours - playing with my daughter who has now fallen asleep.

I see there are some doubts being expressed as to Mas' ability to produce what he claims. I am expecting something akin to the single unifying theory of the universe as applied to systems / rooms etc whereby I can nummerically predict system synergies both between components and between system/room.

Are we saying I will be disappointed?

What compartment is that in the front? Don't look! A trunk???

Oh, and the numeric answer? You win the prize ! But you're several pages late! Go back and look on page 9!

I don't have to produce... Heyser already has. []

You want me to drill holes in the hood so the dog can breath? Have you seen under the hood of a 911? What do you think I have - a toy poodle?

I'll try to further this discussion in the following post (not the car one)

[DrWho]

"And secondly, are you interested in replacing your tubes every so often and dealing with the bias and warming everything up before listening and all that crap associated with tubes? It quickly becomes a full time endeavor keeping the things running in their linear range. Some love that tinkering part of the hobby - I would rather just sit down and enjoy some tunes."

Have you owned a tube amp for any extended period of time? The above is not representative of the tube experience. Most tube owners do not have to (or want to) frequently replace their tubes, and you do not have to warm everything up before you start listening - it helps but most tube amps sound close to optimal within minutes and "very good" right at turn on. Additionally, a good quality rebuilt vintage or new tube amp is reliable and needs biasing (a relatively simple procedure) every month or week or so (depending on the amp and user's preference). It is not a full time endeavor to keep a tube amp running optimally.

I run both, and while ss are easier to use and maintain "e.g. no maintenance," I would not say that there is "all that crap" associated with maintaining and/or operating a tube amp.

Carl.

Nope, never owned a tube amp...I could never afford the cost associated with the upkeep. I've heard plenty of tube amps though, all of which required heating up to sound right. I'm sure every tube amp is slightly different in that regard, but I wouldn't describe the change in sonics as a subtle thing...Maybe you just get used to it after a while? I dunno. I do know that the tubes wear out and that the tubes will change their sonic character ever so slightly throughout their life. Then according to some recent threads, the biasing can change rather drastically with fluctuations in wall voltage. Apparently not a huge deal, but that's gonna affect the sound to at least some extent. On top of it all, you've got people trying out different kinds of tubes, for the various differences in flavors they offer. It's a tinkerers dream.

Again, I've never owned a tube amp or have ever tried to maintain one so all I can do is comment on observations I've made of other tube amp owners.

[maxg]

OK - seriously disappointed here that this thread has descended into a brawl - and no - I dont want to get into a "He started it" debate.

There is, imho, some really good stuff in here amidst the jibes, and I am seriously interested in any systematic appraoch to audio that might at least supplement, if not actually replace, listening as the sole arbiter of what does and does not work.

Speaking entirely for myself I have absolutely no objection to a scientific approach to anything - including audio. I do not particularly use one myself, not out of a luddite mentality, but merely because I have neither the knowledge nor the tools to do so.

Mas has referred to a variety of "new" scientific approaches to the study of audio. I would like to know in simple terms how these can be applied to the selection of components to build a system that plays music in a given room. I would like to know what the variables are, how they are ascertained and then how they are manipulated to gain an answer.

Such an answer would be in the form - component A is a better match to the rest of the system than component B for XYZ reasons.

Or:

In the current system the best ROI would be obtained by the following upgrades/changes.

Or:

Given the paramters of the listening room (actually what are the important paramters here?) the best system for music playback would be based upon.....

In other words - all the basic questions someone who is assembling a playback system might want to ask.

To date, in order to answer these questions I have HAD to rely on my experience, listening sessions and large doses of input from others with greater or varying experience. This is very much a hit and miss / trial and error approach. It has not been an inexpensive route to follow. The value of equipment that has been discarded on my trek through the audio jungle is greater than the value of the equipment currently installed.

In my limited understanding of what MAS (and possible Tom) is talking about there might just be an alternative approach that would nail down many, if not most of the variables from the outset allowing me greater confidence in my purchasing.

Why would I be against that? Why would anyone?

[mas]

Tom said: "For those of you who are interested, much of what is
being referred to (and criticized) is work done primarily by Richard
Heyser."

To which I said, "stop making straw man arguments. Who criticized
Heyser in this thread?"

Nobody here is against Heyser

Again, my annoyance has nothing to do with Heyser. NOTHING. In fact, aside
from Heyser's name, what of his work has actually been presented here
for anyone to even attempt criticism? Go ahead, be specific.

Sad that you are unwilling to explain
your own unique measurement of amplifier and speaker neutrality. It sounded
like a real boon. But, I am not surprised. So, thus far, we have a lot of
people who believe they do best when using their ears to judge the sound of
equipment, and a few people who believe they want to measure their way to the
best equipment, but alas can't provide a single measurement of that
demonstration.

Mark, the fact is that you, and several others wouldnt know
any of Heysers ideas if they bit you on you scrawny posterior. OR if any of
the aspects have been mentioned, some of which have.

And when I mention to a couple of very simple concepts that
you so glibly dismiss (gee Mark, I dont recall you explaining the complex
ramifications of a complex impedance mismatch including reactance in
electronics OR acoustics) you simply revert to your ignorant if the answer
isnt presented in a form that I can understand and agree and it doesnt look
and sound like the your same old whine responses, then you simply dismiss it
and deny that anything has been mentioned. Your selective attention is awfully
convenient.

You keep making such large claims for your ears. Does that imply that they should
be used to the exclusion of your brain?

And yet you demand that (my own) own unique measurement of
amplifier and speaker neutrality be presented as you throw quarters n the
stage and demand that others dance for you.

Heres a news flash sure to confuse you! Well Mark, this is
not some t!tty bar that you frequent and demand others perform for you. The
unique measurement system is not mine,
except in so far as I value it and am an active proponent of it. Yes, and I do
possess the equipment necessary to do it.

The concept, which you misstate as something to do with
neutrality, is suggested by Heyser,
and it comes as a result of allot of folks hard work and R&D. And it is not
procedure for you to trot out and display. It is a process that acknowledges relationships.
If you want to malign me for finding merit in it, be my guest. I can take that
heat!

I referred to a methodology that could potentially account
for some of the perceived differences between various combinations of components
or systems based upon, among other things a correlation of their complex
impedance. Nothing too radical in and of itself. But a technique severely
limited in the past as a complete signature of this response was not possible
before the Heyser and Nyquist time and frequency spirals and the ability to
convolve them non-destructively.

And I love your he hasnt produced one measurement. Tell
me Mark, one measurement of what? A concept?, your IQ? (wait, before I make
that comment I best go back and review the limits of its resolution! ), or your
amazing observation that all amps have distortion?

Is that how it works? Thanks Mark, for displaying your rapt
ignorance. But thats the nice thing about ignorance, if you dont know
anything about what you are talking about, there are no limitations. Everything
is possible. So of course you sit there and simply demand an answer. Thats Marks
handiworkhe is a salesman. But not to just anyone, for you see, he sells to audiophiles.

And to top it off, Mark doesnt want just any measurement; he wants the special which
amp is better measurement. And the units are in marketing dollars. He wants a sales demonstration tool!

No wonder this fool is opposed to measurements. Not only are
all amps characterized by distortion, but so is his thinking.

[mas]

Everytime I read about that stuff it's always in the context loudspeakers. I guess mas is saying complex acoustic measurments of this type would show how the amps are affecting the sound acoustically.

O.K., sure, but how does that help us here and now? Anyone around here have the test equipment and facilities to do this? I know this, it's a hell of a lot cheaper just to try a tube amp and see if you like it.

Oh, Gee...

And so these techniques are limited to 'acoustics'? Then I guess the notion of applying the concept of complex impedance and the component concept of reactance to acoustics is going to become another hard sell!

No! They are not limited to acoustics. They apply to the full system chain! It is a system. But heretofore, the place in the system where the largest ROI is to be had, is not in analyzing some particular capacitor in some secondary circuit, but in the realm of the speaker room interface!

The fact is, most have not been preoccupied with the relatively minor conundrum of which amp to buy!

But we do gain some additional insight:

Dean, so its the cost that is the real problem? Do you mean to say that perhaps
there is more to what I am talking about then your own limited understanding of
it?

Well that sure as hell invalidates my point!

So,
finally!!! Here we go folks, the real crux of Deans conundrum.
While Mark has a vested interest in promoting and selling tube equipment and
Dean is frustrated that because he has spent his money on Jubilees, that he
cant afford to invest in TEF, EASERA, or any number of other measurement
platforms that might provide insight.

Unfortunately,
even if either could make the measurements, neither possesses even a basic insight
into that which the measurements proposed by Heyser might reveal, but for which
neither has minded blaming every one else as he admits his ignorance above.

But
But Butjust because others are repeating some of the same confusing stuff
that I have stated or that has been published in other places doesnt mean that
there might actually something to what I am referring.

The
fact is, the major personalities here remain at a loss to even recognize when
aspects or basic concepts have been mentioned.

And
I get it now as well. I can see how the focus on their part was all about how
to tell what amp to BUY! How can we lay hands on the piece of equipment and
have it talk to use before we put our money down.

They
want a sales and marketing tool!

Dean
so that he and others can conceivably get a good deal, and Mark because, well,
he doesnt really know why as he still thinks that he has established so
profound benchmark with his profound all amps have distortion breakthrough
which simply establishes a new baseline instead of some perceived height.
Sojust how tall is Mark anyway, as that may provide a bit more insight into
the why he sees that statement as such a lofty intellectual insight.

And I can't help but come back to this focus on "cost".

This coming from one who is
obsessed over which color or brand of resistor or capacitor to use, and passive crossovers lacking signal delay that cost as much as, if not more than the price of the speakers they are installed into.

And
I can see why Mark wants the quick numerical answer so coveted by a few here.
Right Max? Cant you just see the $$$ signs flashing in Marks eyes! Just
think, a potential new way to market his tube stuff! The old all amps have
distortionbut youll like my distortion better line just hasnt quite gained
the traction he had hoped Gosh, But if I can just find some numerical answer
and have someone else calculate it for me, says mark, "then I can use it in my
advertising.

[mas]

This is a hoot!

And unfortunately, this has long since been about any
serious discussion of acoustical and audio evaluation.

Forget ( ha! OK,
become aware of this for the first time and then forget it) that Heysers
postulates are a result of a fundamental frustration with the lack of
correlation between the OLD electro-acoustical paradigms still championed by
most in the industry and the limits of measurements and subjective evaluation.
And forget that Heyser was ultimately someone who felt that actually listening
was the final arbiter.

OK, now that should have been easy, as most never even knew that!

The truly amazing thing that characterizes many of the we have ears crowd here is that: they are the ones who repeatedly demand a
simple numerical measurement.

Hmmm. Doesnt sound right, does it!?

They do not want relationships, patterns, or any result that
might even require further investigation.

They want the answer
Now! Right here! Which amp is best? Never mind that we dont even have a clue
as to what units we have or havent referred! In fact, they haven't even attempted to define what criterion constitutes "the best".

Where is the answer!

Its rather amazing isnt it? What is interesting is that you often learn much more about someone or a group, not by examining what they say they are for - as that is almost always nice and rosy. Instead, you examine what they are against. What they are willing to fight for and to punish for. That tells you where their fundamental issues really reside.

The so called
subjectivists are only subjective when it involved others opinions and theirs.
As then they can always claim the primacy of their opinions, and it serves them
well as they never need be wrong or incorrect. They simply run behind the its
my opinion defense.

But yet, if any one dare to suggest that there is another
method, the "we have ears" folks yell that understanding it is a waste of time, as these
subjectivists lay on the ground, kick and scream that they want the answer. Now!

But you have to understand, ol Mark is not dismissing
Heyser! He tells you so above!

Thus far the response is to simply whine that because
they are ignorant of a position, that this is sufficient to imply it must be
wrong.

The real
crux of the issue is that Mark has NO semblance of a notion as to what Heyser
even said. All Mark knows is Heysers NAME!
And since he has not come out and said something disparaging about Heysers name, heyhe hasn't maligned Heyser. He simply
dismisses what Heyser postulated and that to which I and others happen to find merit and
prefer to chase to the best of my ability, standing on the shoulders of some
very accomplished folks who also believe in their merit and to which they have added further insight. And it is an
ongoing evolution of a paradigm.We are referring to the concepts which he has come to represent, and which others have furthered.

The suggestion that another process that can lend insight into what might be referred to as greater total complex impedance matching (as the
total time and frequency variant response of a system is indeed its impedance
this should confuse a few!), and more substantially, the effects of an incomplete match/mismatch; and that additional resources can be simply convolved non-destructively from this original measurement into any of a myriad number of
domains for further investigation providing any number of complex perspectives, as
the measurement system captures them all..., well... now we hear about cost and this an that and its so complicated and that no one has told them and...well, you see the pattern. For every idea, they have a larger number of objections.

I AM glad to address the subject in more detail with
anyone who seriously is interested in discussing it. Its a bit rough to jump
into the middle of it, as it is predicated upon a completely different frame of
reference, and that is going to require the ability to let go of some perhaps,
strongly relied upon premises. And if you have even studied quantum after
dealing with classical physics, then you have a pretty good indication of the
type of changes that are required in the paradigm, as what Heyser postulated is
indeed audio and acoustics equivalent of quantum.

But in fairness, you are going to have to collect the resources. I can supply a few if I have them online, but you will have to access the books, net, etc. And I really don't have the time nor interest in jumping through hoops in
a wasted effort to convince someone of something who has not the slightest
interest in getting off their posteriors to look at even the most basic information
available.

But for those who are interested, there is allot of fascinating 'notions' that are productively altering our understanding of the behavior of audio and acoustics. And they are closing the gap between theory and what we actually perceive. ESPECIALLY in the realm of the speaker, the room and the speaker room interaction. Perhaps because this is where the real low hanging substantial gains can be substantially realized.

So, in this sense there are some pretty amazing tools.

But like any new endeavor, its not a 3 sentence summary that will result in a new outcome. And in some cases it just might (but not necessarily) require some new test equipment to actively employ it.

And if you are simply looking for the "answer", well, you might try religion. ;-)

Its not my responsibility to prove it every time I
allude to an established concept based upon the validated work of others. Those involved with AES and the ideas Heyser postulated suffered through that wacko mentality in AES in the late 80s and
early 90s with Vanderkooy and Lipshitz. And I hazard to say that a few who simply oppose the ideas with out having any understanding of them are not even as bright as
those two fools mentioned in the sentence above with their political agendas. (Gee, whats he talking about!? It's history folks!)

So for the folks who sit on your posteriors waiting like little
birds to be fed, go buy the books. When you have at least attempted to fathom the work, THEN open your
mouths and ask question. But simply whining that you dont understand it, and having never attempted to understand it, while perhaps true,
certainly doesnt invalidate the concepts.

So Mark, and Max
(sorry Max, I hate this, but you got yourself tangled up in this one fellow! ;-) ), and the guy whose only relationship to an anarchist is his scrambled repetition of
others words, you just sit here waiting for your answer. Ordinarily I would
guestimate 7. But you deserve an answer to at least a couple of decimal
places. Wait right here. And some 'feel' that holding your breath seems to make the time go faster. Maybe...

For the rest of you who may be curious as to where to begin
an investigation into the process, buy the 3^rd Edition of Sound System Engineering by Davis and Patronis (ISBN-13:
978-0-240-80830-7 or ISBN-10: 0-240-80830-4). You can save a few bucks
by checking out www.deepdiscount.com.

For a more esoteric presentation, along with a scattering of very accessible papers, get the SES Anthology of Heyser entitle Time Delay Spectrometry
edited by John Prohs. http://www.aes.org/publications/anth.cfmk

[sheltie dave]

Mas, that is a lot of writing to show that others are WRONG, and you are more RIGHT. A better approach might be here are some reference books, here is the equipment I can play with, here are the associated costs, and here is the data I have had a chance to compile with Klipsch gear, and here is where that data drives the topologies/SS/tube issues.

I've been around a few audio engineers, and have seen the crosses some have chosen to champion/bear. There are more than a few people who are interested in what your data has to say in the time/pressure/phase/energy relationship. I would also be interested in how live performances do in this arena.

There isn't much use dangling a carrot in front of the horse if there aren't any oats forthcoming[]

[mas]

You are right in large measure.

I guess the irony as I see it is that I haven't been trying to present any ideas that are uniquely mine.

I simply suggested an approach initially suggested by Heyser and subsequently supported by quite a few folks which have provided a variety of useful applied knowledge.

For the rest of you who may be curious as to where to begin
an investigation into the process, buy the 3^rd Edition of Sound System Engineering by Davis and Patronis (ISBN-13:
978-0-240-80830-7 or ISBN-10: 0-240-80830-4). You can save a few bucks
by checking out www.deepdiscount.com.

For a more esoteric presentation, along with a scattering of very accessible papers, get the SES Anthology of Heyser dTime Delay Spectrometry
edited by John Prohs. http://www.aes.org/publications/anth.cfmk

I will post a few more links and articles when I get an opportunity.

And
I will try to post some measurements when I get a chance to show you
what one looks like - but there is a representational version of it in my avatar.

And measurements, etc., of this will come most likely after the small acoustical space information is posted.

And
please note, while there is a measurement and a plot for the Heyser
spiral and the Nyquist Spiral, it may be confusing to hear that the
spiral itself is not going to give you some magic answer. Oh, you can
certainly derive some characteristics and answers from it. But this
misses the point of the entire paradigm - and why i have not tried to
present it in abbreviated form here!

Rather it is a 'compendium' of many views - and many domains all of which are but a particular 'slice' or projection or derived quantity of the spirals or their component values.

And to understand this, you will need a basic understanding of the component parts and of their relationships.

So, to that end, here is the relational domain chart. THIS is what the spirals provide you with. So you see, you are not simply getting a small limited selected view!!!!! You don't simply put a quarter in and get a static answer.

But the information is there is you formulate a well formed question.

So, here is a 'map' of Alice's looking glass with a hint of what is to be found inside.

Just be warned, by looking at this 'stuff' you are not going to immediately walk away with lots of easy answers. It is literally like the relationship of quantum to classical physics. There are amazing things to behold, but not if you expect to spend 10 minutes flipping through a book looking only at the pictures.

[anarchist]

Sheltie,

You are wasting your time. Mas is similar to a remedial high school student who writes a 5000 word essay by googling an unrelated reference and ends up with a paper with lots of words and no substance.

Given this guys demonstrated inability to comprehend other's posts, follow his own thoughts through writing a post, assess others motivations or actually understand a point, I am doubtful he would be able to relate any theory into a real world application. Based on previous dissertations he has composed, he is some guy who wants some numbers to plug into a software program so he can convince customers he knows how to design a system. In the computer world, for those who can relate, he would be a paper MCSE.

So far, the only nuggets of wisdom he has been able to articulate is impedence matching is important in selecting an amplifier, amplifiers should be operated in their linear range, and, by gosh, it is possible through the magic of technology for music to be recorded without the actual musicians all being in the same room at the same time. I eagerly await the next 5000 words which may reveal the revolutionary concept that room acoustics impact the listening experience.

In short, Mas has no ideas which are uniquely or originally his - not even the insults - and hasn't been able to prove in 20,000 words or so even with his constant references to Heyser, his initial statement that the only thing a tube amp gets you is more distortion. Frankly, this guy is more tiresome than listening to Don King and his endless self-aggrandizement.

[Audio Flynn]

"Your profound "all amps have distortion" speech was impressive, not for its insight but for the fact that you think that this is where the discussion should be."

That's rich. Since the discussion was centered around amplifiers, it seems like a good place to be. I feel bad that I'm so stupid. I was hoping that while reading through the white paper posts I would find something that could help someone decide if they might like a tube amp or not.

Tough to learn anything from someone who can't impart it without patronizing and hurling insults while pushing my face down into the book. A few more of those outbursts and you'll find yourself looking for another forum. Since everyone is obviously impressed beyond measure with your pure genius, I'm sure at least half will quit the forum in protest, and follow you to the ends of earth.

Dean, what do you mean?

Sister Caniscus used the exact methodology on me in the 4th grade and see how much I learned?

[mas]

Sheltie,

You are wasting your time. Mas is similar to a remedial high school student who writes a 5000 word essay by googling an unrelated reference and ends up with a paper with lots of words and no substance.

Given this guys demonstrated inability to comprehend other's posts, follow his own thoughts through writing a post, assess others motivations or actually understand a point, I am doubtful he would be able to relate any theory into a real world application. Based on previous dissertations he has composed, he is some guy who wants some numbers to plug into a software program so he can convince customers he knows how to design a system.

Yup, some complete accurate data would make it possible to specify the use of a particular product, of which I have no interest in buying for myself, for inclusion into a design for which performance predictions can be made and subsequent proof of performance verification performed.

NewsFlash: In some places of the country, they just don't get a bunch of them boxes and stack em up.

In the computer world, for those who can relate, he would be a paper MCSE.

Nope, the platforms on which I was involved, work. Investigate AIX and the RS/6000 SP and the PSSP and HA-GEO environments.

So far, the only nuggets of wisdom he has been able to articulate is impedence matching is important in selecting an amplifier, amplifiers should be operated in their linear range, and, by gosh, it is possible through the magic of technology for music to be recorded without the actual musicians all being in the same room at the same time. I eagerly await the next 5000 words which may reveal the revolutionary concept that room acoustics impact the listening experience.

I guess that its redundant to ask if all folks from that singular gene pool called KY are the same. The only thing truly special about those topics that you take to be so fundamental was that they were found to be heretical by your friends. I too found that hilarious!

In short, Mas has no ideas which are uniquely or originally his - not even the insults - and hasn't been able to prove in 20,000 words or so even with his constant references to Heyser, his initial statement that the only thing a tube amp gets you is more distortion. Frankly, this guy is more tiresome than listening to Don King and his endless self-aggrandizement.

And which ideas of yours are unique? And no, I have no problem crediting where I garnered my information. After all, I wouldn't want to found guilty of copyright infringement as a result of using any of your unique and original thoughts. You will warn us before you offer any, right?

[anarchist]

he is some guy who wants some numbers to plug into a software program so he can convince customers he knows how to design a system...

Yup, some complete accurate data would make it possible to specify the use of a particular product, of which I have no interest in buying for myself...

Enough said.

In the computer world, for those who can relate, he would be a paper MCSE.

Nope, the platforms on which I was involved, work. Investigate AIX and the RS/6000 SP and the PSSP and HA-GEO environments.

I have no need to investigate - I am quite familiar already.

I guess that its redundant to ask if all folks from that singular gene pool called KY are the same.

Yuck, yuck, yuck. Yet another unoriginal and pathetic attempt at insult which demonstrates ignorance. Given I am from Miami, it isn't even applicable. I guess you get some of your material from the Jerry Springer show.

And which ideas of yours are unique?

You wouldn't understand an idea if you had one and I don't have the patience to explain it to you. Never liked those remedial kids myself.

I blame Roy for all this. If he had just given this guy the numbers, he would have run off, plugged them into his software program, and began convincing others he could design a system. Or not. He is occasionally amusing tho' - similar to listening to an autistic savant repeating "I'm a good driver" or in this case "I'm a good designer. I'm a good designer very good designer."

[sheltie dave]

Anarchist, in the radiation world, the true geniuses I have worked beside are the ones who can teach complex theories and concepts with a fifth grade vocabulary, and ninth grade expirements. I am very interested in these graphs, and am willing to wade through a fair amount of dreck, to see the time delay "errors" and propogation problems that the KHorn/folded horn speakers are noted for, to I can point my finger at one of the doodads and see the error(s) quantified. The graphs are relatively easy to understand - I've dealt with time/temperature spiral plots for annealing furnaces, and these throw in a couple more factors and a linear regression in a kitchen sink.

So Mas, are we going to get the chance to see hard data with Klipsch speakers, or is this an excercise of semantics? We are on page 14 or so of the thread, and the mice want to see a flash of cheese.

[maxg]

Mas,

I dont mind being incorporated into convenient groupings if you need to. In the meantime I have the feeling that what we are looking at here is a theorectical proposition - that may well be 100% correct for all I know but is going to be rather limited in its practical value for someone like me.

Yes - I am looking for answers in an easily digested form - sorry about that. My primary interest is in building the best sound system I can - the science stuff is very much of secondary importance to me if gaining the knowledge required for a practical benefit is a daunting as it appears now.

I am not saying that I might not buy the books you have recommended but I have the feeling it is an entirely academic exercise in terms of my main quest.

Correct?

[chambers1517]

My experience with tube gear is somewhat limited but is this. I have K-horns and Lascalas. I tried two tube amps on the K-horns. One was a 5wpc and the other was a 100 wpc Carver. My friend paid $4000 dollars used. The 5 wpc amp sounded different. I had a Technics reciever at the time. The tube amp ran out of steam too soon and the sound changed as I approached my normal listening levels. As I got into home theater I bought a Harmon Kardon 7200 which I really like. A friend wanted to hear his 100 watt Carver on some horns. To be honest, in two channel mode I really could not hear any difference between it and my HK. He thought maybe it needed new tubes because he said they burn out. After learning about all the maintenance these require I really don't think I would bother with tube gear. My HK is five years old and sounds the same as new without being touched. Tube gear deteorates with each use. My 2 cents.