Dear Gregadd and friends: ****" Raul this is from an earlier post by you. The audioholics does not agree with your conclusion that a tube amp is an ucorrectable equalizer. "*****
They don't disagree too, right?. But this is not the point, the point is that till today does not exist any tube amplifier with very low output impedance. That's why a tube amplifier change the frecuency response with the changes that has the speaker. Now, in and SS amplifier that changes can be of a very low order: 0.1 db to 0.3 db, but in a tube amplifier that changes are really high ones deviations from the original: 0.5 to 10db or more. This is a heavy degradation. Take the TWL amplifier that has an output impedance of 1.8 Ohms, this one will had a deviation between 1.0 to 2.5 db: unacceptable by any standard.
TWL post this: ****" To me, the key here is not whether there may be some slight affects to the amplifer based on speaker reactances, but whether these small effects could even be actually audible, given wider range tolerances in many other parts of the sytem context. "****
Dear TWL, first there are not " slight effects " ( ****" , As amplifier output impedance rises, these differences in frequency response are exaggerated. The changing speaker impedance actually pushes the output voltage of the amplifier around thereby changing the acoustic output of the speaker. The amplifier cannot control its own output. "**** This comes from the Gregadd link. ), in the case of tube electronics it is a heavy effects ( degradation and always audible by anyone, but a deaf. ) ), second: what are you telling us? that because there are other wider range effects in other parts of the audio system, these ones does not matters?. Example: assume that the discrete frecuency response at 100 Hz of a speaker has a deviation of -10 db and that the effect of the tube amplifier is -3 db at that discrete frecuency: TWL, till today 10+3 sum: 13 ( I know that the sum of db it will be a logarithymic sum ) and you try to telling that it does not matters?, come on TWL.
Now, the tube amplifier degradation to the signal is worst than what Stereophile shows in the diagrams, why?, because Norton/Atkinson use a constant resistance at the amplifier outputs, normally a 8, 4 and 2 Ohms resistors. This is very gentle for the tube amplifier and far from reallity, because the impedance of the speaker is not constant it has heavy variations with the frecuency response in all the frecuency spectrum, and you can check this too through the Stereophile tests on speakers,: can you imagine other worst degradation on the signal reproduction in a high end audio system and that that degradation can hear it?
This is one of the reasons why I always speak of " equalizers " in reference to tube electronics. The real name has to be: UNCONTROLLABLE EQUALIZERS.
It is already clear that the tube electronics goes against the music reproduction, and till now anyone can do nothing for to change it. This is the point: AGAINST THE MUSIC REPRODUCTION.
All these statements are for the people that really cares about. Ask you what are you hearing from a tube electronics in front of live music.
In this analog forum all of us are trying to obtain the best from our analog system: phono preamp, phono cartridge, tonearm, turntable, phono cables, etc.... Here we are talking to do the very best for our analog system: VTA, VTF, Azymuth, cartridge load impedance, resonnce frecuency on the cartridge/tonearm combo, metal platter or acrylic one, MC or MM cartridges, pivot or linear traking tonearms, air bearings, mass, etc..... We do all this job ( time, money, know-how,..) trying to obtain the best analog music reproduction, and for what if in the next audio system link: UNCONTROLLABLE EQUALIZERS ( tube electronics ), all our efforts goes dead-down.
That's why I always speak to be sure that exist the LESS degraded effects at any link in the whole audio system, and why any one that has these UE does not knows the real performance of his audio system.
Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear TWL: This is what you post against me in this thread: ****" I actually think that you know very little about audio. " **** and
****" I'd suggest quite a bit more study before engaging any serious audiophiles here again. " ****.
I think that all of us ( including you and Chris ) now are more knowledge about. Don't you think?.
Rushton, as you can see the OTL is no solution: it's worst.
Gregadd, tks for your info .
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I think I'm going to hit myself in the head with a hammer...
"OTL
Lets look at the Transcendent T8 as an example. It uses 8, EL509 tubes in push-pull. Each 509 has a plate impedance of about 150 ohms. 150 ÷8 = 18.75 ohms. This is unacceptable. Negative feedback is employed to achieve proper performance. The amplifier uses 33 dB of negative feedback which reduces the output impedance to 0.4 ohm thereby achieving outstanding woofer control and the ability to drive 4 ohm speakers. This specification was verified by Stereophile when they reviewed the amplifier."
Direct quote from the link in my previous post.
Now here is a quote from Raul:
"... The output impedance in the tubes amplifiers, usually, goes from 0.5 to 3 OHms ( high one ) and the output impedance in the SS goes from 0.02 to 0.5 OHms ( very low one..."
Consequently, given the range that Raul has given, there is a tube amp with output impedance in the range of SS. If the Transcendent amp is an uncontrollable equalizer so is a ss amp.
Others can see that Raul conitnues to move the goal post.
Pardon me while I continue to bang my head...
As I stated above before you make major changes in your system to obtain full spectrum frequency balance you should study what a real frequency curve of a real speaker operating into a real room (not an anechoic chamber)looks like. Moreover you need to examine what empahasis the human ear puts on the frequency spectrum. |
Raul, I would refer you to the David Berning website, in the White Papers section, where amplifier transfer characteristics are discussed.
You may know that the "load line" of a given amplification device in an amplifier defines how it responds to the loads presented to it by the speaker(load) and how well it will control it directly and without feedback.
In my Berning amplifier, the load line is about 1.8 ohms, and it operates with no feedback, and is globally DC stabilized(something you seemed to think could only be in SS amps, and not be achieved with tube circuits, but is a feature of the David Berning ZOTL circuit). However, by using the much larger "effective turns ratio" that is provided by the unique ZOTL impedance conversion circuit, much more effective control of the speaker load by the triode is possible, than would ever be possible using any output transformer or traditional OTL ciruits. In fact, with the load line that is in my amplifier, according to the David Berning "White Paper",
"In an audio application, the tube behaves as if it is driving a 4k ohm speaker (the impedance conversion ratio goes as the square of the turns ratio), and the speaker acts and sounds as if it is being driven by a 0.6 ohm triode."
And this, with the use of ZERO FEEDBACK. The natural load line of the triode is sufficient to produce this, when using the ZOTL impedance converter design. So that all the linear transfer characteristics of the triode are preserved, and full control of the load is realized, while exceeding the capability(and eliminating any of the drawbacks) of any output transformers.
So, as you can see, the use of this design allows both a low output impedance AND zero feedback, and at the same time eliminates all the saturation problems and parasitic capacitances of typical output transformers in audio applications, and still allows the use of a single triode(no parallel tubes like traditional OTL) to control the speaker accurately and in conditions of shifting speaker impedances(within reason), based on its inherent transfer characteristics(load line)in conjunction with the Berning ZOTL impedance converter.
While David does give credence to your concerns about shifting impedances causing frequency response problems in certain amplifiers, it is shown that this amplifier circuit is not adversely affected by the things that you mention, and the load lines in the ZOTL circuit are very close to what would be expected from some MOSFET transistor amplifiers(without feedback). However, the sonic attributes of the triodes are preserved, and gives what might be called "the best of both worlds", as the control and speed are very much like solid state, and the transparency, tone, and harmonic qualities are all tube.
So, here we have a tube amp with a single output triode(per channel), no audio output transformers, no feedback, an effective output impedance of about 0.6 ohms, DC coupled and global DC stabilization, bandwith from 2Hz - 500kHz, high-speed switching power supply, RF-frequency tube heating, noise less than -100db, choke loading, DC powered, auto-biasing, brownout protection, and can even be turned on without any speaker attached without damage(just like a SS amp can), and weighs 5 pounds.
And best of all, it sounds like real music when you use it with a good speaker. It doesn't sound like most tube amps, and it doesn't sound like most SS amps. It sounds like the best of both.
Now, by anybody's numbers, a 1:13 ratio(damping factor 13) of output impedance to speaker impedance is going to be well within 1db(and probably within 0.5db) in frequency response variation over the audio range as long as a nominal 8 ohm speaker is used. Now, if you want to drive Apogee Scintilla's <1 ohm load with it, I'll agree that I cannot do it with this amp effectively. For the speakers that are intended for this amp, it will control them admirably and exhibit a quite flat response, and be musical.
Whew! I'm tired, and had about enough of this.
Regards,
Twl |
Dear gregadd: *** " Others can see that Raul conitnues to move the goal post. " ****
Wich's your point ?. What are you trying to say?. That example don't tell the whole history because that amp needs 33 db of global negative feedback that introduce very bad effects and for other way we can't see the Stereophile diagram response on that subject. BTW this amp is in the high level of the " permited " output impedance.
Gregadd be serious and mature. Don't try to deffend what it can't be deffended. Don't try that this serious subject fall in a witch hunting or a words game.
Your link put everything and everyone in the right " place ". What do you want? , you don't have a point till to now. Remember that this is not a contest. Come on Gregadd use your experience intelligence and don't try to find a point where does not exist one.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
TWL: I have in hand the Stereophile review on a Berning EA-2101 amplifier. Here are the output impedance at the 8 Ohms tap: 3 Ohms at 20 Hz and 1 kHz and 4 Ohms at 20 kHz. At the 4 Ohms tap ( 3.55 Ohms ): 1.5 Ohms and 2.1 Ohms , respectively.
Now, with a constant 8 Ohms impedance the deviation response is at 1 db in the high frecuencies and with 4 Ohms 1.5 db. This is with a constant load impedance, it is for sure that with a real speaker impedance the errors will be higher and dramatic changes to our ears.
So, your post don't help to " cure " the uncontrolled equalizer effect.
TWL, as you know no body can change ( till to now ) the physics laws. I agree, like you, that the Berning design is a good one, but is not enough on that subject, it is still short on it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Suttlaw,
.
For an incredible line of tubed pre-amps, check out Supratek (suptratek.biz) from Australia. The Cortese model is just phenomenal and an incredible Value in the $ 5,000.00 range.
.
Raul has found a ghost writer.
.
Raul, why is it that you do not list your system or respond to people when they ask you what equipment you are using ?
.
|
Raul,
Would you please explain to the group your ability to slip in and out of proper syntax and grammar in your posts?
If you have the ability to put your thoughts out there in a cogent fashion, please do so with every post.
I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but in my case, I find your pendantic comments to be idiotic when you post as though you were typing in English for the first time in your life.
Further, you take the position of instructor in every thread you invade. Get over yourself, you might actually learn something for the people you delight in talking down to.
I will end my post with a twist on your tag line:
"Shut up and enjoy the music" |
Raul, the EA-230 is the older Berning design, which used traditional output transformers. I am referring to the new ZOTL designs which are completely different than the EA-230 was. My amplifier is a ZOTL design.
It is still not "perfect" for all speaker types, but it is a very large step in the right direction for tube amplifiers, when used with the a correctly matched speaker system.
It is my estimation, that this concern of yours which we are discussing, is primarily related to speaker systems which have wide impedance swings into lower impedances that would have negative effects on tube amps with higher output impedances, and on that I agree with you.
However, one parameter does not make an amplifier, and there are speakers for use with these amps which will keep the frequency response/output impedance curves at a level within good acceptable ranges for music listening. While many SS amps do have the very low output impedances that would work well with difficult speakers, that parameter alone does not make them good for musical listening. As you well know, there are other things involved with this.
I am not trying to change the "physics laws". What I am doing is pointing out that a variety of tube amplifiers when used with properly matched speaker systems, can have acceptably flat response curves(even if not perfect), and still provide a very musical result because of other strengths that tube amps have and other weaknesses that SS amps have. I have been primarily on the "defensive" side in this argument, because I don't wish to insult people that use SS amps. But I will say that some of the more expensive and flattest response SS amplifiers that I've heard provided some of the worst listening experiences that I've ever heard. They don't provide specs for "grainy, hard, or cold" sounds. People don't call them "sand amps" for no reason. However, I will admit that some good SS amp designs do provide a very flat response and a tonal quality and overall sound quality that can come close to a good tube amp. Basically, you can "pick your poison", nothing is perfect, and you buy what you like.
What I chose was a carefully selected blend of Single-ended Triode coherence and tone, with similar speed and control of SS(using the ZOTL impedance converter), and the open and transparent sound of OTL. I had David Berning himself design and build it with his own hands. It is the only one of its kind in the world. I selected speakers that would work well with it. It makes music. It is the only item in my system which is not replaceable. I call it "The Holy Grail", because prior to the Berning impedance converter invention, it was simply not possible to have an amplifier with only one output triode per channel in a single-ended triode configuration, with no output transformer, and achieve anywhere near a low enough output impedance to operate any normal speaker. This amp not only achieves a low enough output impedance, but puts it closer to what an SS amp might be(without feedback). In my opinion, this amp is the cutting edge of audiophile amplifier design, going where no amp has ever gone before. Using a single Type 45 output triode to directly drive a speaker element. This is a revolution in amplifier design, because it takes the best aspects of best tube design(SET) and provides a solution for what previously were the drawbacks of the no-longer-necessary output transformers, and provides better impedance matching, and direct drive from the triode. The result is "top to bottom" freqency extension capable of square-wave reproduction anywhere in the audio range, blazing speed, transparency, openness, tone to burn, superb coherence due to the pure Class A design inherent in SET, super short signal path, ultra low-noise due to RF tube heaters and no AC power "grunge" due to rechargeable 12vdc battery power, improved linearity due to choke loading, incredible grain-free liquidity and a musical sound quality overall that is "to die for".
Now if I have to "settle" for a fraction of a db of frequency response variation at a couple of frequencies where my speakers are a bit reactive, in order to get all these benefits, then that's fine with me because I got the better end of the deal. |
Raul I guess we will,"have to agree to disagree." I knew you would counter with the negative feed back argument! Please, negative feedack was invented to cure the ills of ss! Anyone who does not like feedback couldn't possibly be a fan of solid state.
"Moving the goal post" means you change the facts to suit your argument. You claim you never discussed damping factor when you did so extensively. You gave the lower range of output impedance for tubes as 0.5 Ohms. Then you changed it to 0.3 Ohms. This was done curiously after you read my post concerning the Transecdent amp's output impedance of 0.4 Ohms.
No, the laws of physics cannot be violated. However we can use another law of pyhsics to counterract it. I say this as I sit before my computer suspended in air with gravity pulling me toward earth but the force of the floor preventing me form crashing to the ground.
I don't think you are an idiot. You are dogmatic. |
I find it interesting the we in the Audiogon community continue to participate in allowing Raul to hijack so many threads. I'm doing exactly that now by offering this post, and I plead guilty to doing so. But, I wanted to let fellow Audiogoners know that I don't plan to gratify Raul (and his multiple ghost writers) in the future by responding to his baiting. All of the threads with Raul have devolved into useless "point-counterpoint" contentions that de-value this forum and make it a less pleasant place for sharing ideas and experiences. For me, posts from Rauliruegus will henceforth fall into my "ignore" file; I find his contributions counterproductive and I do not intend to encourgage even more by responding to him.
Twl and Gregadd, I appreciate your efforts to engage in a discussion on so many of the topics being tossed out in this thread and others, but I'd also be happy if, upon reflection, you decided the "discussions" with Raul are simply not worth the bandwidth and not worth diverting the entire thread from the question originally posed. Clearly, I respect your choice to do as you wish in this regard.
Best regards, |
Rushton: Stay calm. Be cool and speak for your self. You are trying to convince other peoples on this forum that think exactly like you. Come on, leave the people free. If I don't like you, no problem with me, that is your problem.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
.
Rushton, I am with you - I will not read another Raul post.
.
Bye Raul
. |
I'm with Rushton, too. Trouble is that someone like me who is not too well versed on some of the topics might read one of Raul's posts and come to some erroneous conclusions. If one is compelled, maybe some simple response such as "Raul's opinion is unique" might at least give a newbie a head's up without being negative or controversial.
|
Rushton: " I find his contributions counterproductive. "
Like it or not, at least now anyone of us can " see " ( as already proved with facts ) the heavy degradation on the signal reproduction through tube electronics that goes against the music.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Gregadd: " . You claim you never discussed damping factor when you did so extensively. "
Where I discuss " extensively on damping factor?
" You gave the lower range of output impedance for tubes as 0.5 Ohms. Then you changed it to 0.3 Ohms. "
Where do you read it?
I think that you are a little confused.
BTW, which your point. As I already told you you don't have it and I think that you can't find it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
TWL: You have only " nice words " that can't prove anything. Only the facts can prove on that subject.
Till you have a diagram with the response of that ( no comercial ) amplifier with a real and standard speaker, you can't prove anything. Remember that " the exeption confirm the rule ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Cello: " Bye Raul "
Please don't go. Now what I can do with out you. ¡ Please come back. !
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Gregadd, if you believe H-Cat's designer, Roger Paul, all electronics substantially color music as some frequencies pass immediately and others are delayed, what he calls Dopler shifts. I have not heard his amp as yet but can indeed tell you that you have heard nothing until you hear the Dopler free H-Cat preamp and phono. If you think you have heard an accurately reproduced trumpet you are wrong.
But the reality with which we all have to live is that speakers cannot reproduct music with much accuracy especially in most rooms.
I have spent forty years pursuing realism in music reproduction, and hopefully will spend many more. There is no question that what I am hearing now far surpasses what I heard those many years ago.
As to the laws of physics, I think few scientists would claim we have lawful relationships that much predict the performance of amplifiers or speakers. |
Doppler shift would be measurable as a function of time delay. A shorter signal path would introduce less time delay, hence less potential for the Doppler effect to come into play. How many manufacturers have you ever seen quote "time delay" as a spec? I've only ever seen ONE. Sean
> |
Tbg, can you refer me to some nore info on H-Cat? I didn't see anything in the manufacturer section. When some frequencies are delayed and others aren't it is usually refered to as phase shift or group delay. Doppler shifts have to do with relative motion between the source of the sound and the ear. I've never heard it applied in this manner, but I would interested to read Roger Paul's explanation. |
Rushton, I went back and read the Stereophile article which is the subject of so much discussion on this thread. If I had done that in the beginnig I would have ended my comments on this thread long ago. I will continue to read Raul's post but I have nothing else to say on this thread.
TBG... This is your first post on this thread. I can only assume you did not read my previous posts. I continually caution people not be sucked in by the spec of the month and the component that claims to be perfect because it claims to solve that problem. I continually caution people that the true evaluation of music reprodction is what you hear through your speaker in your room.
IMHO I have heard many systems come errily close to producing an accurate reproduction of one or more musical instruments. Unfortunately they disappointed me in other areas.
I have been involved in audio for thirty-something years. I am not so sure that there has been that much progress in the high end. Most of the "ground breaking" equipment has been either impractical or too expensive for me. What has changed over that period is my abilty to identify good source material, identify musical equipment and too wade through the bullshit that permeates so much of the high end. I also am able to spend a little more money.
I have stated before that we lack sufficent measurements to examine what music reproduction equipment is actually doing. Unlike mans law the laws of physics cannot be broken. We may not know how to quantify them, we may ignore them, but we can't break them.
Rushton... now I'm finished. |
Gregadd, I like your posts, and frequently I agree with you (and sometimes I don't :-) ). I've been doing this for 30+ years also, but it seems to me that there have been some pretty significant improvements over that time (speaker driver design is one example, phono cartridges is another).
I absolutely agree with you that we still can't measure much of what our ears tell us. While many equipment manufacturers do an excellent job of actually listening to the equipment they are designing and then making changes based on what they hear, I continue to be amazed at how many people do not listen. For me, the adage "the proof is in the pudding" (in this case, the careful listening) has never been more true.
. |
TWL out.
Tired of banging head against wall. |
It would be a dull world if everybody agreed.
I figured that comment about not much advancemt in audio would get me into trouble.
I say it because there is not that much new.
Moving coil cartridges? Not new.
Direct heated triodes? Not new.
Cables? Not new.
Speakers? Not new...etc.
I couldn't help but notice that the Linn turntable and Quad speakers won Stereophiles product of the year awards.
I thnk what has happened is the dust has settled on a lot of the theories. We have a lot better class of materials to work with. Finally the consumer has a lot more discretionary income to take advantage of exotic designs.
I thnk this would make a good article for a magazine. Put up a vintage system say AR SP 3/ D79, quad speakers/Linn tt/Lin itok arm shure V15 catrdige up against a comparble system of today. For source material you could pit Living Stereo or shaded dogs against some of the best vinyl of today. |
Gregadd, Hmmm... Good points, all. I do agree that the vintage system you describe would acquit itself very well against systems today. As you note, quality of materials is probably the biggest change. My "modern" preamp uses a classic audio circuit with 12AX7 tubes: biggest difference from a Marantz 7 is power supply and parts quality.
And for source material, I'm listening right now to a 35 year old piece of vinyl that sounds as good as any contemporary recording, and probably better than most.
And, I'd have to say that the system I'm listening to tonight sounds qualitatively better than any I could have assembled 20-30 years ago, but the cause for that is mostly in execution of the design, not new design, and quality of materials, not the result of anything radically new.
. |
Dear Tbg: **** " But the reality with which we all have to live is that speakers cannot reproduct music with much accuracy especially in most rooms. " ****
I agree with you.
**** " As to the laws of physics, I think few scientists would claim we have lawful relationships that much predict the performance of amplifiers or speakers. " ****
You miss the point here: the subject is not the sound, the subject is the heavy degradation that a tube amplier makes to the music reproduction due to the Ohm Law.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Ohn's law? What will he think of next! |
|
Sidebar: Eleven A Measurements (from September 1995, Vol.18 No.9):
I performed a full set of measurements on the C-J Premier Eleven A, but I'll show just a couple here. In the measurements accompanying WP's review of the original Eleven amplifier, Tom Norton found a suspicious-looking distortion spuriae trace (fig.1) that implied the amplifier suffered from crossover distortion. It appeared that the culprit was the circuit that drove the biasing LEDs; the A revision of the amplifier was said to have been fixed in this regard. Fig.2, taken under much the same conditions as fig.1, shows that, indeed, it has been. The distortion is now primarily second-harmonic rather than the original's third-harmonic; both are generally regarded as innocuous unless present in much higher quantities than in the C-J.
Fig.1 Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A, 1kHz waveform at 10W into 4 ohms (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom).
Fig.2 Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A, 1kHz waveform at 2W into 4 ohms (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom).
Second, it has been postulated that all audible differences between well-designed amplifiers are due to the differences in frequency responses caused by the voltage-divider action between the loudspeaker impedance and the amplifier's source impedance. The latter measured between 0.48 and 0.56 ohms for the C-J, varying only slightly with frequency; and 0.28 ohms for the Krell KSA-50S, giving rise to response variations when loaded by the B&W Silver Signature (fig.3). The top trace is the Krell; the bottom, offset by 1dB for clarity, is the Connie-J. It varies by about twice as much as the Krell, reaching ±0.25dB. The tube amp's more depressed top two octaves were audible as a very slight lack of air, yet it was the C-J's lower mids that sounded warmer—the opposite of what these curves would suggest.
Fig.3 Krell KSA-50S (top) and Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A (bottom), frequency response at 0.5W into B&W Silver Signature loudspeaker (0.5dB/vertical div.).
Neither of these amps will be all things for all listeners. If you just have to have the most forceful presentation of rock music's low-frequency foundation, then the Krell will be the better choice. The Conrad-Johnson, on the other hand, will be the better amplifier for soundstage freaks and those in love with the sound of the human voice. You pays your money, you makes your choice. Be sure to listen to both.—John Atkinson
|
To see the graphs go to stereophile archive for conrad johnson.click on premier 11 review. At the end of the article click on "measurements for premier 11.
You'll see the frequency curve for ss Krell KSA 50 and tube CJ Premier 11a are virtually identical over the audible spectrum driving a real speaker load. http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/403/index9.html
Sorry Rushton. I couldn't help mysel. |
Dear Gregadd: You take an old review, nine years ago, and take a tube amplifier at it's best low limit on output impedance against a SS amplifier in the low-top worst case on output impedance.
Still in that way we can read on your link:
*****" The top trace is the Krell; the bottom, offset by 1dB for clarity, is the Connie-J. It varies by about twice as much as the Krell, reaching ±0.25dB. The tube amp's more depressed top two octaves were audible as a very slight lack of air. " ****
Regards and ejoy the music.
Raul. |
You know, I really don't care about the output impedance, damping factor, frequency response, or any of those other measurements you guys are talking about as long as they are within reason. I care how it sounds. It was proven back in the seventies when solid state amps were just beginning to catch on that you can make an amp with spectacular specifications that sounds like crap.
Arguing specifications is a waste of time. There are way to many variables to pin it down to a certain spec. It's like arguing if a Mercedes is better than a BMW.
So here's the bottom line. Of all the systems I've listened to, the ones that are the most enjoyable, especially on a long term basis use tube amps.
BTW, in case you were wondering, it is a Mercedes |
Herman,
Thank you for a breath of fresh air! Cheers,
Spencer |
C'mon, Herman, Mercedes capacity for coolant can be up to a quart more than BMW and the extra weight adversely effects acceleration, braking and handling. Therefore, the BMW must perform much better. If you likes the cars, you must likes the BMW better. Porsches used to not have any water coolant at all and they were even better, which is proof that water as coolant is no good at all.
With tongue firmly in cheek-
Jim |
Gregadd, yes it's hard to ignore the bait. If you haven't already done so, read Sbank's post from today: Raul's MADLIBThat pretty well captures the essence of every thread. No need to have to read others, just bookmark this one and refresh your recollection of how these play out. . |
A table such as a Scheu Premier, Teres, or Acoustic Signature Final Tool is essentially a motor, bearing, platter, and plinth. A quality bearing, correctly maintained, should last a lifetime I would suspect. The only item that might be an issue is the motor. With a belt drive design utilizing an independently mounted motor one should be able to find a replacement motor easily if the original craps out and you cannot get it repaired.
Or, buy two or three used Thorens TD160 Supers and just bring out another one when the first one craps out! |
