PX4 vs 2A3

If they glow, this is the place to be
Alex Kitic
Old Hand
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:20 pm

#46 Re: PX4 vs 2A3

Post by Alex Kitic »

Romy The Cat wrote: ... So you might save your appearance in the eyes of people who scab your back in finish sauna. When you get tired to do aimless and meaningless soldering and start thinking about sound instead of being occupied with idea of how to make your back scabers happy then you might in your mind reevaluate the DSET concept and then you suddenly discover that what I have already said might keep your head and hands busy for next 4-5 years.
You obviously haven't got a clue about who am I?!

I guess that is something I should not explain to you. Find out for yourself if you wish.

I would need a serious memory loss (knowledge loss) as well as some intellectual capacity loss - in order to take your statements seriously, let alone be kept busy by your concepts.

You tend to give bold statements about the way things work, but cannot do that with people who know more than you do about the stuff you are preaching. Multi-amplification is one way to achieve a goal, but your explanations lack substance, method, and are based on loose assumptions rather than scientific fact, as well as approximations of one-sided reality.

Please stop doing that. This is my last reply to you, you are not worthy of my time.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#47 Re: PX4 vs 2A3

Post by Romy The Cat »

Alex Kitic wrote: You obviously haven't got a clue about who am I?!
I guess that is something I should not explain to you. Find out for yourself if you wish.
I would need a serious memory loss (knowledge loss) as well as some intellectual capacity loss - in order to take your statements seriously, let alone be kept busy by your concepts.
You tend to give bold statements about the way things work, but cannot do that with people who know more than you do about the stuff you are preaching. Multi-amplification is one way to achieve a goal, but your explanations lack substance, method, and are based on loose assumptions rather than scientific fact, as well as approximations of one-sided reality.
Please stop doing that. This is my last reply to you, you are not worthy of my time.
Alex, I do not care who people are, do not care about your funny sense of pomposity and I do not care to prove anything neither to you not to anybody else. From objective perspective all that you informed me about yourself was that you take Nineteens seriously and that you too short minded to grasp DSET concept. In both cases it is indication of low sonic reference points, cultural and technical, of cause I need to add that it would be in my view. Your accusation of my explanations "lack substance, method, and are based on loose assumptions rather than scientific fact" are wonderful. I am well accustomed that audio simpletons who love when somebody pre-chew everything for them and put the food in their mouths do accuse me in the very same for years. Good for you. Make your own substance, methods and whatever you feel would be a "scientific fact". I have no vested interest to insist in anything and I am an idiot generally, I also an alcoholic and 12 years old. You happy feldmartial? Feel free to navigate your "hobby" and your playback ideas to any direction you want. However, what I talk about DSET then stay aside and you are to too unqualified.
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#48

Post by steve s »

I remember reading romys forum quite a few years ago and him then knocking valves...
Funny how things change, now even the crap valves are good enough for the dset concept, and i can see that...

I've been using px4's & px25's full range for nearly 20 years now, I don't think i'm about to change... but i'm always open minded, because of that constant searching I have also owned, and heard alot of horn set ups.
Many of them have sounded really good, but have always lacked the level of insight and realism that i'm used to when using these valves in the way i do
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
User avatar
Greg
Social outcast
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 am
Location: Bristol, UK

#49

Post by Greg »

It seems to me, assuming my understanding is correct that Romy is a USA immigrated Serbian and Alex remains at home in Serbia. You guys could probably talk independently and not stress out the forum. Just a suggestion :wink:
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams (HHGTTG)
Steptoe
User
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:26 am

#50 px4 versus 2a3

Post by Steptoe »

Dear Greg, I had not appreciated that both Romy and Alex are Serbian but if so, perhaps they should conduct their discussions in their own language, which may better enable them to appreciate each other's point of view. I personally cannot understand most of what they are saying but the tone is certainly not encouraging a free exchange of views, which is perhaps inevitable when discussing a complex issue in a mutually foreign language. yours sincerely, Steptoe.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#51

Post by Nick »

I think they are doing just fine.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#52

Post by Romy The Cat »


User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#53

Post by Paul Barker »

I'm cool.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#54

Post by steve s »

Romy The Cat wrote: And if you like what you use then no one begs you to change anything. DSET configuration I not a mechanism to take best out of tubes but to get belter out of entire playback and to tech yourself how to do it. Until a person personally play with harmonic structure, dynamic capacity, color saturation and many other aspects of individual channel in context of limited bandwidth and they try to integrate everything into one single truly full range expression it very difficult to understand the true power of DSET.
Thanks romy, but that is where our views differ ..and rightly, based on our own experences
If we could play our systems together in the same room we would know which concept achieved the most, or suited what is important to us,
But instead we have some fun discussing them.
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#55

Post by Romy The Cat »

steve s wrote:Thanks romy, but that is where our views differ ..and rightly, based on our own experiences. If we could play our systems together in the same room we would know which concept achieved the most, or suited what is important to us, But instead we have some fun discussing them.
If cause, the inability to equate reference points at the level of audio preference is given and goes with saying. There are very methodological ways to do BTW but I see no needs neither do it nor discuss it at this forum. From what I have seen I was not able to get a satisfaction from a single tube, even the best tube and it was not because my ways to use those better tubes is particularly ugly. I demand line level crossover in my 7 channels playback, my higher frequency channel has impedance 0.05R and need .5W, my lowest frequency channel has 8R impedance and need 200W. It is impossible to have one amplifier to do the job. Then there is a control. If you have a perfect tube in your perfect amp and then you suddenly fell that in lower midrange your playback for instance renders decays too staccato, or at higher volumes your colors become less saturated, or your LF driver need different loading then your HF drivers... then what options you have to deal with it if you use one best tube across the board? You have pretty much no control and you are completely in a mercy of your best tube. It is fine if your single tube does everything fine but I have seen it only in context of ether very simplistic system r in context of limited demands, which is completely permitted BTW. Pretend that you have one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range. Now pretend that you have this perfect string instilment divided by violins, violas, cellos and contrabasses. What configuration would you chose if you were a composer of conductor?
Steptoe
User
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:26 am

#56 px4 versus 2a3

Post by Steptoe »

Dear Nick, while I would be the first to defend the right to free speech'my experience is that'when discussing subjects which may be both contentious and subjective, the use of personal insult is rarely productive, which is why I find the topic distasteful in its current format.
I am convinced that everything in the realm of physics that we now hold to be true will be considered laughably simplistic at some time in the future and I doubt that the human brain is actually capable of comprehending what is really going on in the universe. For that reason I think it is wise for everyone to maintain a healthy degree of respect for others beliefs, as they are probably all equally wrong. Yours sincerely. Steptoe.
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#57

Post by steve s »

Romy The Cat wrote: From what I have seen I was not able to get a satisfaction from a single tube, even the best tube and it was not because my ways to use those better tubes is particularly ugly. I demand line level crossover in my 7 channels playback, my higher frequency channel has impedance 0.05R and need .5W, my lowest frequency channel has 8R impedance and need 200W. It is impossible to have one amplifier to do the job. Then there is a control. If you have a perfect tube in your perfect amp and then you suddenly fell that in lower midrange your playback for instance renders decays too staccato, or at higher volumes your colors become less saturated, or your LF driver need different loading then your HF drivers... then what options you have to deal with it if you use one best tube across the board? You have pretty much no control and you are completely in a mercy of your best tube. It is fine if your single tube does everything fine but I have seen it only in context of ether very simplistic system r in contextm of limited demands, which is completely permitted BTW. Pretend that you have one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range. Now pretend that you have this perfect string instilment divided by violins, violas, cellos and contrabasses. What configuration would you chose if you were a composer of conductor?
we have both come to our own conclusions about the best way to implement our systems, my route has been to build the speakers around the amplifier, where as you appear to me to have built your system around the speakers.

I have heard the results (and very impressive results too) of that approach many times, not your system of course,.

But never the less, my experience so far has proved to me that a combination of very high quality amplifier components in a very short & simple system can let more of the music through the amplifier, and out to the speakers... All amplifiers work as a sponge, soaking up and cancelling the finer aspects and reducing the realism in the signal.

What i want from a system is one that allows me to hear clearly all the tones and textures and enables me to hear to the back of the recording at all frequencies,
I own a very nice pair of high quality mono block 100 watt amps they appear to sound very deep and full bodied in the bass, but they actually are thickening up the sound, add a greyness and manage to change whats on the recording in to a relative hi fi thud in comparison to the delicacy that my single PX 25 valve provides.
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#58

Post by Romy The Cat »

steve s wrote:we have both come to our own conclusions about the best way to implement our systems, my route has been to build the speakers around the amplifier, where as you appear to me to have built your system around the speakers.
Hm, that is interesting subject, I never thought this way. Yes, I do feel that acoustic system in own environment is a main player and everything, including amplification, is juts serve the need of acoustic system. I do not particularly see a value of amplifier on its own and I would not build the speakers around the amplifier.
steve s wrote:But never the less, my experience so far has proved to me that a combination of very high quality amplifier components in a very short & simple system can let more of the music through the amplifier, and out to the speakers... All amplifiers work as a sponge, soaking up and cancelling the finer aspects and reducing the realism in the signal.
I understand what you are saing but I do not know if I see in it more value then metaphoric. An amplifier is much more perfect reality interpreter then an acoustic system. I am not even taking that amp has a few % distortions at max but loudspeakers has a few dozen at min. The bigger issue I feel is that without acoustic system it is impossible to evaluate the of what amp does, at least at human level.
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#59

Post by steve s »

Romy The Cat wrote: I understand what you are saing but I do not know if I see in it more value then metaphoric. An amplifier is much more perfect reality interpreter then an acoustic system. I am not even taking that amp has a few % distortions at max but loudspeakers has a few dozen at min. The bigger issue I feel is that without acoustic system it is impossible to evaluate the of what amp does, at least at human level.
You are right the speakers and amplifier go hand in hand, so that leads to confusion for many.. Which comes first? We take our own route.

But i will add that some of these old valves are very special, and given the right support in the amplifier and some experience of how to best implement them, are very capable, more so than anything else i've heard.
I've been building the same amps for years and every few years discover something that can improve the overall performance of them. What we have here on this forum is a group of people that get together and bring there own work, it is such a leveller, we all pick up on different aspects of what we have made, and learn so much from each other.

I've yet to see a measurement for how much of the signal is canceled or altered in an amplifier ... but it is a fact that it happens, mostly when reproducing a dynamic music signal, and funnily enough amps tend the work reasonably well when amplifying a test tone on one channel..
I can see there are many advantages in multi amping and apart from the space taken up, it puts you in control of a lot of aspects of the reproduction.

But many do it with a big bunch of average amplifiers, and because you cant hear whats missing, think they are in audio heaven.
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
P.H.
User
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:12 pm

#60 Ego vs. audio experience

Post by P.H. »

Alex Kitic wrote: You obviously haven't got a clue about who am I?!
I have a clue who are you. You are a person who has never heard an amplifier having big, very high inductance LF optimized output transformer.
Just for the record - I'm Mr. Noone :wink:
Post Reply