PX4 vs 2A3

If they glow, this is the place to be
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8874
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#61

Post by Paul Barker »

P.H. i have a problem with you coming here anonymously just deliberately picking a fight.

just saying.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
P.H.
User
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:12 pm

#62

Post by P.H. »

Don't worry, Paul, I'm not entering the discussion with intent to pick up a fight. As you can clearly see, my comment is about Alex, who denies the benefits of the frequency optimized SE amps, without having any experience with them.
I'm very curious for example how many people have heard the sound of a SET amp, optimized for upper mid and HF reproduction, having a flat frequency response up to 340 000 Hz, which is achieved by using very optimized power supply chokes, small and ultra low inductance power supply capacitors with minimal rise of their impedance for HFs, seriously optimized output transformers (which inevitably suffer in the LFs if used as regular full-bandwidth OPTs) and so on... Just how many?
In 100% of the cases, people who deny the benefits of DSET amplification, don't have any listening experience with such devices. This is the precise reason why I commented the post of Alex. I know a LOT of people who consider themselves as some kind of Audio Emperors, I have heard their systems, and guess what is the relation between their internet posts and the actual sound they have in their listening rooms...
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#63

Post by Romy The Cat »

steve s wrote: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.
Yes, some of those old valves from 20-40 are spectacular, no one doubts. There is a lot of reason why but it is not the point. Some of the acoustic systems, resistor, wires from the same period were exceptionally good (not all however) as well, and because the same reason. All that I say that if you feel that your good vintage tube does very well in proper application then you can only imagine how let say 2 of the same quality tube would do in DSET configuration driving the best driver from the past.
steve s wrote: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.
Well, I do not know what amplifiers you guys build but I am not very thrilled with the local community. It is always at this site are some crazy people with egos, brain or ears problems who have very noisy mouths and who are willing to use own brainless throat instead of listening and thinking.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#64

Post by pre65 »

P.H. wrote: I know a LOT of people who consider themselves as some kind of Audio Emperors, I have heard their systems, and guess what is the relation between their internet posts and the actual sound they have in their listening rooms...
So, have you been to Serbia to hear what Alex is achieving ?

You certainly have not been to listen to my system. :wink:

I have no trouble with you giving your opinion, but opinion it is, not fact. :lol:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#65

Post by Romy The Cat »

P.H. wrote:I'm very curious for example how many people have heard the sound of a SET amp, optimized for upper mid and HF reproduction, having a flat frequency response up to 340 000 Hz, which is achieved by using very optimized power supply chokes, small and ultra low inductance power supply capacitors with minimal rise of their impedance for HFs, seriously optimized output transformers (which inevitably suffer in the LFs if used as regular full-bandwidth OPTs) and so on... Just how many?
It was just one lucid post in the whole DSET discussion and I would like to point out that it does not contradicts the need to use "great vintage tubes". Yes, the DSET optimization offers LOT . HF transformers with ultra fast let say glass or cobalt core, with very thin wires that have very high filling and ultra low capacitance, with no phase distortions of any kind on near auditable range, with air or vacuum capacitors that have no dialectic and thermodynamic distortion. The same in bass. If one heard a SET that can do full power down to let say 5W with perfect symmetric clipping then a person would never touch anything else. Again, no one say that good tube are not important but give me 5 channel DSET with a capable acoustic system and even average tubes and I will be able to profile much richer and complex sound then any single SET. To use with DSET the complex tube from beginning in my view does open the gate for the opportunity that are unseen by a single amp.
User avatar
Greg
Social outcast
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 am
Location: Bristol, UK

#66

Post by Greg »

Romy, to help us, please can you post a link from your website where DSET design is first discussed and also links to anything that developed from that. Your site is quite complex and links would help avoid difficult searches.

Thanks.
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)
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15709
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#67

Post by Nick »

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?
Not sure what point this is trying to make. Given the above, Most conductors and composers would chose the "one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range".

For the same reason we don't have bass, tenor and soprano pianos
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
P.H.
User
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:12 pm

#68

Post by P.H. »

Nick wrote:Given the above, Most conductors and composers would chose the "one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range".

For the same reason we don't have bass, tenor and soprano pianos
Yes, but it is physically impossible to have that perfect string instrument. That's why there are octobasses, double basses, cellos, violas and violins.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#69

Post by Romy The Cat »

Nick wrote:Not sure what point this is trying to make. Given the above, Most conductors and composers would chose the "one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range".
Actually it is incorrect. No one need a single perfect string instilment. The division of strings by groups is not because they can't handle range but because each individual range have own expressive mean. The very same with DSETs.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#70

Post by Romy The Cat »

Greg wrote:Romy, to help us, please can you post a link from your website where DSET design is first discussed and also links to anything that developed from that. Your site is quite complex and links would help avoid difficult searches.

Thanks.
I do not want to present my own experience as some kind example, do you own experiments and learn upon your own mistakes and successes. Still, if you need just an illustration then my own DSET Super Melquiades is public and located at:
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Site_Image ... r_Rev3.jpg
It was built with Macondo Acoustic System in mind. I do not feel that it is a perfect solution but it very much illustrates the DSET concept.
User avatar
Dave the bass
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 12273
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: NW Kent, Darn Sarf innit.

#71

Post by Dave the bass »

Question for Romy, do you play musical instruments or compose music at all? Its not a 'loaded question'.

DTB
"The fat bourgeois and his doppelganger"
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15709
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#72

Post by Nick »

Romy The Cat wrote:
Nick wrote:Not sure what point this is trying to make. Given the above, Most conductors and composers would chose the "one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range".
Actually it is incorrect. No one need a single perfect string instilment. The division of strings by groups is not because they can't handle range but because each individual range have own expressive mean. The very same with DSETs.
No, but if such a perfect string instrument did exist (it cant as you say, but you asked the hypothetical question) then the composer would prefer it every time. if it was perfect then it would by definition have the range and expressive ability of the individual instruments you mention.

A composer would prefer it because he could then with three players write material that produced (for example) three part harmony that covered the musical range, as it is not, he will need many more players to do the same thing.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Dave the bass
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 12273
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: NW Kent, Darn Sarf innit.

#73

Post by Dave the bass »

Didn't 'Magic Alex' of the Beatles/Apple fame try one speaker for every channel in a recording studio in the 60's?

DTB
"The fat bourgeois and his doppelganger"
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#74

Post by Romy The Cat »

Nick wrote:No, but if such a perfect string instrument did exist (it cant as you say, but you asked the hypothetical question) then the composer would prefer it every time. if it was perfect then it would by definition have the range and expressive ability of the individual instruments you mention.
A composer would prefer it because he could then with three players write material that produced (for example) three part harmony that covered the musical range, as it is not, he will need many more players to do the same thing.
Oh, God, Nick you have no idea how wrong you are. Your thinking about music like thinking of an audio person who never hear any sound besides buzzing of oscilloscope. Composing of making music is not beans counting and not pushing of dynamic range across multiple octaves...
Alex Kitic
Old Hand
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:20 pm

#75

Post by Alex Kitic »

I would like to remind you all that this thread is about comparison between American and English DHTs, and eventually their modern replicas or remakes currently available on the market. From one point on, we have all gone into some other direction, i.e. off topic. With that in mind, I would like to suggest that whoever can do it (moderator, administrator) should cut all posts from that point on and place as a separate thread with the appropriate title in the appropriate section of the forums.

I am not participating in this new discussion because it has went astray into a field where scientific or technological facts are deliberately ignored, being replaced by some with assumptions that are only partially true. This is particularly true of terminology used (incorrect terms or mix-up), and the interpretation of these terms thus suffers due to a lack of knowledge. Things tend to be overly simplified to the point where anything goes, if the proponent is "loud" enough.

While I find no difficulty in explaining to those who wish to know more, and based only on available time am always willing to explain, clarify, and help if help is asked for -- I find it impossible to discuss scientific or engineering issues with people who lack the knowledge yet have no wish to improve and base their "arguments" on being loud enough and persistent enough, which may be good attributes for a street or back-alley fight, but are irrelevant to exact engineering or scientific discourse, if you wish.

I would like to add that I am still learning and will remain in that stage life-long. The only way to acquire knowledge is learning - but after a certain level you become unable to accept incorrect information or freely made assumptions as valid data. I avidly seek information, sometimes very practical advice that can be had only from those with hands-on experience on the subject. Once I get to the answers, I tend to make them available to everyone. But I must add that first hand knowledge about the brittleness of TT filaments is not the same as assumed knowledge on transformer winding calculations and their assumed outcome relative to power bandwidth, because the latter is exact scientific data and can be calculated based on permeability, induction... etc. Nor am I likely to get caught commenting on the audibility of hypersonic phenomena (like 100kHz tone reproduction in your system, and whether one should be considered unqualified if unable to hear it: after all, 100kHz is but the n-th harmonic of 1kHz, and one should be able to hear that tone, and all the repercussions of it's higher harmonic on the basic tone... for crying out loud!?).

Last but not least, we are into sound reproduction for the purpose of listening to music, regardless of knowledge and involvement. Thus it should be assumed that we are into reproduction, not production. Changing the audibility of a certain instrument or instrument group is not what we are into, however flawed the recording might be. While decision on the outcome of a recording should be done in the studio by recording engineers, musicians, and producers - after all, it's their product that they are selling to us, the audience - we are also free to reject their choice and not buy the product (remember the reviews of new records, sometimes mentioning sound quality as well?). If one wishes to play at music production or even "composition", that is their free choice - but as listeners we should be concentrated on being able to faithfully reproduce what is recorded on the medium, be it LP, CD, or some other format. A good amp or speakers is what most are after, while multi-amplification with an active crossover or free choice crossover points and relative difference in loudness most often than not strays into music production, as a form of altering audible content. Neither it's everyone's cup of tea, nor is it something absolutely necessary for the correct reproduction of music - actually it's the easiest way to get a mix-up.
Post Reply