Recommend me a preamp please?

[Arkless Electronics]

Well,
Your perfectly entitled to your opinion, the same as I am, but as on many occasions, your black and white attitude wont discourage me, and I will continue to put my point across, whether you agree with it or not.

I wouldn't expect anything less Anthony! One of the great attractions to audio electronic engineering is that so little is actually 100% agreed on even by engineers and for all its seeming simplicity there is layer upon layer of technical subtlety to be unwrapped!

[Marco]

One of the great attractions to audio electronic engineering is that so little is actually 100% agreed on even by engineers and for all its seeming simplicity there is layer upon layer of technical subtlety to be unwrapped!

Well, perhaps some of those technically subtle "unwrapped layers", yet to be examined, contain the answers to audio phenomena some of us experience (and can clearly hear), but which you currently can't measure, and thus automatically dismiss as "bollocks"!





Marco.

[anthonyTD]

I wouldn't expect anything less Anthony! One of the great attractions to audio electronic engineering is that so little is actually 100% agreed on even by engineers and for all its seeming simplicity there is layer upon layer of technical subtlety to be unwrapped!

[Arkless Electronics]

First of all I apologise Arkless Electronics and Rothwell Audio if my abbreviations have caused offence; that was not intended,and perhaps a bit lazy of me.

In post 45 there seems on reflection to have been a divergence on the point being discussed.

You went on to talk about clipping, a subject I was not considering. I was thinking about distortion originating within an amplifier quite other than clipping, perhaps giving the impression of greater dynamics.

What I had in mind was the peculiar results I had with my old Nelson-Jones 10+10 on one particular track by Michael Hedges. Its effect was to somehow hype and increase the sense of attack of his guitar, and in a way I have never again heard on any other system. That may have been interpreted as sounding more dynamic.

Regarding impedance match, the standard used in telecoms and in broadcasting was 600 ohms, this from transmission line theory, but it may have changed. It was based on maximum power transfer theory and avoidance of standing waves and reflections. I remember drawing the Gaussian graph of power transfer at college.
We have 75 ohms for FM aerials.

I remember at that time, about '75, arguing with my telecoms lecturer when we introduced audio amplifiers into the source/load matching discussion, saying that with audio amplifiers we are not interested in power transfer from source to load, but that we are interested in voltage transfer to load, which we want to maximise.

I think your post 67 Rothwell Audio gives a very reasonable postulation, and it probably agrees with my 'Hedges experience'.

Punctuation can improve communication and reduce ambiguity.

No problem Dennis

That's impedance matching yes. The now largely obsolete 600R was historically from "POTS" (plain old telephone system) and is also where we get the 0.775V 0VU standard from as it's 1mW into 600R. 75R is used in FM and TV as it's the centre impedance of a half wave dipole in free space. Mostly though 50R is used universally for RF.

An audio amp is a voltage source, ie theoretically zero output resistance, and therefore non of the generated power is dissipated in the source and all we need is to minimise the resistance of the wiring between source and load, power into the load is then of course Vsq/Rload

What you describe with the Nelson Jones (did you have the tuner as well?) has been commented upon several times over the years and could well be due to TID/TIM (a largely obsolete term these days and based on the work of Otala and Lohstro) causing a flurry of higher odd order distortion products on leading edges and hence enhancing the sense of attack... it's usually very fatiguing with longer exposure.

[Arkless Electronics]

Well, perhaps some of those technically subtle "unwrapped layers", yet to be examined, contain the answers to audio phenomena some of us experience (and can clearly hear), but which you currently can't measure, and thus automatically dismiss as "bollocks"!





Marco.

It's possible... As it's possible the Loch Ness monster will be caught and put on display

[Marco]

Very wrong, ignorant of many other forms of attenuation, and thus misleading !

Sorry, Chris. Jez is normally pulled up for this, but the language there is too confrontational, and largely responsible for provoking the heated reaction that ensued.

Please, and this applies to everyone, when challenging and/or addressing someone you think is wrong, use language unlikely to irk or cause offence to the person concerned, as you'll achieve nothing but start an argument, and most likely not of the constructive kind either.

So, people, in future.........THINK before you type! Cheers

Marco.

[Marco]

It's possible... As it's possible the Loch Ness monster will be caught and put on display

Or you banging an 18-year old blonde tonight!

Marco.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I wouldn't expect anything less Anthony! One of the great attractions to audio electronic engineering is that so little is actually 100% agreed on even by engineers and for all its seeming simplicity there is layer upon layer of technical subtlety to be unwrapped!

You cannot as I see it have it both ways, in one post saying "there is layer upon layer of technical subtlety to be unwrapped "
then a few minutes latter scoff at Marco's well thought out comment, by referring to technical subtlety and what remains to be discovered, as the Loch Ness Monster.

Discovery is at the heart of every good electronics engineers methods, Mediocrity on the other hand is at the heart of those unwilling to face challenges to progress. Which do you see yourself as ?

[Arkless Electronics]

Or you banging an 18-year old blonde tonight!

Marco.

That is unfortunately true

[Macca]

You cannot as I see it have it both ways, in one post saying "there is layer upon layer of technical subtlety to be unwrapped "
then a few minutes latter scoff at Marco's well thought out comment, by referring to technical subtlety and what remains to be discovered, as the Loch Ness Monster.

Discovery is at the heart of every good electronics engineers methods, Mediocrity on the other hand is at the heart of those unwilling to face challenges to progress. Which do you see yourself as ?

Chris that is confrontational in tone. This is how pointless slanging matches start instead of some interesting discussion.