View Full Version : Ker pow!!!
Pieoftheday
05-03-2018, 20:13
When does your set up come alive? I mean on the volume dial. For me it's around 2 oclock on the volume dial though sometimes a little less depending on the recording.
Depending on source and recording, anywhere between 10 and 1 'o clock.
Pieoftheday
05-03-2018, 21:05
Depending on source and recording, anywhere between 10 and 1 'o clock.
Mine dosnt geatly increase in volume from 11 to 2 but does sound better,Fuller, ?
Can't remember the last time I went any further than about 10 o'clock!
southall-1998
05-03-2018, 21:14
10-12 o'clock.
S.
Stryder5
05-03-2018, 21:19
10-11 o'clock
Mines alive at any volume, but then you get that with open baffles.
Yeah, same with me (using large Tannoy DCs). I think we need to define what is meant by "come alive"... In that respect, are we saying that below the specified level the system sounds 'dead'? If so, that's not good!
And I've heard a lot of systems precisely like that, where they sound flat, lacklustre and 2-dimensional, lacking in 'presence' and dynamic impact, at low levels - and indeed only 'come alive' when the wick it turned up. Often that's the case when low-efficiency speakers are partnered with amps unable to drive them properly.
In my system (and I'm sure that of others mentioned here), the music is 'all there', at low levels, and sounds clear, well-defined and 'real'. There is no lack of 'punch' or excitement. The sound simply gets progressively louder, as the volume is increased, and with it, the collective aspects of the music.
That is precisely how it should be, in a well-sorted system, particularly ones possessing wide dynamic range and high levels of resolution. If you're not getting that, then change your system! :cool:
Marco.
sq225917
06-03-2018, 09:33
Saying that one's hifi sounds right from low volumes all the way up is forgetting the equal loudness curves. Unless the designer has implemented a special Fetcher Munson Tilt control in your pre-amp then it just doesn't sound the same at low volumes as it does at loud ones because the ears response to different frequencies isn't linear.
Mine comes on song about 1 O'clock (from 12) and stays there until I'm bleeding from the ears at 6 O'clock. I could do with -10db on my DAC output to be honest. My phonostage is perfect as the gain on my power amps was selected to be exactly where I like it with the volume pot at halfway, right in the middle of its most linear operating point.
Mike Reed
06-03-2018, 09:49
As Simon (?) above infers, it depends very much on the type/design of the volume control, the compatibility/synergy of your amp. to your speakers, the level of the input signal with reference to input sensitivity and lastly, your auditorium shape, size and furnishings.
Ergo, there cannot be a comparable factor in different people's experiences. The speakers alone, with large efficiency and load characteristics variations (as from Maggies through ESLs to high efficiency horns) would render comparisons odious, as it were, even without the other factors.
Saying that one's hifi sounds right from low volumes all the way up is forgetting the equal loudness curves. Unless the designer has implemented a special Fetcher Munson Tilt control in your pre-amp then it just doesn't sound the same at low volumes as it does at loud ones because the ears response to different frequencies isn't linear.
Of course it doesn't sound the SAME, but it still sounds right; that's the difference. And by "right", I mean there's no lack of clarity, dynamic presence or 'excitement', when music is played at low levels. The sound is just simply quieter (and less 'impactful').
If in order for your system to sound right ['alive'], and be enjoyable, you have to turn the wick right up (or listen at a certain position on the volume control), then something's fundamentally wrong! :exactly:
It should be like that from the first click on the volume control, right up until the sound starts to clip, although of course it will sound different, and arguably more 'exiting', at the point which voices and/or instruments are allowed to be reproduced in a more lifelike and realistic fashion, by increasing the volume accordingly.
When I'm listening late at night or in the small hours of the morning, and so as not to disturb anyone at home sleeping, I often just have the Croft on at the first click of the volume control (stepped attenuator), from the off position - and I can happy listen for hours that way to music, without feeling 'short changed' [it still successfully fills the room with convincing sound].
That's the best way I can put it :)
Marco.
As Simon (?) above infers, it depends very much on the type/design of the volume control, the compatibility/synergy of your amp. to your speakers, the level of the input signal with reference to input sensitivity and lastly, your auditorium shape, size and furnishings.
Ergo, there cannot be a comparable factor in different people's experiences. The speakers alone, with large efficiency and load characteristics variations (as from Maggies through ESLs to high efficiency horns) would render comparisons odious, as it were, even without the other factors.
Hi Mike,
I'd argue the opposite, as indeed I've just pointed out. Essentially, I agree with what you're saying, but if a system is doing its job properly, it should be equally as good at resolving musical information at low levels, as it is at any other volume level. If it's not doing that, then it has issues.
*That* is the key point here.
Coincidentally, that's one of the things the combination of (quality) valve amplification [as unlike most SS gear, its not strangled by excessive feedback] and high-efficiency speakers does well: it allows music to be reproduced with the requisite 'presence' and natural dynamics, in order for one not to need to listen loudly, in order for it to 'come alive'.
Chris (bumpy), with his OBs, I suspect will know exactly what I mean by that.
Marco.
You point Simon to what are also my concerns over this concept.
If a Hi-Fi produces the full dynamic range as recorded, and the maximum level on a recording is reproduced by it as in the live event, the full dynamic range should be reproduced.
But if the gain is turned down so that the maximum is now only reaching say, 50dBs in room when it should be reproduced at 90dbS, all of the levels on the recording will be lower by 40dB.
The ambient noise in the room now becomes much more significant because the lower level sounds will be lost in this. I am fortunate in that my listening room was chosen, as was the house, because it is very quiet, but even so reproducing sound at a very much lower level than the original spls will result in a much reduced impact, and the low level stuff will probably be lost in the ambient noise.
A symbol being crashed and producing peak spls of 90dB cannot possibly have anything like the impact when reproduced with peaks at 40dB. The curves of Fletcher Munsen, later Robinson-Davidson, and now a new universal standard with greater accuracy, will as Simon says greatly affect the tonality and hence impact, much HF and LF energy being completely inaudible at low levels. In the 70s loudness controls were provided to attempt to deal at least with the LF loss.
I fundamentally disagree with much of your post 10 Mike, dynamics have absolutely no dependence on the volume control or its position, and if amplifiers and speakers are designed well enough to reproduce dynamic range, and are working within their designed limits, they will have a minimal effect on perceived dynamic range.
A symbol being crashed and producing peak spls of 90dB cannot possibly have anything like the impact when reproduced with peaks at 40dB. The curves of Fletcher Munsen, later Robinson-Davidson, and now a new universal standard with greater accuracy, will as Simon says greatly affect the tonality and hence impact, much HF and LF energy being completely inaudible at low levels. In the 70s loudness controls were provided to attempt to deal at least with the LF loss.
You're missing the point, Dennis. Please read my last few posts, and hopefully you'll see what that point is :)
Essentially, you're mixing up sounds the same with sounds right.
Marco.
If it doesn't sound the same then it cannot sound right.
So which point have I missed?
I would suggest that you try playing Level 42's World Machine peaking at only 40dBs, and then tell me that it has all the dynamic impact of being played at peaking 80dBs.
You're still not getting it :doh:
I'll try again later when I have more time :)
Clue: the answer lies in post #11. Music can still sound 'right', at low levels, just not as loud.
Marco.
Ok Dennis, let's quickly simplify things instead, by asking you a couple of questions [they also apply to everyone]:
1) Does your system, musically, lack involvement at low volume levels?
2) Does it sound rather flat and lacklustre, such that in order for it not to, and music be enjoyable, you have to listen loudly (or at a specific volume level)?
If you can answer 'no' to those questions, then you're ok. If not, you have problems (or rather your system does)! And so does anyone else in the same position.
This (my point) has got nothing whatsoever to do with reproducing music, with the required scale and intensity, in order for it to sound convincingly lifelike, such as you alluded to in your previous point, and which I agree with. Undoubtedly a certain loudness level is required for that to happen.
Hopefully now you can see how that differs from what I've just outlined above :)
Marco.
The quality of recording and mastering plays a significant role here IMHO.
Yup, for sure, as it forms the source music signal.
Let's presume then, when considering the above questions, that you're using a good recording, with wide dynamic range, and not something horribly compressed :)
Marco.
My system is very 'open and alive' at extremely low volumes, but I guess I like it most when it's turned up to around the 9 o'clock mark.
This is really a system-dependent question though.
My system is very 'open and alive' at extremely low volumes, but I guess I like it most when it's turned up to around the 9 o'clock mark.
Same here, on both counts! Although, in terms of the latter, perhaps slightly higher around the 10 o'clock mark.
If it doesn't sound very 'open and alive' at low volumes, then some form of less than ideal combination of components (particularly the amplifier/speaker relationship), and how they interact with the room, is the likely issue.
I would also say that there is usually a 'sweet spot' for listening, in terms of volume level, where the sound 'clicks into focus', but that's quite different from the sound being lacklustre or musically un-involving at low volume levels.
Marco.
speedracer
06-03-2018, 12:52
I am not the most technical of people so I can't explain the reasoning behind this, but the volume knob on my phono pre is supplemented by an adjustable gain knob, which is invaluable in getting the volume just so for a particular record, so for example I might have the gain set at full with the volume knob at about 8 o'clock for one & the gain very low with the volume knob nearer 3 o'clock for another. As I say I don't know why this is so but it works, as was demonstrated successfully at a bake off last weekend.
Mike Reed
06-03-2018, 15:11
You point Simon to what are also my concerns over this concept.
I fundamentally disagree with much of your post 10 Mike, dynamics have absolutely no dependence on the volume control or its position, and if amplifiers and speakers are designed well enough to reproduce dynamic range, and are working within their designed limits, they will have a minimal effect on perceived dynamic range.
Why? I was addressing the o.p., who was concerned about the 'o'clock' of his vol. control to achieve lift-off, as it were. You say 'well-matched system', and I agree (up to a point), but simple vol. control level comparison really doesn't hold water with myriad collections of kit to consider.
Marco mentioned valves being better able to dynamically resolve at lower levels, and this is what I've found. Also, the ESLs resolve better at lower levels than moving coil speakers I've had. Then again, it also depends upon your intake of recreational pleasures as to how you judge adequate dynamic levels. Feedback (or lack of it), he mentioned, may well be a salient factor here..:)
Some kit, and I'd guess mainly s/s, does need a bit of welly to get things jumping. Whether that's simply because they're not properly matched I've no idea.
I'm a bit Mutt & Jeff, but if I can listen at sufficient levels to float my boat and not have 'er indoors, who has 20/20 hearing, mention that it's too loud, something is gelling there ! My E.A.R. volume control level? I really don't care ! Totally variable depending on input and other things; maybe 10 o.clock to 2 o'clock. This is at variance to the Naim I had before with identical sources.
Marco mentioned valves being better able to dynamically resolve at lower levels, and this is what I've found. Also, the ESLs resolve better at lower levels than moving coil speakers I've had.
Yup, a good (well-designed) valve amp combined with your electrostatics, which is able to drive them properly, will produce exactly the effect you describe, and do it in such an effortless way, alluding most SS gear.
Neither the SS or valve approach to amplifier design is perfect (as both have their respective strengths and weaknesses), but what experience has shown me with valves, providing complimentary speakers are used, is their ability to unravel/resolve musical information, which in order to achieve the same effect with a comparable SS amp, would require the amplifier to be played significantly louder.
I'm not entirely sure what the cause is for that, but it's a genuine effect I've heard many times over the years, when comparing valve and transistor amps.
However, I suspect it's also behind (or linked to) why 'valve watts' are often considered to be different from those of their transistor counterparts, such that, say, a good 30W valve amplifier can sound subjectively as 'powerful' as a transistor amp, which on paper, is many times more powerful, in terms of its measured output. You've probably experienced that yourself (as I did), after moving from Naim to valve amplification.
We would need one of our resident valve amp engineers/designers to comment on the possible technical reasons for it.
Marco.
.
Marco mentioned valves being better able to dynamically resolve at lower levels, .
I think part of the problem is the use of the word 'dynamically'. I mean what does that sentence actually mean? You could get rid of 'dynamically' altogether and then it would make sense, at least to an extent. Not sure if this is the same problem Dennis is having.
Mike Reed
06-03-2018, 16:37
Well I never, Marco ! I was always lead to believe that valve power was intrinsically more potent than similar s/s, watt for watt.. ;) Didn't realise that I'd followed a similar, if not parallel path to you, though I went from 60's Jason valve to the first s/s (Leak, Truvox) and back to Quad and RCA mono's, to the Naim treadmill and back again to E.A.R. Just like coming home, really.:) The ELSs are a departure, though (after over 50 years of m/coil).
I think part of the problem is the use of the word 'dynamically'. I mean what does that sentence actually mean?
Well, if you read what I wrote before on the matter, and where Mike plucked his comment from, it becomes clearer:
Coincidentally, that's one of the things the combination of (quality) valve amplification [as unlike most SS gear, its not strangled by excessive feedback] and high-efficiency speakers does well: it allows music to be reproduced with the requisite 'presence' and natural dynamics, in order for one not to need to listen loudly, in order for said music to 'come alive'.
"Better able to dynamically resolve", would therefore mean the ability to reproduce the natural dynamics present on music recordings, without having to listen loudly to achieve that effect.
Sometimes, certain transistor amplifiers can sound a bit 'dead'/lacklustre, until you crank them up a bit. You don't have to do that with a good valve amp, as long as it's partnered with the right speakers :)
Marco.
Well, if you read what I wrote before on the matter, and where Mike plucked his comment from, it becomes clearer:
"Better able to dynamically resolve", would therefore mean the ability to reproduce the natural dynamics present on music recordings, without having to listen loudly to achieve that effect.
Sometimes, certain transistor amplifiers can sound a bit 'dead'/lacklustre, until you crank them up a bit. You don't have to do that with a good valve amp, as long as it's partnered with the right speakers :)
Marco.
I think it is the use of 'dynamic' and 'dynamically' as subjective descriptive terms that is the issue here. obviously the dynamic range of the system or the recording is unaffected by whether the power is from tubes or silicon. And as Dennis points out, if you are playing the music quietly then you will not achieve the full dynamic range that the system or the recording are capable of. Otherwise, I agree with you (and Mike).
Well I never, Marco ! I was always lead to believe that valve power was intrinsically more potent than similar s/s, watt for watt.. ;) Didn't realise that I'd followed a similar, if not parallel path to you...
Yes, "potent" is a good word to use, as that's exactly what is subjectively experienced :)
In recent times, I've gone from Naim 135s (75W), to huge 'behemoth' ECS Monoblocks, which were rated at 180W, then to a Chinese (Yaqin) push-pull valve amp, rated at 30W, which sounded subjectively more 'potent' than either of my previous (more powerful 'on paper') SS amps, finally settling on my current 50W (KT150-based) push-pull TD Copper amp, and which sounds massively better and more 'potent'/powerful than any amplifier I've ever used, with either my previous Spendor SP100s or current Tannoys, featuring 15" Monitor Golds.
Marco.
Mike Reed
06-03-2018, 16:55
I think part of the problem is the use of the word 'dynamically'. I mean what does that sentence actually mean? You could get rid of 'dynamically' altogether and then it would make sense, at least to an extent. Not sure if this is the same problem Dennis is having.
It was Dennis who introduced the 'dynamics' aspect (though that is simply a term for 'alive, involving and other adjectives). I simply addressed the vol. control level comparison. 'Circles' and 'going round in' comes to mind here, but it was forever thus (in hifi at least !:)
I think it is the use of 'dynamic' and 'dynamically' as subjective descriptive terms that is the issue here. obviously the dynamic range of the system or the recording is unaffected by whether the power is from tubes or silicon. And as Dennis points out, if you are playing the music quietly then you will not achieve the full dynamic range that the system or the recording are capable of. Otherwise, I agree with you (and Mike).
It's always difficult trying to successfully put into words what you can hear :)
However, if you were to take two good quality 30W amplifiers, one valve and one SS, used with suitable speakers (being a good match for both), you can pretty much guarantee that the latter would a) subjectively sound less powerful or 'potent', and b) would need cranking up more, in order to make music 'come alive' - and because of that, the sound of the former seems superficially more 'dynamic', read as more 'open', 'crisper', etc.
That's essentially what Mike and I are getting at. And in terms of the earlier part of this discussion, why those of us with valve amps and 'easy to drive' and/or electrically compatible speakers, don't have to listen loudly, in order for recorded music to sound 'involving' and exactly as it should.
Marco.
It's always difficult trying to successfully put into words what you can hear :)
However, if you were to take two good quality 30W amplifiers, one valve and one SS, used with suitable speakers (being a good match for both), you can pretty much guarantee that the latter would a) subjectively sound less powerful or 'potent', and b) would need cranking up more, in order to make music 'come alive' - and because of that, the sound of the former seems superficially more 'dynamic', read as more 'open', 'crisper', etc.
That's essentially what Mike and I are getting at. And in terms of the earlier part of this discussion, why those of us with valve amps and 'easy to drive' and/or electrically compatible speakers, don't have to listen loudly, in order for recorded music to sound 'involving' and exactly as it should.
Marco.
No argument from me on that front. As to cause I wonder if it is because valve amps use output transformers?
Dunno... Anthony had a good theory on it once, and I've asked him to join the discussion. Alan (Firebottle) may also have some ideas :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
06-03-2018, 18:16
Hi All,
A bit late to this however; There are many reasons why amplifiers from both camps [solid state and valve] can sound, and perform wildly diffrent.
As for the volume control aspect, and its position, its not realy relevant to the circuit its controling, it will depend greatly on the previous gain stages ability to drive it, and the sensitivity of the following stage, and where in the circuit it is placed.
Now, as for diffrences between topologies,ie; valve and solid state, its a bit of a minefield when trying to explain what diffrences could be responsible for their often' grossly diffrent portrayal of musical content, and dynamics, but a couple of reasons come to mind; first of all, its already been mentioned Feedback, or the almost lack of it in valve amps, compared to solid state, valves [especialy small signal types] are very linear devices, thus need very little if any feedback when comparing them to Transistors, which actualy need feedback to control their gain, and to linearise their frequency response.
Another aspect that is related again to feedback is; a well designed conventional, ie; [using output transformers]valve amps ability to follow diffrences in impedance changes with frequency in loudspeakers.
Also; the diffrences in how each device is run ie; the voltage rails and current each rely on to work etc, in my opinion also play a major part.
These are just for starters!
Wattage is a somewhat misleading measurement. While amperage is part of the wattage equation, two amps with the same wattage rating can have different current deliveries. The amp that flows the most current is the one who has the best grip on the speaker. A single tube can flow a lot of current compared to a single transistor. Maybe this is an over simplified view, but I think it’s somewhere in the reason why tubed amps sound more powerful than transistor amps of the same wattage rating. Actually, the slew rate is a good indicator of an amps power.
Remember that during any A/B blind testing, getting the volumes matched is a very important variable, the louder one will almost always seem to sound better. At least in a short run.
The sweet spot in a stereo’s volume is a very subjective thing. Even when it seems that an amp wakes up at certain levels, the listener has a lot to do with that declaration. I am amazed at how good my system sounds at low levels, I play back at a lower volume than I did with my last amp. My knob goes round and round, it’s an electronic volume, so it has numbers on the display, and I generally run it around 45 to 55. But! When it gets over 60 she really comes on! Some realistic dynamics start to happen, and at 75 she is pounding down the walls! As clean and clear as you’d ever want. It will go much louder with ease, but I’ve never been there, 75 is scary enough for me.
Russell
I think that there's something in this. Russell:
Wattage is a somewhat misleading measurement. While amperage is part of the wattage equation, two amps with the same wattage rating can have different current deliveries. The amp that flows the most current is the one who has the best grip on the speaker. A single tube can flow a lot of current compared to a single transistor. Maybe this is an over simplified view, but I think it’s somewhere in the reason why tubed amps sound more powerful than transistor amps of the same wattage rating...
...which may tie in with what Anthony wrote earlier:
Also; the diffrences in how each device is run ie; the voltage rails and current each rely on to work etc, in my opinion also play a major part.
I think the answer to what we're hearing lies somewhere in the voltage/current aspect of how valves and transistors work.
Marco.
Shovel_Knight
06-03-2018, 21:22
It's always difficult trying to successfully put into words what you can hear :)
However, if you were to take two good quality 30W amplifiers, one valve and one SS, used with suitable speakers (being a good match for both), you can pretty much guarantee that the latter would a) subjectively sound less powerful or 'potent', and b) would need cranking up more, in order to make music 'come alive' - and because of that, the sound of the former seems superficially more 'dynamic', read as more 'open', 'crisper', etc.
That's essentially what Mike and I are getting at. And in terms of the earlier part of this discussion, why those of us with valve amps and 'easy to drive' and/or electrically compatible speakers, don't have to listen loudly, in order for recorded music to sound 'involving' and exactly as it should.
Marco.
It’s interesting that J Gordon Holt, writing when transistor amplifiers were in their infancy, was of a different opinion :)
Transistors just do not behave like tubes. Transistor amplifiers whose measured distortion is higher than that of the cheapest "hi-fi" amplifiers somehow manage to sound much better than they should, and the absence of an output transformer from most transistor amplifiers (the low-impedance transistors connect directly to the speaker) eliminates most of the annoyance value of marginal overload on peak passages. As a result, a transistor amplifier seems to produce far more clean power than a tube amplifier of the same rated output.
Even more significant, however, is the "transistor sound" at low output levels. Even the feeblest transistor amplifiers we have heard (a 3-watter, for instance) sound like high-powered amplifiers when operating at low levels. They are transparent, crisp,and have the same kind of bass solidity that high- power advocates have always attributed to the monster amplifier's reserve of speaker-controlling watts.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/amplifier-power-how-much-enough-page-2
:scratch:
According to my free SPL app i'm currently listening at about 95dB.
Valve pre into Nad power and the volume control nearly into a quarter...lots of gain.
Being a bungalow dweller, late night, clean mains listening is the thing.....the room gets a bit excitable over 100dB mind....along with the "gone to bed" wife.
Lol, Pavel - each to his or her own!:eyebrows:
You may also wish to consider possible magazine bias, keen to sell people the 'latest new thing';)
Another aspect to consider is how changes in technology, particularly with electronic components, have influenced (and significantly improved) valve amplifier performance since the days of that article.
Marco.
"Why? I was addressing the o.p., who was concerned about the 'o'clock' of his vol. control to achieve lift-off, as it were. You say 'well-matched system', and I agree (up to a point), but simple vol. control level comparison really doesn't hold water with myriad collections of kit to consider."
I have not remembered everything I stated word for word, but I do not believe that I raised the term dynamics, but stuck to the established concept of dynamic range, and I also did not refer to a well matched system.
I mean no insulting attack when I say that AFAICS no one has stated a clear concept for the quality(s) being depicted, and I am not prepared to get into arguments involving sophism.
I am an objectivist, but do not deny the validity of subjective perception, which to me is a part of objectivism, but I will not adhere to vague notions which seem impossible to define in clear coherent English.
With a perfect system, playing any given piece of music at a lower level than the original event, will affect its perceived dynamic range. Its intelligibility will also be affected because the ear curves show that the ear will not respond to energy at certain frequencies simply because it cannot hear it, and this loss of information may result in a seemingly 'lifeless' replay sound.
I spent years building and using valves, and they gave me great pleasure, but the obvious improvement in bass from SS was apparent by the 70s, as was the top end, and SS ccts have improved enormously, to the point IMO at which they are all pretty good now, and I think they can be ignored as a cause of compromise, and probably indistinguishable form each other in controlled DB tests. In contrast to an earlier statement, I think that SS is more capable of current delivery.
Well, Dennis, for the probably the first time ever, we'll have to vehemently disagree. Virtually every word you've just written, I couldn't disagree with more!!
And I could challenge you on some of it, but it I suspect it would be pointless, as your mind is clearly made up, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, the same as I am to mine.
I'd appreciate, however, if you would attempt to answer the questions I asked you earlier (post #17). Care to have a go? :)
Marco.
Marco, I think you have to bear in mind that you have a very good, very expensive valve power amp. As do a lot of people here who use valves. But most valve power amps are highly compromised in a lot of ways, compared to a cheap solid-state amp. I have heard some really poor examples and some that were listenable but really far too coloured to be classed as 'high Fidelity'. So the frame of reference is everything, really.
Sure, and I agree, but the fact that I have such an amplifier (as do others) simply *proves* that the technology is capable of delivering the performance stated. It's not valve technology's fault that there are so many sub-standard implementations of it on the market;)
Blame the designers!
You can only judge how good anything truly is by assessing the best available types of such. For example, you can't showcase the pinnacle of today's automotive design technology by using a 1987 Ford Fiesta as the example, and the same follows with valve amplifiers.
What Dennis is failing to take into consideration is that valve amplifier design has moved on considerably since the days he used and built it, simply because of the vastly improved quality of components available now to talented EEs.
I'm sure that Harold Leak or Arthur Radford would have loved to have had access to some of the electronic components available now!
So what Dennis should do is listen to an amplifier, like mine, which fully utilises the best of those components (and valve technology itself) and see whether what he claims still holds true :)
I could certainly demonstrate how, IMO, it doesn't.
Marco.
Shovel_Knight
07-03-2018, 09:22
What Dennis is failing to take into consideration is that valve amplifier design has moved on considerably since the days he used and built it, simply because of the vastly improved quality of components available now to talented EEs, so what he should do is listen to an amplifier, like mine, which fully utilises the best of those components (and valve technology itself) and see whether what he claims still holds true.
Has it? Is this why people are paying silly money for 80 years old tubes and Telefunken output transformers? :scratch:
I don’t think there has been anything really new in valve amplifier technology since the Nixon administration, or maybe even since 1940s. With the notable exception of Korg NuTube, we haven’t seen a single new tube type in decades. Solid state technology, on the other hand, has improved tremendously, today we have transistors and other semiconductors with characteristics nobody could even imagine in 1970s. And if we’re talking about improvements in passive components, then they’re equally available to designers of both tube and solid state circuits.
The answer to both questions is that at lower listening levels the dynamic range is compromised, and it therefore does sound less 'dynamic'. The ear is missing energy at lower levels because; some is under those conditions, below the threshold of perception, particularly so at the frequency extremes, and it is also so that low level information is masked by the ambient noise in the listening room, and hence lost.
My mind is not 'made up' in a fixed dogmatic way, perhaps like that of a religious proseletiser, all my beliefs are relatively 'soft', and I am prepared to alter them as new information is tested, and verified. I am an atheist, as much as I can come to any conclusion, but there are factors which science and experience cannot address fully, and I would never adopt the stance of Dorkins, who is just too sure, to the point IMO of risking a loss of objectivity.
The last great frontier to cross, and domain to master, is that of objectivity, and it takes a great deal of discipline to do so; it entails an open mind, because our understanding is ever changing and not a fixed entity, and we are finite beings in a massively complicated universe.
It is IMO mature to be able to have differing opinions and views, and we can discuss them in a friendly manner, they should not alienate us or result in rancour.
Hi Pavel,
You're mixing up valve amplifier design, which is what I wrote, with valve amplifier technology. I was careful earlier in differentiating both, but obviously not enough for you to misinterpret me;)
Actually, in this instance, 'topology' is probably the better word, instead of 'technology'. Valve amplifier topology, to my knowledge, has largely remained unchanged since its inception.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, in terms of the best tubes and output transformers available, often being the most sought after vintage ones, and of course the most important things of all, the circuits themselves (used in valve amplifier design), remain virtually unchanged since the day they were invented.
However, what I'm referring to are things like capacitors and resistors (and other electronic components produced today), which quite frankly are *so* superior now to most of what was produced and used 'back in the day', as to make them broken. The fact is, huge advances have been made in that area, which when judiciously implemented, have raised the performance valve amplifiers are capable of quite dramatically.
THAT is what allows talented EEs today to design (there's that key word again) and build better valve amplifiers now, often of course using the best circuits and valves (sometimes transformers) from back in the day [the marrying of the best of old and new technology, as it were], than was once possible - and my own amplifier, and those of many others that qualify as such, are testament to that :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
07-03-2018, 09:44
Hi All,
In very basic terms:
Valves are high impedance voltage devices, Transistors are low impedance current devices, speakers are low impedance devices, valves therefore need some form of converting their high impedance to low, enough to drive a basic speaker impedance [ say 8 ohm] That’s where the output transformer comes in. Many would state that that is the main weak point of a basic valve amplifier, and to a point, I agree.
Now, if we look at Transistors, as stated, they are very low impedance compared with valves, and therefore an output transformer in most cases is not needed, [Mcintosh Amplifiers being amongst the few that still used output transformers in their solid state designs] Now it would seem from the examples given that transistors have the upper hand, however; this would only be true if the load they were driving remained constant.
Unfortunately that is far from the case where loudspeakers are concerned, i.e.; they may have a nominal impedance to start with, [4, 8, 16, etc] however; that can change quite dramatically once you put frequencies through them, and if we go back to the comparisons, when a speaker impedance falls [usually with low frequencies] the transistor output stage will put more power into the load, but as the speaker impedance rises, the power output will decrease, with a valve amp, with very minimal feedback, the opposite is the case.
Damping factor is another aspect of superiority grossly over played' by those promoting solid state designs over valve. Lets look at that for a moment, most well designed conventional valve amps manage a damping factor of around 12 to 20, now compare that to what a well designed conventional solid state amp is capable of i.e.; well into the hundreds, and again; those solid state fans amongst us here may be rubbing their hands with glee.
However, again’ all is not what it may seem, e.g., the full potential of that higher damping factor in solid state designs rarely gets put into play where loudspeakers are concerned, as most conventional speaker designs have a choke in line with the unit that would most benefit from it, the bass, or low frequency driver!
Anyway, I know there are many here knowledgeable enough to get where I am coming from on this, and can contribute their own thoughts, safe to say; there are good and bad aspects of both topologies, and because of this; there are very good, and very bad examples of both solid state, and valve designs.:)
fatmarley
07-03-2018, 10:00
I think it's one of those things where you wouldn't understand until you've lived with a system that sounds good at low volume. I have, and I remember being pleasantly surprised at the time.
As has been said earlier, you can have the volume down to whisper levels and everything sounds alive without loss of bite or bass.
anthonyTD
07-03-2018, 10:14
Many amplifiers over the years have been fitted with "Loudness controls" these were meant specificaly to be used for low level listening, basicaly; they boosted certain frequencies that helped portray a similar sonic presence of an amplifier being run at a more realistic volume!
The answer to both questions is that at lower listening levels the dynamic range is compromised, and it therefore does sound less 'dynamic'. The ear is missing energy at lower levels because; some is under those conditions, below the threshold of perception, particularly so at the frequency extremes, and it is also so that low level information is masked by the ambient noise in the listening room, and hence lost.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately because of the rather 'matter of fact'/black and white way your objectivist mind works (no offence intended, because as humans we all think differently), you're still not understanding the point I'm making, or what I've described, in terms of what I can clearly hear in reference to this matter - and unfortunately no amount of words I type here will alter that.
The only way that we might get somewhere, would be for me to visit you with my valve amps, pop them into your system, and whilst we're both listening to a piece of familiar music, attempt to describe and explain where I'm coming from. If you're up for that, then let me know and we'll sort something out, otherwise in order to prevent a pointless circular argument, it's best that we simply 'agree to disagree' :)
My mind is not 'made up' in a fixed dogmatic way, perhaps like that of a religious proseletiser, all my beliefs are relatively 'soft', and I am prepared to alter them as new information is tested, and verified.
Ok, I get that and believe you, for now. However, let's "test and verify" whether your claims of "not denying the validity of subjective perception" are true, or whether you're just paying it 'lip service'...
You say that you're prepared to alter your beliefs if "new information is tested and verified". Ok, then allow me to propose the following hypothetical scenario:
What if said "new information" was provided by your EARS, and so if I came round and demonstrated my valve amps in your system, and compared them with your SS devices, and afterwards you agreed that I had a point (based on what I wrote earlier), as you could clearly hear it for yourself, would that qualify to you as "new information"...?
Now, if you use active speakers (which on thinking of it now, I seem to recall you do) and therefore couldn't facilitate such a demo, that's fine, but what I'm asking you to do here, is to entertain the notion of allowing your ears, and the stated outcome of the above hypothetical demo, to override and update your previous beliefs, which will prove that they're as "soft" as you claim, and that you're not as dogmatic as how you come across, when the topic of discussion is audio-related.
If you can successfully do that, then your statement of "not denying the validity of subjective perception" is true (with the accent on 'validity'), but otherwise I'm afraid it's clearly false, and sadly you're just another dogmatic, closed-minded objectivist, who believes more in science and measurements than in what his own ears tell him....
It is IMO mature to be able to have differing opinions and views, and we can discuss them in a friendly manner, they should not alienate us or result in rancour.
Absolutely not, and I hope that my being frank with you, in order to argue my point robustly, is taken in said friendly manner, as indeed was my intention, and also in the spirit of open and constructive debate :cool:
Marco.
I think it's one of those things where you wouldn't understand until you've lived with a system that sounds good at low volume. I have, and I remember being pleasantly surprised at the time.
As has been said earlier, you can have the volume down to whisper levels and everything sounds alive without loss of bite or bass.
...or moreover a convincing and accurate (if not as loud) portrayal of voices and instruments.
The key here is to successfully differentiate between what sounds 'correct', musically, but simply quieter, and similarly 'correct', musically, but simply louder. It's not about bass or treble, or anything like that. However, at least someone *gets* where I'm coming from!! :clap:
I'm not denying how, factually, the ear/brain relationship works [that's a different thing entirely], simply saying that not all equipment is equal, in terms of its ability to resolve low-level musical information, in such a way that the overall sound it produces is as good at low volumes, as it is when played more loudly.
However, Matt, you make it sound as if such a system is 'unusual' or outside of the norm, hence your "pleasantly surprised" remark. IMO, it shouldn't come as any surprise, if a) the constituent components of a system are of the requisite quality, b) they compliment each other well, and c) the system owner knows what he's doing!;)
For me, ALL systems should sound good at low volume. If not, something's not right. "Good", however, doesn't necessarily mean 'best'.
Marco.
Hi All,
In very basic terms:
Valves are high impedance voltage devices, Transistors are low impedance current devices, speakers are low impedance devices, valves therefore need some form of converting their high impedance to low, enough to drive a basic speaker impedance [ say 8 ohm] That’s where the output transformer comes in. Many would state that that is the main weak point of a basic valve amplifier, and to a point, I agree.
Now, if we look at Transistors, as stated, they are very low impedance compared with valves, and therefore an output transformer in most cases is not needed, [Mcintosh Amplifiers being amongst the few that still used output transformers in their solid state designs] Now it would seem from the examples given that transistors have the upper hand, however; this would only be true if the load they were driving remained constant.
Unfortunately that is far from the case where loudspeakers are concerned, i.e.; they may have a nominal impedance to start with, [4, 8, 16, etc] however; that can change quite dramatically once you put frequencies through them, and if we go back to the comparisons, when a speaker impedance falls [usually with low frequencies] the transistor output stage will put more power into the load, but as the speaker impedance rises, the power output will decrease, with a valve amp, with very minimal feedback, the opposite is the case.
Damping factor is another aspect of superiority grossly over played' by those promoting solid state designs over valve. Lets look at that for a moment, most well designed conventional valve amps manage a damping factor of around 12 to 20, now compare that to what a well designed conventional solid state amp is capable of i.e.; well into the hundreds, and again; those solid state fans amongst us here may be rubbing their hands with glee.
However, again’ all is not what it may seem, e.g., the full potential of that higher damping factor in solid state designs rarely gets put into play where loudspeakers are concerned, as most conventional speaker designs have a choke in line with the unit that would most benefit from it, the bass, or low frequency driver!
Anyway, I know there are many here knowledgeable enough to get where I am coming from on this, and can contribute their own thoughts, safe to say; there are good and bad aspects of both topologies, and because of this; there are very good, and very bad examples of both solid state, and valve designs.:)
Excellent post, Anthony, expressed in a way that was fairly easily understood by a layman.
I would also add that the 'problems' associated with valve amps, in terms of reproducing bass frequencies, are only (in the real world) applicable when using the wrong speakers. Use the right ones (easy load, high-efficiency), and it's simply a non-issue, if the valve amp in question has been properly designed.
Therefore, as ever, as you've ably highlighted above, in your outlining of the various pros and cons of valves and transistors, it's simply a question of context.
Could I ask you which part of what you wrote, if any, might help explain what was mentioned earlier, and what is commonly heard by almost everyone who's carried out the (listening) test, in that 'valve watts' subjectively seem more 'potent', or powerful, than those of their solid-state counterparts?
I'm specifically interested in your mentioning earlier of voltage rails.
In essence, what's your theory behind why that's the perception of so many? IMHO, there has to be some credible technical explanation for it, because I don't believe that the effect is being imagined :)
Marco.
walpurgis
07-03-2018, 11:29
I don't believe anybody has mentioned that many horn speakers seem to retain correct proportions of dynamics and presence at more or less any volume setting. So perhaps there's more to it than amplification characteristics.
Yup, that's another valid point in this discussion, Geoff, and one we so far haven't explored :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
07-03-2018, 11:43
Hi Marco,
From my own perspective, and experiences;
As stated earlier; Some reasons for the way Valve amplifiers sonicaly seem to be more potent watt for watt compared to solid state are; Minimal use of over-all feedback, and thus the way they seem to be able to follow the varying impedances of the loudspeaker, Also; the higher voltage rails they run on also play a part. Over the years I have been on AOS I have discussed the diffrences between Valve and solid state, many times, and I could resurect some of those posts if there is any more interest in the subject.
Excellent post, Anthony, expressed in a way that was fairly easily understood by a layman.
Could I ask you which part of the above, if any, might help explain what was mentioned earlier, and what is commonly heard by almost everyone who's carried out the (listening) test, in that 'valve watts' subjectively seem more 'potent', or powerful, than those of their solid-state counterparts?
In essence, what's your theory behind why that's the perception of so many? IMHO, there has to be some credible technical explanation for it, because I don't believe that the effect is being imagined :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
07-03-2018, 11:45
:)
I don't believe anybody has mentioned that many horn speakers seem to retain correct proportions of dynamics and presence at more or less any volume setting. So perhaps there's more to it than amplification characteristics.
Hi Marco,
From my own perspective, and experiences;
As stated earlier; Some reasons for the way Valve amplifiers sonicaly seem to be more potent watt for watt compared to solid state are; Minimal use of over-all feedback, and thus the way they seem to be able to follow the varying impedances of the loudspeaker, Also; the higher voltage rails they run on also play a part. Over the years I have been on AOS I have discussed the diffrences between Valve and solid state, many times, and I could resurect some of those posts if there is any more interest in the subject.
Thanks, that makes sense to me. However, could you expand more on the bit I've highlighted, as to my knowledge, no-one so far has suggested that as a possible cause :)
Play a part in what way?
Marco.
Shovel_Knight
07-03-2018, 11:59
Maybe I’m missing something, but amplifiers using the same topology will be similar to each other. In some extreme cases, you have just a couple of valves and a handful of passive components per channel. If you replace those passive components with unobtanium resistors and magic dust capacitors, you will not suddenly get a new and vastly superior amplifier design. And as I mentioned already, nothing stops you from using the same exotic passive components in a solid state design.
And no matter how good your coupling capacitors and output transformers are, they will always be worse than no coupling capacitors and no output transformers :D
But then again this topic has been debated ad nauseam and both valve and solid state amps will always have their proponents.
What I personally don’t like about tube amplifiers is that to get them to really sing, you have to use them with certain speakers and even listen to certain kinds of music. This seems a bit limiting to me.
I like valves in OTL configuration and in fact I used to own an OTL tube headphone amp which I really liked, but then again it was only suitable for high impedance headphones.
What I personally don’t like about tube amplifiers is that to get them to really sing, you have to use them with certain speakers and even listen to certain kinds of music. This seems a bit limiting to me.
Only true of some valve amps, well quite a lot of them actually but it doesn't have to be the case. The main problem is that to build a valve amp that works properly is expensive. Then stick on manufacturer profit, distributor and dealer margins and your at £10K before you've said tube rolling.
So there are a lot of cheap, compromised valve amps around giving the whole lot a bad name, unless, as you say, you are careful what music you play through them. I have heard a few shockers, looked great, lovely casework, sound absolutely terrible, and the owners were in complete denial about it.
anthonyTD
07-03-2018, 12:13
If the quote below was truly the case, I would have given up on Valve amplifiers years ago!
What I personally don’t like about tube amplifiers is that to get them to really sing, you have to use them with certain speakers and even listen to certain kinds of music. This seems a bit limiting to me.
Maybe I’m missing something, but amplifiers using the same topology will be similar to each other. In some extreme cases, you have just a couple of valves and a handful of passive components per channel. If you replace those passive components with unobtanium resistors and magic dust capacitors, you will not suddenly get a new and vastly superior amplifier design.
Well, as ever in audio, nothing is rarely so simple and straightforward.
I agree with where you're coming from, but if a good designer has access to better components in the first place (read as being more accurate, or measure within closer tolerances, and then by judiciously implementing them in key parts of the circuit), chances are he'll be able to build a better amplifier, than one without access to such.
It's really as simple as that, although we could debate the efficacy of it until the cows come home, and still not agree, so best not bother :D
And as I mentioned already, nothing stops you from using the same exotic passive components in a solid state design
No, but you will then be faced with the inherent problems/limitations of SS, as outlined earlier by Anthony. Nothing is perfect!
And no matter how good your coupling capacitors and output transformers are, they will always be worse than no coupling capacitors and no output transformers
Yes, but that doesn't take into consideration other aspects of the circuit involved. You have to compare like with like, and as I said earlier, consider the context in which something is being applied, or not applied, in this case.
What I personally don’t like about tube amplifiers is that to get them to really sing, you have to use them with certain speakers...
Yes, of course, but why should that automatically be a problem?
It isn't if you use the right ones, which can easily be sourced, and then simply live with them and bask in the joys of valves (done well). Unless you're a serial box/speaker swapper, it's not an issue to relax and enjoy a settled system.
Also, SS amps themselves aren't devoid of speaker matching problems. As ever, you pays money......
...and even listen to certain kinds of music. This seems a bit limiting to me.
That simply doesn't happen, when the right valve amp and speakers are used. Ask anyone who knows me just how diverse my music tastes are, who's also heard my system, and they'll tell you that the music I listen to is certainly not being dictated by my choice of amp! :nono:
Like Dennis, you clearly need to hear a really good valve amp, partnered with speakers able to maximise its potential, in order to 'update' your opinions on valves.
Marco.
fatmarley
07-03-2018, 12:22
...or moreover a convincing and accurate (if not as loud) portrayal of voices and instruments.
The key here is to successfully differentiate between what sounds 'correct', musically, but simply quieter, and similarly 'correct', musically, but simply louder. It's not about bass or treble, or anything like that. However, at least someone *gets* where I'm coming from!! :clap:
However, Matt, you make it sound as if such a system is 'unusual' or outside of the norm, hence your "pleasantly surprised" remark. IMO, it shouldn't come as any surprise, if a) the constituent components of a system are of the requisite quality, b) they compliment each other well, and c) the system owner knows what he's doing!;)
For me, ALL systems should sound good at low volume. If not, something's not right. "Good", however, doesn't necessarily mean 'best'.
Marco.
Sorry Marco, I'm not the best at describing things.
Reading back what I said It does sound like I was talking about just bass and treble but It's not just that. Vocals should project out of the speakers and sound just a lifelike as when the system Is turned up.
With my old Tannoys I was more than happy to listen at low levels, In contrast, my old Linn Kans (don't laugh) were dead or flat at low levels and had to be turned up to enjoy the music. Bass and treble controls would not have helped.
I disagree. They may appear very similar at a glance, but dig into the details and you see where the differences are. Take for example a "straightforward" transistor power amp based on the classic Lin topology. BTW, that's Lin as in the chap who designed it, not anything to do with Linn. The front end maybe has a "long tail pair", but does it have a resistor or a current source as the tail? Does it use a current mirror? Does it use any emitter degeneration? What kind of current source is used in the second stage? What method is used to ensure stability into reactive loads? What method, if any, is used to protect the amp from short circuits?
All of these design details could easily be overlooked in a quick glance at a circuit diagram...
As ever, the devil is in the details!;)
Marco.
If the quote below was truly the case, I would have given up on Valve amplifiers years ago!
Lol... Indeed! Oh how the ill-informed can jump to silly conclusions!!:D
Marco.
So there are a lot of cheap, compromised valve amps around giving the whole lot a bad name...
Word, bro! ;)
And it don't have to be so.
Marco.
Anthony, did you see my post #57? If you could answer that when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it :)
Marco.
Hi Matt,
Reading back what I said It does sound like I was talking about just bass and treble but It's not just that. Vocals should project out of the speakers and sound just a lifelike as when the system Is turned up.
With my old Tannoys I was more than happy to listen at low levels, In contrast, my old Linn Kans (don't laugh) were dead or flat at low levels and had to be turned up to enjoy the music. Bass and treble controls would not have helped.
Precisely! And I know exactly where you're coming from with Tannoys and Linn Kans. I'm not a fan of speakers that need driven to within an inch of their lives before they 'wake up' and play music!
Ditto, I'm not a fan of the uber-powerful amp/low-efficiency speaker approach, as it smacks both of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and also rather of 'locking the door long after the horse has bolted'.... For me, it's all too 'arse about face'.
Far better, IMO, to design speakers that don't need such 'nannying', and sound good with any suitable, well-made, reasonably powered amplifier - problem is, it costs much more (and is harder to achieve) making speakers sound good, which are also efficient, than it does to make amplifiers that are powerful!;)
Also, in terms of Tannoys, with their horn tweeters [wink, wink:eyebrows:], consider the point that Geoff made earlier, and how that influences matters, in terms of what you've outlined above.......
Marco.
fatmarley
07-03-2018, 12:40
And as I mentioned already, nothing stops you from using the same exotic passive components in a solid state design.
I've tried film caps loads of times In various solid state amps and It doesn't usually work. Upper mids sound far too forward and lower treble thin.
Films caps worked nicely In my Onix OA21 when I used 4-pole caps In the PSU but I removed them (the 4-pole caps) because I wasn't happy with the bass.
Marco I think you have little ground on which to pursue your attack on me in your post responding to my last one, and I stand by what I stated as true, and those who know me would verify this to be true.
This leads me to believe that your attack is ad hominem, there being no ground on which to base it, and therefore you are necessarily questioning my integrity by doubting my assertions, this questioning my character.
I ask you please to express clearly and coherently what the phenomenon is that you are alluding to in what to me has been a rather vague way so far in this thread.
Far from being dogmatic, I am able to live with unresolved issues, and you may remember me mentioning a book on the psychology of just this some weeks ago, you responding at that time that you would look out for it.
I live by four moral principles; Honesty, Integrity, Sincerity and Authenticity, and have had major debacles in my career because of my adhesion to these, some resulting in my dismissal. In this context it is rather irritating to have it suggested that I am living with dogma, and that my stated position is in fact false.
You are right that I currently have active speakers, though I still have my own build passives, and hence could compare a valve amp with my ATC SPA2 using them. Perhaps you think that my psychology is such that I would deny to myself any perception of a better sound from a valve amplifier, this of course representing a defended and erroneous dogmatic belief overruling actual reality.
I have worked at the function of ontological security, peer group pressure, (Asch and Milgram) as my specialist area allied with the four principles stated above for decades, mainly because as a species we are dominated by them rather than truth itself.
Incidentally the concept of damping factor is very poorly understood in general; the numbers given are divorced from the actual ccts in which they are applied, and damping factors in the 100s will be brought down to the order of 20 or so by the reality of the implementation of the amplifier.
Quoted damping factors are merely the ratio of the O/P Z of an amp to the I/P Z of a, (usually theoretical), speaker Z.
Marco I think you have little ground on which to pursue your attack on me in your post responding to my last one, and I stand by what I stated as true, and those who know me would verify this to be true.
This leads me to believe that your attack is ad hominem, there being no ground on which to base it, and therefore you are necessarily questioning my integrity by doubting my assertions, this questioning my character.
That couldn't be further from the truth, Dennis. I assure you it wasn't intended as such.
If you read what I wrote again very carefully, then you'll see that what I proposed was a simple test, based on a hypothetical scenario, in order to ascertain if you would change your stated position on SS vs. valves, if you heard, with your own ears (in your own system) what others and I [did you read what Anthony wrote?] have claimed they are more capable at than their SS counterparts.
It was also designed to test how able you were to change your objectivist beliefs, in that respect, when presented with "new information" that rendered those beliefs as erroneous, in this case being what you'd have experienced in said hypothetical scenario [defined as, after listening to my amp, you yourself could hear the stated benefits of valves], as after all, you claim not to deny the validity of subjective perception.
But if you're going to take that as a 'personal attack', then I'm sorry, and we'll leave it there.
However, may I ask when was the last time you heard a well-designed valve amplifier in any kind of meaningful context? And if you have recently, please outline the amp in question, along with that context, which should include details of the partnering system. Ta! :cool:
Marco.
Mike Reed
07-03-2018, 15:08
With my old Tannoys I was more than happy to listen at low levels, In contrast, my old Linn Kans (don't laugh) were dead or flat at low levels and had to be turned up to enjoy the music.
The Kans, I know, are I.B.s (sealed boxes), and I'm guessing here that the Tannoys are not (don't know much about Tannoys). Could it not be than any I.B.s need a lot more welly to wake up? Certainly , all I've had did, incl. early Kans and SBLs (and even Briks) as opposed to ProAcs etcetera (ported).
This thread is becoming a wee bit technical for me (and that doesn't take much), and I haven't a clue what the ostensible contretemps is about. However, I have to acknowledge Dennis's written eloquence (once a teacher......) :)
However, I have to acknowledge Dennis's written eloquence...
Hey sir, what about mine?
Is it because Dennis came up with 'sophistry'? Tell me, I can take it! :D
Marco.
anthonyTD
07-03-2018, 15:34
Think of it this way,
Using the car analogy, take two, a Ford Fiesta, and say,, a Maclaren P1, both will do 60 miles per hour, However; the P1 if needed' will do it in around 2.8 seconds, where as the Fiesta would take around 9 seconds!
This is not an ideal comparison where voltages and current are concerned, but I hope it makes some sense as to the point I am making, I supose you could liken the comparison of Transistors and valves to Torque versus Horse power, again, its far from a perfect analogy, but it may help.
Anthony, did you see my post #57? If you could answer that when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it :)
Marco.
Ah, gotcha! I'm defo a torque kinda guy:)
Marco.
fatmarley
07-03-2018, 15:50
The Kans, I know, are I.B.s (sealed boxes), and I'm guessing here that the Tannoys are not (don't know much about Tannoys). Could it not be than any I.B.s need a lot more welly to wake up? Certainly , all I've had did, incl. early Kans and SBLs (and even Briks) as opposed to ProAcs etcetera (ported).
This thread is becoming a wee bit technical for me (and that doesn't take much), and I haven't a clue what the ostensible contretemps is about. However, I have to acknowledge Dennis's written eloquence (once a teacher......) :)
My Tannoys were ported as are the large majority.
I think there Is something In what you are saying, but It's not set In stone. I've heard people say the small sealed Harbeth P3ESR sounds good at low volumes
Firebottle
07-03-2018, 16:08
Been thinking how I could add to this debate viz valve against SS watts. The fact is nothing is perfect so I think it is the greater respective imperfections at high output levels that colour our acceptance.
Many have expressed that a cleaner sound (read less distorted) can be enjoyed at higher levels. Putting aside the ultimate output levels of different amplifiers, when 10 watts is used in a typical system it is LOUD. Any respectable amplifier can produce 10 watts, SETs excluded of course.
Valves are considered to be more linear than transistors and it is my belief that, although valve amplifiers may have higher harmonic distortions, it is the greater discordant distortion artefacts that are generated by solid state circuits that really give rise to the preference for valve watts.
The precise distortion that I am considering is intermodulation distortion which adds and subtracts all the different notes and tones in music to develop a low level hash that is objectionable and muddies the sound.
The better linearity of valves makes it easier to design for reduced IM distortion without having to resort to large amounts of negative feedback.
A lot of additional tricks can be incorporated in valve circuitry to combat distortions, that are seldom seen in commercial offerings but are popular in the DIY fraternity.
But if you have harmonic distortion then you must have intermodulation distortion as well. You can't have one without the other.
Thanks for your input, Alan, which is interesting.
I'm going to put forward the below as a possible hypothesis for why many of us who own good valve amps (such as you yourself design) consider that they're better able to resolve low-level musical information, present in recordings, without having to turn the volume up so loudly, in comparison with SS designs:
The better linearity of valves makes it easier to design for reduced IM distortion without having to resort to large amounts of negative feedback.
:)
Anthony's views on that, and also Andrew's, would be interesting.
It's the (often significant) levels of such feedback, applied by solid-state amplifiers to the music signal, which for me veils the sound, subsequently masking information, and why some have to be turned up louder than valve amps, before the sound that they produce 'comes alive'.
Marco.
P.S Dennis will probably 'conveniently' ignore this, too!;)
walpurgis
07-03-2018, 16:14
Remember when TID was THE big thing?
Firebottle
07-03-2018, 16:20
But if you have harmonic distortion then you must have intermodulation distortion as well. You can't have one without the other.
As I said nothing is perfect but you can have much reduced IM distortion along with harmonic distortion. The methods of generation can be quite different.
Remember when TID was THE big thing?
Yes, but only among those who considered that measurements were the 'be all and end all'... Some folks need to learn how to use the right side of their brains!;)
Marco.
hifi_dave
07-03-2018, 16:23
Remember when TID was THE big thing?
Yes and slew rate..:)
Yes and slew rate..:)
I like slew rate. That's my favourite measurement. Always reminds me of the 1970s and monster integrated amps from Japan
It was Matti Otala who drew our attention to TID and slew rate. He, along with a colleague, designed a 25W amplifier and published it in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. I built it, albeit using more 'robust' output devices, and found it to sound superb into my Quad 57s; bettering a Quad 405 I was using at the time. The design achieved commercial realisation as the Electrocompaniet "The Two Channel Amplifier".
Arthur Radford was also interested in amplifier rise time. This is not the same as slew rate, but his valve designs have been measured and found to have an acceptably high slew rate of (I believe) 25V/us. It would be interesting to compare the Electrocompaniet design with, say, a Radford STA25.
http://aries-cerat.eu/tech-blog
Arthur Radford was also interested in amplifier rise time. This is not the same as slew rate, but his valve designs have been measured and found to have an acceptably high slew rate of (I believe) 25V/us. It would be interesting to compare the Electrocompaniet design with, say, a Radford STA25.
Indeed, even as a 'non-techy' I can see the possible relevance of that.
Could you, or someone else among our 'resident techies', please explain the difference between slew rate and rise time, particularly in terms of their likely respective sonic effects on an amplifier? :)
Marco.
http://aries-cerat.eu/tech-blog
Amused by the name of his DACs: "Kassandra". In Greek mythology, she was a prophetess cursed to correctly (or accurately) foresee the future although no-one would believe her.
Methinks it an ambiguous name to give an audio component. :scratch:
So, in other words, much like many other measurements are: completely irrelevant to most of us! :lol:;)
Marco.
hifi_dave
07-03-2018, 17:09
Indeed, even as a 'non-techy' I can see the possible relevance of that.
Could you, or someone else among our 'resident techies', please explain the difference between slew rate and rise time, particularly in terms of their likely respective sonic effects on an amplifier? :)
Marco.
Bit beyond me but I believe that rise time is the speed the amp reacts to transients and slew rate is similar but at a higher power output. So, how many watts will it be able to reproduce a square wave.
http://aries-cerat.eu/tech-blog
Interesting link, Rodger, so thanks for sharing. I'd certainly love to hear the amplifier in question, in a context that I'm familiar with! :)
From the article:
Everybody wants more power.SE amplifiers are unmatched in sonic quality, however,not everyone owns a high performance highly sensitive speaker.
SE amps aside, I'd suggest that anyone who hasn't heard ANY type of valve amplifier, in said loudspeaker context, quite simply, has never heard what a valve amplifier can truly do.
Marco.
Bit beyond me but I believe that rise time is the speed the amp reacts to transients and slew rate is similar but at a higher power output. So, how many watts will it be able to reproduce a square wave.
If that's correct, Dave, you've explained it nicely. Cheers! :)
Marco.
Pieoftheday
07-03-2018, 17:35
Blimey I'd forgotten I'd started this thread:scratch: I'll have to start at the beginning:doh:
Mike Reed
07-03-2018, 17:40
Blimey I'd forgotten I'd started this thread:scratch: I'll have to start at the beginning:doh:
How I do empathise with you. It's getting rather technical ( for my simple brain, anyway). Soon as a thread delves into the internals of hifi, my eyes glaze over, let alone theory):)
How I do empathise with you. It's getting rather technical ( for my simple brain, anyway). Soon as a thread delves into the internals of hifi, my eyes glaze over, let alone theory):)
The problem with not knowing, or not wanting to know how it all works is that it makes it easy for marketing departments to rip us off with impunity.
Pieoftheday
07-03-2018, 17:46
How I do empathise with you. It's getting rather technical ( for my simple brain, anyway). Soon as a thread delves into the internals of hifi, my eyes glaze over, let alone theory):)
Haha yes! The techie stuff is beyond me but I try to learn a bit from those that know a bit,it rarely sinks in:)
The rise time of a signal is the time taken for the signal amplitude to go from 10% to 90% of its full amplitude level. It is related to the frequency response.
Slew rate measures how fast the output voltage can swing or 'slew' into a load, and is largely a measure of the ability of the power supply's response in providing power to the (speaker) load.
The rise time of a signal is the time taken for the signal amplitude to go from 10% to 90% of its full amplitude level. It is related to the frequency response.
Slew rate measures how fast the output voltage can swing or 'slew' into a load, and is largely a measure of the ability of the power supply's response in providing power to the (speaker) load.
Cheers, Barry. That's equally as clear and concise as what Dave said. Interesting. I suspect that slew rate is connected somehow with the point that Anthony was making earlier, in reference to voltage rails in valve amps, which makes them able to 'react' faster to transients in music, than solid-state designs, all else being equal :)
Marco.
I’m not sure how one can work out whether the system ‘ coming on song’ or the fact that the music is just louder makes the listening experience better. I suspect the sound level just gets to a point where it sounds nearer to what was intended, whether that be louder ( probabably usually the case) or quieter. Take as an analogy visual communication. If an artist or designer wants to create contrast he may put black against white. If a musician wants contrast he may put a quiet sound next to a loud sound. If your system is playing quietly there is less contrast between the sounds a bit like using gray against white rather than black. When your system is louder you are experiencing something closer to what the musician intended. I think Dennis was making a similar point. You might be comfortable listening quietly but it is probably only rarely sounding ‘ as intended’
The problem with not knowing, or not wanting to know how it all works is that it makes it easy for marketing departments to rip us off with impunity.
Indeed, which is what I'm attempting to do now :)
Contrary to what you might think, I'm not 'anti-measurements'; simply anti-bothering with any that don't need to concern me!;)
Marco.
Hi Andrew,
I’m not sure how one can work out whether the system ‘ coming on song’ or the fact that the music is just louder makes the listening experience better. I suspect the sound level just gets to a point where it sounds nearer to what was intended, whether that be louder ( probabably usually the case) or quieter. Take as an analogy visual communication. If an artist or designer wants to create contrast he may put black against white. If a musician wants contrast he may put a quiet sound next to a loud sound. If your system is playing quietly there is less contrast between the sounds a bit like using gray against white rather than black. When your system is louder you are experiencing something closer to what the musician intended. I think Dennis was making a similar point. You might be comfortable listening quietly but it is probably only rarely sounding ‘ as intended’
Good post, and I largely agree.
However, taking the part of your (IMO, valid analogy), which I've highlighted, that doesn't necessarily mean that the quiet bits can't still sound as 'correct' or 'real', as the loud bits, some of which (in terms of low-level musical information) might be veiled by an SS amp, due to how it's designed, in respect of the levels of feedback applied.
For me, as long as a piano, reproduced through a hi-fi system, no matter how loudly or quietly, has the fundamental sonic characteristics of a piano (as embedded onto the test recording), that's all that matters.
If, on the other hand, said piano recording only sounds convincingly 'real', when played loudly, then for me, that points to a distinct failing of the system concerned, and/or one or more of its constituent parts.
Marco.
Ninanina
07-03-2018, 18:43
My volume knob is further round than it's ever been now with the Maggies :doh:
To be honest with the LV's it wasn't much off the stop but now it's about 8/9 o'clock, still not that far but I don't listen at crazy levels anyway ;)
My volume knob is further round than it's ever been now with the Maggies :doh:
That's because they're much less efficient than your previous speakers, Bev, and normally partnered, amplifier-wise, by something suitably 'meaty' [or perhaps to you 'cucumbery', lol], such as a Krell;)
Like I said before, I'm not a fan of the 'muscle amp'/low-efficiency speaker route, although I'm happy to acknowledge the unique, and musically desirable, abilities of panel speakers.
Marco.
Pieoftheday
07-03-2018, 19:34
That's because they're much less efficient than your previous speakers, Bev, and normally partnered, amplifier-wise, by something suitably 'meaty' [or perhaps to you 'cucumbery', lol], such as a Krell;)
Like I said before, I'm not a fan of the 'muscle amp'/low-efficiency speaker route, although I'm happy to acknowledge the unique, and musically desirable, abilities of panel speakers.
Marco.
When it comes to amplification, are we talking power or current? That s best,or is this another can?
When it comes to amplification, are we talking power or current?
With Maggies, you probably need a goodly dose of both!
Marco.
Ninanina
07-03-2018, 19:45
That's because they're much less efficient than your previous speakers, Bev, and normally partnered, amplifier-wise, by something suitably 'meaty' [or perhaps to you 'cucumbery', lol], such as a Krell;)
Like I said before, I'm not a fan of the 'muscle amp'/low-efficiency speaker route, although I'm happy to acknowledge the unique, and musically desirable, abilities of panel speakers.
Marco.
As you say Marco yes very much less efficient than the LV's, or any other speakers I've ever owned
To be honest I am not convinced I need an amp more 'cucumbery' than that I am already using... I will use 'cucumbery again.. like that one ;)
I would normally be with you on not being a fan of the 'muscle amp/low-efficiency' route having owned amps of less than 10w, and efficient speakers, for the last 15 years ish but the Maggies are a real eye opener at the moment
Ninanina
07-03-2018, 19:48
When it comes to amplification, are we talking power or current? That s best,or is this another can?
I have no idea if my amp has a high current or not but it and the Maggies are sounding so good I'm not too concerned at the moment :)
fatmarley
07-03-2018, 22:29
I have no idea if my amp has a high current or not but it and the Maggies are sounding so good I'm not too concerned at the moment :)
I'm sorry but If you mention any kit In this thread, you have to tell us what It sounds like at low volumes :)
Ninanina
07-03-2018, 22:32
I'm sorry but If you mention any kit In this thread, you have to tell us what It sounds like at low volumes :)
Well Matt I have the volume pretty low at the moment and the 'kit' still sounds amazing to me :)
Does that help ?
I've read through much of the previous, but I am working so hard at difficult stuff ATM that I am sorry, but I am too tired to fine tooth comb everything and deal with every point.
What I have stated is only that, not an entire treatise on everything which may affect sound quality at low levels.
So it seems the claimed phenomenon is a poor performance at lower levels, and this I believe Nelson Pass addressed with First Watt amplifiers. IMD has also been mentioned, and it is subjectively horrible in nature, but objectively measurable.
The Benchmark amp, which I posted about a while ago is absolutely impeccable from the parameter point of view, and I heard a pair in Feb last year on a £30k pair of JBLs, and could not fault it, and it is SS.
Andrew's point above corresponds exactly with my points on dynamic range.
fatmarley
07-03-2018, 23:17
Well Matt I have the volume pretty low at the moment and the 'kit' still sounds amazing to me :)
Does that help ?
Yes thanks.
Hmm...Still lots of 'convenient avoidance' and deflecting in evidence in your reply, I'm afraid, Dennis.
Here's what I see:
You simply cherry-picking the bits you agree with (that support your 'world view' or what you've learned from books, rather than challenges it) and ignoring the rest, including reams of technical comment, in support of valves over SS, which you seemingly would rather pretend didn't exist.
Feel free, though, to correct me if I'm wrong......
You mention Andrew's post, but what about my response to it?
And you still haven't answered this, which I'm afraid I'm going to push you on, simply because I'd like to know the last time you heard a good valve amp 'in anger':
However, may I ask when was the last time you heard a well-designed valve amplifier in any kind of meaningful context? And if you have recently, please outline the amp in question, along with that context, which should include details of the partnering system. Ta! :cool:
This appears to be an SS amp you're referring to, not a valve one (the wording is a little confusing):
The Benchmark amp, which I posted about a while ago is absolutely impeccable from the parameter point of view, and I heard a pair in Feb last year on a £30k pair of JBLs, and could not fault it, and it is SS.
:popcorn::popcorn:
Marco.
anthonyTD
08-03-2018, 10:28
:)
Cheers, Barry. That's equally as clear and concise as what Dave said. Interesting. I suspect that slew rate is connected somehow with the point that Anthony was making earlier, in reference to voltage rails in valve amps, which makes them able to 'react' faster to transients in music, than solid-state designs, all else being equal :)
Marco.
Lol - I'm glad that I interpreted it correctly! This learning game can be quite fun, eh?;)
In my experience, having owned or listened to many good SS amps in the past, valves, at low levels in particular, simply allow music to 'breathe' better, which is why, with the right speakers, you don't have to crank up the volume, in order for recordings to 'come alive'.
Therefore, taking the title of this thread, "Ker pow!!!", can happen whether listening at low or high levels. That's not to say, however, that when you hit the 'sweet spot', on the volume control, with a particular track, played on your system [and I believe that all recordings have this], it isn't exhilarating!
Marco.
I was going to just move on and let it go, but with your post 114 you have really angered me now.
There were so many assumptions and errors in thinking processes in your posts that I just could not bother to go through it all.
You have been rude by implication in questioning my integrity, for eg your assertion about black and white is at least surly and churlish, and is inappropriate. This phrase is used to allude to someone seeing things in only simplistic terms, and you have no evidence that I am or have been doing such.
What I stated was pure classically established science, that was all, and you then have seemingly extensively attacked my position, accusing me of a lack of understanding when you have repeatedly not responded to my request for a clear coherent statement of the phenomenon which the thread is alluding to.
What I have stated is not, and never was an entire treatise, but a simplistic statement of what I believe, and what is verified by science to be true. It may be that other factors/phenomena are relevant and which are yet to be discovered.
If I say "The sun is shining" I am saying only that; it is not an entire treatise on all aspects of weather, nor does it even allude to any other factors which the weather may contain.
If you are as eloquent as you seem to allude to being, then please clearly state your case and your arguments, and regarding your suggestion that I re-read your threads, I think you should do just that, and reflect on your own behaviour and quality of expression.
Innuendo and implication are often for the weak whose factual grasp and understanding are in question, and such people often use tools in argument which are dishonest.
(See Straight and Crooked thinking by Robert Thoulness, particularly "20 dishonest tricks in argument").
My original tactic, and it was deliberate, was to post only established science and to see what response it would provoke, and I was not disappointed by some of the resulting responses which were, though veiled, more about the subjectivity of personalities than audio concerns.
I am concerned with the pursuit of truth in all I do in life, the 'Hi-Fi' model serving as a metaphor for objectivity, which in Hi-Fi is accurate perception of the external source.
(I gave up valves in '70, and with the improved performance achieving about 0.1% distortion, the problems of inefficiency, microphony, aging, geta loss, drifting bias, high O.P Z, and expensive O.P transformers, have had SS ever since.)
Dear oh dear.... Have you any idea what you sound like? :doh:
You and I are clearly VERY different people, Dennis, so I suggest we now definitely leave it there and move on, and perhaps stay out of each other's way from now on, on hi-fi threads.
Marco.
Hi Andrew,
Fair enough, still learning then. So where was Anthony coming from? He clearly indicated, by quoting me with a smiley, that he was agreeing with what I had written...
:hmm:
See post #115.
Marco.
Mike Reed
08-03-2018, 15:25
Hate to 'slew' this conversation away from amplification to speakers, but have wondered why ESLs seem (or actually are) faster compared to moving coils. I have read this before and indeed, experienced it myself when I crossed the planar Rubicon.
Is it the logical reason of being powered, so the signal doesn't have to activate cross-overs and, more importantly, speaker units? Have just remembered that there's a planar thread in existence, so maybe this post is wrongly placed. As you've got the experts on hand, though........:)
jandl100
08-03-2018, 15:30
^ the stat film is very low moving mass, so it really does accelerate faster than a plastic or metal cone or dome.
F=ma
so a=F/m. (acceleration = Force applied divided by the mass it is applied to. The smaller the mass, the higher the acceleration.)
walpurgis
08-03-2018, 16:09
The transient response of a powerful compression driver horn could make an interesting comparison.
As would a plasma drive as sported on various Acapella models,
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/04/plasma-speakers/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_speaker
walpurgis
08-03-2018, 16:45
Yes, plasma drivers are interesting. The only mass being the energised 'plug' of air/plasma.
Yup, Compression driven horns right up to a Plasma tweeter would be a right hoot........Hmmmmmm, Maybe :)
anthonyTD
08-03-2018, 17:41
Sorry I disagree with the quote, well designed valve amps are capable of very wide bandwidths, Some of mine well exceed 100k, maybe what you were refering to is full power bandwidth, if so' then I can understand where your coming from, but even then, good valve amps do not disgrace!
At very low frequencies Solid State amps undoubtably have the edge over valve amps, solid state amps have very low output impedance compared to conventional valve amps using an output transformer. However; Most well designed valve amps can easily achieve a low frequency response down to around 20hz, which when you think about it, is well below most musical content. Now if we go back to what happens when you connect a conventional loudspeaker drive unit to each design, and take into account what happens with the speaker impedance over its frequency range [as discussed in an earlier post of mine] it should be easily understood that a well designed conventional push-pull valve amp, with minimal feedback around it, and driving a conventional loudspeaker design wins the high frequency debate by default!
and SS amps generally have a much wider bandwidth than valve amps. It follows logically therefore that SS amps are able to react faster to transients in music than valve amps. .
Sorry I disagree with the quote, well designed valve amps are capable of very wide bandwidths, Some of mine well exceed 100k, maybe what you were refering to is full power bandwidth, if so' then I can understand where your coming from, but even then, good valve amps do not disgrace!
The latter is how I read this Anthony.
anthonyTD
08-03-2018, 18:44
Not sure I understand what you mean Rodger ?
The latter is how I read this Anthony.
In that I took Tony to be expressing 'across the full power bandwidth' Anthony, I may be wrong on that conclusion tho !
anthonyTD
08-03-2018, 19:00
Ahh, I see, yes, possibly! :)
And I think you mean Andrew :eyebrows:
In that I took Tony to be expressing 'across the full power bandwidth' Anthony, I may be wrong on that conclusion tho !
Most well designed valve amps can easily achieve a low frequency response down to around 20hz, which when you think about it, is well below most musical content. Now if we go back to what happens when you connect a conventional loudspeaker drive unit to each design, and take into account what happens with the speaker impedance over its frequency range [as discussed in an earlier post of mine] it should be easily understood that a well designed conventional push-pull valve amp, with minimal feedback around it, and driving a conventional loudspeaker design wins the high frequency debate by default!
Care to comment on that, Andrew? It certainly reflects what I've heard, whenever I've carried out the respective comparisons :)
Marco.
Pieoftheday
08-03-2018, 19:43
Could my room layout speaker position have an effect on perceived volume/loudness?
Yes, it's possible, simply because speakers and rooms [and how they interact together] affect what you're hearing (often in unsuspecting ways) considerably more than anything else!
Marco.
According to Newell and Holland, distortion in the throat of compression drivers can be quite high due to the non linearity of the air under compression.
Plasma drivers produce ozone.
Care to comment on that, Andrew?
Hello, are you still with us? :wave:
:popcorn::popcorn:
Marco.
My original comment was only intended as an observation that despite SS amps having (generally) a much wider bandwidth than valve amps they don't necessarily sound like they have more transient attack. Maybe some valve amps go up to 100kHz but I think my observation that most SS amps have a wider bandwidth than most valve amps is true.
Sure, I'll buy that. However, in terms of the last bit, it goes back to my earlier point that you cannot judge how good *anything* is unless holding up the best versions of it as the example :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
10-03-2018, 12:44
Hi Andrew,
Thats fair enough,:) the last bit of my rantings implies that if a speaker impedance rises considerably across the audio frequency range, then by default because of the way each topolgy deals with those impedance/load changes, valve amps have the edge in supplying the correct power levels needed to maintain a [relatively] flat frequency response accross the varying impedance of the speaker, with frequency.
There is no doubt that solid state designs can and do in many cases have a very wide' full power bandwidth, when connected to a fixed impedance/load, but as we know, a fixed load is not what we are dealing with where a conventional cone loudspeaker is concerned!
A...
My original comment was only intended as an observation that despite SS amps having (generally) a much wider bandwidth than valve amps they don't necessarily sound like they have more transient attack. Maybe some valve amps go up to 100kHz but I think my observation that most SS amps have a wider bandwidth than most valve amps is true.
Anyway, even if Anthony disagrees with the quote he clearly doesn't disagree with the sentiment expressed in my post - that valve amps don't sound like they lack transient attack, even if the specs might suggest otherwise.
My post was actually a comment on Marco's idea that valve amps have a greater slew rate than SS amps because they have higher voltage power rails.
This bit I don't understand at all:
Wins the high frequency debate by default? I don't follow the argument :scratch:
There is no doubt that solid state designs can and do in many cases have a very wide' full power bandwidth, when connected to a fixed impedance/load, but as we know, a fixed load is not what we are dealing with where a conventional cone loudspeaker is concerned!
Indeed, and I think that's the key point here, and what should be considered:)
Marco.
With Maggies, you probably need a goodly dose of both!
Marco.
At least 100W into 4 Ohms, but more importantly, high instantaneous current delivery, over 25A a channel should do it. Problem is you don’t get these measurements enough.
anthonyTD
12-03-2018, 13:09
I was trying to put it in a simpler way that most would get, but re-reading through that post, I can see that it could cause confusion amongst some here, so I will stand corrected if its required,;) hopefuly we will agree with this version, with a valve amp you have a measurable impedance at the speaker output, [unlike solid state, which is almost imeasurable with standard test equipment] A conventional push-pull valve amp, with very minimal feedback, will try to maintane a constant current at its output, hence when the impedance of a speaker rises [this will happen at higher' and lower frequencies, especialy when the frequencies aproach the natural resonance of the speaker drive unit] so will the voltage from the output transformer rise, in an attemp to maintane the same constant current to the load,ie; the loudspeaker! hopefuly that will make things a bit more clearer.
Do loudspeakers require constant power across the bandwidth to maintain a flat frequency response? Or do they require constant voltage? I think you'll find that all reputable loudspeaker measurements are made with constant voltage drive, not constant power drive.
anthonyTD
12-03-2018, 13:25
I should also take this opertunety [while its fresh in my mind] to stress why when it comes to wide power bandwidth [where valve amps are concerned] a good quality output transformer, with a decent amount of iron is necessary!
I should also take this opertunety [while its fresh in my mind] to stress why when it comes to wide power bandwidth [where valve amps are concerned] a good quality output transformer, with a decent amount of iron is necessary!
And that's the bit that costs the real money. You can see the bind that 'affordable.' valve-amp manufacturers are in. The 30 watt valve amp with proper traffos and a price tag of several thousand vs the 30 watt competition with cheap traffos and a price tag of a few hundred. And the audible difference is quite shocking but most punters don't know what a transformer is and even fewer know how much it matters. That makes marketing the good amp very difficult unless you are a well-known brand already.
anthonyTD
12-03-2018, 14:21
Exactly! :)
The speaker impedance at resonance can often be double, even tripple that of the nominal 4, 8, 16 ohms, So' if the output transformer doesent have enough inductance at these frequencies, it can saturate at realistic power levels.This is why output transformer design is often refered to as a dying Art.:)
And that's the bit that costs the real money. You can see the bind that 'affordable.' valve-amp manufacturers are in. The 30 watt valve amp with proper traffos and a price tag of several thousand vs the 30 watt competition with cheap traffos and a price tag of a few hundred. And the audible difference is quite shocking but most punters don't know what a transformer is and even fewer know how much it matters. That makes marketing the good amp very difficult unless you are a well-known brand already.
anthonyTD
12-03-2018, 20:41
And I agree, however; when we look at how each [valve and solid state designs] deals with the constant impedance fluctuations, over frequency response; a valve amp will at least try to maintan the correct power at its output.
"Flat response" loudspeakers will only give you a flat response if driven from a constant voltage source.
I should also take this opertunety [while its fresh in my mind] to stress why when it comes to wide power bandwidth [where valve amps are concerned] a good quality output transformer, with a decent amount of iron is necessary!
Unless you use and OTL amp which means you don't have any of the problems associated with big lumps of iron:)
anthonyTD
12-03-2018, 21:06
Ahh, but then first of all; you are limited to the type of valve you can use in the output stage, due to the low impedance needed to drive a real world loudspeaker direct, unless multiple valves in parrale are used, and then you have all the negatives of matching said valves, and the type of circuit, and finally, the risk of directly connecting these high voltage devices [which often fail being run in this manner] to your precious loudspeakers!:eek: That's not to say though that OTL's cant be made to work, and perform exceptionaly well, they can, but for me, and in my honest opinion, the negatives out weigh the positives.
Unless you use and OTL amp which means you don't have any of the problems associated with big lumps of iron:)
Ahh, but then first of all; you are limited to the type of valve you can use in the output stage, due to the low impedance needed to drive a real world loudspeaker direct, unless multiple valves in parrale are used, and then you have all the negatives of matching said valves, and the type of circuit, and finally, the risk of directly connecting these high voltage devices [which often fail being run in this manner] to your precious loudspeakers!:eek: That's not to say though that OTL's cant be made to work, and perform exceptionaly well, they can, but for me, and in my honest opinion, the negatives out weigh the positives.
Unless you use MOSFETs in the output stage.?
anthonyTD
12-03-2018, 21:30
Are we talking Hibrid designs James ?:scratch: if so, that's a diffrent story.;)
Unless you use MOSFETs in the output stage.?
Are we talking Hibrid designs James ?:scratch: if so, that's a diffrent story.;)
Yes Anthony, I am talking of the Croft Series 7 power amplifier.:)
anthonyTD
13-03-2018, 08:58
Ok,:)
Hibrid designs can work very well, and combining both topologies, you can overcome some of the short comings in each,[you just have to choose what those are, and what you want to achieve] in my hibrid design I chose to go solid state front end, valve output, where as Glenn, and others decided on the reverse, either way; both can be very rewarding.
Yes Anthony, I am talking of the Croft Series 7 power amplifier.:)
All this of course ably shows that there's no such thing as the 'perfect amplifier', so as with anything else in audio, all you can do is choose your compromises!
On the subject of valves, however, I will say (as experience has shown it) that hybrid and/or OTL designs, certainly those I've heard, no matter how well designed, don't sound like the best valve amps should, which is why, as much as I acknowledge what they're capable of doing well, I haven't gone down that road.
It's an old saying in audio, but quite simply, there's no 'free lunch', when attempting to build an amplifier that on paper is seemingly devoid of any of the vices of either valve or solid-state technology, or is touted as being the 'best of both worlds' (as often hybrids designs are), because in reality that just doesn't exist. You're likelier to end up with a 'master of none'...
That's because as soon as you address what's worst about valves or transistors, by attempting to 'fix' it, and in turn trying to make it do what the opposite is better at, you automatically compromise (in some way) on what the technology itself [valve or transistor] is inherently BEST at! Hence, no 'free lunch' :)
Marco.
Ah I see Anthony beat me to it! :)
Marco.
Bigman80
13-03-2018, 10:15
All this of course ably shows that there's no such thing as the 'perfect amplifier', so as with anything else in audio, all you can do is choose your compromises!
On the subject of valves, however, I will say (as experience has shown it) that hybrid and/or OTL designs, certainly those I've heard, no matter how much they excel in certain areas, don't sound like the best valve amps should, which is why, as much as I acknowledge what they're capable of doing well, I haven't gone down that road.
It's an old saying in audio, but quite simply, there's no 'free lunch', when attempting to build an amplifier that on paper is seemingly devoid of any of the vices of either valve or solid-state technology, or is touted as being the 'best of both worlds', as in reality that just doesn't exist.
Marco.What kind of valve amp would sound "as it should"?
Freely available and not the price of a used car please lol
What kind of valve amp would sound "as it should"?
Freely available and not the price of a used car please lol
Lol, as ever the best things in hi-fi are never quite so straightforward!
"Freely available", however, you've got no chance. The best valve amps I've heard have always been 'no compromise' (within a given budget) bespoke designs, built by experienced specialists [unhindered by commercial demands], who fundamentally understand the technology (its limitations as well as its strengths) and how to get the best out of it.
That usually results in the production of a valve amp which sounds "as it should", i.e. where its strengths outweigh its limitations, and where it's not trying to be something it isn't (nor ever will be)! :)
Incidentally, the same also applies to solid-state designs, particularly those that try to sound 'valvey'.
Marco.
Did you not have a little bake off sometime back with Firebottle and his amps Marco. I thought the outcome was very close between your all valve power amp and Alan's hybrid power amp which is a similar design to the Croft 7. I have heard and evaluated the Firebottle against the Croft 7 and there is very little difference between the two which would suggest it would perform equally well against your TD power amp?:)
Bigman80
13-03-2018, 11:09
Lol, as ever the best things in hi-fi are never quite so straightforward!
"Freely available", however, you've got no chance. The best valve amps I've heard have always been 'no compromise' (within a given budget) bespoke designs, built by experienced specialists [unhindered by commercial demands], who fundamentally understand the technology (its limitations as well as its strengths) and how to get the best out of it.
That usually results in the production of a valve amp which sounds "as it should", i.e. where its strengths outweigh its limitations, and where it's not trying to be something it isn't (nor ever will be)! :)
Incidentally, the same also applies to solid-state designs, particularly those that try to sound 'valvey'.
Marco.That was my suspicion.
Maybe one day I'll commission a very special build but i fear it'd take MONEY to better what I already own.
I'd love a listen to Mikeyb's primaluna. I suspect that's rather good. And very much in the camp of proper design.
Hi Jim,
I enjoyed the Firebottle amp I heard at the time, but despite its strengths (which I fully acknowledged), I could still hear the inherent solid-state nature/characteristics of the design, albeit it being a very good example of the hybrid species.
The fact that I didn't rush out and buy one afterwards (or consider replacing my Copper amp with it), however, should tell you all you need to know.
However, that doesn't detract from what Alan's achieved with his (very well-executed) hybrid amp design, which for the money I think is amazing, simply that it reflects my own personal preferences. :)
Marco.
That was my suspicion.
Maybe one day I'll commission a very special build but i fear it'd take MONEY to better what I already own.
Trust me, Oliver, having been there, done that and bought the t-shirt, that is the *only* way of doing the job right, short of spending tens of thousands of pounds on something from the 'exotic high-end' of the market, built for the right reasons, and not just to look pretty.
In terms of money needed, think around the region of £5k, to do it right, but much will depend on what you're looking for (SET or push-pull), which valves are used and how much power you want.
The Primaluna is good, but not in the same ball park as the best examples of the above. I'd class it as one of the better commercially available valve amps, which offers high SPPV, and definitely well worth checking out.
Quite simply, pound for pound, NO affordable commercial valve amp can be in that ballpark, because there will always be significant overheads for the company in question to consider, and often various middle men to pay, so unlike with a specialist 'one-man band' type of business, the budget simply isn't there with a commercial product to spend the bulk of the money where it matters most! :cool:
And that's why most of them, despite in some cases looking 'prettier', are sonically inferior.
Marco.
The Black Adder
13-03-2018, 11:33
As Marco said, you need a nice fund to get it right.
Other than buyng brand new, look in to 2nd hand amps which are built well, well designed and which are easy to mod. For example a puresound A30 can be made it to a stonking power amp.
All you need to do is ask on here and someone should be able to point you in the right direction in buying an amp which could only cost you around £800 and with someone who knows what they are doing can mod it to a much higher level for a modest cost.
:)
Sometimes you can get an amp which blows much more expensive new amps in to the dust once it's been sorted by someone who really knows his onions. :)
Bigman80
13-03-2018, 11:34
Well, a £5k amplifier is some distance away but I don't doubt what you're saying at all!
We need to get this amp of yours to a bakeoff. [emoji6]
Bigman80
13-03-2018, 11:36
As Marco said, you need a nice fund to get it right.
Other than buyng brand new, look in to 2nd hand amps which are built well, well designed and which are easy to mod. For example a puresound A30 can be made it to a stonking power amp.
All you need to do is ask on here and someone should be able to point you in the right direction in buying an amp which could only cost you around £800 and with someone who knows what they are doing can mod it to a much higher level for a modest cost.
:)
Sometimes you can get an amp which blows much more expensive new amps in to the dust once it's been sorted by someone who really knows his onions. :)Yes Josie, luckily, I'm not in any need to make any change to my monoblocks. The question was asked due to the suspicion that we were talking in the "custom" area of the market.
If money was no object, I might have a look.
The Black Adder
13-03-2018, 11:37
Cool :)
No problem, I always enjoy a good sesh, but of course the way to appreciate any amp the most will always be to hear it within the context in which it was designed to perform best :)
Taking bits out of a 'completed jigsaw' and trying to get them to successfully fit elsewhere is always a bit of a minefield.
Marco.
Bigman80
13-03-2018, 11:51
No problem, I always enjoy a good sesh, but of course the way to appreciate any amp the most will always be to hear it within the context in which it was designed to perform best :)
Taking bits out of a 'completed jigsaw' and trying to get them to successfully fit elsewhere is always a bit of a minefield.
Marco.I agree. Surrounded by its hand picked parts has got to be the best way.
However, I do agree that some of the Chinese stuff is so cheap it's worth buying just for the case, valve bases, knobs etc., with the intention of ripping everything out to start again from scratch with a completely different design.
I think that is pretty much what was being suggested. If you'd already bought an amp with quality output transformers then it was probably not cheap, or Chinese.
I agree, Andrew, but I know where Jo's coming from.
There are valve amps available for importing from China (which essentially some well-respected commercial designs now were born from), that once made 100% safe for UK mains [and that bit is essentially important, despite what any seller claims], can be judiciously modified by any competent EE into becoming seriously good amps - and notably, all in all, for considerably less than it would cost to get the same built in the UK from scratch, simply because as you mention, some of the core parts that cost money here are ridiculously cheap!
I did this myself at the very beginning, importing a Yaqin MC-100B [a dual-mono integrated 30W KT-88 P/P design), into the UK for £350, which I subsequently got Anthony to modify, by turning it into a power amp only, and upgrading key internal components (designed to improve safety and sonics), to which I then fitted some nice NOS valves, and all in cost me well under £2k - and afterwards, sonically, could compete with many much more expensive commercially produced valve amps from 'badged' high-end manufacturers.
It's certainly a viable (if not straightforward) route to take, but one that in the end can produce very rewarding results, especially in terms of maximising SPPV! :cool:
Here's a link to the amp in question I bought. This one is fitted with Psvane valves, and a bargain (based on the above provisos): https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/YAQIN-MC-100B-BK-KT88-Vacuum-Tube-Hi-end-Integrated-Power-Amplifier-110v-240v-UK/251401143010?epid=93786294&hash=item3a88ad02e2:g:ygcAAOSwymxVQe6~
It's the amp that (even in stock form) switched me from SS to valves, as once I heard what it did, musically, it was goodbye to sorry-state, erm sorry, solid-state [only kidding]!;)
Marco.
had an older one of those... good amp for money
That's a serious amount of glass, iron and steel for the money. Just getting that case and those transformers made in the UK could cost the retail price of that amp, particularly if the quantity involved is low.
Isn't it just! Especially when you consider that it's an integrated design, and also dual-mono:eek: which is actually one of the things that makes it more desirable than other similar Chinese offerings. I was initially alerted to it by a mate of mine, Duncan (tubehunter) who occasionally posts here.
I can assure you that, even in stock form it's stupidly good for the money, and suitably modded (as outlined above) a veritable giant killer!
*BUT*DEPITE THE CLAIMS OF ANY SELLER, IT CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE 100% SAFE ON UK MAINS.
It may be 'officially rated' at 240V, but in my experience that's dubious (as mine went pop, before partnered with a suitable step-down transformer) especially if used in areas of the UK where the mains voltage can be as high as 250V (sometimes more), the internal components simply aren't built to handle that amount of over-voltage; indeed it's questionable whether they're even any good for 240V!
Therefore, the ONLY way I'd recommend anyone here buying this amp is for it simply to be purchased and shipped directly to someone like Anthony, without it even being switched on, whereby it can be tested and approved as safe. However, it will almost certainly need modifying before that's the case.
After it's been made safe, but otherwise remains in stock form, it could then be forwarded to the owner for assessment, and then if liked, at a later stage be turned into something rather special for the money!
Marco.
Isn't it just! Especially when you consider that it's an integrated design, and also dual-mono:eek: which is actually one of the things that makes it more desirable than other similar Chinese offerings. I was initially alerted to it by a mate of mine, Duncan (tubehunter) who occasionally posts here.
I can assure you that, even in stock form it's stupidly good for the money, and suitably modded (as outlined above) a veritable giant killer!
*BUT*DEPITE THE CLAIMS OF ANY SELLER, IT CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE 100% SAFE ON UK MAINS.
It may be 'officially rated' at 240V, but in my experience that's dubious (as mine went pop before partnered with a suitable step-down transformer), especially if used in areas of the UK where the mains voltage can be as high as 250V (sometimes more), the internal components simply aren't built to handle that amount of over-voltage; indeed it's questionable whether they're even any good for 240V!
Therefore, the ONLY way I'd recommend anyone here buying this amp is for it simply to be purchased and shipped directly to someone like Anthony, without it even being switched on, whereby it can be tested and approved as safe. However, it will almost certainly need modifying before that's the case.
After it's been made safe, but otherwise remains in stock form, it could then be forwarded to the owner for assessment, and then if liked, at a later stage be turned into something rather special for the money!
Marco.
had a bucking tx on mine which brought mains down 24 volts. worked very nicely after that. probably should have kept that
anthonyTD
13-03-2018, 15:20
:)
had a bucking tx on mine which brought mains down 24 volts. worked very nicely after that. probably should have kept that
anthonyTD
13-03-2018, 15:22
The Yaqin 100B is indeed a lot of amp for the money, and there are 230v versions, however; many of them coming in are designated for 220v, even then after testing; it was found that they only needed around 210v on them for the secondary voltages to be correct!
Hope this helps.
A...
Remember the Yaqin, Anthony, and what later turned into a full 'Tube Distinctions for AoS' amp? It was rather good, wasn't it? :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
13-03-2018, 17:16
Of course, and as you say; they can be made into something very good indeed, but its not just a case of swapping components etc, the ones I modded I altered the circuitry too!
Remember the Yaqin, Anthony, and what later turned into a full 'Tube Distinctions for AoS' amp? It was rather good, wasn't it? :)
Marco.
Yup, and because you essentially had the basis of something good to work with, the finished product turned out really well :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
13-03-2018, 18:00
:)
Yup, and because you essentially had the basis of something good to work with, the finished product turned out really well :)
Marco.
Here I am late to the party yet again!
I want to drop back to the talk about Rise Time and Slew Rate. I didn’t read where anyone gave an accurate description of them. So here’s my two cents.
Both of these measurements are not so much about the output stage, as how you feed the output stage. And why two amps, both claiming the same watts, and even having the same output transistor compliment, sound different. (I won’t comment on tubed gear, not my area)
Rise Time is how long it takes to bring the output up to spec, so when a sudden transient happens, how quickly can it be ready for the next one.
While Slew Rate measures the decay, how able is the amp to maintain a transient. A sharp pop of a snare drum, the amp delivers the specified power to the speaker, but it can’t keep it up forever, the voltage drops off over time. An amp that claims 25V/us, is a very good amp. Meaning, after the transient, the amp is unable to keep up, it loses 25 volts per microsecond. And another 25 volts every microsecond after that, until it runs out of power. Compared to an amp that claims 150V/us, this can make a very audible difference! The snare pop dives off much faster in the second amp, smearing the decay, then Rise Time brings the output back to full potential before the next one. A slow rise time can cause subsequent drum whacks to be Lower than the one before, if it isn’t rising fast enough to keep up. Both are more about the power supply, the capacitive storage for the output stage, and why two amps that both claim 100wpc can perform extremely different.
If you want a good tube amp, buy it by the weight! The heaviest one has the biggest transformers. I’m not sure the exact correlation between amps and weight, but the amp I own now is the heaviest one I’ve ever owned, and the best sounding. Just lucky maybe?
Russell
Sorry Russell, that's just wrong. Slew rate is the speed at which the output can move. However, you're right that it's measured in volts per microsecond, but the stuff like "...after the transient, the amp is unable to keep up, it loses 25 volts per microsecond. And another 25 volts every microsecond after that, until it runs out of power" is just wrong.
Perhaps my wording is not great but the meaning is still true. With Slew Rate the lower the number the better, it is a measure of the rate of decay.
Russell
anthonyTD
22-03-2018, 09:08
I think on the whole, Russell gave quite a good insight into what is going on, although by his own admision, his wording may be a bit misleading to the tech savvy here,[ I am sure I, and others here have been guilty on that score at times too] Its a matter of getting the balance right when trying to get your point accross to those who may not be paticularly technicaly minded, but know what they hear, Sometimes people can get turned off a subject they may otherwise find interesting, if things get too technical.:)
Sorry Russell, that's just wrong. Slew rate is the speed at which the output can move. However, you're right that it's measured in volts per microsecond, but the stuff like "...after the transient, the amp is unable to keep up, it loses 25 volts per microsecond. And another 25 volts every microsecond after that, until it runs out of power" is just wrong.
Both are defined mathematically.
Andrew defines slew rate accurately, and rise time is defined as being the time taken for the response time to go from 10% to 90% of the total step change.
anthonyTD
22-03-2018, 10:42
:)
No, sorry Russell, that's not correct. Slew rate is a measure of rate of change - usually how fast the output can change voltage. 50V per microsecond is a higher slew rate than 25V per microsecond, and is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate
anthonyTD
22-03-2018, 10:54
I dont think anyone was questioning Andrew's account Dennis.:)
Both are defined mathematically.
Andrew defines slew rate accurately, and rise time is defined as being the time taken for the response time to go from 10% to 90% of the total step change.
No, sorry Russell, that's not correct. Slew rate is a measure of rate of change - usually how fast the output can change voltage. 50V per microsecond is a higher slew rate than 25V per microsecond, and is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate
What it says on that Wikipedia page, if you scroll down under the word Definition, (I tried to copy and paste but it wouldn’t act right) is exactly what I am trying to say, a measurement of change over time, and when that is referring to the output of an amp, the output does not resemble the input, just as the illustration of the square wave being skewed, this is all I am trying to get across, just as described on this Wikipedia page. The larger the number, the greater the deformation of the waveform, so bigger is not better, at least when talking about the output of an amp.
Apparently it can mean many things when talking about the Slew between stages, or involving digital circuits, I am not referring to those situations.
Russell
hifi_dave
28-03-2018, 13:13
Makes perfect sense.
What it says on that Wikipedia page, if you scroll down under the word Definition, (I tried to copy and paste but it wouldn’t act right) is exactly what I am trying to say, a measurement of change over time, and when that is referring to the output of an amp, the output does not resemble the input, just as the illustration of the square wave being skewed, this is all I am trying to get across, just as described on this Wikipedia page. The larger the number, the greater the deformation of the waveform, so bigger is not better, at least when talking about the output of an amp.
Russell
If the amplifier has a high slew rate the deformation of the square wave will be less, because the sloping rise and fall of the reproduced waveform will be steeper. That is the voltage can rise to the maximum required level in a shorter period of time. The slew rate is precisely a measure of how fast the output voltage can follow that of the input waveform. It is a measure of how steep the rising and falling parts of the waveform can be. An ideal, perfect, amplifier would have an infinite slew rate, so that a square wave would be reproduced without any distortion; the rising and falling parts of it would be vertical.
Hence the higher the slew rate value, the better.
anthonyTD
30-03-2018, 09:40
:)
If the amplifier has a high slew rate the deformation of the square wave will be less, because the sloping rise and fall of the reproduced waveform will be steeper. That is the voltage can rise to the maximum required level in a shorter period of time. The slew rate is precisely a measure of how fast the output voltage can follow that of the input waveform. It is a measure of how steep the rising and falling parts of the waveform can be. An ideal, perfect, amplifier would have an infinite slew rate, so that a square wave would be reproduced without any distortion; the rising and falling parts of it would be vertical.
Hence the higher the slew rate value, the better.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.