------------------------------ From: dunker@Lise.Unit.NO (Thomas Dunker) Subject: Help!! Gimme some air! Date: 10 May 1994 11:58:58 GMT I have expressed my opinions about audio facts and myths on this newsgroup many times, and especially supporting the validity of subjective evaluation of equipment. During the past half year I have done major modifications to my system, that is, I've built two new amps (for the record, they're both 100% triodes). The results, I feel, are no less than spectacular. I went from a small transistor amp that's considered one of the biggest classics in the audio world to some home made stuff that would make any high end dealer grab a fire extinguisher and run for cover. The changes in sound were tremendous, particularly after the new power amp entered the scene. I heard improvement on ALL aspects of the sound with the new power amp. And this is not just a result of having put so many hours of work into the building, or my irrational faith in tubes, or any psychological factor. It just sounds better! No reason to argue. I had never expected such an improvement, in fact I didn't know what to expect at all. So don't blame my impressions on some 'positive bias'. Was it just because the old amp was so lousy? I doubt it. It's been praised by critics for over a decade and still represents the best in value for money. I've used it for years and have become quite fond of it. Until a saturday morning two weeks ago. The two amps are fairly equal in power, but it would be unfair to compare them due to the radical differences in the technology used. Now, what makes me angry is when people claim that amplifiers are in fact very similar, or CD players or whatever, and demand A/B blind testing to determine which is best. Sure, I read audio magazines the whole time, but I don't depend on anyone else's opinions. I consider it a waste of time to put a number of people together to independently of each other comment on the sound of a system or a component with the purpose finding similarities between their comments in an attempt to say anything objective about the product. Listening tests will always be subjective, and if you don't know anything about the reviewer's preferences, his/her statements will be of little value. Measurements on audio equipment has been discussed in absurdum on this newsgroup already, and I have the firm opinion that measurement results alone say very little about the musical enjoyment achieved by using the equipment. The quest for undistorted and neutral sound has led to a massive faith in measurements. It's possible to build very complex designs with transistors and tubes (God forbid!) and make them look great on the measurements. I think this is how some high end equipment gets so ridiculously expensive. Rather than going for simple solutions, they develop some frighteningly complex designs, and since all the components have to be top flight, the price escalates. Not because I just want to bang my tube drum again, but in the later years we've seen some things happen in the audio world that are worthy of some serious afterthoughts. I have read many editorials and conclusions of reviews addressing some important questions: What has really happened in amplifier technology since the 1930s? How can 50-60 year old technology still compete with today's high technology? Such comments often appearing after an ear-opening encounter with a small triode amp. Why? Are people just spellbound by the glow? Or did they in fact hear something special? I know what I think. What do you think? Doesn't a power amp with only three or four active devices seem like a more 'pure' piece of equipment than one with 50-60 of them? It does to me! The signal has to go through fewer active (and passive) devices and more detail is preserved. Now, some of you will argue that the signal goes through a hundreds of transistors in the recording studio, so why bother to build a purist system? Well, anything helps I'd say, and purist recordings, whether CD or vinyl pretty much speak for themselves. So how did purism die? And why? The few of us who still try to keep it alive are a minority. Why? What is taught at technical schools today? I know. I study at one. We are taught to ignore the past. The textbooks are updated every year. The latest, the newest, always. They don't tell us that the old technology was useless (well, sometimes...), mostly they just ignore it, pretend that it never existed and consider it a forgotten chapter in history. Not a thought goes to the pioneers. Basically, we learn how to reinvent the wheel, except our wheels are new and (therefore) improved. You think I'm radical? You're right. I am. What bothers me about it all is that every year thousands of engineers optimistically stroll into the industrial world not knowing what tubes are, perhaps vaguely recalling that there once was something called vinyl records, and that they were a major pain. These are the guys who build the future. Why do they study here? To make MONEY!! Out of 2-3000 students of Electrical Engineering at my school there are perhaps 20 who are sufficiently INTERESTED in electronics to actually build things themselves. That's less than ONE PERCENT!!!!! I think it's absolutely horrible, and I find it disturbing to think about leaving the future of electronics to these people. Creativeness? Forget it! Do as the books tell you. You wanna do what???? Too expensive!! HELP! WHAT CAN I DO???? Nothing! I can't do anything about it but I can't help but feel sorry for all the poor miguided souls. Good thing there is a need for phones, TVs, video games, toasters, hairdriers, car stereos, vacuum cleaners, lamp fixtures and all the other prosaic stuff. Why did I write this? Because I want to warn you about close-mindedness, and dependency on other people's claims. And the blind faith in all that's new. And the lack of idealism and creativity in the industry. This article is about as subjective as it can get, and maybe much too pessimistic. If you feel an urge to flame me, please don't. I know what you're going to say. This was not meant to be a nuanced article, so don't expect too much. Maybe you find my statements conflicting. Maybe I am close minded myself, since I have such an attitude against new technology? Well, if my preferences and opinions are based on my own experiences they will seem obvious to me, but hard to understand to those who never had those experiences. Does that make me narrow-minded? I don't think so as the basic message is to try to stay on your own feet and not be dictated by others. Please try to read this with a little humor, and remember that I mean no offense. Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ From: manfredi@rockwell.com (Bert Manfredi, 747-6735) Subject: Re: Help!! Gimme some air! Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 15:59:00 GMT In article <2qo02n$hn3@introl.introl.com>, dunker@Lise.Unit.NO (Thomas Dunker) writes... > >conclusions of reviews addressing some important questions: What has >really happened in amplifier technology since the 1930s? How can 50-60 >year old technology still compete with today's high technology? > Such comments often appearing after an ear-opening encounter with a >small triode amp. Why? Are people just spellbound by the glow? Or did This is a question I've often asked myself. Why do the simplest (most primitive) circuits sound best? Dunno. By the way, Tom, I think that very simple transistor circuits often end up sounding better than complicated ones. I know this because I tried, of course, but this doesn't mean I can convince anyone using ASCII text! The question is, then, why are so many pieces of audio equipment so very complicated? Why all the complementary symmetry, regulation, constant current sources, stasis, etc. etc.? For one, it sells. It looks good, it makes eminent theoretical sense, and it seems unconscionable to sell a trivial single-ended circuit for kilobucks. Another reason is simply that engineers like to play. For example, what on earth could have possessed Audi and Mercedes Benz to build 5-cylinder engines, for heaven's sake? A naturally unbalanced design, needing special engine mounts to cure the shake. What the heck, over? Wouldn't it make more sense to invest on a V-6 instead, especially when this seems like such a good compromise for power, economy, compactness, and smoothness? When I was in college, I designed a simple little RIAA phono preamp. Single-ended, 4 transistors. Sounded great. Don't know how it measured, but it sounded great. I think humans have to keep making new things, though, even if it makes no sense. It's in the genes. Bert ------------------------------ From: dunker@Lise.Unit.NO (Thomas Dunker) Subject: Re: Help!! Gimme some air! Date: 13 May 1994 14:12:10 GMT In article <2qo72m$mfq@introl.introl.com>, ogiers@imec.be (Werner Ogiers) writes: > Thomas Dunker (dunker@Lise.Unit.NO) wrote: > : great on the measurements. I think this is how some high end equipment > : gets so ridiculously expensive. Rather than going for simple solutions, > : they develop some frighteningly complex designs, and since all the > : components have to be top flight, the price escalates. > > Consider that the more simple a design, the higher the price. Check > out the Audio Note Gaku-On! Or the Esoteric Audio Research Yoshino > (containing 2 -two- tubes or 2 -two- transistors, in a complete power > mono power amplifier). High end is expensive just because of the wealthy > layman who doesn't understand electrons from holes but is yet very > willingly to pay his money on sound emitting male jewelry. In case you didn't know, there are simple triode amps in the sane end of the price range. The Gaku-On was until recently the most expensive amp in the world, and they're only built to order. You can have triode magic without 10 pounds of pure silver. Besides, there is often a reason why high end gear is expensive. The more esoteric the equipment, the fewer units are manufactured, and they're often hand built with extremely exotic components. How it's possible to build insanely expensive, simple solid state amps is hard for me to understand. Besides, simple circuitry seems to be extremely rare in the case of solid state amps, whether preamps or power amps. Tubes will, in most circumstances, work well in simple circuits often without feedback applied. Show me a high end transistor amp with three transistors and no feedback! Such a discovery would destroy the industry. Myself and many others have discovered that great sonics can be achieved with simple vacuum tube circuitry and (dare I say?) vinyl records. We constitute a significant part of the audiophile fraternity and the tube trend has been steadily growing for more than a decade now. Do you think it would if there was nothing to it? If you are apalled by the sound of a purist recording reproduced via carefully handbuilt tube amps, I'm afraid there's little reason for me to argue with you. I build my own gear, because I can't afford high-end tube amps out of the stores, and because I have the ability to build my own. I have no pity for those who are not pleased by a product they bought just to show off to their friends. Economic wealth should not be an entry pass to good audio. I much respect people like VTL who put the emphasis on the sound rather than all sorts of gold plated faceplates, exotic lumber and what have you. This applies to all parts of the high-end industry. I'd hate to know that I paid hundreds extra for a shiny box. > > : really happened in amplifier technology since the 1930s? How can 50-60 > : year old technology still compete with today's high technology? > > It can't compete. Modern amplifiers are far more faithfull to the original > signal. Just like LPs, old amplifiers introduce artefacts that make the > resulting sound more pleasing to the ear (and to the eye, glowing in the > dark). But that's not a problem to me. I listen very often to LPs. If > one thinks it *sounds* better, it *is* better. In some fields, old technology still can. If your sole ideal is zero distortion, you can use a power op-amp with plenty of feedback applied like they do in car stereos. You'll probably agree that it sucks sonically. I tried, with limited degree of success, to point out that whether this or that is preferred depends strongly on the individual's preferences. As much as I find it hard to accept the idea that some people consider 100 transistors a 'cleaner' path than a handful of tubes, you seem to have a problem accepting that some of us do indeed see (and hear) the virtues of a simple system. If you dislike the idea of pursueing pleasing sound from a stereo, then we are talking about differences in philosophy. Tube amps are seldom 'straight wire with amplification' but they often have unique abilities when it comes to putting 'life' and atmosphere back into the recorded music. If you need an amp you can use to weld with, you obviously need a transistor amp. Different people have different needs and preferences, and obviously, their views will not coincide. Like I can't say 'transistors can't play music' (they can, I HAVE heard impressive sound from solid state) you can't say 'tubes are no good, period." A lot of people are shocked to find out that old technology still CAN perform, even have qualities they've missed in newer gear. If you read audio magazines (without skipping articles on tube gear or vinyl) you are going to see this yourself. Forgive me that I reminded you of such painful facts. If something sounds better, then it is obviously better, right? Aren't we concerned with sound, after all? I am. What I think sounds good is good for me, and I can't see why anyone should feel urged to object to that. I am aware that my original post was subjective. We all try to promote what we have experienced great success with, perhaps hoping to inspire others to make the same discoveries. I'm sorry if I offended people by doing so. > : So how did purism die? And why? The few of us who still try to keep it > : alive are a minority. Why? > > It didn't die. It is reviving even now. Companies like Meridian, Apogee > Electronics, DCS, Prism,... are introducing better and better sounding > ADCs into the studio, introducing the end for the ubiquitous Sony > 1610/1630 mastering gear. Mark Levinson started Cello, a brand mostly aimed > at professional users. After the dreadful Yamaha NS-10 monitor, studios > start using Quad, B&W, Wilson, ATC,... as main monitors. > Sony (!) just introduced a tube-based microphone. One of Philips's main > recording engineers was found tweaking his ADCs. I think purism is difficult to define in digital audio. I think new systems like DCC and MD are obvious examples of the opposite of purism. I'm aware that there is a lot of great stuff happening with the CD, on the recording side as well as the playback side. I listen to CDs quite a bit. Hardly a coincidence, all my best sounding CDs are either two track direct-to-digital, or two mike analog tape mastered recordings. This has to do with purism. Thirty feet wide analog mixdown consoles with zillions of op-amps and transistors don't usually preserve the signal in the best conceivable way. High-end audio gear in general, whether tubed or solid state, usually exceeds the quality of the recording equipment used by the recording industry at-large. Here, I think digital somehow brought about an improvement, because once the signal is digital, it can't be so easily screwed up. That is, unless they use DSPs. I think the CD system is already approaching the limit of performance possible. Anyway, it's great to see that the high-end industry is welcome with contributions to the recording industry. Now, if they'd just leave the system development to the audiophiles....I'm afraid we're not going to see any widespread storage media BETTER than the CD in the coming decades. Now the goal seems to be to push as much as possible onto the smallest possible disks or as fast as possible thru telephone lines or whatever. (So the public can 'download' a CD instead of buying it ready made.) I'm afraid we'll just have to hang onto the CD. Future systems are likely to be based on data compression, in video as well as audio. (DCC, MD, NICAM, DSR, JPEG, MPEG, you name it.) Paradoxically, digital audio (with tremendous potential) has introduced the death of 'uncompressed' music. > > : HELP! WHAT CAN I DO???? Nothing! I can't do anything about it but I > > Just continue building your own gear. Listen to it. Be happy. Maybe start > into making recordings yourself too. And don't spend too much money > on 'high-end' things you can far better make yourself. > Now we're getting somewhere! That's probably what I will do. But if I wish to express my worries about the future (or the present!) I will continue to do so. Tom ------------------------------ From: shsimko@acpub.duke.edu (Susan H. Simko) Subject: Re: Help!! Gimme some air! Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 12:02:36 In article <2r05af$pmp@introl.introl.com> dunker@Lise.Unit.NO (Thomas Dunker) writes: >From: dunker@Lise.Unit.NO (Thomas Dunker) >Subject: Re: Help!! Gimme some air! >Date: 13 May 1994 10:11:11 -0500 > I build my own gear, because I can't afford high-end tube amps out of the >stores, and because I have the ability to build my own. I have no pity for those >who are not pleased by a product they bought just to show off to their friends. >Economic wealth should not be an entry pass to good audio. I much respect people >like VTL who put the emphasis on the sound rather than all sorts of gold plated >faceplates, exotic lumber and what have you. This applies to all parts of the >high-end industry. I'd hate to know that I paid hundreds extra for a shiny box. I worked for a while with the guy who designed the VTL amps. I did a lot of the sound testing with him. He is a near genius when it comes to hearing distortions in instrumental music and I am pretty good at discerning distortion in voices. Kevin came at this from a standpoint of frustration. He needed a new amp, couldn't find anything that he *really* liked (Believe me, I think we had our hands on just about every amp made in the known world) and he had the knowledge and ability to build one. So he did. VTL was built from love of audio. Kev wanted the gear to be pretty but everything inside was decided upon based upon what it would do to the sound. When you pay for VTL gear, you are paying for what is on the inside, not the outside. Susan shsimko@acpub.duke.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 14:27:17 +0500 From: rsr%crimson@aluxpo.att.com Subject: Re: Help!! Gimme some air! In article <2r091n$ikh@introl.introl.com> shsimko@acpub.duke.edu (Susan H. Simko) writes: > >I worked for a while with the guy who designed the VTL amps. I did a lot of >the sound testing with him. He is a near genius when it comes to hearing >distortions in instrumental music and I am pretty good at discerning >distortion in voices. Kevin came at this from a standpoint of frustration. >He needed a new amp, couldn't find anything that he *really* liked (Believe >me, I think we had our hands on just about every amp made in the known world) >and he had the knowledge and ability to build one. So he did. > >VTL was built from love of audio. Kev wanted the gear to be pretty but >everything inside was decided upon based upon what it would do to the sound. >When you pay for VTL gear, you are paying for what is on the inside, not the >outside. > Whoa, hold the phone! Everything I have ever read concerning VTL equipment gave me the impression the Dave Manley did the design work. I have never seen anyone else credited for any design work. What did your friend do? I ask out of genuine curiosity, not to flame. Please reply directly if you don't want to broadcast. Bob Rex ------------------------------ From: x90ballast@wmich.edu Subject: Re: Help!! Gimme some air! Date: 15 May 94 11:45:37 EDT Many years ago when I first heard a tube amp, I fell in love with it. So I went out and bought myself a Dynaco 70 (which I no longer have...). My friends with their Kenwood systems thought it was kind of a bad joke. Something that HFNRR would call 'reverse techno-fear'. But when push came to shove and we listen to some music their hearts were won over. They no longer have their Kenwoods...but now have Heaths, MACs, Eico, Altec Lansing, WE, and Dyna gear. Many have given up listening only to CDs, but have bought rather nice turntables. So what's going on here? The Kenwoods measure better! Hmm... I think that low (or zero) negative feedback designs sound superior. Can I back this up with numbers? No. But experience with SE amps, and simple gain stages has brought my system closer to where music lies...in the heart. Kevin Ballast x90ballast@wmich.edu VRA ------------------------------ From: ST101678@brownvm.brown.edu (Eugene Cheung) Subject: VAC vs. VTL (Was RE: Help! Gimme Some Air!!) Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 14:40:29 EDT In article <2r091n$ikh@introl.introl.com>, shsimko@acpub.duke.edu (Susan H. Simko) said: > >I worked for a while with the guy who designed the VTL amps. I did a lot of {snip} >VTL was built from love of audio. Kev wanted the gear to be pretty but >everything inside was decided upon based upon what it would do to the sound. >When you pay for VTL gear, you are paying for what is on the inside, not the >outside. > >shsimko@acpub.duke.edu Susan, I will readily believe that you worked with a guy named Kevin involved with tube amps, but I don't think you're talking about David Manley's VTL. In fact, given your Duke address, I'm 99% sure you worked with Kevin Hayes of Valve Amplification Company, or VAC. The two companies are quite different, insofar as design and execution are concerned. I have met Mr. Hayes, and as you have represented, I think he truly believes in his product. I seem to recall that he is quite a knowledgeable electrical engineer as well, which I find is more than one can say for some of the characters in high end audio. This ought to clear up the confusion someone in a later post had with the idea of a non-Manley designer at VTL. IMO, VAC's designs and execution are far better than VTL's, by the way. For one thing, the latter has been known to not wash PCBs. -Eugene ------------------------------ From: shsimko@acpub.duke.edu (Susan H. Simko) Subject: VAC vs. VTL Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 11:57:01 I screwed up. Big time. I have always had a problem with remembering acronyms. This time I shot myself in the foot. I saw VTL but thought VAC. I guess this is because VAC is a superior product, IMHO. Everything I said, I meant, but I meant it about VAC. To be honest, VTL doesn't do much for me and neither does David Manley. Susan