|   We Need high power amps B/C most speakers are cheap junk. | RGA
Nov 4, 2003 9:09 PM | | "The Western Electric 300A and 300B filamentary power triode is the only American manufactured power output tube engineered to be used as a state of the art audio frequency amplifier.
It was developed in the 1920s as the mainstay of the rapidly growing cinema industry. It was used in the Western Electric #91A single-ended and the #86 push-pull cinema amplifiers. Thousands of these amplifiers were installed in theaters worldwide.
We grew up watching movies with soundtracks reproduced by low powered directly-heated triode amplifiers! More than likely, we experienced 2001, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Clockwork Orange, etc. through WE 300B amplifiers.
Imagine a whole theater powered by 8 to 30 watts! And I keep hearing people saying there are no speakers for these low powered amps...be serious!
If today's speakers seem too inefficient for low powered amps it is simply because speaker manufacturers are too cheap to spend the money on quality magnets, precision voice coils and low loss filter components!
Similar to the situation with transformers, manufacturers have started the rumor that, "transformers color the sound"...what they neglect to tell you, is that transformers can cost up to 100 times as much as a gain stage. Whenever a manufacturer tells you something is bad, ask him if it costs more than what he is using.
Due to its low (700 Ohms) plate impedance, low mu, low input capacitance and internal (natural) degeneration the 300B tube has given us the opportunity to build amplifiers that are extremely simple and reliable. Audio Note 300B amplifiers have only 3 gain stages (compared to probably 24 in your average transistor power amplifier and typically one-tenth as many components as their solid state counterparts.
Up until about 1970, almost all professional and home hi-fi loudspeakers were happy with 20 watts or less. Thirty watts was considered very high power in those days. The sealed enclosure Acoustic Research and Advent loudspeakers changed all this. These companies' sealed box alignments allowed deep bass from much smaller boxes than the horn and bass reflex enclosures popular in the 50's and 60's.
Unfortunately, there is an enormous trade off in efficiency. The sealed box speaker was typically 10 dB less sensitive than the ported, bass-reflex enclosures it replaced, and as much as 25 dB less sensitive than their horn counterparts. Distortion was also raised in sealed box alignments - because of the increased excursion requirements and loss of efficiency.
Crossovers became more difficult to design because of the increased back EMF that comes naturally with inefficient, long excursion drivers and complex crossovers. Long excursion drivers also tax the limits of voice coil and suspension technology.
[As an aside I find it interesting that AR and Advent could not make a sealed box efficient...Peter Snell, Peter Qvortrup and Kondo San built and build 93db sealed boxex...seems some know how to designa speaker and then there is AR and Advent]
Suddenly, the whole amp speaker interface became a new problem. These new, less efficient speaker designs required higher power, higher current sourcing ability and higher damping factors than even the big McIntosh, Harman Kardon, Fisher and Marantz amps of the time could provide. The introduction of the sealed-box speaker was the beginning of the decline of the tube amplifier.
About 1964, solid state (bi-polar) amplifiers began to appear in the hi-fi marketplace. These amps promised high power, small size, light weight, cool operation, and low price. Time has shown us that to drive the demon loads of the speakers of the 80's and early 90's, we really needed big solid state amps that are heavy, hot running, unreliable and expensive. Also, just as digital has not improved upon the sound quality of analogue - these big, expensive solid state amps have never exceeded the sound quality of even |
| 2-We Need high power amps B/C most speakers are cheap junk. | RGA
Nov 4, 2003 9:10 PM | | Also, just as digital has not improved upon the sound quality of analogue - these big, expensive solid state amps have never exceeded the sound quality of even the average vintage tube amp.
Just think about it. Sealed box enclosures came about and they were smaller but harder to drive and did not improve sonically on the speakers they replaced. Then solid state amps came about that were initially smaller, cooler, and cheaper than the tube amps they replaced.
These were cost/convenience based engineering decisions that compromised the sound quality. Then speakers and amps got bigger and bigger trying to restore their sonic performance. The designers needed to bring sound quality back to where it was in 1960. The promise of small, cool and cheap with better sound turned out to be false. Now we have big and hot and expensive!
It is as well, questionable whether even the biggest, most expensive solid state amps and modern speakers have improved on the modest, simple tube gear and speakers they replaced. It is interesting that despite thirty five years of intense audio engineering development it is doubtful that we have come any closer to musical reality than we were in 1960, and the sad fact is that in the recording studio the decline has been just a severe, which is why old RCA, DECCA (London), Mercury's etc. are so highly priced today and are the subject of many re-releases, with modern digital LP's being completely worthless and CD's not fairing much better.
Likewise ten to fifteen year old transistor amplifiers are mostly worthless today, whereas 25 - 30 year old tube amplifiers are increasing in value at an astonishing rate.
Early single-ended amplifiers, like the Western Electric 91A, are worth nearly 100 times their original value! What does this say about our technological advances and our competitors claims to have perfection within their grasp? It appears that the promise of solid state amplifiers is similar to the promise of digital - "we will make you throw out your old gear and buy new stuff that is less musically rewarding".
The solid state roads and the push-pull roads have proven to be dead ends.
Because Audio Note recognizes this we are able to move forward and explore new areas and make dramatic gains with musically relevant results.
In the past fifty years, the first REAL step forward in the quest for a higher quality music reproduction came with the introduction of the Single-Ended 300B amplifier.
In Japan where technological development and time are not seen as straight unbroken lines (like they are here in the US) the Japanese audiophile always preferred the 300B triode amplifier but the triode movement in Japan really started in 1960. During the 60's and 70's, at least 50,000 Japanese music lovers were busy building triode amps and horn speakers. In 1988 the movement began in Europe and America. Jean Hiraga and Peter Qvortrup started the movement in Europe. Both were espousing the benefits of single-ended triodes as early as 1982. Audio Note in Japan introduced the ONGAKU, Single-Ended 211/VT-4C amplifier in 1988. In America, in that same year, Herbert Reichert (Eddy Electric) introduced the first single-ended 300B amp to the American public. Also in 1988, Nobu Shishido was building transformer coupled triode amps on the west coast while Joe Roberts was building all kinds of weird triode amps in Texas. Dennis Had (Cary) and Gordon Rankin (Wavelength) began in the nineties'. The re-invention of audio that started with the use of 300B amplifiers began in the basement shops of 'Dark Lantern' inventors and music lovers. This is a true grass roots movement. It started with people who wanted their music to sound less mechanical and less emotionally sterile. These early visionaries felt that high end hi-fi had lost touch with the most important aspects of music reproduction.
These early engineering efforts were fueled by the desire to be touched and drawn |
| 3- We Need high power amps B/C most speakers are cheap junk. | RGA
Nov 4, 2003 9:10 PM | | These early engineering efforts were fueled by the desire to be touched and drawn into the music again.
Remember, THIS IS NOT A "RETRO" MOVEMENT! Previous to Audio Note, NO SINGLE-ENDED AMPLIFIERS WERE SOLD TO AUDIOPHILES IN THE USA!
The 300B triode, operated single-ended, with no negative feedback has given us the opportunity to stop thinking about high end hi-fi and start liking music again.
http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/300b.htm |
| More audio myths and nonsense | skeptic
Nov 5, 2003 5:37 AM | | Well it hardly surprises me that this nonsense came from Audio Note and Peter Qvortrup a salesman who went into the manufacturing business. So Mr. Qvortrup would take us back not 50 years to the KT88 but 80 years to the hayday of the Western Electric 300B which probably had a gain of about 10 driving speakers with a response of about 200hz to 3000 hz. Forget THX, forget everything that has happened since. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to market Klipschorn, one of the most efficient speakers I know of. How about JBL or Altec, chapmions of high effiency horn technology in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
Here's one big mistake; "Distortion was also raised in sealed box alignments - because of the increased excursion requirements and loss of efficiency. "
Fact, in 1960, AR3 produced 5% harmonic distortion at 30 hz, by far the best in the industry and still better than most ported speakers today.
"Audio Note 300B amplifiers have only 3 gain stages (compared to probably 24 in your average transistor power amplifier"
I have never seen an amplifier with 24 cascaded gain stages. Can you name one? I could imagine it in a mixing console though. If 24 gain stages cascaded give the low harmonic and IM distortion, low noise, and flat frequency response we get from modern amplifiers, that is remarkable testimony to their outstanding bandwith, linearity, and quietness. Would a 24 stage tube amplifier even work?
"Crossovers became more difficult to design because of the increased back EMF that comes naturally with inefficient, long excursion drivers and complex crossovers. Long excursion drivers also tax the limits of voice coil and suspension technology."
Crossover design was a simple application of filter theory. Acoustic suspension drivers are designed and built to operate linearly over the necessary excursion of their cones.
Think about this. If you have a sealed enclosure and lose all of the sound from the back of the speaker, it has to have only twice the excursion to move the same amount of air as if you reuse all of it by inverting its phase and allow it to enter the room to move the same amount of air and produce the same loudness. On the other hand, an 8 inch woofer has to have more than twice the excursion of a twelve inch woofer operating under the same conditions to produce the same sound level because its piston drive area is less than half as great. So an 8 inch speaker in a perfectly efficient ported or horn speaker would have to have greater cone excursion to produce the same loudness as a sealed 12 inch driver.
The rationale behind the sealed acoustic suspension driver is that the compressing of air trapped in the enclosure by a highly compliant driver makes a far more linear spring than a mechanically stiffer suspension of a speaker designed for a ported or horn enclosure. The tuning of a port also creates a series of resonant and anti resonant nodes which are not only objectionable acoustically but give tremendous variations of electrical impedence as a function of frequency as well.
Complex crossovers came about because of all kinds of "alligments" invented in the 80s by speaker manufacturers who played on myths about time coherence and who tried to use small, often cheap drivers with equalizaton not provided before the power amplifier where it works best but after where it is most expensive and least efficient. Yes, the result is that a lot of speakers present crazy impossible loads which poorly designed amplifiers find difficult to handle.
"These new, less efficient speaker designs required higher power, higher current sourcing ability and higher damping factors than even the big McIntosh, Harman Kardon, Fisher and Marantz amps of the time could provide."
AR3 and its successor AR3A, the least efficient speakers available required a minimum of 25 wpc rms and could handle upt to 100 wpc rms. This was well within the capabilities of McIntosh Mc275, 240, and ev |
| More audio myths and nonsense | skeptic
Nov 5, 2003 5:39 AM | | AR3 and its successor AR3A, the least efficient speakers available required a minimum of 25 wpc rms and could handle upt to 100 wpc rms. This was well within the capabilities of McIntosh Mc275, 240, and even 225 as well as Marantz 8B and Harmon Kardon Citation II (and probably Citation V.) Fisher had a high end power amp that wasn't quite as highly regarded but had sufficient power. The solution to high cost was to buy Dynaco MK IIIs or even Stereo 70. That was the choice in the 1960s. In the 80s solid state amps gave audiophiles a wide range of acceptable choices which worked very well and cost far less.
Why do you think that McIntosh, Marantz, Dynaco, and everybody else abandoned tube amplifiers? Where they deaf? Were their customers deaf? Were speakers so poor no one could hear that the tube units were better? I don't think so. And couldn't they resurrect those old designs if they wanted to? Of course they could. And they did with reissues to collectors who paid a very high premium for them. That's why old gear like old Western Electric amplifiers command such a high price. Not because of their performance but because collectors desire them, like old postage stamps or baseball cards. |
| More audio myths and nonsense | RGA
Nov 5, 2003 6:24 PM | | "Where they deaf? Were their customers deaf? Were speakers so poor no one could hear that the tube units were better? I don't think so. And couldn't they resurrect those old designs if they wanted to? Of course they could. And they did with reissues to collectors who paid a very high premium for them."
No the salesman pushed to sell JUNK...and the line worked on you obviously.
BTW your assesments are all wrong:
McIntosh Still makes tube amps...they are the best of any amplifiers McIntosh currently make(Everyone abandoned them?). They were misguided for a while(largely because the speakers were so HORRIBLY BUILT and impossible to drive that McIntosh etc were FORCED to build GARBAGE SS products)
Thankfully more efficient speakers are back and McIntosh is back to making better amplifiers again...what do you know they are tube amps.
"Quick Facts
McIntosh's newest addition to its acclaimed Heritage Products series succeeds equally well as both a stand-alone component and as the companion to either the MC2000 or the MC2102 Vacuum Tube Power Amplifier. Created to make the most of both new and venerable technology, the C2200 relies on vacuum tubes for all signal amplification, with spectacular results."
Yes their only listenable prooducts are the tube amps.
Marantz has gotten close...they have just released their new STATEMENT integrated amplifier - and while not a tube it is a 25 watt SS class A amplifier. And in the blind tests against your prized stuff WON. Marantz has just gained a pile of credibility which sure beats all their other junk of the last decade I'm sure.
Hmmm. seems to me all these companies KNOW that they were WRONG(actually they were not - they were forced by all the inneficient speaker makers who decided to build crap in cheap boxes forcing them to build high watt lousy power supply devices).
They assumed they could continue to trick people into following graph touting people who were tone deaf...but when people LISTEN and compare real acoustic instruments or amplified instruments for that matter - they know what sounds better(even the average Joe Smirtz) - CLass A and Tubes are hardly dying - they are coming back because they never SHOULD HAVE LEFT.
The reason everyone wanted those old tube amps was because as problematic as they were they resembled more closely real music than the garbage Sony was putting out. Giant clock radios.
And your assessment of THX is hardly comparing apples to apples. The fault was HARDLY the amplifier or the speakers in those days - there was no THX back then. Adding a better quality mix to those systems and maybe there would still be a reason to go to a freakin theater. |
| More audio myths and nonsense | skeptic
Nov 6, 2003 6:11 AM | | "speakers were so HORRIBLY BUILT and impossible to drive "
Acoustic Research had many live versus recorded demos in the 60s and I attended a couple of them myself. They were very convincing. How many live versus recorded demos has Audio Note presented?
Given a choice between buying an Audio Note or Sudgen Amplifier and a McIntosh tube amplifier, guess which one I'd put my money on. |
| More audio myths and nonsense | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 9:28 AM | | "Given a choice between buying an Audio Note or Sudgen Amplifier and a McIntosh tube amplifier, guess which one I'd put my money on."
Yes well I know you would buy wihout listening. From the reviews, which one should hardly go by, McIntosh's SS designs were ripped by UHF as being expensive and WAY down the list of anything they would want to own...they don't like the design.
And the dealer here moved from McIntosh to the relative unknown AN. Think for two seconds. McIntosh has a huge name they look spectacular and they're expensive. Three things people get suckered into buying.
SO you, as a dealer, REPLACE it, and B&W's flagship, and Martin Logan and you bring in AN. A worse looking, less known(though not to the very high end circles) product line). Why? Ohh because of sound quality.
McIntosh Tubes are very good...maybe a reason Soundhounds dumped em was because they were forced to carry the SS line as well. Don't know. |
| RGA, sell your AN stock: the bubble will burst ... | Feanor
Oct 18, 2003 8:52 AM | | ... and you'll come back down to earth.
BTW, I asked a principal at Canadian Hifi, a distributor and retailer of a variety of exotic equipment including several tube amp makes, if he considered carrying AN. He told me he wouldn't because Peter Qvortrup is too quirky to do business with. |
| RGA, sell your AN stock: the bubble will burst ... | drdave
Nov 5, 2003 2:21 PM | | I'm a bit new to the boards here and I just want to get the players straight. Feanor is skeptic's little toadie, appearently? |
| RGA, sell your AN stock: the bubble will burst ... | Feanor
Nov 5, 2003 6:21 PM | | And Dr Dave is something of a tubehead? |
| LOL | RGA
Nov 5, 2003 7:02 PM | | Your guy at Canadian Hi-fi doesn't carry AN because he probably can't afford to.
Qvortrup has run bigger companies in the past and sold them because he didn't enjoy running big companies...one is still around called Audio Innovations.
The reason people don't carry AN is because he has STRICT demands of who carries his products. He and his crew design and alter bought componants - the entire audio chain...cd player, turntable, cartridge, all wiring, amplifier, the SOLDERING material, capacitors, power supplies, speakers, the whole thing.
He demands that if a dealer carry AN they carry AN. Which means the entire product line including the 90k Ongaku 27watt 90lb integrated. Most high end dealers can't afford Audio Note. Quircky - no. He does not want someone selling his speakers who will connect it to some piece of junk Denon.
His systems are a complet AN system...you go into the room and you listen to an all AN set-up...The idea being that when you hear it it will be the best thing you've ever heard for that money.(of course you may not agree but at least you have to give the guy credit for this).
He demands an all AN set-up...he designs his amps off of his speakers with his wiring and his turntable and cd player. If you don't like it...well at least he can say he went down in flames with his best product and was not let down by somebody elses clunker.
And of course this seems QUIRCKY. Most designers could give a crap about what you connect to their equipment...since half of those designers never actually listen to any of the stuff why would system matching matter?
I bought their speaker connected to an Audio Refinement complete - basically a YBA integre. The integre oin many circles is considered to be the best or right there integrated amps under 3k.
I listened later with the AN Soro tube integrated amp and there is no contest. And that was cold tubes.
The above post was about tubes not AN - and was not created by Qvortrup but obviously a dealer. I have a feeling it is more the Japan division and the two are no longer associated companies.
Kondo San was the main designer and he headed up Sony designs team in the 70s/80s. So Skeptic's assessment that AN designers know nothing about Solid state or don't have the math is bogus...he was on the team that started it...and quit to start AN because he didn't like what Sony was creating...which was SS dreck that measured well but sounded - well like SS.
And I don't want to criticise SS because they have come a fair way. Thankfully companies like Sugden saved the high end. They managed to survive building good SS amps while many American products were being killed by the Japanese low cost more reliabile products. And of course being CHEAP helps sell to the non audiophile. But companies like Sugden Hung on - still one if the only stereo producer that has lasted 30 years and never changed ownership and still makes the same product off the same design. The A21a.
Bryston as good as they are...keep needing to FIX the 3b and 4b and 7b. Why? because it needs fixing. The A21a is the same freakin amp. When new technology came out they used it because the resistor/cap whatever could handle a higher heat load...put it in and now you have a 25 watt class a amp over a 10 watter. Put on a new fahionable box and there you go. Good for another 10 years...14 actually and still getting good reviews. maybe they'll add a remote and another new box next time - for another 2 decades.
It is interesting that I support the sound of the A21a Sugden which has sold for 4 decades, speakers which have a design in the 70s and still sell today because current designers and AUDIOPPHILES consider them so WORTHY.
Skeptic knows a lot about engineering more than I ever will, likely. That says nothing about one's ability to HEAR however.
The fact is the the stuff he supports doesn't last...they went the way of the dodo...no on |
| 2 | RGA
Nov 5, 2003 7:03 PM | | The fact is the the stuff he supports doesn't last...they went the way of the dodo...no one has picked up the AR9, and Crown is not a high end name sold to the discerning audiophile...and why...because they do not create REAL lifelike music the way a Sugden/AN/CARY etc can.
If it was any good they'd still build the thing - or someone else would take the design and build it...since he alludes to the fact that the Reference 3a La Suprema is junk at 13k...you're telling me that someone can't build the AR9 for that today...Please!
Don't get seduced by the techno-babble....LISTEN to the stuff |
| Should be so simple | rb122
Nov 6, 2003 5:08 AM | | b Don't get seduced by the techno-babble....LISTEN to the stuff
And yet, so many forget. I won't say specs don't matter but when the specs and your ears disagree, which one are you going to believe? |
| LOL | skeptic
Nov 6, 2003 9:18 AM | | "He demands that if a dealer carry AN they carry AN. Which means the entire product line including the 90k Ongaku 27watt 90lb integrated. Most high end dealers can't afford Audio Note."
So if I buy a speaker made by Audio Note, I have to pay the retailer enough to cover the overhead for carrying in stock a $90,000 white elephant that nobody (in his right mind) would probably ever buy.
Do you realize what $90,000 is?
It's enough to buy two new Cadillac Sedan de Villes each being made up of about 20,000 parts, hundreds of hours of labor to assemble, and the pinacle of millions of man hours of research and development.
It's enough to buy about 4 Toyota Camrys each made up of probably over 15,000 parts, hundreds of hours to assemble and millions of hours to research and develop.
It's enough to buy two or three Steinway grand pianos or six Baldwin grand pianos each comprising over 12,000 parts and taking a year each to build.
It would be enough in some parts of the United States to buy a one or two bedroom condominium.
What makes this amplifier comprised of maybe a hundred or two hundred parts of comparable value to any of the foregoing?
And I ask you sir in all candor, what kind of an idiot would buy one? |
| LOL | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 9:43 AM | | Well of course the addy will likely be a piece of junk per usual since all the other caddy's of the last 30 years have been dreck...man hours LOL. 18 man hours for ANY Toyota was in a recent article.
A ferrari ain't worth million over a Camaro as a percentage of improvement either mate, but people still sell it.
And they have to carry the entire line was an error - their top end series is custom built. But many dealers can't afford to stock the entry level line. |
| LOL | boomin_nova
Nov 11, 2003 8:11 PM | | [b]He demands an all AN set-up...he designs his amps off of his speakers with his wiring and his turntable and cd player. If you don't like it...well at least he can say he went down in flames with his best product and was not let down by somebody elses clunker. [/b]
Do you understand what's goin on here? It's almost bait and switch. Not many companies are good at producing such horrible, and craptastic amplifers and speakers. Calling companies like denon, and marantz absolute crap seems like crap to me. Sure i respect knowledge but this is biased as hell. You wouldn't have a company to be a fanboy for if these companies were around. The level of sound quality between some best buy Sony reciever, and my "mid-fi" Denon is huge, The sound quality between a "mid-fi" Denon, and a top level McIntosh isn't even close to the first one. |
| LOL | RGA
Nov 11, 2003 10:26 PM | | Whoever said Denon and Sony were absolute crap? Both companies have made great gear and both companies have made junk...some of it is expensive junk and some of their cheaper stuff is actually pretty good.
I have owned receivers...the level of difference between an entry level Denon and the Deno 5803 is not very big at all - if any. The latter is louder but better? well at louder levels it's better. And of course as a surround sound processor is vastly superior to the 1603...2 channel music at moderate levels and I understand why people claim all amps sound the same...maybe these are what they tesed.
The receiver is a compromise...some are better than others - I have yet to find one I'd want to own to listen to music with...h/t they're generally the sanest option money wise and do a credible job.
Audio Note designs their entire system as a unit. In other words they are designing their amps and cd players etc listening through their speakers. You have, as a designer, the idea of the real article and you build your system(not a componant - but a system) to achieve realism. They want you to hear their system the way it is meant to be heard.
Of course many people, including me, will mix and match largely because Audio Note is simply too expensive to own the entire system for most people. Their entry system is $4,000.00(not including turntable) and go over $420,000.00US.
So you have to find suitable cheaper matches. The problem is most people will never hear a truly "high end" system in their life. They may hear very expensive systems(with high end componants) but that does not mean it's high end.
One reason I see so often people say there is a big difference between a cheap junker receiver and a better receiver like a Denon and a Marantz or Yamaha and yet no difference when a high quality amp like McIntosh(though it depends which one as McIntosh IMO is grossly overrated) is because most of the time there is a let down in speakers/room etc. As good as mid-fi speakers are such as B&W 600 and Paradigms are they don't exactly create windows to the soul of music.
Also most people don't use classical instrument as a reference at all. I believe a speaker should do both acoustic AND amplified instruments well - otherwise it likely means the speaker is innacurate and merely prints its own voice on everything. There is a correctness in tonality of acoustic instruments, however, that are generally not produced correctly by the majority of loudspeakers. Especially true of all speakers geared for home theater. Chances are if the speaker comes as a Home theater Package it's probably going to let me down musically. There are exceptions and of course budget comes into this. But I honestly can't think of anyone's home theater package as something I would want to listen to music through.
The trick is to find a speaker that does basic instruments cohesively, smoothly without grain or dullness(found in every receiver I have ever heard at any price), without etchy highs etc(metal tweeters, more lousy amplifiers and many cd players of older design and perhaps some of still current deign). I was thinking of Cello by Yo-Yo Ma and it is surprising how lifelike it can truly sound, versus the way it usually sounds.
My speakers and a number of others as good as they are still miss the bottom octave - but I have never ever heard a three way speaker for under 3k that didn't get the bass in trade of some bad habit(s). I'd rather a bit of missing bass than something that is there that isn't done right. If you don't do it right don't do it.
This is not a snob attitude, I can't afford the stuff I praise...and I can put together a nice system for someone for 1kCDN. Nevertheless, I'm not going to cop a "whatever I can afford must be the pinnacle and only morons would spend more attititude."
Spending smart is more important than spending more...I have heard systems at ten to |
| 2 | RGA
Nov 11, 2003 10:26 PM | | Spending smart is more important than spending more...I have heard systems at ten to twenty times what I spent that I personally don't think are anywhere near as good. However, I give credit wher it is due, I have heard systems that make me wish I could marry a rich woman - or become a thief. |
| Actually, I've a lot of respect for BOTH skeptic AND RGA | Feanor
Nov 6, 2003 8:02 AM | | As I see it, they're both very knowledgable.
In my inexpert opinion skeptic has the technical edge -- granted I'm well disposed to his position on the SS <I>verus</I> tubed debate.
RGA knows a lot too, but perhaps more, he is a relentless listener and comparer of equipment. Where his (greater) and my (lesser) experience overlap, we tend to agree, e.g. B&W and Paradigm speakers. |
| Actually, I've a lot of respect for BOTH skeptic AND RGA | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 10:00 AM | | The thing is I don't argue with Skeptic's knowledge of engineering.
I'm not an engineer, nor do I care much to be one. Trouble is when you have a Martin Colloms on one side a Floyd Toole on the other side and a million engineers between the two poles who the heck are you going to believe?
Simple. None of them....go listen. Then whatever result you get then you go back and read what the engineers said. The one that actually is correlated to what you heard is the one I tend to agree with. I tend to agree with Martin Colloms who is one of the best acousticengineers on this planet, designed Monitor Audio Loudspeakers, has written several books on engineering and submitted several papers to AES etc.
B.Sc. (Hons), C.Eng, M.I.E.E.
Author and Electroacoustic-Electronic Engineer
Technical Advisor and Contributor, Hi Fi News and Record Review, London
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Magazine, New York, New York
Education/Awards
William Ellis Grammar School London and University of Westminster [Regent Street Polytechnic.]
Graduated in l97l with a B.Sc. Hons in Electrical Engineering.
Awarded Chartership of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 1981.
MacRobert Award Finalist 2000 (with Neil Harris and Henry Azima), Royal Academy of Engineers
Now if you and I are not engineers how are you going to judge...be listening to the technical arguments? Why no one agrees just like medical scientists - there is no FACT here.
Interesting to note that the Mr. Colloms awards componants a point system when reviewing. a zero means it's dreck, a 5 means an AVERAGE componant and 10 is the pinacle of high end.
The Audio Note DAC 5 got a 50. The highest rating of any componant by anyone ever. That external DAC runs anywhere from $29,000.00US to $55,000.00 US and of course that is insane...but not for some. |
| I don't want to argue with any of them | jbangelfish
Nov 6, 2003 11:42 AM | | Dr Ahmar Bose has degrees (apparently a phd in something) and probably many awards. Many people would still consider him to be a marketing whiz or shrewd businessman and nothing more. I'll give him alittle more credit than that but becoming a wealthy man may be his greatest achievement even though he was at least innovative.
Julian Hirsch was an old reviewer from days of yore who I'm guessing had a pretty fair education. Some said he's bald and deaf although I'm not sure where baldness should affect his thinking or hearing abilities.
I haven't read any of this stuff in years, fairly convinced that magazines would say anything to sell a magazine or get paid from a component maker. I still believe this to be true.
I have very little education (GED and some college) but whatever education I have, has nothing to do with my ability to hear. If I had a phd, or just a degree in engineering, I might be able to explain the how's and why's better but I wouldn't hear them any differently. Music has been a part of my entire life and any observations that I have are purely on the comparisons of live music to recorded music.
Rest assured that there are some electronics engineers who are also tone deaf. I'm not sure that I would want them to build an amplifier for me but they could possibly do so on knowledge alone.
My point to any of this is that I leave the design of stereo equipment to the educated experts and engineers and trust myself to sort out how well they have done by listening. Just how they did it does not interest me as much as it does an engineer who can identify with all of the technical data. This is interesting to a degree but without the formal education, I am unable to completely understand. I can live with this but I do ask questions from time to time out of curiosity. I don't ever expect to be able to build amps, preamps etc. but I guess you never know what will happen in the future. Never say never. |
| I don't want to argue with any of them | skeptic
Nov 6, 2003 12:13 PM | | Dr. Amar Bose was a professor of electrical engineering and acoustics at MIT. Whether you like his products or not, some of them including his original model 901 loudspeaker contained some innovative ideas that were tried and marketed for the first time ever. The original design in its day was highly regarded by many people and its popularity lead to the Bose Corporation's long term success.
Julian Hirsch was a highly respected test engineer of Hirsch Houk Laboratories whose laboratory test reports were the basis for reviews of equipment published monthly in Stereo Review Magazine. Whether you agreed with his conclusions and opinions or not, he presented the technical measurements of equipment he tested accurately.
Peter Qurtrop was a stereo equipment merchant who decided to go into the stereo equipment manufacturing business. Presumably he has technical people working for him at his direction. I don't think he claims to have any formal engineeing training. I haven't heard any of his equipment but reading his web site, his opinions and ideas fly in the face of what most other professionals in the audio business express and my own personal experience. However, being open minded as I am, I am willing to listen objectively to his products at the first opportunity and make up my mind strictly on performance alone. However, in deciding what equipment I would buy, value is a major consideration and performance is judged in light of cost.
There is no need to apologize for a lack of formal education when shopping for stereo equipment and making your mind up about what products you like and what to buy. You don't have to know the theory of how a television set works to buy one that can deliver a bright sharp picture. However, it must be conceded that these are highly technical products which are not often used in exactly the same combination or in a setting similar to the one they are deomonstrated in. Therefore the results you hear in an in store demo may be different from what you will hear at home and the results when used with different equipment may also be very different. In these cases, a lack of knowledge about the technical capabilities and limitations of what you are buying can lead to disappointment later on. |
| I don't want to argue with any of them | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 7:30 PM | | Just a correction. Most of what AN has designed was designed by Kondo-San. One does not need a degree to know how to build top flight gear. One muust have a good set of ears and a solid understanting of acoustic and electrical engineering. One can learn that in a library by oneself from textbooks if one has an inclination for it. Or one can spend 50 grand and go to school to get the same information but get a piece of paper.
And as this poster noted: a Degree or not does not make a better product. One should listen to the gear and then decide if the designer had a clue. Many engineers who have reviewed AN's stuff note the discrepencies in the measurements(or failings if you will), but nevertheless mostly seem to like his stuff. As do Listeners and store owners who take a huge risk carrying plain no name gear over highly prized big name gear.
I keep going back to it but good sound sells itself...even if Peter comes off as a pompous arrogant SOB.
He said in a recent post:
"Depth is a function of how the recording was made not the position of the speakers first of all.
Secondly you are quite right, the basic "framework" of all our speakers are all the same, box size, driver size, general crossover configuration etc. my belief is that choosing the known, well tried and acoustically correct platform for a design and then offering both very basic and through refinement of parts, cabinets materials and drivers make very high grade versions basically ensures that when a customer moves up the line, he/she get what they like in the basic model but with more refinements and subtlety, similar in some way to the performance difference between good and great musicians.
To my mind this is a more effective way of achieving the best price/quality relationship.
I know this runs contrary to the general view in the industry where "more" complex designs are the norm and considered "better" by virtue of their complexity.
Speaks for itself really when you analyse it.
The Type A/II and A/III were designed as near wall speakers and marvellous they are too.
Only 3 way I have ever heard that worked."
So yes Skeptic he will come off as arrogant - but again I heard his speaker first before I knew anything about the company or him. So whatever "magic" and so-called horrible design you say he's using in his speakers - well two wrongs must be making a "right" at least on the subjective listening evaluation. |
| Also with | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 7:59 PM | | all the discussion what is lost here Skeptic is that we have to live in the hear and now.
When you look around at speakers for $2500.00 and you want a relatively full range speaker that can fit in a small apartment in a corner more or less out of the way and does not need the power of Krell - then your options are not very big.
You can buy a small stat maybe but it needs tons of power and won't have dynamic or power for full range music(it won't produce full range music period.
The AN E/D is relatively small can be shoved in a corner - has a non resonating box, a tweeter and a woofer which are smooth and talk to each other cohesively...not audible disruption going from bass to treble...as some B&Ws and other speakers using very disimilar drivers often dispay. Remember these are standmount speakers with form and function for space issues in mind - after all most British and European houses are not mammoths as they are in Canada and the US.
A reply to another member:
...if positioned correctly in a corner the AN-E has its minus 6dB point at 17 Hz and still has measurable output at 12Hz!
With an system efficiency up to 98dB as well!
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
That's not too bad for the money IMO. And if you don't have the money to buy a 3k Krell then why not get an equally well made (quality wise) Sugden or other lower powered amp(Audio Refinemnet ets) for under $1500.00 that will get the same full scale presentation if not more so at louder levels than a guy who spends the $2500.00 on some other speaker that won't likely produce anywhere near the frequancy response and then ALSO requires one stonkingly expensive Bryston amp or better.
For instance, If it were me...I would seriously be considering the AN E/D at $2500.00($3100.00CDN) over the B&W N802 at what $9,000.00+CDN)? -6dB at 27Hz and 30kHz
The B&W is rated at 91db and min 3 ohm and many say it also needs a very powerful amp.
To top that off you still have a suckout in the top of the midband or passband whatever it's called that several engineers talk about of which is audible. And at this $9,000.00 range it's one of the better ones being made.
The B&W is used in Skywalker Studios. It uses two big drivers is a three way design by one of the biggest speaker makers in the world and still does not produce the bass of the AN E with its lone smaller woofer.
Ihave heard these two speakers (well the AN E Sec) and assuming the An E D is 80% as good I would take it over the N802 and save myself $6,000.00+ and IMO would get me a better sounding speaker musically.
You can pay obscene money for bragging rights to keep up with the Jones's but it's like going from Rolex to Rolex...a great watch no matter which you buy...want a bit more diamonds...or with the higher AN a bit more silver and nicer finish and an enhanced internal working great...but you still have one heck of a watch with the more entry models. |
| Figured Skep would know | jbangelfish
Nov 7, 2003 9:41 AM | | Where these people fit in. I thought Bose was with MIT but coudn't remember for sure. Now that you mention Hirsch Houk labs it comes back to me. It's been a number of years since I read anything from any of these people.
I think Matthew Polk was an engineer but I never cared for anything that he put together. Some engineering expertise is certainly required to build stereo components whether formally schooled or not.
I don't think I was apologizing for my lack of education. I've done reasonably well without it. Just one of those things I wish I had done differently. A bit late now so I read and ask questions. I enjoy talking to engineers in particular, tool and die makers too. I'm always fascinated by what these guys know and are capable of building.
I never put much stock in a store demo for all of the above mentioned reasons. I use specs as a bigger guideline than I probably should but if they are accurate specs, their significance will carry over into how they sound. Circuitry and the how's and why's of the actual specifications are where I get lost. Still learning.
Bill |
| More audio myths and nonsense | RGA
Nov 5, 2003 6:02 PM | | "Well it hardly surprises me that this nonsense came from Audio Note and Peter Qvortrup a salesman who went into the manufacturing business"
Didn't come from Peter Qvortrup. Typical of your assumptions.
"I'm surprised he hasn't tried to market Klipschorn, one of the most efficient speakers."
I have heard the Klipshhorn...they should try and re-make it. With a bit of up to date subtle fixes it might reign supreme again...it already bests 90% of the the garbage that passes today.
"Fact, in 1960, AR3 produced 5% harmonic distortion at 30 hz," THD is worthless stat...marketing driven then as it is now.
"AR3 and its successor AR3A"
Did the writer say AR3 specifically? |
| Where do you get this nonsesne? | skeptic
Nov 6, 2003 9:07 AM | | "THD is worthless stat...marketing driven then as it is now."
This must come from AN or one of those high end audio manufacturers who sells equipment for 100 times what it's worth. Where else would you have gotten such an ill informed idea? What are you reading? |
| I dont think every amp McIntosh made besides tubes... | jsujo1
Nov 6, 2003 7:02 AM | | were junk...They have improved a lot in their solid state amps, and their DC amps W/O autoformesrs) like the MC754 and later the MC7100 can rival many top amps...
The problem is that they were treated not-well as they were released due to obvious biases...
It funny to notice that most people who bash Mc's non tube amps are tube guys... |
| I guess I have hearing deficincies... | WmAx
Nov 6, 2003 10:07 AM | | I have one of the amps listed above, and use it regularly, but according to RGA and his 'source', it must be a piece of crap. Darn. I'll just have to throw it in the garbage now... oh wait...it might just be RGA's post that belongs in the trash can....
-Chris |
| I apologise | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 10:20 AM | | I don't want to criticise McIntosh becaue I have not heard all of their SS amps...and thus they may have several newer models which could be excellent.
My only point was that Skeptic said McIntosh is so smart and knows that tubes are a waste of time...well if that were so then McIntosh would not start making tube amps again. So you can pick you backpeddle. Either A) Skeptic was wrong and tubes do sound good(or CAN), B) McIntosh is jumping on the band wagon to sell more product(doubtful cause it costs more to make tubes and McIntosh buyers will probably go SS), or C) McIntosh SS amps are having trouble and they want to get their reputation back with a quality sounding product = and they have found that the best way to do this for a better sounding product is to use the new technology and combine it with the tubes of yester-year.
That integration means much superior tube designs than were available in the 80s or earlier.
BTW: I'm not a tube guy. I happen to have a tube Headphone amp from ASL but I think I would move to the non tube Sugden Headmaster in a heartbeat. Of course the Sugden isn't a SS amp or a tube amp...it's its own design which someone else can figure out.
No there are terrific SS amps...my favorite amp under 2k is a SS amp - in fact my top 3 are SS amps and 2 of them are class A/B.
I'm just not going to blast a product until I hear one...I heard a Jolida 202a that was atrocious.(because it was faulty).
Point is I don't care about watts...it has to be able to drive a speaker to decent volume levels. A 10 watt amp can do that with a reasonably efficient speaker...per norm in the 60-70s and again in the lte 90s and present. The pendulum is heading back to higher quality over JUST raw power. |
| one other note on Tubes | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 10:32 AM | | Another addition to the tube notion in a DBT done by Mr. Colloms.
"Over the years as a reviewer, I have tracked the swings of opinion and popularity of various audio ideas and technologies. Amid a sea of advanced designs that achieve powerful technical performance and laudable specifications, I'm reminded of a major blind listening test of 18 power amplifiers that I set up for the long-since-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi for Pleasure back in 1975. We had "advanced technology" then: the transistor amplifier had matured and was well accepted by audiophiles. Prices of the review samples ranged from $300 to $3000 (equivalent to $1000-$10,000 in today's dollars). The auditioning sessions were graced by the presence of many industry leaders, among them the late Spencer Hughes of Spendor, Julian Vereker of Naim, Philip Swift then of Audiolab, Alan Harris then of retailer Audio T., Bob Stuart of Meridian, and John Wright of IMF (now TDL in the UK).
On the suggestion of Alan Harris, a serious tube amplifier fan, I introduced a ringer to those tests: an ancient (over 10 years old) 25Wpc tube amplifier, the Radford STA-25 III, worth perhaps $100 at the time on the used market. I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance. (Needless to say, its secondhand value soared after the review appeared.)
This result dramatically illustrated almost a quarter-century ago that the association between measured performance and sound quality is uncertain. However, unsuspected at that time was the possible benefit in that test context of the Radford's relatively low level of negative feedback and the consequent effect on sound quality." |
| I hear ya,,, | jsujo1
Nov 6, 2003 11:25 AM | | What I have been gathering from talking to people is that a lot of the SS amps from McIntosh suffered from bad marketing,,,that is not a strange phenomenon,,it happens in the car market as well..You can have a great product, but for some reason, they company wont give it the push it deserves, and then myth and assumption starts rolling in...Mc keeps reissuing because its a big money maker, and the market allows it...they have incredible SS now,,but its just almost impossible to not think tubes when Mc is mentioned...I just cant see them taking shortcuts and releasing an amp that wasnt up to snuff. |
| |
