| Author |
Message |
Larry Brasfield
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:27 pm Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:van031hpdooljlj4lj2mjevpgglvujrvcl@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:05:48 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
---
That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.
|
That might have been overstated a bit. But I think
the point is correct that a large fragment of those
who insist that tube amp distortion is preferable
attribute tubes with magical properties than can
never be replicated otherwise, no matter what
thorough instrumentation might indicate. And
among that fragment, you will find many with
magnetic shoe inserts, copper bracelets, or a
cupboard containing many items with sea salt
in the ingredient list. The superstitious mind is
rarely content with isolated obeisances.
| Quote: | Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on a vacuum tube
than they would be on a transistor amplifier?
Only when the amp is underpowered for
the signal it is being asked to pass.
---
Not 'only'. The transient response of the output transformers has a
lot to do with it as well.
|
Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is
usually going to smooth out the content that a high
fidelity amplifier would have passed? If that is the
basis of your contention, then I must point out that
transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass filters,
either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe
your could explain your contradiction.
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Fields
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:27:49 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:van031hpdooljlj4lj2mjevpgglvujrvcl@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:05:48 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
---
That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.
That might have been overstated a bit. But I think
the point is correct that a large fragment of those
who insist that tube amp distortion is preferable
attribute tubes with magical properties than can
never be replicated otherwise, no matter what
thorough instrumentation might indicate. And
among that fragment, you will find many with
magnetic shoe inserts, copper bracelets, or a
cupboard containing many items with sea salt
in the ingredient list. The superstitious mind is
rarely content with isolated obeisances.
|
---
Superstitious minds also exist among those who prefer "semiconductor
sound" and I'm sure that, among that fragment, you'll also find many
with magnetic shoe inserts, copper bracelets, or a cupboard containing
many items with sea salt in the ingredient list, so I can't see why
you're singling out those who prefer "the tube sound" as a population
more likely to be superstitious than another unless it's for the
purpose of denigrating them because they have preferenes different
from yours.
---
| Quote: | Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on a vacuum tube
than they would be on a transistor amplifier?
Only when the amp is underpowered for
the signal it is being asked to pass.
---
Not 'only'. The transient response of the output transformers has a
lot to do with it as well.
Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is
usually going to smooth out the content that a high
fidelity amplifier would have passed? If that is the
basis of your contention, then I must point out that
transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass filters,
either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe
your could explain your contradiction.
|
---
There is no contradiction.
The frequency response of a transformer is determined by using a
constant voltage, constant impedance source with a sinusioidal output
to sweep the input of the transformer (the "primary") through a band
of frequencies while measuring the output voltage from the resistively
loaded secondary and taking note of the output amplitude variations.
The transient response, on the other hand, deals with the behavior of
the transformer when subjected to complex input signals and is
affected by, among other things, the leakage reactance and
interwinding capacitance in ways which wouldn't be readily apparent
when exciting the transformer with a single spectral line. For
example, do you think that if you had a transformer with a flat
frequency response from 10Hz to 20kHz at 10 watts and you fed it with,
say, 100Hz and 8372Hz simultaneously that its output would exactly
mimic its input? I don't, and I don't believe that if you fed the
output of that transformer into a loudspeaker side-by-side with an
identical loudspeaker being fed with the output of a solid-state amp
with a treble control that the inputs to both loudspeakers could be
made indentical no matter how the treble control was adjusted.
--
John Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Brasfield
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:msr031ha8s6cc8jebd9k055nbed88rpco0@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:27:49 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
That might have been overstated a bit. But I think
the point is correct that a large fragment of those
who insist that tube amp distortion is preferable
attribute tubes with magical properties than can
never be replicated otherwise, no matter what
thorough instrumentation might indicate. And
among that fragment, you will find many with
magnetic shoe inserts, copper bracelets, or a
cupboard containing many items with sea salt
in the ingredient list. The superstitious mind is
rarely content with isolated obeisances.
---
Superstitious minds also exist among those who prefer "semiconductor
sound" and I'm sure that, among that fragment, you'll also find many
with magnetic shoe inserts, copper bracelets, or a cupboard containing
many items with sea salt in the ingredient list, so I can't see why
you're singling out those who prefer "the tube sound" as a population
more likely to be superstitious than another unless it's for the
purpose of denigrating them because they have preferenes different
from yours.
|
You are mistaken about my preferences. I cringe
when I hear hard-limited sound and would prefer
the softer limiting that tube amps can provide.
My "singling out" is directed not to those who may
prefer a given type of distortion or limiting, but to
those who believe only tube amps can deliver that
performance. I have seen no studies of how tube
amp preference correlates to superstition, so my
above statement is based on a small sample and
may well be unrepresentative.
| Quote: | Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on a vacuum tube
than they would be on a transistor amplifier?
Only when the amp is underpowered for
the signal it is being asked to pass.
---
Not 'only'. The transient response of the output transformers has a
lot to do with it as well.
Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is
usually going to smooth out the content that a high
fidelity amplifier would have passed? If that is the
basis of your contention, then I must point out that
transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass filters,
either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe
your could explain your contradiction.
---
There is no contradiction.
|
Well, prepending 'not' to what I posted can certainly
be reasonably interpreted as a contradiction.
| Quote: | The frequency response of a transformer is determined by using a
constant voltage, constant impedance source with a sinusioidal output
to sweep the input of the transformer (the "primary") through a band
of frequencies while measuring the output voltage from the resistively
loaded secondary and taking note of the output amplitude variations.
The transient response, on the other hand, deals with the behavior of
the transformer when subjected to complex input signals and is
affected by, among other things, the leakage reactance and
interwinding capacitance in ways which wouldn't be readily apparent
when exciting the transformer with a single spectral line.
|
For a linear time-invariant system, the transient response
is perfectly predictable from the frequency response. So
your distinction is somewhat puzzling in this context.
As for the properties you attribute to the transient response
that are not visible in a magnitude versus frequency plot, my
understanding is that humans are insensitive to the phase
relationships among components of an audio signal.
| Quote: | For
example, do you think that if you had a transformer with a flat
frequency response from 10Hz to 20kHz at 10 watts and you fed it with,
say, 100Hz and 8372Hz simultaneously that its output would exactly
mimic its input?
|
Such fidelity would surpise me.
| Quote: | I don't, and I don't believe that if you fed the
output of that transformer into a loudspeaker side-by-side with an
identical loudspeaker being fed with the output of a solid-state amp
with a treble control that the inputs to both loudspeakers could be
made indentical no matter how the treble control was adjusted.
|
I agree with that. But I doubt anybody could
hear the difference provided that there was no
wild difference in the phase response of the
two systems, such as delay in excess of a mS.
What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Larkin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:00 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:25:18 GMT, James Beck
<jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <2h1v21p3eba15huhk2ud15tpb910i2n60t@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:05:48 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
But there is some rationality to sea salt.
John
Yep, there is more than just NaCl in it.
Jim
|
A relative-by-marriage used to be head chemist for a big salt mine in
Louisiana. Every day he'd go to work, analyze some samples, and file a
report: yep, it's still salt. He got bored, took up selling drugs, and
now he's a successful and respected mobster, sort of the cajun Tony
Soprano.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Larkin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:02 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:52:50 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.
|
Oh, don't be bitter.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Larkin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:00:14 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Superstitious minds also exist among those who prefer "semiconductor
sound" and I'm sure that, among that fragment, you'll also find many
with magnetic shoe inserts, copper bracelets, or a cupboard containing
many items with sea salt in the ingredient list,
|
Get a bunch of skinny asparagus. Spray with Pam, sprinkle with coarse
sea salt, grind a little pepper on top, and broil until the tips turn
black. Yummy.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Beck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:31 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
In article <ui213195ij5rujlb33aqdufi09me3oo2f5@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:25:18 GMT, James Beck
jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <2h1v21p3eba15huhk2ud15tpb910i2n60t@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:05:48 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
But there is some rationality to sea salt.
John
Yep, there is more than just NaCl in it.
Jim
A relative-by-marriage used to be head chemist for a big salt mine in
Louisiana. Every day he'd go to work, analyze some samples, and file a
report: yep, it's still salt. He got bored, took up selling drugs, and
now he's a successful and respected mobster, sort of the cajun Tony
Soprano.
John
I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is |
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Brasfield
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:41 am Post subject:
[OT] sea salt (was: general question about audio amplifiers) |
|
|
"James Beck" <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9a5ca3d6eb31a1989af7@news.west.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".
|
The identity of a good number of those nutricious micro things will
depend on where the nearest sewage outflow is and what people
in the nearest city eat.
If I was buying sea salt, I would want to know precisely
where the water came from and what protection the
evaporation ponds were given. All the more so now
that avian borne diseases are becoming a threat.
Do you suppose sea salt vendors would do anything so
artificial as sterilizing their product with unnatural heat?
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Beck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:03 am Post subject:
Re: [OT] sea salt (was: general question about audio amplifi |
|
|
In article <dx0Yd.33$Lb7.325@news.uswest.net>,
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com says...
| Quote: | "James Beck" <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9a5ca3d6eb31a1989af7@news.west.earthlink.net...
I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".
The identity of a good number of those nutricious micro things will
depend on where the nearest sewage outflow is and what people
in the nearest city eat.
If I was buying sea salt, I would want to know precisely
where the water came from and what protection the
evaporation ponds were given. All the more so now
that avian borne diseases are becoming a threat.
Do you suppose sea salt vendors would do anything so
artificial as sterilizing their product with unnatural heat?
|
I know several of the brands give fairly good descriptions as to how
they ensure the quality of the product. I wouldn't worry about
pathogens as much as chemical contaminants. Salt is the original food
preservation system. Not too many "germs" could handle the salt
concentrations in the ponds let along the desiccation that occurs when
the pond dries out and the salt pulls the moisture out of their little
membranes.
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Fields
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:54 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
|
---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.
--
John Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Fields
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:56 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:02:39 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:52:50 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.
Oh, don't be bitter.
|
---
Sweet of you to notice...
--
John Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krw
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:31 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
In article <m391311vv7s86u2i2jsv20jmmuu1set4fo@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.
|
Perhaps it's that warm glow they give off on cold snowy nights.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Brasfield
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:34 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m391311vv7s86u2i2jsv20jmmuu1set4fo@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.
|
Just to help cultivate your sense of humility,
(and without suggesting it is lacking), I offer
this reconstructed sequence of our discussion:
Q: Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on
a vacuum tube than they would be on a transistor amplifier?
A(by LB): Only when the amp is underpowered for the signal
it is being asked to pass.
S(by JF): Not 'only'. The transient response of the output
transformers has a lot to do with it as well.
Q(by LB): Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is usually going to
smooth out the content that a high fidelity amplifier would have
passed? If that is the basis of your contention, then I must
point out that transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass
filters, either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe you[r]
could explain your contradiction.
R(by JF): [contrasting with magnitude frequency response]
The transient response, on the other hand, deals with the behavior
of the transformer when subjected to complex input signals and is
affected by, among other things, the leakage reactance and
interwinding capacitance in ways which wouldn't be readily
apparent when exciting the transformer with a single spectral line.
R(by LB): What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion that
transformer transient response uniformly tends to smooth output
waveforms.
R(by JF): I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks
think tube sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever
the reason. Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have
been knocked off, perhaps because some of the edge rates have
been slowed down, perhaps not.
At this point, I don't know whether we disagree or not. I have
to ignore parts of our discussion to take either position.
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:28 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
John Larkin wrote:
| Quote: | On 9 Mar 2005 13:49:54 -0800, mike-nospam@darrettenterprises.com
wrote:
Hello,
A family friend swears by using vacuum tube audio amplifiers, saying
that although they are less efficient, they produce a "warmer, less
tiring" sound than the traditional electronic amplifiers do.
So solid-state is now "the traditional electronic amplifier", and
tubes are new? To some people, I guess.
|
Perhaps I mis-spoke; I should have said "the (usual, or more common)
electronic amplifier" instead.
| Quote: | Is this really true?
Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on a vacuum
tube
than they would be on a transistor amplifier?
This is notoriously subjective, like wine tasting. It would be
interesting to have him do a blind listening comparison and see if he
can tell the difference. Some tube amps *do* have a lot of
distortion,
and some people do like the resulting sound. Tube amps have bad
damping factors, so speakers boom more, and some people like that,
too.
John
|
A lot of people have made some very interesting comments on this
thread. Some of it is above my understanding; I'm not sure what a
transformer is used for inside an amp, for instance.
Tube clipping of the waveform would modify the sound, and I guess
that's what our family friend means by his "warmer, less tiring" sound.
He's not much of a sea salt enthusiast, if anyone's wondering.
Personally, I like the standard sodium chloride, with the FDA-approved
traces of sodium iodide. The cheaper the better. ;)
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: general question about audio amplifiers |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:56:40 -0600, John Fields wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:02:39 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:52:50 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.
That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.
Oh, don't be bitter.
---
Sweet of you to notice...
|
Sounded like a verbal assault to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in