|
General Asylum: Re: Well.... by jeff mai General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
For Sale Ads |
210.8.232.2
In Reply to: Re: Well.... posted by Jerry Parker on August 5, 2002 at 07:48:46:
> > I suppose it is up to the end user to decide which amplifier sounds best to him or her. < <Yes, it is and that is really *all* there is to it. Passing further judgement presumes you know what I hear when I listen to my system. If you choose to make this presumption, I've got two words for you...
> > But it seems you are saying that you realize that in reproducing the audio signal and amplifying it, the tube amplifier is introducing distortion - but you still like it? < <
It is introducing distortion, but I can't hear distortion. I'd hate to say that no one would hear the distortion, but I don't think anyone would. I think I like it in spite of its flaws, not because of them.
> > If so, that is fine, each person has different tastes and preferences. But, how would that disprove his test of all amplifiers sounding the same? Basically are you not saying that the SET amplifier would fail against a transistor based one, due to its high distortion? < <
I'm not saying that. You are saying that and he would say that. To my knowledge absolutely *no one* has taken the time to demonstrate that the reason many people prefer SET amplifiers is specifically due to the measured flaws. They point to the measured flaws and to studies showing that some people prefer 2nd harmonic distortion added to music and the high output impedance interacting with speaker impedance, etc., and then claim the science backs them up and that's as far as it goes. Would you like being put in jail because your description matches a criminal?
Although I've not tried it, all the tests I've heard of that attempted to duplicate the SET sound by adding distortion to a SS amp have failed. Seems it isn't so simple as that.
Have a look here for a different point of view:
http://usuarios.uninet.com.br/~edelima/REASONS.htm
> > I realize that tube amplifiers are loved by many, but if its distortion is higher than a fet based amp, why use one if you are looking for the ultimate in audio REPRODUCTION? < <
Because it sounds more realistic in its reproduction than a FET based amp to my ears in my system. How can you argue with that?
> > I would assume that the least amount of change to the original audio source would be wanted in HI FI. < <
Yes, I'd say that's possibly true at a system level. It isn't so important at a component level because you can't listen to a component in isolation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - A question for Mr. John Curl - Jerry Parker 08:13:41 08/4/02 ( 51)
- Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - rtbarr 21:38:00 08/5/02 ( 1)
- That was a nice read, thanks [nt] - Ted Smith 22:16:52 08/5/02 ( 0)
One Aspect (long) - Jon Risch 20:34:13 08/5/02 ( 0)
Think about it this way..... - Adi 10:52:04 08/5/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:08:31 08/5/02 ( 0)
If a stranger calls you "Mr." on the net... - suits_me 23:08:42 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: OK, guys... - Jerry Parker 21:59:29 08/4/02 ( 18)
- NO scientific basis - Adi 11:20:45 08/5/02 ( 0)
Are you serious?? - BrassMonkey 09:20:02 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Are you serious?? - Analog Scott 17:45:08 08/5/02 ( 0)
Here's my advice. - orpheus 08:11:26 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Re: Here's my advice. - Jerry Parker 13:52:03 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Here's my advice. - orpheus 09:29:54 08/6/02 ( 0)
Re: OK, guys... - john curl 22:44:58 08/4/02 ( 11)
- Re: I have listened to high end systems! - Jerry Parker 10:08:58 08/5/02 ( 10)
- Re: I have listened to high end systems! - john curl 10:38:21 08/5/02 ( 9)
- Re: I have listened to high end systems! - Adi 11:27:37 08/5/02 ( 8)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - Jerry Parker 13:31:01 08/5/02 ( 7)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - cdb 19:36:55 08/8/02 ( 1)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - Jerry Parker 20:33:54 08/8/02 ( 0)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - Analog Scott 17:55:05 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - john curl 16:06:07 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Shame on you John - Adi 21:53:56 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Grow Up - Jerry Parker 20:29:09 08/8/02 ( 0)
- Lucky you - Bruce from DC 14:38:20 08/5/02 ( 0)
So Jerry, now do you understand? - rupertdacat 19:51:05 08/4/02 ( 1)
- Re: So Jerry, now do you understand? - Dave-A 21:16:14 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - Analog Scott 12:02:57 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - rtbarr 11:02:16 08/4/02 ( 3)
- Thanks [nt] - Ted Smith 13:02:21 08/4/02 ( 0)
Great Link! - wheezer 12:32:42 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - john curl 11:41:56 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - john curl 11:00:11 08/4/02 ( 18)
- Well, I would assume... - Jerry Parker 23:29:26 08/4/02 ( 17)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Analog Scott 17:57:42 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Jerry Parker 18:12:21 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - john curl 09:19:20 08/5/02 ( 3)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Jerry Parker 10:16:13 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Analog Scott 18:06:32 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - john curl 10:43:39 08/5/02 ( 0)
Test methods... - Estes 05:35:43 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Re: Well then... - Jerry Parker 07:40:15 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Well then... - jeff mai 18:20:59 08/5/02 ( 0)
There are more conditions on this challenge... - jeff mai 02:58:00 08/5/02 ( 7)
- Re: Well.... - Jerry Parker 07:48:46 08/5/02 ( 6)
- Re: Well.... - jeff mai 08/5/02 16:31:34 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Well.... - caa 13:27:01 08/5/02 ( 4)
- Re: Compromises - Jerry Parker 14:29:57 08/5/02 ( 3)
- Re: Compromises - Analog Scott 18:13:20 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Compromises - caa 16:26:03 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Compromises - john curl 16:20:04 08/5/02 ( 0)