Sound Practices Mailing List Files - Volume 1
=========================================================================
From: MHuber@t-online.de (Manfred Huber)
Subject: Re: A_cheapskate_s_transformer_coupled_line_stage
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:56:16 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
Thorsten,
>How does it sound?
It is too early for a final judgement. The prototype has not left the bench yet.
I listened to it with a Stax Lambda Pro headphone and all I can say until now
is that it is *very* neutral.
This preamp is meant as a nice simple unit to try your hands on current sources
and parallel feed. I think that at a total parts cost of about $100 it is certainly
worth a try. If you have built it and happen to come to like it you can always upgrade
to Mickey s nice B7 outputs.
Regards
Manfred
- ------------------
Manfred Huber
MHuber@t-online.de
- ------------------
=========================================================================
From: slagle@dtlweb.com (Dave Slagle)
Subject: AA closeouts...
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:37:49 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n116
hey
I saw that HCM (ok i still peruse stereoflu...) has a few early AA products
on the cheap......
the dac-man is $49
the DITB is $79
and the DDE 1.1 is $149
now me being the cheap bastad dat i yam was wondering if anyone has the
poop on these units...
let me say that I am a huge fan of the DDE 1.0... which with a few mods and
a cut here and a snip there has provided me with better sound than anything
I have heard in my system... yes even that POS RS 3400...
I think the key is the bitstream processor in the 1.0 has a voltage out, so
the analog gain stage can be bypassed and feed a simple triode gain stage
and voila... music.... (from the NYC+A triode mafia)
it seems in its current incarnation my dde 1.0 uses very little of the
stuff there, but I wonder what can be done to some of the others... I am
not terribly interested in dac's with a current output from the chip due to
the I/V conversion and low output, but another dac with a voltage out from
the chip might be fun to play with, and since AA is 6 feet under... no
schematics from them...
hell for $49 you can get a functional chip in a box.... build a better ps
and gain stage and who knows... if nothing else you learn????
anyboy?????
schematics????
anybody????
dave
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:46:33 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n116
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Dave Slagle wrote:
> the dac-man is $49
> the DITB is $79
> and the DDE 1.1 is $149
>
> now me being the cheap bastad dat i yam was wondering if anyone has the
> poop on these units...
I have lots of info and schematics on the DITB.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David N. Barnett)
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:01:48 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n117
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:37:49 -0500 (EST), slagle@dtlweb.com (Dave
Slagle) wrote:
>I saw that HCM (ok i still peruse stereoflu...) has a few early AA products
>on the cheap......
>
>the dac-man is $49
>the DITB is $79
>and the DDE 1.1 is $149
Do they have any of the transports on sale?
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "Norman Tracy" <ntracy@galstar.com>
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:07:23 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n117
Dave Slagle wrote:
> let me say that I am a huge fan of the DDE 1.0... which with a few mods
and
> a cut here and a snip there has provided me with better sound than
anything
> I have heard in my system... yes even that POS RS 3400...
>
> I think the key is the bitstream processor in the 1.0 has a voltage out,
so
> the analog gain stage can be bypassed and feed a simple triode gain stage
> and voila... music.... (from the NYC+A triode mafia)
Also true of Audio Crafters Guild X-DAC 3.0. Allows very simple very nice
sounding tube stages. Of course I can't match the price of a defunct
companies leftovers. Then again we designed ours up to a quality standard,
not down to a price point!
Norman Tracy
Audio Crafters Guild
ntracy@galstar.com
http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
=========================================================================
From: "Bottlehead" <Bottlehead@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:35:10 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n118
> Also true of Audio Crafters Guild X-DAC 3.0. Allows very simple very nice
> sounding tube stages. Of course I can't match the price of a defunct
> companies leftovers. Then again we designed ours up to a quality
standard,
> not down to a price point!
>
> Norman Tracy
> Audio Crafters Guild
Ya mon! Take output directly from the X-DAC 3.0 DAC chip, run it through a
stepped attenuator, to half a 5965 with active load, into Mike's 8K:500 ohm
parafeed small signal output transformer. Run this directly into your amp.
Yum.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: bill gardner <wg44929@navix.net>
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:52:30 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n118
At 12:07 AM 11/23/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Dave Slagle wrote:
>
>> let me say that I am a huge fan of the DDE 1.0... which with a few mods
>and
>> a cut here and a snip there has provided me with better sound than
>anything
>> I have heard in my system... yes even that POS RS 3400...
>>
>> I think the key is the bitstream processor in the 1.0 has a voltage out,
>so
>> the analog gain stage can be bypassed and feed a simple triode gain stage
>> and voila... music.... (from the NYC+A triode mafia)
>
>Also true of Audio Crafters Guild X-DAC 3.0. Allows very simple very nice
>sounding tube stages. Of course I can't match the price of a defunct
>companies leftovers. Then again we designed ours up to a quality standard,
>not down to a price point!
>
>Norman Tracy
>Audio Crafters Guild
>ntracy@galstar.com
>http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
>Things have for sure gotten mo better around here in the last few weeks ,
we are back to fun with diy audio and no monkey brain or other giant BS
10000 word essays regarding every subject except music .I agree with Dave
the moded DDE 1.0 is superfly , By the way Norman AA is not defunct , but
the DDE 1.0 sure is . There is one small problem with this set up , about
every 6 months the DDE 1.0 goes up in a cloud of smoke , I recently talked
with Eric Statman , hes fried a couple , and I, ve smoked one . I talked to
Arthur yesterday about this problem , he's sending me another one this week
, Arthur said he hasn't had the problem , but for 80.00 bucks a pop I 'll
keep using them and frying um .I,ve compared this setup to the Theta Gen V
and a friends ps audio ( moded by mr warren ) and in my always humble
opinion :>) this down to price point device smoked them both .
Thanks every one for all the great information . Well I better get over to
Normans web page and check out the X-DAC 3.0 , sounds interesting . Thanks
Bill Gardner
=========================================================================
From: slagle@dtlweb.com
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:41:41 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n118
> There is one small problem with this set up , about
>every 6 months the DDE 1.0 goes up in a cloud of smoke
What??? how do you do this??? I have abused mine to no end, and she just
keeps trucking along! I successfully desoldered two of the chips (14 and
24 pin) and put sockets in all in an effeort to add an I2S bus in (never
got it to work) but i did manage to break off 2 pins, and re-solder new
ones on made from copper! I use a 1/8 inch drill bit to cut traces and just
solder a piece of wire over it when I cut the wrong one.... to me this is a
pretty hearty critter!
>I talked toArthur yesterday about this problem , he's sending me another one
>this week
>, Arthur said he hasn't had the problem , but for 80.00 bucks a pop I 'll
>keep using them and frying um
so Arthur is hoarding them right along with 90% of the SP 2A3's left in
this country.... I may have to pay him a visit late late some night..
>I,ve compared this setup to the Theta Gen V
>and a friends ps audio ( moded by mr warren ) and in my always humble
>opinion :>) this down to price point device smoked them both .
Agreed! I had a Cal icon and the new audio note all in one box player, and
IMO for musicality the AA was the winner.... If you use critical listening
and test cd's for full frequency response... the AN was better, but for
music..... I like the AA
if you did arthurs trick and bypassed the analog gain stage, there is an
unused +-8V supply cooking away for no reason.... go to RS and get a few
7805's and replace the 8V regulators (you have to reverse a diode and the
caps on the - supply.... then use the two new 5V supplies to supply various
parts.... its cheap and helps....
dave
gotta go.... the pack is going to spank dallas
=========================================================================
From: sschenkel@juno.com (Steve J Schenkel)
Subject: Re: AA closeouts...
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:51:29 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n118
I missed out on who has the AA closeouts. Could someone give me the info.
Steve
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:52:30 -0600 bill gardner <wg44929@navix.net>
writes:
>At 12:07 AM 11/23/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>Dave Slagle wrote:
>>
>>> let me say that I am a huge fan of the DDE 1.0... which with a few
>mods
>>and
>>> a cut here and a snip there has provided me with better sound than
>>anything
>>> I have heard in my system... yes even that POS RS 3400...
>>>
>>> I think the key is the bitstream processor in the 1.0 has a voltage
>out,
>>so
>>> the analog gain stage can be bypassed and feed a simple triode gain
>stage
>>> and voila... music.... (from the NYC+A triode mafia)
>>
>>Also true of Audio Crafters Guild X-DAC 3.0. Allows very simple very
>nice
>>sounding tube stages. Of course I can't match the price of a defunct
>>companies leftovers. Then again we designed ours up to a quality
>standard,
>>not down to a price point!
>>
>>Norman Tracy
>>Audio Crafters Guild
>>ntracy@galstar.com
>>http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
>>Things have for sure gotten mo better around here in the last few
>weeks ,
>we are back to fun with diy audio and no monkey brain or other giant
>BS
>10000 word essays regarding every subject except music .I agree with
>Dave
>the moded DDE 1.0 is superfly , By the way Norman AA is not defunct ,
>but
>the DDE 1.0 sure is . There is one small problem with this set up ,
>about
>every 6 months the DDE 1.0 goes up in a cloud of smoke , I recently
>talked
>with Eric Statman , hes fried a couple , and I, ve smoked one . I
>talked to
>Arthur yesterday about this problem , he's sending me another one this
>week
>, Arthur said he hasn't had the problem , but for 80.00 bucks a pop I
>'ll
>keep using them and frying um .I,ve compared this setup to the Theta
>Gen V
>and a friends ps audio ( moded by mr warren ) and in my always humble
>opinion :>) this down to price point device smoked them both .
>Thanks every one for all the great information . Well I better get
>over to
>Normans web page and check out the X-DAC 3.0 , sounds interesting .
>Thanks
>Bill Gardner
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Randall.Thatcher@po.cle.ab.com
Subject: AA DAC v1.0 mods?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:07:43 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n114
i may be getting the AA v1.0 dac with a speaker sale/trade i'm doing (if it goes
through...) is it any good? are there mods to make vast improvements?
randy
=========================================================================
From: "alfred trower" <sedht@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Abbey Road
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:34:59 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n195
Jérôme Phaneuf wrote:
>I've just put my hands on an old mint copy of Abbey Road by the Beatles
>for dirt cheap. I was wondering how much it could be worth.
Well, that all depends. What does the record label look like? What kind
of record jacket does it have? What country was it pressed in?
You see, there were many reissues, some even look like the original
issues so much that it's hard to tell them apart. I'm no expert on the
matter, but I too have found some interesting "old mint" Beatles albums
that turned out to be either later issues, or reissues.
Now, a mint mono copy of Meet the Beatles....
Al
Alfred Trower
Consultant, Client/Server Systems
Supply Chain Specialist
- ----------------------------------
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to
those who cannot fly." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: Jérôme Phaneuf <jer@videotron.ca>
Subject: Abbey Road
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:59:47 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n195
Hey guys,
I've just put my hands on an old mint copy of Abbey Road by the Beatles
for dirt cheap. I was wondering how much it could be worth.
And no, I don't plan to sell it, except if it can pay for a new car.
That I doubt.
Does anyone have an idea?
Thank you.
Jerome
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Abbey Road
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:59:42 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n195
I have the original, but how would someone else be able to tell?
GM
- -----Original Message-----
>Jérôme Phaneuf wrote:
>
>>I've just put my hands on an old mint copy of Abbey Road by the Beatles
>>for dirt cheap. I was wondering how much it could be worth.
>
>Well, that all depends. What does the record label look like? What kind
>of record jacket does it have? What country was it pressed in?
>
>You see, there were many reissues, some even look like the original
>issues so much that it's hard to tell them apart. I'm no expert on the
>matter, but I too have found some interesting "old mint" Beatles albums
>that turned out to be either later issues, or reissues.
>
>Now, a mint mono copy of Meet the Beatles....
>
>Al
>
>Alfred Trower
>Consultant, Client/Server Systems
>Supply Chain Specialist
>----------------------------------
>"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to
>those who cannot fly." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
=========================================================================
From: "alfred trower" <sedht@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Abbey Road
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 07:23:25 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n195
Greg wrote:
>I have the original, but how would someone else be able to tell?
With the earlier albums, it's a combination of the label and the sleeve.
The label will be a Capitol "Rainbow" label, and the inner sleve will
usually have ads for Capitol's other pop artists of the day. Later
releases will have the Apple records label, but the jacket itself is
pretty simular to the original. There was a pretty large rerelease of
those albums in the early eighties, and these had non-discript brown
labels, Capitol, and plastic inner sleves. As I said, I'm no expert
here, but this is what I've learned. I'm sure there must be some good
dicographies out on the web somewhere that would provide both more
accurate and more complete info.
Al
Alfred Trower
Consultant, Client/Server Systems
Supply Chain Specialist
- ----------------------------------
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to
those who cannot fly." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Abbey Road
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:57:29 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n196
Interesting. I have mono and some stereo originals. Or, I assume they're
originals. They were bought when first released here in Atlanta. All have
plain white paper sleeves.
GM
- -----Original Message-----
>With the earlier albums, it's a combination of the label and the sleeve.
>The label will be a Capitol "Rainbow" label, and the inner sleve will
>usually have ads for Capitol's other pop artists of the day. Later
>releases will have the Apple records label, but the jacket itself is
>pretty simular to the original. There was a pretty large rerelease of
>those albums in the early eighties, and these had non-discript brown
>labels, Capitol, and plastic inner sleves. As I said, I'm no expert
>here, but this is what I've learned. I'm sure there must be some good
>dicographies out on the web somewhere that would provide both more
>accurate and more complete info.
>
>Al
>
>
>
>Alfred Trower
>Consultant, Client/Server Systems
>Supply Chain Specialist
>----------------------------------
>"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to
>those who cannot fly." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: Jérôme Phaneuf <jer@videotron.ca>
Subject: Abbey Road: the label
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:31:46 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n196
Okay....mine has a plain paper sleeve with no plastic window or inner
plastic lining. It was white but now has turned yellowish...like an old
newspaper.
The label on the record is purple and says "Capitol".
The record was made in Canada.
Jerome
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Abbey Road: the label
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:12:57 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n196
My 'Abby Road' is Apple SO-383. Listed as an E.M.I. recording on the cover
and on the record label as mfg. by Apple Records, Inc. No country of origin
is listed other than being recorded in England. I wonder is there is more
than one original release depending on distribution locale, and if so, which
is the most prized.
GM
- -----Original Message-----
>Okay....mine has a plain paper sleeve with no plastic window or inner
>plastic lining. It was white but now has turned yellowish...like an old
>newspaper.
>
>The label on the record is purple and says "Capitol".
>
>The record was made in Canada.
>
>Jerome
>
=========================================================================
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:19:51 -0700 (MST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
The consensus is that the Lowther is a skinny but shapely lady with
intoxicating bed manners who can't cook and won't do housework and has
frequent headaches and vacillates between a throaty purr and a virago's
snarl but who can be an indecently pleasurable companion. My question
(which was on my mind when I inquired futilely about a material code in
the Lowther cone hues) is why hasn't someone tried to refine the defects
out of the Lowther design? With current magnets the X-max could be
increased, the same Vd could be preserved with a smaller cone and better
dispersion, and the peak engineered out, while maintaining or even
improving efficiency. If the single-cone option is attractive, one would
think some canny designer would brew up a Son of Lowther, the Hythor. The
SET fad (don't throw things at me) has put new life in the Lowther. Or am
I all wet?
Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <Tom@ppci.com>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:18:40 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
Douglas Purl wrote:
> The consensus is that the Lowther is a skinny but shapely lady with
> intoxicating bed manners who can't cook and won't do housework and has
> frequent headaches and vacillates between a throaty purr and a virago's
> snarl but who can be an indecently pleasurable companion. My question
> (which was on my mind when I inquired futilely about a material code in
> the Lowther cone hues) is why hasn't someone tried to refine the defects
> out of the Lowther design? With current magnets the X-max could be
> increased, the same Vd could be preserved with a smaller cone and better
> dispersion, and the peak engineered out, while maintaining or even
> improving efficiency. If the single-cone option is attractive, one would
> think some canny designer would brew up a Son of Lowther, the Hythor. The
> SET fad (don't throw things at me) has put new life in the Lowther. Or am
> I all wet?
>
> Doug Purl
Hi Doug, all
Not all wet, but there are several sets of problems which need to be
addressed.
For an axially symmetric driver, like any cone or dome there are several
considerations.
For one when a radiator is small compared to the wavelength, the motion of the
radiator at low and mid frequencies is that of acceleration, it is mass
controlled. One of the more counter intuitive things in driver design is the
fact that mass (as in increasing or decreasing) has NO effect on the high
frequency or step response of the driver in this range. I assure you though it
is true, mass does have a large effect on efficiency though.
Once the frequency is high enough so that the radiator equals or is more than
to about a wavelength across, the radiator motion must be that of velocity
(much more difficult to do)
or the acoustic power will fall off at 6 dB/Oct. For a full range driver like
the Lowther,
this problem is off set (on axis) because the now large size of the radiator
confines the radiation to a smaller and smaller angle, off setting the roll
off (hopefully) all be it with significant Frenel and Fraunhoffer effects
which produce a rough response.
Another limit is the high frequency roll off of motor it self, as you may
remember the inductance of a round coil is proportional to the number of turns
squared and the strength of the motor is proportional to the length of wire in
the gap times the strength of the magnetic field divided by the square root of
the Rdc. The strength of the magnetic field is limited by the iron used to
form the gap, the best magnetic alloy will support up to about 2.2 to 2.4 T in
the gap (if you can afford the volume of magnet it takes to get there), this
leaves the wire as a variable.
Since weight and resistance are equally important, Aluminum turns out to be
about twice the figure of merit compared to copper. Now you deal with gage and
turns and what you find is that a coil that has a 15 kHz, R/L roll off, is
rather small so far as motors go.
A large X-max can only be reached by a deep (expensive) magnetic gap.
This also means the cone must be very light and fairly small.
The assumption that all of the analysis pivots on is that the motion of the
radiator is that of a piston, for low and mid frequencies it is but it does
change as you go up.
At the apex of the cone, where the coil is attached, the "up and down" force
from the coil is applied to the cone on an angle which produces flexural and
compression waves, also the symmetric shape also couples radial tension
forces. The speed of sound in any medium is finite and in one material the
speed of propagation of these different modes is also different.
At some higher frequency, you reach a point where combinations of these modes
result in parts of the cone flapping one way and other parts going the other
(full blown breakup).
As a result of this issue, the BEST material to make a radiator out of is NOT
the lightest most ridged thing possible but the lightest most ridged thing
that has sufficient internal damping and acceptable cost.
In the Lowther, hopefully the wizzer cone has fully taken over by this point,
its steep sides giving it much greater stiffness and hopefully its breakup
point is very high in frequency.
Even its seemingly small dimensions provide significant directivity at very
high frequencies.
Personally I don't see much improvement possible in the motor system but
materials are always getting better.
Actually I should be out in the shop working on a wide band driver right now,
there are ways to solve all of the problems, I couldn't find the answers using
a piston radiator. You can see one version of the driver technology I`m
working on at the following
http://www.audio-x-stream.com/picture.html
This driver covers 80 HZ to 22KHZ + - 2DB, phase is nominally at zero degrees
above 200 HZ (like a horn). back to work.
Best regards,
Tom
=========================================================================
From: Roscoe Primrose <roscoe@aiko.com>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:40:39 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
King wrote:
>
> It is called Reps 1. Does it solve all problems? Probably not but it's very
> close.
>
It'll also cure any problem you might have with excess funds in your
bank account, aren't they about 2500USD each?
Peace
> Regards
> King
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
> To: sound@deliverator.io.com <sound@deliverator.io.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 27 October 1998 20:26
> Subject: A Better Lowther?
>
> |The consensus is that the Lowther is a skinny but shapely lady with
> |intoxicating bed manners who can't cook and won't do housework and has
> |frequent headaches and vacillates between a throaty purr and a virago's
> |snarl but who can be an indecently pleasurable companion. My question
> |(which was on my mind when I inquired futilely about a material code in
> |the Lowther cone hues) is why hasn't someone tried to refine the defects
> |out of the Lowther design? With current magnets the X-max could be
> |increased, the same Vd could be preserved with a smaller cone and better
> |dispersion, and the peak engineered out, while maintaining or even
> |improving efficiency. If the single-cone option is attractive, one would
> |think some canny designer would brew up a Son of Lowther, the Hythor. The
> |SET fad (don't throw things at me) has put new life in the Lowther. Or am
> |I all wet?
> |
> |Doug Purl
> |
- --
Roscoe Primrose -- mailto:roscoe@aiko.com --
http://www.aiko.com/roscoe
"Once in a while you get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right." Robert Hunter
"640K ought to be enough for anybody" , Bill Gates, 1981
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:21:48 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
>
>It's been done. The product is called the Reps-1, named after its
>creator, Charlie Reps.
That's Frank.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:42:16 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:19:51 -0700 (MST), Douglas Purl
<dcp@selway.umt.edu> wrote:
>My question
>(which was on my mind when I inquired futilely about a material code in
>the Lowther cone hues) is why hasn't someone tried to refine the defects
>out of the Lowther design?
It's been done. The product is called the Reps-1, named after its
creator, Charlie Reps.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "King" <drwkng@netvigator.com>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:01:10 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
It is called Reps 1. Does it solve all problems? Probably not but it's very
close.
Regards
King
- -----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
To: sound@deliverator.io.com <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Date: Tuesday, 27 October 1998 20:26
Subject: A Better Lowther?
|The consensus is that the Lowther is a skinny but shapely lady with
|intoxicating bed manners who can't cook and won't do housework and has
|frequent headaches and vacillates between a throaty purr and a virago's
|snarl but who can be an indecently pleasurable companion. My question
|(which was on my mind when I inquired futilely about a material code in
|the Lowther cone hues) is why hasn't someone tried to refine the defects
|out of the Lowther design? With current magnets the X-max could be
|increased, the same Vd could be preserved with a smaller cone and better
|dispersion, and the peak engineered out, while maintaining or even
|improving efficiency. If the single-cone option is attractive, one would
|think some canny designer would brew up a Son of Lowther, the Hythor. The
|SET fad (don't throw things at me) has put new life in the Lowther. Or am
|I all wet?
|
|Doug Purl
|
=========================================================================
From: "King" <drwkng@netvigator.com>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:49:57 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
I never say it is cheap. This is definitely not a casual purchase. Shame
that you are not in Hong Kong otherwise you are welcome to audition it.
Regards
King
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roscoe Primrose <roscoe@aiko.com>
To: King <drwkng@netvigator.com>
Cc: sound@deliverator.io.com <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Date: Tuesday, 27 October 1998 22:41
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
|King wrote:
|>
|> It is called Reps 1. Does it solve all problems? Probably not but it's
very
|> close.
|>
|
|It'll also cure any problem you might have with excess funds in your
|bank account, aren't they about 2500USD each?
|
|Peace
|
|> Regards
|> King
|>
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
|> To: sound@deliverator.io.com <sound@deliverator.io.com>
|> Date: Tuesday, 27 October 1998 20:26
|> Subject: A Better Lowther?
|>
|> |The consensus is that the Lowther is a skinny but shapely lady with
|> |intoxicating bed manners who can't cook and won't do housework and has
|> |frequent headaches and vacillates between a throaty purr and a virago's
|> |snarl but who can be an indecently pleasurable companion. My question
|> |(which was on my mind when I inquired futilely about a material code in
|> |the Lowther cone hues) is why hasn't someone tried to refine the defects
|> |out of the Lowther design? With current magnets the X-max could be
|> |increased, the same Vd could be preserved with a smaller cone and better
|> |dispersion, and the peak engineered out, while maintaining or even
|> |improving efficiency. If the single-cone option is attractive, one
would
|> |think some canny designer would brew up a Son of Lowther, the Hythor.
The
|> |SET fad (don't throw things at me) has put new life in the Lowther. Or
am
|> |I all wet?
|> |
|> |Doug Purl
|> |
|
|
|--
|Roscoe Primrose -- mailto:roscoe@aiko.com --
|http://www.aiko.com/roscoe
|
|"Once in a while you get shown the light
|In the strangest of places if you look at it right." Robert Hunter
|
|"640K ought to be enough for anybody" , Bill Gates, 1981
=========================================================================
From: Robert Lamarre <rlamarre@rlacoustique.com>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:16:49 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n471
At 09:40 AM 10/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>King wrote:
>>
>> It is called Reps 1. Does it solve all problems? Probably not but it's very
>> close.
>>
>
>It'll also cure any problem you might have with excess funds in your
>bank account, aren't they about 2500USD each?
>
>Peace
>
>> Regards
>> King
Actually they are 1,750USD each retail.
For your information Bert, I have sold a couple of pairs to people that have
PM5a in their cabinets.
They could not believe their ears. As a matter of fact, if anyone needs a
pair of PM5A's , I could
probably have a converted client get in contact with serious inquirees.
Here is a quote from one happy customer:
Hello Robert,
Much to my surprise I received the drivers
yesterday (Sunday!). Packed as if going on
the next Shuttle launch, they arrived in
perfect condition. After a brief period of
awe inspired inspection, I installed them in
my modified M-horns. I can honestly say that
within minutes all hopes and expectations,
previously hinted at with my Lowther experiences,
were greatly exceeded! These drivers are every-
thing that the Lowthers hoped to grow up to be.
And the bass! Pure, clean and low. This is truly
a full range driver I can live happily-ever-after
with. Bye-bye annoying subwoofer mating rituals.
I'M FREE !! (a la Rodger Daltry/(respectfully),
not MLK) Makes me proud to be an American besting
those Brits again!!!
Thanks again and my best
regards to Mr. Reps,
Aurally Mesmerized,
ML
P.S.
You should have your check
by weeks end. If not, please let
me know.
Best Regards,
========== Robert Lamarre ===========
RL Acoustique, Creator of The Lamhorn
rlamarre@rlacoustique.com------------
www.rlacoustique.com-----------------
ph./fax: 450-653-3461 Canada---------
=========================================================================
From: RALPH POWER <POWER.RALPH@epamail.epa.gov>
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther? -Reply
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:14:55 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
Hi Dave,
You said :
>It's been done. The product is called the Reps-1, named after its
>creator, Charlie Reps.
I thought it was Frank Reps....
My $.2 ,
- Ralph
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: A Better Lowther? -Reply
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:34:31 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n470
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:14:55 -0500, RALPH POWER
<POWER.RALPH@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV> wrote:
>I thought it was Frank Reps....
You thought correctly, I wrote wrong....
Thanks.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: An-shyang Chu <hopper@chtm.chtm.unm.edu>
Subject: a bi-amp amp design
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:20:04 -0600 (MDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n056
Hi Guys,
In the quest of a dream SE system, I am in the next phase of doing away
with sub-90dB speakers and am looking for efficient speakers. Impulse
(Ta'us), Lowther, Reps, Exampler etc. are on my list. Some of them are
multi-drivers system and the virtues of bi-amp keep on coming up. Do I
build a multi-amp system? or should I use a single VV52B for its 24 watts
headroom.... ? The debate goes on.
After hearing many people speak of the immediacy and presence of 2A3
(loving it now)vs 300B and looking at the massive 70 watts Ankoru amps
design, an idea came up. This is based on the parallel-feed priciple
(credited to the good DocB and Mikey).
Take a 3-stage design like the Ankoru, where an IT is used between the
driver and output tubes. Tap off the plate of the driver (replace the
300B with a 2A3 in this case) with a nickle TFA2004 and grounded it with
a cap for a cutoff at the bass crossover point. A HF cut-off RC and a pot
are placed at the secondary of the IT for the (now) bass amp.
Have anyone though about this design? or try it? Just a crazy idea.
hopper
=========================================================================
From: Matthew Allen <MDAllen@Madge.com>
Subject: A bit of info?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:05:19 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n571
Hello all,
I have recently joined the list and wondered
if I could ask your advice on a few things?
I am interested in building a valve amp.
Initially I would like to go for a simple Mullard
type PP or SE circuit? A company called F&S transformers
sell chassis kits with their transformers attached
here in the UK. Anybody heard of them or know of their
quality. Punching and making the chassis is the difficult
part from a DIY point of view so I thought it may
be a good starting point then I can buy my own valves etc.
I will either go down this route or buy one of the Hifi
World kits either the PP 5881 or the cheaper KEL34.
Any opinions?
Thanks for any advice!
Matthew
PS which would be better valve rectification
or solid state? (thats probably opened a can
of worms!)
- --------------------------------------------
Dr Matthew Allen, 01753 661725 (Direct)
FORCE Project Group, 01753 661000 (Sboard)
Madge Networks Ltd, 01753 661888 (Fax)
Wexham Springs,
Framewood Road,
Wexham,
Slough SL3 6PJ
- --------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: Simon Busbridge <S.C.Busbridge@bton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:22:42 +0000 (BST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n571
Matthew,
I've never heard of F&S - but - chassis punching is not so difficult.
One easy way is to buy a piece of sheet aluminium 1.6 mm thick (or
thicker) and use Q-max punches for the larger round holds. If you use
fully shrouded transformers they simply can be bolted to the top of the
chassis. Drop-through types are more difficult. You may need a
strengthening bar underneath the top plate but you get suitable things
from B&Q. For the vertical sides of the chassis use wooden panels.
I have built all of my amplifiers using this principle.
Simon
Dr Simon Busbridge
School of Engineering
University of Brighton
Lewes Road
Moulsecoomb
Brighton BN2 4GJ
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 0044 (0)1273 642542
Fax: 0044 (0)1273 642327/642301
e-mail: s.c.busbridge@bton.ac.uk, scbusbridge@hotmail.com
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Matthew Allen wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have recently joined the list and wondered
> if I could ask your advice on a few things?
> I am interested in building a valve amp.
> Initially I would like to go for a simple Mullard
> type PP or SE circuit? A company called F&S transformers
> sell chassis kits with their transformers attached
> here in the UK. Anybody heard of them or know of their
> quality. Punching and making the chassis is the difficult
> part from a DIY point of view so I thought it may
> be a good starting point then I can buy my own valves etc.
> I will either go down this route or buy one of the Hifi
> World kits either the PP 5881 or the cheaper KEL34.
> Any opinions?
> Thanks for any advice!
>
> Matthew
> PS which would be better valve rectification
> or solid state? (thats probably opened a can
> of worms!)
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Dr Matthew Allen, 01753 661725 (Direct)
> FORCE Project Group, 01753 661000 (Sboard)
> Madge Networks Ltd, 01753 661888 (Fax)
> Wexham Springs,
> Framewood Road,
> Wexham,
> Slough SL3 6PJ
> --------------------------------------------
>
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:47:34 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n572
At 9:05 AM +0000 1/13/99, Matthew Allen wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I have recently joined the list and wondered
>if I could ask your advice on a few things?
>I am interested in building a valve amp.
>Initially I would like to go for a simple Mullard
>type PP or SE circuit? A company called F&S transformers
>sell chassis kits with their transformers attached
>here in the UK. Anybody heard of them or know of their
>quality. Punching and making the chassis is the difficult
>part from a DIY point of view so I thought it may
>be a good starting point then I can buy my own valves etc.
>I will either go down this route or buy one of the Hifi
>World kits either the PP 5881 or the cheaper KEL34.
>Any opinions?
>Thanks for any advice!
Most importantly, how much power do you need? There are several really
fine SE 2A3/300B three kits available, but will 3-8 watts do it for you? I
think SE kits are a lot more fun, you can get amazing sound on the first
attempt, and they usually are eminently upgradeable. A PP pentode kit is
pretty much what it is, with little opportunity for major changes. But if
you need 15 watts or more, than you need a PP kit.
Good chassis-work is a pain in the neck for someone without expensive tools
and this would be a concern of mine as well. But there are a number of
kits which come with prepunched chassis.
If you are willing to spend $1000US or more, then there are several good SE
options. At $600US or less, then you might be better off to try a PP kit.
In the end, you will have a great deal of fun either way. When you finally
flick that power switch and hear music pouring out, it's a pretty big
thrill! :-) And talk about impressing your friends...!
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: "Bart Shepherd" <bart.shepherd@ttm.com.sg>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:47:06 +1100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n572
Hi Mathew,
I think you need to prioritise what you want out of the exercise.
If your main goal is to fairly quickly and easily end up with a nice
amplifier that you can enjoy listening to music with plus learn a fait bit
along the way with minimum pain, then I suggest starting with a kit.
I think the kits from Hi Fi World are pretty good all things considered and
an excellent starting place for beginners. You get all the parts , which can
be a challenge in itself until you learn all the places and you dont have to
mess with awkward funny shaped holes or design your own layout.
I would start with a simple, less expensive one. When you want the ultimate,
you may also wish to part design it yourself. Which one depends on what you
have already. If you have an OK pre-amp then just a power amp makes sesne.
If not, then perhaps an integrated. If you have speakers which aren't very
sensitive then a few watts would be good so perhaps not a very low powered
single ender.
On the other hand, if your prime interest is to tinker and learn as much and
as quickly as possible by all means have a go. Its not that hard. Perhaps
buy good transformers you can use later as well and then build a little
Single Ender. I suggest you buy a few good books on the subject and
subscribe to both Sound Practices and Glass Audio. Bruce Rozenblit's "A
Beginner's Guide to Tube Audio" (also available from Hi-Fi World) is an
excellent starter. Study these ( esp SP back issues) to choose a design. Do
not start with a 1,000 volt monster!
Invest in a good soldering iron and you will figure out what other tools as
you go. Do not embark on mains voltage wiring without help unless you are
sure you fully understand it and study safety issues before you commence.
Dont worry about super tweak parts till later when you know the sound you
are looking for. Dont forget to keep some money for plenty of software (CD's
or vinyl).
Above all have plenty of fun and there are always plenty of helping hands
and a very knowledgeable group on this list.
If you need some speakers by all means choose something matching from the
Hi-Fi World kit list. Perhaps subscribe to Speaker Builder. Most DIY types
build as much of their kit as they can (just about everything except CD
transports).
Read plenty and think about it before you decide which way to jump. If money
is not a problem and you want something special then consider the Audio Note
Kit One or, in my view, better still the Welborne Labs "Laurel" - an
excellent long term investment. You are online, search out these Web Sites.
Cheers,
Bart
From: Matthew Allen
>Hello all,
>
>I have recently joined the list and wondered
>if I could ask your advice on a few things?
>I am interested in building a valve amp.
>Initially I would like to go for a simple Mullard
>type PP or SE circuit? A company called F&S transformers
>sell chassis kits with their transformers attached
>here in the UK. Anybody heard of them or know of their
>quality. Punching and making the chassis is the difficult
>part from a DIY point of view so I thought it may
>be a good starting point then I can buy my own valves etc.
>I will either go down this route or buy one of the Hifi
>World kits either the PP 5881 or the cheaper KEL34.
>Any opinions?
>Thanks for any advice!
>
>Matthew
>PS which would be better valve rectification
>or solid state? (thats probably opened a can
>of worms!)
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Dr Matthew Allen, 01753 661725 (Direct)
>FORCE Project Group, 01753 661000 (Sboard)
>Madge Networks Ltd, 01753 661888 (Fax)
>Wexham Springs,
>Framewood Road,
>Wexham,
>Slough SL3 6PJ
>--------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: Tim Reese <tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:08:54 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n573
>I have recently joined the list and wondered
>if I could ask your advice on a few things?
>I am interested in building a valve amp.
>Initially I would like to go for a simple Mullard
>type PP or SE circuit? A company called F&S transformers
>sell chassis kits with their transformers attached
>here in the UK. Anybody heard of them or know of their
>quality. Punching and making the chassis is the difficult
>part from a DIY point of view so I thought it may
>be a good starting point then I can buy my own valves etc.
In terms of value, I think you can't beat updating a "classic" amp. All the
difficult metal work is done for you - the only constraint is that you must
conform to the existing punchouts and transformers on the chassis.
In the US, the more desirable starting points (like the Heath W5M and EICO
HF-50) have been mostly gleaned from the market, but are still out there at
reasonable prices (ca 4-600 USD). Other, less well known examples are
available for bargain prices (ca 1-200 USD). Dynaco ST-70s can still be
found for way cheap, like $200 or so, or less for a junker. However, name
brands like Mac and Marantz push up into the low kilobuck range.
I'd expect that Leak and Quad used amps are available in your area ...
perhaps some local enthusiasts could point you toward good sources?
Most of the correspondents on the Joe List groove on single-ended homebrew,
and you can breadboard along these lines without building a chassis. A few
are into push-pull homebrew with DHTs as well (like Grover, Lynn, Bob D. and
humbly, me) but you can take an ST-70 (for example) and build a pretty nice
P-P DHT amp with, say, Ned Carlson's driver board and a quad of the Sovtek
6B4Gs. This'd be less expensive than anything that you built from scratch,
and likely superior to a kit amp.
>I will either go down this route or buy one of the Hifi
>World kits either the PP 5881 or the cheaper KEL34.
It's my impression that the modern kit amps are almost all sourced from
China, and aren't up to the build-quality standards of the "Golden Age"
amps.
>Any opinions?
See above.
>Thanks for any advice!
>
>Matthew
>PS which would be better valve rectification
>or solid state? (thats probably opened a can
>of worms!)
I'd avoid solid state unless the chassis had no room.
regards tr
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Reese, MGH NMR Center reese@nmr.MGH.harvard.edu
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:23:40 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n573
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:08:54 -0500 (EST), Tim Reese
<tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU> wrote:
> but you can take an ST-70 (for example) and build a pretty nice
>P-P DHT amp with, say, Ned Carlson's driver board and a quad of the Sovtek
>6B4Gs. This'd be less expensive than anything that you built from scratch,
>and likely superior to a kit amp.
Will the Dyna ST70 power transformer run four 6B4G filaments?
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:05:49 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n574
At 11:23 PM +0000 1/13/99, David Barnett wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:08:54 -0500 (EST), Tim Reese
><tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU> wrote:
>
>> but you can take an ST-70 (for example) and build a pretty nice
>>P-P DHT amp with, say, Ned Carlson's driver board and a quad of the Sovtek
>>6B4Gs. This'd be less expensive than anything that you built from scratch,
>>and likely superior to a kit amp.
>
>Will the Dyna ST70 power transformer run four 6B4G filaments?
Certainly. There are two 6.3vac taps, each enough to run two EL34s and a
7199. The 6B4G, I believe, draws less heater current than the EL34.
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: Steve Berger <aprilsound@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:09:57 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n574
David Barnett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:08:54 -0500 (EST), Tim Reese
> <tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU> wrote:
>
> > but you can take an ST-70 (for example) and build a pretty nice
> >P-P DHT amp with, say, Ned Carlson's driver board and a quad of the Sovtek
> >6B4Gs. This'd be less expensive than anything that you built from scratch,
> >and likely superior to a kit amp.
>
> Will the Dyna ST70 power transformer run four 6B4G filaments?
>
> --dnb
Hi Folks:
I dont think that this is a good way to enjoy the joys of triodes. I
think rather someone might get the wrong idea about the triode sound.
First, as you probably know, due to the miller efect, triodes are hard
to drive. They need alot of current to drive that pesky input
capacitance.They need alot of swing, because of there high bias voltage
and relatively low gain.
Another point is that the power tranny on the ST-70 is only good for
about 200 ma. which, if I may say, is too high a voltage for 6B4s. Maybe
the sovtecs are good for higher voltage. Its been my expirience, that I
want to hear these things with a whole lota current going though them.
I would think that I would need a 300 ma. tranny to make a Stereo 6B4G
amp.
Also, we have to keep in mind, that in a PP amp we would like to have
at least twice the swing as the bias voltage. In the case of a B4G amp,
with a bias of 45 volts, we want 90 or 100 volts of swing.
My recomendo, for an ST-70 mod, is to use ye old mullard circuit for
the voltage amp and driver, and triode wire the output stage, and VIOLA!
an amp that you can listen to!
You can even use the bias tap to make a negative supply for the
cathodes of the drivers.
Believe me, Ive done a whole lot of ST-70 mods of all kinds.
One that I think was quite successfull, I used a 250 ohm K resisstor on
each cathodes of triode wired 6L6s, I used 6L6s to cut the fillament
requirements in half so that the power tranny would run cooler.
Another reason that it would be hard to make a 6B4 amp in a dyna, is
that you need separate filliment trannys for the outputs, and there is
nowhere to put them.
I just had an idea! Find a pair of heath W-4s or W-5s. These both have
a perfectly good set of trannys, a nice choke and plenty of room to
build a great PP 6B4 amps.
you can use a choke input for the power supply and get around 325
volts. All you need is a filliment tranny for the B4Gs, and you have
every thing you need. A small HV tranny, and you can make a J.C.Mo.
Dual Diff-O-Roony [tubasaurus][its on my webpage].
If your lazy, you can make a separate HV supply by makeing a silicon
bridge rectifier off the HV windings right on the rectifier socket, and
get around 450 volts for the front end.
anyway, its all food for thought.
Good night,
Steve
PS: I'll try too get my buddy ron to put the mullard on my website soon.
- --
Steve Berger <http://home.earthlink.net/~aprilsound/>
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:06:19 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n574
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:09:57 -0500, Steve Berger
<aprilsound@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Another point is that the power tranny on the ST-70 is only good for
>about 200 ma. which
It's gotta be good for a little more than that -- the ST70 output
tubes idle at 55mA ea., so 220mA at idle just for the outputs, plus
whatever minimal current the 7199s draw, plus four 12AX7As in a pair
of PAM-1s connected to the power jacks on the front, THAT's what that
power transformer was designed for.
And since it's a Class AB amp, it pulls more current under power than
at idle, surely there's some margin for that in the transformer design
too, no?
I wish that Mikey L. wasn't missing in action (slugging it out with
Jute on r.a.t.), and could look up the specs for that tranny.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: Tim Reese <tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:59:02 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n574
David Barnett wrote
>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:08:54 -0500 (EST), Tim Reese
><tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU> wrote:
>
>> but you can take an ST-70 (for example) and build a pretty nice
>>P-P DHT amp with, say, Ned Carlson's driver board and a quad of the Sovtek
>>6B4Gs. This'd be less expensive than anything that you built from scratch,
>>and likely superior to a kit amp.
>
>Will the Dyna ST70 power transformer run four 6B4G filaments?
>
>--dnb
The EL34 is a 1.5A @ 6.3V while the 6B4G is 1A. B+ is a bit high for NOS,
but fine for the Sovteks.
Anybody want to sell their clapped-out ST-70 for this purpose?
regards tr
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Reese, MGH NMR Center reese@nmr.MGH.harvard.edu
=========================================================================
From: Tim Reese <tgrmail@nmr.MGH.harvard.EDU>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:13:48 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n575
David B wrote
>On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:09:57 -0500, Steve Berger
><aprilsound@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Another point is that the power tranny on the ST-70 is only good for
>>about 200 ma. which
>
>It's gotta be good for a little more than that -- the ST70 output
>tubes idle at 55mA ea., so 220mA at idle just for the outputs, plus
>whatever minimal current the 7199s draw, plus four 12AX7As in a pair
>of PAM-1s connected to the power jacks on the front, THAT's what that
>power transformer was designed for.
>
>And since it's a Class AB amp, it pulls more current under power than
>at idle, surely there's some margin for that in the transformer design
>too, no?
AFAIK the original transformer is at it's Pd max all the time and
runs hot (like above 50C).
>
>I wish that Mikey L. wasn't missing in action (slugging it out with
>Jute on r.a.t.), and could look up the specs for that tranny.
>
>--dnb
One possibility is Mike's replacement PT (360-0-360 @ 250mA) for the ST-70
- - seems the PTs blow up a lot on the ST-70, and the MQ replacement is
pretty reasonable. If you have to start buying transformers, you might end
up in the W-4M price range (if you can find them), but not W-5M unless you
come across the garage-sale pair. Around here, W-5Ms are way higher than
ST-70s if the seller has any idea of relative value. Anything "monoblock"
jumps in value by 50-100% it seems.
Otherwise, a jc-style W-4M amp sounds like a fine idea!
regards tr
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Reese, MGH NMR Center reese@nmr.MGH.harvard.edu
=========================================================================
From: Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:57:53 -0600 (CST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n575
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Steve Berger wrote:
> I dont think that this is a good way to enjoy the joys of triodes. I
> think rather someone might get the wrong idea about the triode sound.
> First, as you probably know, due to the miller efect, triodes are hard
> to drive. They need alot of current to drive that pesky input
> capacitance.They need alot of swing, because of there high bias voltage
> and relatively low gain.
Yeah, a stock Dyna driver ain't gonna work for DHTs. On the other hand,
the space is there for experimentation. I think the important point is to
have a chassis and iron. What goes underneath the chassis can be altered.
> Another point is that the power tranny on the ST-70 is only good for
> about 200 ma. which, if I may say, is too high a voltage for 6B4s. Maybe
> the sovtecs are good for higher voltage. Its been my expirience, that I
> want to hear these things with a whole lota current going though them.
> I would think that I would need a 300 ma. tranny to make a Stereo 6B4G
> amp.
Here's a thought... if you can find space on the chassis, swap out the
dinky (and leaky) Dyna choke for a more substantial one, and convert the
power supply to choke input. This should drop the voltage and raise the
current to much more 6B4G-friendly territory. Has anyone tried this? How
much inductance is needed for effective choke input with a 300ma choke?
> My recomendo, for an ST-70 mod, is to use ye old mullard circuit for
> the voltage amp and driver, and triode wire the output stage, and VIOLA!
> an amp that you can listen to!
> You can even use the bias tap to make a negative supply for the
> cathodes of the drivers.
And once you've triode-wired it and cleaned up the driver, you can rip out
that damned evil NFB loop! Triode-wired PP EL34s with no feedback can
sound REALLY good, and have plenty of power to drive tube-friendly
mainstream speakers. I've had great luck with such an amp and
Vandersteens.
IMHO, the essence of the "triode sound" isn't SE or DHTs... it's triodes
and no global negative feedback. Triode-wired pentodes are fine. A
triode-wired PP EL34 with no NFB is sonically closer to that trendy 300B
SE than it is to some sluggish vintage pentode amp. The sense of
immediacy and clarity are right there.
- -dave
Practice beautiful randomness and act kind of senseless.
<dstagner@icarus.net>
=========================================================================
From: Steve Berger <aprilsound@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:57:31 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n576
David Barnett wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:09:57 -0500, Steve Berger
> <aprilsound@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Another point is that the power tranny on the ST-70 is only good for
> >about 200 ma. which
>
> It's gotta be good for a little more than that -- the ST70 output
> tubes idle at 55mA ea., so 220mA at idle just for the outputs, plus
> whatever minimal current the 7199s draw, plus four 12AX7As in a pair
> of PAM-1s connected to the power jacks on the front, THAT's what that
> power transformer was designed for.
>
> And since it's a Class AB amp, it pulls more current under power than
> at idle, surely there's some margin for that in the transformer design
> too, no?
>
> I wish that Mikey L. wasn't missing in action (slugging it out with
> Jute on r.a.t.), and could look up the specs for that tranny.
>
> --dnb
Hi David:
Forgive me for making such a relative statement.
Its true that an ST-70 PT will do a little better than 200 ma.But with
what kind of regulation? How hot do you want to run a power tranny? I'd
like to be able to rest my hand on it forever. Try that with a stock
ST-70!
Its my recolection that the EL-34s run at 50 ma.ea. As for the 7199,
the Voltage amp uses about 2 ma.[I think] and the cathodine phase
spliter uses 9 or 10 ma.Thats a total of, say, 225 ma.
I want to see 60ma.through each 6B4. this means 240 ma. before we even
start with the Voltage amp-driver{I'd like a minimum of 20 per side
there}.
Where are you going to put an adequate choke for a choke input power
supply?
True, you have two 6.3 volt windings if you use them for the output
tubes , where is the third for the driver-voltage amp?[They need to be
separate.]
Now about useing the existing voltage amp-driver.
If you take the feedback out of the amp, the frequency response of the
voltage amp-driver stage goes ALL THE WAY OUT to about 4 Khz then drops
like a ROCK! Also the fact that its a split load inverter {a rather high
impededence one at that}, and, can only swing 30 or 40 volts. These are
a few, and, I think VERY IMPORTANT reasons NOT! to use an ST seventy as
a 6B4 amp.
If you are going to use an ST-70, either Triode wire it {for a taste of
triode} or, make one of the amps that I have described.
As for 6B4s in AB-2, Why bother!!!! BUILD AN AMP!!!!!! BUILD IT IN
CLASS A!!!!!!!!
LOOK GUYS, WHY PUT THE TIME IN, IF YOUR NOT GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING
GREAT?!!!!!!!!!!,YOUR TIME IS THE MOST VALUABLE THING IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!
MONEY IS NOTHING! YOUR TIME IS EVERYTHING!
Sorry for the rant, but I mean it guys. If you spend a few hundred
dollars once, and some time you can build something that you cant buy
for thousands!ON YOUR FIRST TRY! And then, JUST ENJOY THE MUSIC!
Have fun,
Steve
- --
Steve Berger <http://home.earthlink.net/~aprilsound/>
=========================================================================
From: Steve Berger <aprilsound@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:01:12 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n576
Dave Stagner wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Steve Berger wrote:
>
> > I dont think that this is a good way to enjoy the joys of triodes. I
> > think rather someone might get the wrong idea about the triode sound.
> > First, as you probably know, due to the miller efect, triodes are hard
> > to drive. They need alot of current to drive that pesky input
> > capacitance.They need alot of swing, because of there high bias voltage
> > and relatively low gain.
>
> Yeah, a stock Dyna driver ain't gonna work for DHTs. On the other hand,
> the space is there for experimentation. I think the important point is to
> have a chassis and iron. What goes underneath the chassis can be altered.
>
> > Another point is that the power tranny on the ST-70 is only good for
> > about 200 ma. which, if I may say, is too high a voltage for 6B4s. Maybe
> > the sovtecs are good for higher voltage. Its been my expirience, that I
> > want to hear these things with a whole lota current going though them.
> > I would think that I would need a 300 ma. tranny to make a Stereo 6B4G
> > amp.
>
> Here's a thought... if you can find space on the chassis, swap out the
> dinky (and leaky) Dyna choke for a more substantial one, and convert the
> power supply to choke input. This should drop the voltage and raise the
> current to much more 6B4G-friendly territory. Has anyone tried this? How
> much inductance is needed for effective choke input with a 300ma choke?
>
> > My recomendo, for an ST-70 mod, is to use ye old mullard circuit for
> > the voltage amp and driver, and triode wire the output stage, and VIOLA!
> > an amp that you can listen to!
> > You can even use the bias tap to make a negative supply for the
> > cathodes of the drivers.
>
> And once you've triode-wired it and cleaned up the driver, you can rip out
> that damned evil NFB loop! Triode-wired PP EL34s with no feedback can
> sound REALLY good, and have plenty of power to drive tube-friendly
> mainstream speakers. I've had great luck with such an amp and
> Vandersteens.
>
> IMHO, the essence of the "triode sound" isn't SE or DHTs... it's triodes
> and no global negative feedback. Triode-wired pentodes are fine. A
> triode-wired PP EL34 with no NFB is sonically closer to that trendy 300B
> SE than it is to some sluggish vintage pentode amp. The sense of
> immediacy and clarity are right there.
>
> -dave
>
> Practice beautiful randomness and act kind of senseless.
> <dstagner@icarus.net>
Davey-Boy:
I think you've got it!!!
Steve
- --
Steve Berger <http://home.earthlink.net/~aprilsound/>
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:44:41 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n577
David Barnett wrote:
> ...snip...
> Will the Dyna ST70 power transformer run four 6B4G filaments?
It will run 8 of them, with 0.9 amps left over for a couple drivers...
- -Paul Joppa
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: A bit of info?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:43:39 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n577
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:57:31 -0500, Steve Berger
<aprilsound@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Now about useing the existing voltage amp-driver.
>If you take the feedback out of the amp, the frequency response of the
>voltage amp-driver stage goes ALL THE WAY OUT to about 4 Khz then drops
>like a ROCK! Also the fact that its a split load inverter {a rather high
>impededence one at that}, and, can only swing 30 or 40 volts. These are
>a few, and, I think VERY IMPORTANT reasons NOT! to use an ST seventy as
>a 6B4 amp.
Even if the power transformer were up to the task, I wouldn't even
begin to consider using the Dyna driver board for an open-loop triode
amp. That would be the FIRST thing to go.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "Bart Shepherd" <bart.shepherd@ttm.com.sg>
Subject: a bit of info (more)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:58:44 +1100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n574
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BE3FE7.86C31640
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mathew,
Just had a thought further to my previous response.
A very inexpensive but rewarding sure-fire way to start is to buy a SEX =
kit amp from Electonic Tonalities
This puts you about halfway between a high class kit and going it alone. =
The real advantage is you wont be afraid to fiddle with it and learn.
bottlehead@prodigy.net
SEX is Single Ended experimenter's kit. (needs sensitive speakers but =
you can also make cheaply)
Available from USD 399. Other kits and upgrades also available.
This also puts you in touch with another group of Audiomaniacs.
Cheers,
Bart
- ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BE3FE7.86C31640
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Mathew,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Just had a thought further to my =
previous=20
response.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>A very inexpensive but rewarding =
sure-fire way=20
to start is to buy a SEX kit amp from Electonic Tonalities</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>This puts you about halfway between a high class kit =
and going=20
it alone. The real advantage is you wont be afraid to fiddle with it and =
learn.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:bottlehead@prodigy.net">bottlehead@prodigy.net</A></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>SEX is Single Ended experimenter's =
kit. (needs=20
sensitive speakers but you can also make cheaply)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Available from USD 399. Other kits =
and upgrades=20
also available.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>This also puts you in touch with =
another group=20
of Audiomaniacs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Bart</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BE3FE7.86C31640--
=========================================================================
From: trs@carlsmith.com
Subject: Re: A bit of info? -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:01:07 -1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n573
Mathew-
My paltry addition to the comprehensive responses from Bart
and Grover is this: check out AudioNote UK's range of DIY
amp kits (Tel: +44 (0)1273 220511) Besides their 300B amp
(L799), they offer a 6550-based 10 watt SE job at L599 and a
10 watt class A 6V6 PP amp at L279. Instructions are
adequate but help is available here if you get off track. And
don't be fooled by the low nominal output power of their amps
- - I use the 300B model with "ordinary" stereo speakers and it
plays plenty loud. And BTW, the sound of the amp is
absolutely worth all the effort.
Regards, Tom Sylvester trs@carlsmith.com
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: A bit of info? -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:25:31 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n573
Hi there,
While we are at it, I'd also suggest the Edison 60 Kit as worth
investigating.
http://www.hi-fidelity.co.uk/edison/
I have reviewed the thing and recentoy had a chance to convert it to
300B PSE....
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/edison60e.html
Another TNT-Audio contributor (the guy behind "Termoionica Applicata® "
- - http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ta/index.html) has since purchased
the Kit and loves it.... So does his Wife BTW....
With Svetlana-Valves in there it is a most excellent Little Amp, cute
and powerfull too....
There is one 300B SE Amp that CAN do bass.... And Midrange, and
Treble....
The Output Transformers are excellent, the mains-transformers
unfortunatly only adequate....
Even with the original EL-34's in place that Amp is rather above
average....
Kind regards Thorsten.
======================================
e-mail:
Thorsten@tnt-audio.com
Visit TNT-Audio on the Web - the only advertising
free audio web-zine.
http://www.tnt-audio.com
======================================
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com>
Subject: About caps
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:09:21 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n214
Marc Stager wrote:
>
> Looking for the best bang for the buck in a coupling and bypass cap:
>
> These are some options: (PC = Parts Connection, MP = Michael Percy)
>
> .01 uf/ 400 V 10% Polyester film ----------------- .18 -- Parts Express
> .01 uf/ 630 V 10% Metallized pp Xicon MPP ------- .46 -- Mouser
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% PP film Sprague 715P"Orange Drop" .78 -- Newark
> .01 uf/ 1000 V 10% Metallized pp CDE DPPM --------- .93 -- Mouser
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% PP film/foil Mallory PVC -------- 1.34 -- Newark
> .01 uf/ 600 V 2% PS film/foil, Rel-Cap RT ------- 2.95 -- PC, 2.50 MP
> .01 uf/ 630 V 10% Wondercap "C" PS film/foil, ---- 2.50 -- MP
> .01 uf/ 630 V 1% Wondercap "C" PS film/foil, ---- 3.00 -- MP
> .01 uf/ 400 V 10% PS film/tinfoil Multicap RTX --- 3.57 -- PC, 2.95 MP
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% Metallized pp Multicap PPMFX --- 3.87 -- PC
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% Metallized pp Kimber Kap ------- 4.44 -- Kimber list price
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% PS film/tinfoil Multicap RTX --- 5.46 -- PC, 4.95 MP
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% PS film/foil SETI Infinicap ---- 6.50 -- PC
> .01 uf/ 630 V 10% PS film/foil Signature Infinicap 8.50 -- MP
> .01 uf/ 1600 V 5% PP film/foil Hovland MusiCap --- 9.70 -- PC
> .01 uf/ 600 V 10% Teflon f/f Rel-Cap TFT -------- 28.00 -- PC
>
Hi
There seems to be some corelation between measurable "flaws"
in various types of capacitors and they sonic signature they impose.
As the trend seems to be in favor of caps with fewer "flaws", I thought
it would be worth mentioning a type which I have used in an application
where dielectric absorbtion, series inductance and resistance HAD to be
at a minimum. This was a system which handled 300 amps at 12-15 MHZ
(an RF electromagnetic levitator) and the 300 amps ended at a one turn
coil about 1 cm in dia, machined out of solid copper.
The capacitors are made by American Technical Ceramics and are about as
close to being a "pure" capacitance as I have ever seen.
They have VERY VERY low losses etc. and use porcelain as the dielectric
and case material. To keep the series inductance to a minimum, they have
flat, silver ribbon leadouts and are available in high voltages.
They were not cheap but nothing else we tried worked any where nearly as
well.
It has been a while but there number was 516-271-9600
Best Regards,
Thomas Danley
ITC
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Abusing other Svets
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 16:35:40 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n499
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE1636.243A5400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In order to have some sound today whilst i figure out my best approach =
for converting my big amp to those Svetlana 300Bs, I checked back =
through the curves for the SV811 and 572 types.
Turned out that I could use the 811-3A if I was willing to settle for =
low power. (remember that my VV52 amp was running a 6.3v filament =
supply).
All I had to change was the cathode resistor and I had a working amp.
The SV811s are running at a convenient 510V plate to filament @ about =
120 mA, a bit under maximum dissipation.
I retained the direct coupled 6BN4 with C4S on top as input/driver, the =
load ties in at the 811's filament. This really limits the power =
capability, but it stays in A1 country.
I'm getting a puny 2.6watts at 5% THD 1kHz, -1 dB at 11 Hz and 24 kHz =
with about 80V of swing available from the 6BN4. I'm using the TFA-2004 =
with a secondary load mismatch (8 ohm speaks on the 4 ohm tap) to show =
the plate of the 811 a poor man's 6K load.
Most noticable differences, besides poopy power:
Dr. Kron needs to sneak into the Svetlana factory and steal the =
technology that makes their tubes so hum free and non microphonic. The =
811s are so much quieter than the 52s it's taking some adjustment to get =
used to the crappy echo I'm hearing from recordings in some studio =
recordings. Wasn't even hearing this stuff with the hum from the 52s in =
the background and the microphonics on top of that.
The 811s are rather closed off on top compared to the 52s, I'm missing =
that sparkly top end. But maybe that was more microphony, hmmmm.
The 811s bass is, well, thoriated. It rocks, even at 2.6 watts. Where =
the 52s had a nice fat bottom, these are more extended and tight - those =
lowest notes that fell off a bit with the 52s really wham me now, even =
though the rolloff measures a few Hertz higher.
All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end sparkle, but =
very "together" sounding.
Doc B.
www.bottlehead.com
- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE1636.243A5400
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>In order to have some sound today whilst i =
figure out=20
my best approach for converting my big amp to those Svetlana 300Bs, I =
checked=20
back through the curves for the SV811 and 572 types.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Turned out that I could use the 811-3A if I =
was willing=20
to settle for low power. (remember that my VV52 amp was running a 6.3v =
filament=20
supply).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>All I had to change was the cathode resistor and I had a working =
amp.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>The SV811s are running at a convenient 510V =
plate to=20
filament @ about 120 mA, a bit under maximum dissipation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT>I retained the direct coupled 6BN4 =
with C4S on=20
top as input/driver, the load ties in at the 811's filament. This really =
limits=20
the power capability, but it stays in A1 country.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm getting a puny 2.6watts at 5% THD 1kHz, -1 dB at 11 Hz and 24 =
kHz with=20
about 80V of swing available from the 6BN4. I'm using the TFA-2004 with =
a=20
secondary load mismatch (8 ohm speaks on the 4 ohm tap) to show the =
plate of the=20
811 a poor man's 6K load.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Most noticable differences, besides poopy power:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dr. Kron needs to sneak into the Svetlana factory and steal the =
technology=20
that makes their tubes so hum free and non microphonic. The 811s are so =
much=20
quieter than the 52s it's taking some adjustment to get used to the =
crappy echo=20
I'm hearing from recordings in some studio recordings. Wasn't even =
hearing this=20
stuff with the hum from the 52s in the background and the microphonics =
on top of=20
that.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>The 811s are rather closed off on top =
compared to the=20
52s, I'm missing that sparkly top end. But maybe that was more =
microphony,=20
hmmmm.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The 811s bass is, well, thoriated. It rocks, even at 2.6 watts. =
Where the=20
52s had a nice fat bottom, these are more extended and tight - those =
lowest=20
notes that fell off a bit with the 52s really wham me now, even though =
the=20
rolloff measures a few Hertz higher.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end =
sparkle, but=20
very "together" sounding.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Doc B.<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.bottlehead.com">www.bottlehead.com</A></FONT></DIV></B=
ODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE1636.243A5400--
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:40:21 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE16BC.E7EA3060
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I had said:
=20
>All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end =
sparkle, but very "together" sounding.
=20
Switching from the Foreplay with Anticipation I was using to my Soul =
Sister preamp has improved this a bit and I must say that after a few =
hours of cook-in the SV811-3 is quite nice in direct coupled class A1 =
operation.
=20
Doc B.
www.bottlehead.com
- ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE16BC.E7EA3060
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>I had said:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end =
sparkle, but very "together" sounding.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Switching from the Foreplay with =
Anticipation I was=20
using to my Soul Sister preamp has improved this a bit and I must =
say that=20
after a few hours of cook-in the SV811-3 is quite nice in direct =
coupled=20
class A1 operation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Doc B.<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.bottlehead.com">www.bottlehead.com</A></FONT></DIV></B=
LOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE16BC.E7EA3060--
=========================================================================
From: Christian Rintelen <rintelen@datacomm.ch>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:05:50 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n500
"Doc B." wrote:
> Dr. Kron needs to sneak into the Svetlana factory and steal the
> technology that makes their tubes so hum free and non microphonic.
I second to that. The Svetlana 300Bs I have are more hum free than new
WE 300Bs. (If only I could get them to run as hum free as my RCA
blackplate 6a3...)
Christian
=========================================================================
From: "Christopher A. Beck" <n9zes@execpc.com>
Subject: re: abusing other Svets
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:09:57 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n500
Hey, Doc:
Nice to hear you like the Svet 811. I am surprised to see that you find
the top rolled off. I wonder if that could be due to the driver or
maybe the non-optimum load/OPT. I measured my amps flat past 40kHz at 4
watts. Now, I am using a different tube (572-10) in zero-bias class A2,
but I surely have NO problem with top end. I also get the bass that
goes WAY low, too. I have bass everybit as good as my little Dyna
SCA-35 integrated on the same speakers, which are 4 ohm, 90dB
effecient. Not exactly SE friendly, but they have a tube friendly
crossover/voicing. They are Signature 2.1's
(http://www.signaturetech.com). I run AC on the fils and have no hum or
microphonics, even when I give a little tap to the tubes. Jack at
Electra-Print had a VV52 amp that you could hear yourself talk through
the speakers when you used the VV52 as a "microphone". Not good...
Enjoy!!
Chris Beck
see my webpage at: http://www.execpc.com/~n9zes
Doc B. wrote:
> Most noticable differences, besides poopy power:
>
> Dr. Kron needs to sneak into the Svetlana factory and steal the
> technology that makes their tubes so hum free and non microphonic. The
> 811s are so much quieter than the 52s it's taking some adjustment to
> get used to the crappy echo I'm hearing from recordings in some studio
> recordings. Wasn't even hearing this stuff with the hum from the 52s
> in the background and the microphonics on top of that.
>
> The 811s are rather closed off on top compared to the 52s, I'm missing
> that sparkly top end. But maybe that was more microphony, hmmmm.
>
> The 811s bass is, well, thoriated. It rocks, even at 2.6 watts. Where
> the 52s had a nice fat bottom, these are more extended and tight -
> those lowest notes that fell off a bit with the 52s really wham me
> now, even though the rolloff measures a few Hertz higher.
>
> All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end sparkle,
> but very "together" sounding.
>
>
>
> Doc B.
> www.bottlehead.com
=========================================================================
From: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:06:26 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n500
At 08:30 AM 11/23/98 -1000, trs@carlsmith.com wrote:
>Hey Doc-
>Given the mixed experiences with VVs (and R. Kron's
>condescending attitude towards DIYers), howzabout a
>quickie redesign of the "Bleu Muenster" to use SV 572s
>instead of VV 32Bs?
>Regards, Tom Sylvester trs@carlsmith,com
Wouldn't the Valve Art 5300B be a closer/easier match?
- -Tom
>>>> "bottlehead@silverlink.net" 11/22/98 03:36pm >>>
>In order to have some sound today whilst i figure out my best
>approach for
>converting my big amp to those Svetlana 300Bs, I checked
>back through the
>curves for the SV811 and 572 types.
>
>Turned out that I could use the 811-3A if I was willing to
>settle for low
>power. (remember that my VV52 amp was running a 6.3v
>filament supply).
>
>All I had to change was the cathode resistor and I had a
>working amp.
>
>The SV811s are running at a convenient 510V plate to
>filament @ about 120 mA,
>a bit under maximum dissipation.
>I retained the direct coupled 6BN4 with C4S on top as
>input/driver, the load
>ties in at the 811's filament. This really limits the power
>capability, but it
>stays in A1 country.
>
>I'm getting a puny 2.6watts at 5% THD 1kHz, -1 dB at 11 Hz
>and 24 kHz with
>about 80V of swing available from the 6BN4. I'm using the
>TFA-2004 with a
>secondary load mismatch (8 ohm speaks on the 4 ohm tap)
>to show
>the plate of the 811 a poor man's 6K load.
>
>Most noticable differences, besides poopy power:
>
>Dr. Kron needs to sneak into the Svetlana factory and steal
>the technology
>that makes their tubes so hum free and non microphonic.
>The 811s are so much
>quieter than the 52s it's taking some adjustment to get
>used to the crappy echo I'm hearing from recordings in some
>studio recordings.
>Wasn't even hearing this stuff with the hum from the 52s in
>the background and
>the microphonics on top of that.
>
>The 811s are rather closed off on top compared to the 52s,
>I'm missing that
>sparkly top end. But maybe that was more microphony,
>hmmmm.
>
>The 811s bass is, well, thoriated. It rocks, even at 2.6 watts.
>Where the 52s
>had a nice fat bottom, these are more extended and tight -
>those lowest notes
>that fell off a bit with the 52s really wham me now, even
>though the rolloff measures a few Hertz higher.
>
>All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end
>sparkle, but very
>"together" sounding.
>
>
>
>Doc B.
>www.bottlehead.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: trs@carlsmith.com
Subject: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 8:30:09 -1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n500
Hey Doc-
Given the mixed experiences with VVs (and R. Kron's
condescending attitude towards DIYers), howzabout a
quickie redesign of the "Bleu Muenster" to use SV 572s
instead of VV 32Bs?
Regards, Tom Sylvester trs@carlsmith,com
>>> "bottlehead@silverlink.net" 11/22/98 03:36pm >>>
In order to have some sound today whilst i figure out my best
approach for
converting my big amp to those Svetlana 300Bs, I checked
back through the
curves for the SV811 and 572 types.
Turned out that I could use the 811-3A if I was willing to
settle for low
power. (remember that my VV52 amp was running a 6.3v
filament supply).
All I had to change was the cathode resistor and I had a
working amp.
The SV811s are running at a convenient 510V plate to
filament @ about 120 mA,
a bit under maximum dissipation.
I retained the direct coupled 6BN4 with C4S on top as
input/driver, the load
ties in at the 811's filament. This really limits the power
capability, but it
stays in A1 country.
I'm getting a puny 2.6watts at 5% THD 1kHz, -1 dB at 11 Hz
and 24 kHz with
about 80V of swing available from the 6BN4. I'm using the
TFA-2004 with a
secondary load mismatch (8 ohm speaks on the 4 ohm tap)
to show
the plate of the 811 a poor man's 6K load.
Most noticable differences, besides poopy power:
Dr. Kron needs to sneak into the Svetlana factory and steal
the technology
that makes their tubes so hum free and non microphonic.
The 811s are so much
quieter than the 52s it's taking some adjustment to get
used to the crappy echo I'm hearing from recordings in some
studio recordings.
Wasn't even hearing this stuff with the hum from the 52s in
the background and
the microphonics on top of that.
The 811s are rather closed off on top compared to the 52s,
I'm missing that
sparkly top end. But maybe that was more microphony,
hmmmm.
The 811s bass is, well, thoriated. It rocks, even at 2.6 watts.
Where the 52s
had a nice fat bottom, these are more extended and tight -
those lowest notes
that fell off a bit with the 52s really wham me now, even
though the rolloff measures a few Hertz higher.
All in all a nice little tube, not the last word in top end
sparkle, but very
"together" sounding.
Doc B.
www.bottlehead.com
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:38:49 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n501
Hey Doc-
Given the mixed experiences with VVs (and R. Kron's
condescending attitude towards DIYers), howzabout a
quickie redesign of the "Bleu Muenster" to use SV 572s
instead of VV 32Bs?
Regards, Tom Sylvester trs@carlsmith,com
Very funny. Various aspects of the Blues Master circuit design took about a
year to develop. A redesign is not that trivial. The 572 is a whole nother
animal. You will need way more B+ requiring a different power trans with a
different filament voltage and current rating, way more drive probably
requiring another stage, an output trans with a higher primary impedance,
and a beefier plate loading choke.
Other than using completely different iron and a different circuit, it would
be almost identical, aside from sounding completely different.
If you want to put a different tube in the Blues Master, at this point I
would suggest using a Svetlana SV300B.
I can't say that I have experienced a condescending attitude from Dr. Kron
when I've talked with him, so I can't comment about that.
I will point out that I was talking about Vaic Valve VV52s, I don't know
that the same problem exists with the current KR labeled tubes.
At the current $250 the pair that Ron Welborne is selling them for, I say
you pays your money and you takes your chance.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:52:22 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n501
>
>Wouldn't the Valve Art 5300B be a closer/easier match?
>
>-Tom
Yes, and it sounds very good. This is what I will end up with in my big amp
ultimately, but I wanted to run some of these neat Svetlana tubes that Eric
Barbour has been so kind to offer through their paces.
So far I have been quite impressed with the SV300B which was also very well
received at VSAC. Probably the nicest comments were that it was sonically
very similar to the WE300B.
I never tried the SV811-3A, so I wanted to give them a shot. A nice
surprise, worthy of a more appropriate driver. Tucker and I kicked around a
C4S'd 1/2 5965 cap coupled to a low and hot C4S'd 1/2 6AS7, cap coupled to
the 811-3A. Should have bass that will blow your mind.
I would have tried the SV572-10, but that will have to wait for a more
appropriate driver stage and OT.
FWIW, the no longer available Svetlana 6B4 is a nice tube too, with very
good bottom end, although I must say the Sovtek single plate 6B4 is really
surprising. It is hummy with AC, but very single platish, with lots of that
subtle detail and focus stuff going on.
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:19:53 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n501
Hi there,
>Other than using completely different iron and a different circuit,
>it would be almost identical, aside from sounding completely
>different.
Berry clover Doc. Laughed for at least ten minutes.... ;-))
>I will point out that I was talking about Vaic Valve VV52s,
>I don't know that the same problem exists with the current
>KR labeled tubes.
>
>At the current $250 the pair that Ron Welborne is selling them
>for, I say you pays your money and you takes your chance.
I have not seen the VV's Ron sells, however recently some that where
offered to me at knock-down prices appeared to be Vaic (or at least
indistinguishable from them) with a KR Sticker attached to the Base....
Now if one buy's these and optimises an Amp for them and they go within
half a year (or a Year) one must remeber that a new Pair of the current
KR Valves (which might no longer have a Filament Failure Problem) cost
$750 the pair....
And I for one do not feel lucky enought to bet $1000 on four Valves....
I can get a dozend chinese 300B's for that kind of money....
Kind regards Thorsten.
======================================
e-mail:
Thorsten@tnt-audio.com
Visit TNT-Audio on the Web - the only advertising
free audio web-zine.
http://www.tnt-audio.com
======================================
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "Davidson, John, DAVIDSJ3" <john.2.davidson@bt.com>
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:14:00 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n501
Dan,
>I will point out that I was talking about Vaic Valve VV52s, I don't know
>that the same problem exists with the current KR labeled tubes.
>
>At the current $250 the pair that Ron Welborne is selling them for, I say
>you pays your money and you takes your chance.
Interestingly, Audio Note (UK) are currently offering certain models (can't
remember which) of AN branded AVVT tubes for about USD$50. No warranty
though, so you take your chances!!!
John Davidson.
=========================================================================
From: peterca@ento.csiro.au
Subject: Re: Abusing other Svets -Reply
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:18:49 +1100 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n502
>I have not seen the VV's Ron sells, however recently some that where
>offered to me at knock-down prices appeared to be Vaic (or at least
>indistinguishable from them) with a KR Sticker attached to the Base....
>
>Now if one buy's these and optimises an Amp for them and they go within
>half a year (or a Year) one must remeber that a new Pair of the current
>KR Valves (which might no longer have a Filament Failure Problem) cost
>$750 the pair....
>
>And I for one do not feel lucky enought to bet $1000 on four Valves....
>
>I can get a dozend chinese 300B's for that kind of money....
>
>Kind regards Thorsten.
Sure, the price is a bit issue. I don't think an amp would require much
rearrangement. Although they don't seem to want to put it this way the VV
valves are pretty much the same specs as a 300B appart from an increased
dissipation rating. I use my VV32Bs run conservatively at an operating
point that should be fine with a 300B also, just a bit closer to their 40W
limit (a tad over 400V and about 80 or 90 mA).
Actually I had everything planned for some 300Bs then some VV32s showed up,
but that's another story....
Dr. Peter Campbell (Peter.Campbell@ento.csiro.au)
Div. Entomology, C.S.I.R.O. Ph.61-2-62464053 or -62464158 (w)
Box 1700 Canberra A.C.T. 2601 61-2-62516213 (h)
Australia 61-2-62464173 (fax)
=========================================================================
From: "Daniel J. Marshall" <danmarshall@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Accrosound
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:40:16 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n361
Hi All,
Well, the Acrosound brochures went out this morning, save one (Martin -
will send yours when I have the next batch duplicated).
Also, I had a couple of foreign inquiries and I promised to find out the
overseas mailing cost. So, any overseas parties, add a buck to the
original six bucks and if there is a difference I will cover it.
There were not as many takers as I thought, 9 so far. There are quite a
few of the original Williamson circuits in the brochure (with all values
and power transformer specifications). There are a couple cross coupled
and several paraphase inverter designs for amps ranging from 10 watts to
100 watts, all PP, some triode, some pentode and several UL. I was
talking with an old Accrosound guru over in the SF Bay area who was
familiar with these circuits. His advice was that those old guys back
then knew precisely what they were doing and the circuits should be
duplicated precisely as they were already optimized in every respect. I
would think that other brand output transformers could be used if of
comparable quality and same impedance as the Acrosound units specified.
Anyway, if anyone else is interested, let me know.
Dan Marshall
=========================================================================
From: Ron Bales <rbales@rio.atlantic.net>
Subject: Accustat model 11's
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:58:43 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n005
Does anyone here know if these hold any promise. There is a local pair
that is huge and inexpensive. They LOOK cool, but can they boogie?
Ron
=========================================================================
From: "Markowitz, Gary" <MarkowitzG@nabisco.com>
Subject: RE: Accustat model 11's
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 08:41:41 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n006
Ron,
If they are the 1+1's, I heard them many years ago, and was very
impressed. No really deep bass, and supposedly hell to drive, but they
did sound fantasic. As I recall, they were almost allways driven by
some really hefty solid state amps, like the Thresholds and Brysons.
And yes, they could boogie!
Gary Markowitz
MarkowitzG@nabisco.com
- -----------------------------------------
"Into the keyboard, thru the processor, off the NIC,
past the gateway, nothing but Net"
=========================================================================
From: Ron Bales <rbales@mail.gte.net>
Subject: Re: Accustat model 11's
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:13:30 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n014
Again, thank you all for the ready info on these speakers. Really
appreciate the readiness to help here. Sorry I didn't get back to
anyone sooner, but had some technical issues while changing ISP's.
Thanks
ROn
rbales@gte.net
=========================================================================
From: Scott Emery <semery@ctrpoint.com>
Subject: Accuton C2-22
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:33:35 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n223
One on my C2-22s ceramic diaphram has cracked (outside of the voicecoil glue mark) and also shows si
gns of ferrofluid leakage - reddy-brown stains on the diaphram.
Has anyone else witnessed or heard of thie? Why I ask is because I am about to replace them with the
C2-23 and I would like to know if the ceramic tweeters are prone to problems being so expensive and
all.
Any info or comments would be great.
Thanks,
Scott Emery
=========================================================================
From: Scott Emery <semery@ctrpoint.com>
Subject: RE: Accuton C2-22, thanks
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:37:44 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n226
Thanks for the reply. I am using the Marchant 24dB between the sub and my mid, though at one time I
did use it between my mid and tweeter so maybe the same happened to me - can't quite remember the ti
ming - always switching my system around.
Did you have ferrofluid leakage? I have measusred the tweeters and the only difference between the d
amaged and not damaged piece is a 5 dB drop accross its range and a little more action in the waterf
all plot (at 1-2kHz), otherwise they match perfectly! Hard to believe when you look at it.
I think I will buy the C2-23s and always use a passive along the tweeter path. I am using a 6dB at 1
700Hz (dangerous?)...they just are so sweet, not to mention the square mounts in the cabinets I spen
t so much time on!!
Just a thought, did you damage both of your C2-22s, if just one, would you be willing to sell your g
ood one to me?
Yeah, the only high end companies I ever saw use them were Hales (the short lived Hales 1) and Mach
Acoustics (still using the C2-11, I believe, dumped the mid dome for a Seas mid cone).
Thanks again for the info,
Scott
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Jaeger [SMTP:drjaeger@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 11:33 AM
To: Scott Emery
Subject: Re: Accuton C2-22
Hi Scott, I cracked my C-22s with a transient from my active crossovers that
other tweeters
would have handled. That ceramic dome is VERY fragile. I don't see any high
end designers
using it any more. An active 48dB xover from Marchand might help, or a 36 dB
Linkwitz,
(haven't been able to find formulas for 48 dB Linkwitz Passive).
Good Luck, Dennis
=========================================================================
From: "Norman Tracy" <ntracy@galstar.com>
Subject: ACG web page updated
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:02:36 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n539
I have updated the ACG web page. The R&D section is now online and features
information on what is going on in the wild wacky world of post-CD music
formats of interest to hi-fi nuts and music lovers. More eye candy in the
Extreme Audio page. Finally the best for last, check out Esben Beck's
realization of Pass' Son Of Zen amp on the Craftsmen Projects page. WOW,
Esben is an artist who works with aluminum, sand, and slate.
happy holidays
Norman Tracy
Audio Crafters Guild
ntracy@galstar.com
http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
voice 918-627-5878
fax 918-622-6398
=========================================================================
From: MHuber@t-online.de (Manfred Huber)
Subject: RE: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicad biasing
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:06:57 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
Grant,
>Can anyone advise if it is OK to use the metal
>hydride Ni-MH rechargables that are
>available now as a "better" alternative to Nicad?
I can see no advantage in using NiMh. They have a
higher internal resistance than NiCd. Their advantages
(more capacity, no memory effect, less weight) don t
count in this application. I don t know how they behave
when being constantly charged.
Regards
Manfred
- ------------------
Manfred Huber
MHuber@t-online.de
- ------------------
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: RE: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicad biasing
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:53:55 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
>Very interesting Manfred. I see you used nicad cathode biasing. Can anyone
>advise if it is OK to use the metal hydride Ni-MH rechargables that are
>available now as a "better" alternative to Nicad?
>
>
>Grant Sellek
Or for that matter, the 2v rechargeable lead-acid D cells? - Pat
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: flegal@allaban.fr (Francois Yves Le Gal)
Subject: RE: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicad biasing
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:20:51 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
At 17:06 22/09/98 +0100, Manfred Huber wrote:
>I don t know how they behave
>when being constantly charged.
Much better than NiCads... But the best solution IMHO is lead/acid
batteries...
François Yves Le Gal Allaban WebSystems Tél : +33 (0)1 4106 9500
Directeur Associé 43, rue Raspail Fax : +33 (0)1 4756 0305
flegal@allaban.fr F-92300 Levallois-Perret URL : http://www.allaban.fr
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicad biasing
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:24:43 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
Francois Yves Le Gal wrote:
> Much better than NiCads... But the best solution IMHO is lead/acid
> batteries...
If memory serves, Jennifer Crock recommended lead/acid over NiCd also,
based on listening comparisons. Not sure if this was grid or cathode
bias though.
I assume sealed is the safe way to go. There is some chemical activity
in them that recombines the oxygen and hydrogen for overcharging,
right? Does anyone know what kind of trickle charge they can take?
- -Paul Joppa
=========================================================================
From: "Sellek, Grant (TSA)" <Grant.Sellek@roads.sa.gov.au>
Subject: RE: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicad biasing
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:32:34 +0930
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
Very interesting Manfred. I see you used nicad cathode biasing. Can anyone
advise if it is OK to use the metal hydride Ni-MH rechargables that are
available now as a "better" alternative to Nicad?
Grant Sellek
Adelaide, Australia
grant.sellek@roads.sa.gov.au
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MHuber@t-online.de [mailto:MHuber@t-online.de]
> Sent: Saturday, 19 September 1998 8:11 pm
> To: JoeNet
> Subject: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage
>
>
> Joes,
>
> I have updated my homepage with the design of a simple
> output transformer coupled line stage. Have a look at
>
> http://home.t-online.de/home/MHuber
>
> Your input (private email as well as here on the list) is welcome!
>
> Regards
>
> Manfred
>
>
> ------------------
> Manfred Huber
> MHuber@t-online.de
> ------------------
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "Johari Yip" <hfyip@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicadbiasing
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:32:13 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n427
- ----------
From: Francois Yves Le Gal <flegal@allaban.fr>
To: JoeNet <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Subject: RE: A cheapskate s transformer coupled line stage; nicadbiasing
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 2:20 AM
At 17:06 22/09/98 +0100, Manfred Huber wrote:
>I don t know how they behave
>when being constantly charged.
Much better than NiCads... But the best solution IMHO is lead/acid
batteries...
François Yves Le Gal Allaban WebSystems Tél : +33 (0)1 4106 9500
Directeur Associé 43, rue Raspail Fax : +33 (0)1 4756 0305
flegal@allaban.fr F-92300 Levallois-Perret URL : http://www.allaban.fr
- ----------
Maybe it's me but I haven't have much luck with the lead/acid option. Very
thin and dry sounding when used with SS. I haven't tried using they in
biasing mode.
Cheers,
Johari Yip
[ hfyip@pacific.net.sg ]
============================================================
The information contained in and the documents accompanying this email are
the property of the sender, are confidential, and are intended to be used
and
reviewed only by the person or entity to whom this email is addressed. If
you
are not the intended recipient of this email, do not use or review this
email,
and notify the sender.
============================================================
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David N. Barnett)
Subject: Re: ac hum
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 07:24:12 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n209
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:31:09 +1100, "Ian McPhail"
<i.mcphail@rmit.EDU.AU> wrote:
>meanwhile over in Melbourne there's this buzzin' in my ears, ac hum?
>wasp infection? No, it's the practice sessions for the Oz Formula 1
>Grand Prix.
So, are you going to Albert Park on Sunday morning? I wish I could,
but I'm on practically the opposite end of the earth.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "Ian McPhail" <i.mcphail@rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: ac hum
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:31:09 +1100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n209
meanwhile over in Melbourne there's this buzzin' in my ears, ac hum?
wasp infection? No, it's the practice sessions for the Oz Formula 1
Grand Prix.
but......... my office is over 5km from the action, that's LOUD!
Last night Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock played in Melbourne
but..........I didn't go. SHAME!
regards Ian
Ian McPhail i.mcphail@rmit.edu.au
RMIT Chem and Met Eng Dept 110
GPO Box 2476V
Melbourne 3001
Australia
tel +61 3 9660 2408
fax +61 3 9660 3746
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <kr4@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: A Classical Orchestra
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:10:13 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n408
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Sellek, Grant (TSA) wrote:
> Can anyone explain to me the difference between a Symphony Orchestra, a
> Radio Symphony Orchestra, and a Philharmonic Orchestra? I'll spare you my
> feeble guesses.
Basically, none except that the middle one works for a
radio station (commonly in Germany).
Kal
>
=========================================================================
From: "Sellek, Grant (TSA)" <Grant.Sellek@roads.sa.gov.au>
Subject: A Classical Orchestra
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:50:47 +0930
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n408
Can anyone explain to me the difference between a Symphony Orchestra, a
Radio Symphony Orchestra, and a Philharmonic Orchestra? I'll spare you my
feeble guesses.
Pardon the trivia,
Grant
Grant Sellek
Adelaide, Australia
grant.sellek@roads.sa.gov.au
=========================================================================
From: "Cameron Brook" <cambrook@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: A Classical Orchestra
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:17:28 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n408
Perhaps I can answer this as it's right in my territory. There is NO
difference at all between a Symphony orchestra and a Philharmonic orchestra,
it's just an alternative name. As far as Radio Symphony Orchestra is
concerned, these are orchestras that are (were?) run by broadcasting
organisations. It would be like the Adelaide Symphony (established by the
Australian Broadcasting Commission) being called the Adelaide Radio Symphony
Orchestra, as it used to do a lot of studio recordings for the ABC as well
as broadcast its' concerts.
Hope this helps,
Cameron Brook,
Principal Tuba,
West Australian Symphony Orchestra
<Can anyone explain to me the difference between a Symphony Orchestra, a
<Radio Symphony Orchestra, and a Philharmonic Orchestra? I'll spare you my
<feeble guesses.
<Pardon the trivia,
<Grant
Grant Sellek
Adelaide, Australia
grant.sellek@roads.sa.gov.au
=========================================================================
From: Terrence Dorsey <terrend@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:29:08 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n038
Here's what you do:
1) open a DOS window.
2) go to the directory where you saved the file.
3) type "copy filename.ps printername", where filename.ps is the name of
the file, and printername is the name of the printer (if it's local,
entering the printer port, such as lpt1, works).
Good luck.
Terry
> ----------
> From: Chris Galbraith[SMTP:chrisg@ducker.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 4:10 PM
> To: 'sound@deliverator.io.com'
> Subject: A couple of questions...
>
> Gang,
> I'm trying to print out the stroboscopic image that Steve has so cooly
> provided on his web site, but can't figure out how to do it!!
>
> It's a postscript (.ps) file. I'm using Win95 with HP laserjets.
> Simply dragging the file onto the printer doesn't cut it, and when I
> open the file up in powerpoint, etc. all I get is garbagiola.
>
<snip>
=========================================================================
From: Edgar Faulkner <efaulkne@wsunix.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n038
Try opening a dos window and use "copy FN.ps lpt1". Postscript is a funny
thing to work with at times :-)
______________________________
Ed Faulkner \ through a child's eyes
Instructional Support Services \ sky is blue
Washington State University \ grass is green
Pullman, WA 99164 \ I want to see again
(509) 335-7566 \
efaulkne@wsu.edu. \_________________________________
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Chris Galbraith wrote:
> Gang,
> I'm trying to print out the stroboscopic image that Steve has so cooly
> provided on his web site, but can't figure out how to do it!!
>
> It's a postscript (.ps) file. I'm using Win95 with HP laserjets.
> Simply dragging the file onto the printer doesn't cut it, and when I
> open the file up in powerpoint, etc. all I get is garbagiola.
>
> Any help appreciated!!
>
> Also, does one now subscribe to the list via "deliverator.io.com"? A
> friend wants to be "in the know"...
>
> Thanks much,
> Chris
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Chris Galbraith <chrisg@ducker.com>
Subject: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:10:45 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n038
Gang,
I'm trying to print out the stroboscopic image that Steve has so cooly
provided on his web site, but can't figure out how to do it!!
It's a postscript (.ps) file. I'm using Win95 with HP laserjets.
Simply dragging the file onto the printer doesn't cut it, and when I
open the file up in powerpoint, etc. all I get is garbagiola.
Any help appreciated!!
Also, does one now subscribe to the list via "deliverator.io.com"? A
friend wants to be "in the know"...
Thanks much,
Chris
=========================================================================
From: match@ee.utah.edu
Subject: RE: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:19:13 +0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n038
Terry wrote:
> Here's what you do:
> 1) open a DOS window.
> 2) go to the directory where you saved the file.
> 3) type "copy filename.ps printername", where filename.ps is the name of
> the file, and printername is the name of the printer (if it's local,
> entering the printer port, such as lpt1, works).
>
> Good luck.
>
> Terry
>
This won't work. The file is in postscript format and won't print
unless it is a postscript printer. He'll need to get a program to
manipulate .ps files.
These programs are available shareware on the internet. They work to
a lesser-or-greater extent. I've tried several, but their names
escape me.
It's heck getting old :-)
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:33:01 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n038
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Chris Galbraith wrote:
> I'm trying to print out the stroboscopic image that Steve has so cooly
> provided on his web site, but can't figure out how to do it!!
>
> It's a postscript (.ps) file. I'm using Win95 with HP laserjets.
> Simply dragging the file onto the printer doesn't cut it, and when I
> open the file up in powerpoint, etc. all I get is garbagiola.
You need a PostScript printer or translator program like GhostScript.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: RE: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n038
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Terrence Dorsey wrote:
> Here's what you do:
> 1) open a DOS window.
> 2) go to the directory where you saved the file.
> 3) type "copy filename.ps printername", where filename.ps is the name of
> the file, and printername is the name of the printer (if it's local,
> entering the printer port, such as lpt1, works).
This will only work with a PS compatible printer. Alternatively, one can
download GhostScript from somewhere on the Web and use it to drive the
printer.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Terrence Dorsey <terrend@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: A couple of questions...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:48:50 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n039
Thanks for the correction. You and Kal are right about needing a
PostScript-compatible printer, which is usually the case with HP
LaserJets. This won't work with a DeskJet-type printer, though, so you
would need GhostScript or something similar.
> ----------
> From: match@ee.utah.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 12:19 PM
> To: 'sound@deliverator.io.com'
> Subject: RE: A couple of questions...
>
> Terry wrote:
>
> > Here's what you do:
> > 1) open a DOS window.
> > 2) go to the directory where you saved the file.
> > 3) type "copy filename.ps printername", where filename.ps is the
> name of
> > the file, and printername is the name of the printer (if it's local,
> > entering the printer port, such as lpt1, works).
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> This won't work. The file is in postscript format and won't print
> unless it is a postscript printer. He'll need to get a program to
> manipulate .ps files.
>
> These programs are available shareware on the internet. They work to
> a lesser-or-greater extent. I've tried several, but their names
> escape me.
>
> It's heck getting old :-)
>
=========================================================================
From: Torsten.Loesch@FinanceManager.Finance.FinanceAndInformation.enhar-ha.nthames.nhs.uk
Subject: Re(2): A couple of questions...
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:54:51 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n039
Hi there,
> Thanks for the correction. You and Kal are right about needing a
> PostScript-compatible printer, which is usually the case with HP
> LaserJets.
Sorry, but no. Most Laserjets that are being used in a non-Macintosh
envoironment use PCL-5 (or earlier). Postscript is a paid for Option
and an expensive one at that (I have a PS one though and feel it is
very well worth it). In our Place (work) less than one out of ten LJ's
have PS.
If needed, I can change stuff from PS to GIF's (as long as it does
not become a habit.
> This won't work with a DeskJet-type printer, though, so you
> would need GhostScript or something similar.
Ghostscript is pretty good actually. I think Paintshop Pro (shareware)
also reads Post-script files. It is terribly handy anyway (unless You
are lucky enought to have the whole selection of comercial Graphics
programmes and Photo-editors around).
Later Thorsten.
=========================================================================
From: Edgar Faulkner <efaulkne@wsunix.wsu.edu>
Subject: RE: A couple of questions...
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n040
It will work to a postscript printer, most of the time. If that printer is
on a network things change a bit, but it can still be done.
My experience with ghostscript has left something to be desired. I ended
up getting our workgroup printer accessable from a unix server and then
used LPR.
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 match@ee.utah.edu wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>
> > Here's what you do:
> > 1) open a DOS window.
> > 2) go to the directory where you saved the file.
> > 3) type "copy filename.ps printername", where filename.ps is the name of
> > the file, and printername is the name of the printer (if it's local,
> > entering the printer port, such as lpt1, works).
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> This won't work. The file is in postscript format and won't print
> unless it is a postscript printer. He'll need to get a program to
> manipulate .ps files.
>
> These programs are available shareware on the internet. They work to
> a lesser-or-greater extent. I've tried several, but their names
> escape me.
>
> It's heck getting old :-)
>
=========================================================================
From: Jeremy Epstein <70664.154@compuserve.com>
Subject: acoustic hum
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:22:16 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n085
There was a thread on alt.guitar a year or so ago saying that a way to drive a nasty neighbor crazy
woyuld be to wind a giant coil
up ner you ceiling, round and round, and plug it in - tis would render the man upstairs' stereo unus
able. Suppose Jsh is pissin' someone of
with all that Tube Screamin'?
- -j
=========================================================================
From: AnnaLogg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Acoustics (was Closer to the truth)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 08:12:33 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n323
In a message dated 98-06-27 03:09:14 EDT, cambrook@cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:
> Great post Paul.
Yours is excellent too, Cameron!
>
> I play tuba in the West Australian Symphony as my *real* job, which means I
> have plenty of opportunity to listen from both sides of the stage.
What a wonderful way to make a living!!
>
> No 2 halls are the same, and some conductors change the way the orchestra
> sits. Usually for us the cellos sit opposite the 1st violins with the
double
> basses behind them, sometimes the cellos swap places with the 2nd violins
> (stereo violins!), sometimes the basses go over there with the cellos too.
> The horns sometimes change sides of the stage too.
The "standard" seating plan -- 1st and 2nd violins to the conductor's left --
is the one used for most repertoire, however, for authenticity in some of the
romantic literature (i.e., especially Brahms) the 2nd violins really should be
repositioned to the conductor's right as you describe above. In this case, the
sound of the 2nd violin string choir is mitigated somewhat because now *the f
holes in the instrument are facing away from the audience.* This is sometimes
referred to as the "old" seating plan. Most recordings use the standard
seating plan.
I have a funny story to tell about my first encounter with this as a concert
reviewer back in California. The assignment was the season-opening concert of
the local university orchestra and I was impressed to note that the conductor
had employed the "old" seating plan (or so it appeared!) Now, in their
misguided eagerness to please a reviewer, the management had given me a 5th
row orchestra seat -- a place I rarely sit for symphony concerts, usually
preferring the balcony (or loge) for best sound. In any case, I went on to
write, rather smugly, about the "old" seating plan and describing it as above,
then went on to talk about the performance and the slightly mellowed sound,
blah blah blah. As it happened, the conductor had placed not the 2nd violins,
but the *violas* up front! Of course, the difference in size between the two
instruments is not readily ap