Sound Practices Mailing List Files - Volume 1
=========================================================================
From: "alfred trower" <sedht@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:38:58 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
el34@juno.com wrote:
>I know you don't believe in anything you can't measure and quantify,
but
>there are some things in this universe that CANNOT be measured or
>explained, but that doesn't make them any less real or significant. I
>think YOU are the one who needs to get a grip on reality!
>
Everything can be measured or explained, we just haven't figured out how
yet :-).
But hold on there. I think that there's a middle ground that needs to
be found between the strict engineering and the ears only crowd. Most
tweeks are relatively harmless to try in that they can be "undone".
This C37 stuff can't, and as such, should require some degree of hard
evidence that it works, and evidence of exacly how it works. I'm not
going to take your word, or anyone else's for that matter, using
evidence based on listening tests only. You are taking a risk by
applying this stuff to anything simply because it can't be undone.. The
bottom line on this is that it alters the mechanical and resonant
properties of the thing to which it's applied, and as such it is
impossible for it to be universally beneficial.
Now, if there was a guarantee on it to replace the now ruined piece of
equipment should the user of the product deem that it didn't make an
improvement...
To Tom, keep on asking those questions. As far as I'm concerned, I'll
still chose what works and what doesn't by ear. Having said that, I'd
love to know not just that "it does" but "HOW IT DOES IT"! There's far
too much voodoo, smoke and mirrors in the audiophile world, and far too
much play on the insecurites of audiophiles. And as experimenters, I
think we owe it to ourselves, when we find something that works to then
attempt to find out why before we make blanket recommendations.
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: el34@juno.com
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:47:57 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:33:17 -0600 Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com> writes:
>You won't find a reputable driver company that doesn't refine there
>products using test equipment and use scientific methods to design them,
>the days of designing strictly by ear are long over.
Thats why 90% of it sounds like crap too!
I do use test equipment from time to time, I have a spectrum analyzer,
digital phase and gain meter and some other goodies. I use them when
comparing things in a general sort of way, but the final tweak is always
done by ear. I don't care how something "measures", I only care how it
sounds with the music I listen to.
I know you don't believe in anything you can't measure and quantify, but
there are some things in this universe that CANNOT be measured or
explained, but that doesn't make them any less real or significant. I
think YOU are the one who needs to get a grip on reality!
We know that you take a strictly "engineering" approach to "design", you
have made that abundantly clear. I for one am growing weary of you
pontificating on EVERY aspect of EVERY issue that comes up. You always
have "the" answer for everything., and if someone offers an opinion that
doesn't fit your world view, you try to beat them into submission with a
load of your dogma.
You are taking the fun out of this list, back off and let some other
ideas flow for awhile. You might actually learn something.
I'm sure you will respond to this with your usual style, so I will state
now that I will not carry on a flame war with you. I have stated my
opinion and I will say no more on this subject.
What do you think guys, am I off base here? Maybe I should just sign off
the list until this guy joins the ranks of Andre Jute....
Joe
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
=========================================================================
From: Michel Paquette <paqm01@GEL.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:53:15 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
Joe at el34@juno.com goes ballistic...
Ouch! Cool down dude.
Tom said that applying the lacquer will change the response of the
compression driver. Your listening tests agree with this. He is just
saying that it would be nice if you could back up your tests with
measurements. If you you don't have the equipment, energy, time to do
this is fully understandable. The reason for tests using test instruments
is to quantify the effect. Once you understand the exact mechanism of the
effect of the lacquer, then you can improve on it. This method is more
efficient than "trying out every possible combination". That's how science
and engineering works. The computer your are using right now is made of
microchips that were only ideas just a few years ago. The improvements in
fast growing technologies comes from understanding in minute details the
mechanisms. That takes a lot of experimental research and theoretical
modelling.
I just reread your last post. You say you have a spectrum analyser. Can
you measure the changes from applying the lacker?
BTW, I happen to really enjoy Tom's very informative posts.
Michel
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:44:37 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
el34@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:33:17 -0600 Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com> writes:
>
> >You won't find a reputable driver company that doesn't refine there
> >products using test equipment and use scientific methods to design them,
>
> >the days of designing strictly by ear are long over.
>
> Thats why 90% of it sounds like crap too!
I don't think the use of test equipment is what makes drivers sound like
crap, like bad karma or something, rather those in management dictating
ever lower manufacturing costs per driver.
Most of the big speaker companies are marketing driven, FOR PROFIT (in
big letters) and while they project the image they think people want to
see, they spend little effort actually focusing on perfection, look at
#1, a clue, rymes with nose.
> I do use test equipment from time to time, I have a spectrum analyzer,
> digital phase and gain meter and some other goodies. I use them when
> comparing things in a general sort of way, but the final tweak is always
> done by ear. I don't care how something "measures", I only care how it
> sounds with the music I listen to.
>
> I know you don't believe in anything you can't measure and quantify, but
> there are some things in this universe that CANNOT be measured or
> explained, but that doesn't make them any less real or significant. I
> think YOU are the one who needs to get a grip on reality!
We simply dwell at different points in the reality curve, I love music
too but I build loudspeaker drivers for a living, the last few years
that has involved building all of the parts, radiators, magnet
assemblies, coils, frames etc, there is no path for me to to follow,
there are no parts off the shelf. I have to rely on things like the TEF
machine to tell me when I have made a change that brings me closer to
the ideal, changes that I can hear but what am I hearing.
Measurments in the time domain seem particularly important here.
While I agree that there are things in life you can't measure, the flaws
in loudspeakers are generally so large compaired to electronics that
between the various forms of measurments you are likely to find one
where a change is likely to look more dramatic that it sounds, although
there have been a few times when a change that was audible was
reasonably subtile in the measurment.
>
> We know that you take a strictly "engineering" approach to "design", you
> have made that abundantly clear.
In reality I am an inventor, I depend heavily on Intuition especially
when doing something new of to solve a "headscratcher" problem.
I for one am growing weary of you
> pontificating on EVERY aspect of EVERY issue that comes up. You always
> have "the" answer for everything., and if someone offers an opinion that
> doesn't fit your world view, you try to beat them into submission with a
> load of your dogma.
I suppose to some degree I am on a mission, but when I have posted I
have tried to be "light" about things or respond in kind.
In the last 20 years or so I have seen the general public become less
and less interested in the actual quality of sound, this I think is due
to two things primarily. The first is the relentless dilution of the
meaning of language by the marketing departments of companies that
steadily proclaim near perfection while selling ever cheaper to build
products. These days looks are vastly more important than performance
resulting in expensive looking gold plated junk that people buy "cause
its tha best"
As near as I can tell, none of the big companies give a rats ass about
actually providing a genuinly superior product (perhaps that is over
stating it some). These are the companies who's advertising "educates"
the public as to what is "good" or possible.
The other big problem I see is that high end HIFI has to some degree
gotten the image of being a bunch of flakes, ready to buy the next new
snake oil product and the more expensive it is, the better it has to be.
There is no shortage of this kind of product and companies outside the
HIFI area do the same thing, apealing to the bit of "X file" hiding in
all of us. The general rejection of science that hallmarks the newage
movement in general and to some degree HIFI in the long run does all a
diservice.
When I have posted in a confrontitory tone it has only been to challenge
or question things that "smell funny" or are contrary, When I questioned
amplifier topology and measurments, many responded emotionally but
several, in particular Lynn O. had very thoughtfull and helpfull
responses.
>
> You are taking the fun out of this list, back off and let some other
> ideas flow for awhile. You might actually learn something.
Sure, most of the time I do just lurk, however, you might consider your
own advice also.
Like they say " keep an open mind, but not so much that your brain falls
out".
>
> I'm sure you will respond to this with your usual style, so I will state
> now that I will not carry on a flame war with you. I have stated my
> opinion and I will say no more on this subject.
I have no wish for a "flame war" either.
>
> What do you think guys, am I off base here? Maybe I should just sign off
> the list until this guy joins the ranks of Andre Jute....
>
> Joe
"This guy" may go away or may not but it is the lists loss if anyone
who activly contributes goes away, a diversity of opinion make lists a
good place to be and ask questions.
Tom
=========================================================================
From: Robert Jorgensen <robert.jorgensen@advalvas.be>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:34:17 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
At 15:47 27/01/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:33:17 -0600 Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com> writes:
>
>>You won't find a reputable driver company that doesn't refine there
>>products using test equipment and use scientific methods to design them,
>
>>the days of designing strictly by ear are long over.
>
>Thats why 90% of it sounds like crap too!
>
>I do use test equipment from time to time, I have a spectrum analyzer,
>digital phase and gain meter and some other goodies. I use them when
>comparing things in a general sort of way, but the final tweak is always
>done by ear. I don't care how something "measures", I only care how it
>sounds with the music I listen to.
>
>I know you don't believe in anything you can't measure and quantify, but
>there are some things in this universe that CANNOT be measured or
>explained, but that doesn't make them any less real or significant. I
>think YOU are the one who needs to get a grip on reality!
>
>We know that you take a strictly "engineering" approach to "design", you
>have made that abundantly clear. I for one am growing weary of you
>pontificating on EVERY aspect of EVERY issue that comes up. You always
>have "the" answer for everything., and if someone offers an opinion that
>doesn't fit your world view, you try to beat them into submission with a
>load of your dogma.
>
>You are taking the fun out of this list, back off and let some other
>ideas flow for awhile. You might actually learn something.
>
>I'm sure you will respond to this with your usual style, so I will state
>now that I will not carry on a flame war with you. I have stated my
>opinion and I will say no more on this subject.
>
>What do you think guys, am I off base here? Maybe I should just sign off
>the list until this guy joins the ranks of Andre Jute....
>
>Joe
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
Why does it have to be so aggressive? I just cannot for the life of me
understand it. I'm not gunning for Joe in particular here, since we have
had our fair share of aggression on this list not to talk about other venues.
You get at Tom for designing things. I am not a designer(at least not of
audio components), but I can't imagine how you can design anything without
having the faintest idea how or why it works. That certainly goes for the
things I do design i.e. software systems(which might or might not work very
well of course).
I'm sure that everybody here including Tom takes listening to products very
serious (otherwise I don't think they would be here for more than a few days).
Of course designers do stumble uppon fortunate ideas, but in general there
is more work than accident involved in getting something new and
revolutionary to work properly. And if you stumble uppon something
fantastic, it is also my impression that you will have a pretty good go at
finding out what is going on so that you can reliably repeat it and perhaps
apply the knowledge somewhere else. This goes for Tom, who has proven to a
very laterally thinking mind, but I'm sure it goes equally for Mike or Doc B.
Personally I'm intrigued by C37. While the explanation seems a bit far out
I certainly appreciate the connection with the craftsmanship of yore and
the lost secrets of how to build Stradivari and the likes. I would like to
have a chance to try it, but if it actually works (most people who have
tried it, that I know says it does), I would equally like to have some more
insight into why it does so. If nothing else so that one could perhaps
prove that the secret of the old instrument builders were in the laquer.
It would be interresting to have some info from Karl-Heinz (I forget his
last name) from ALR-JORDAN who as far as I know have decided to use C37 on
their best model.
We need listening, an open mind as well as understanding to make real
progress.
Greetings and peace from Brussels
Robert Jorgensen
Robert.Jorgensen@advalvas.be
=========================================================================
From: Marc Elmlund <marc@wineasy.se>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:46:19 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
At 15.47 -0500 98-01-27, el34@juno.com wrote:
>I know you don't believe in anything you can't measure and quantify, but
>there are some things in this universe that CANNOT be measured or
>explained, but that doesn't make them any less real or significant. I
>think YOU are the one who needs to get a grip on reality!
You tell him, Agent Mulder ;-)
Marc Elmlund
Stockholm, Sweden
aka marc@wineasy.se
=========================================================================
From: Finn Hammer <f-hammer@post5.tele.dk>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:14:27 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
el34@juno.com wrote:
> What do you think guys, am I off base here?
Frankly, now that you ask....yes, I think you are.
I think Tom has come with a lot of usefull stuff, not many guys here that actually
design speakers themselves.
So the guy is a scientist, so what!, doesn`t mean you have to respond to everything he
says, as if it was the gospel truth.
But surely, none of the really good stuff whould have been made without synergy btwn.
science and craft. To mention Thuras and Wenthe, It is always good to have a "Wenthe"
around.
Maybe I should just sign off
> the list
Nah.. you have already spotted your problem, just use the delete key with determination.
You know, self moderation.......(of the list)
>until this guy joins the ranks of Andre Jute....<
- -Who was flamed outa`here,( and blody well asked for it, too ) and you will say nothing
more yourself. That leaves the rest of us to do it for you!
If that is the mood you are in, perhaps it would be a good idea to sign off for a while,
and cool off a bit.
finn, deleting 3/4
=========================================================================
From: William Hunt <wjhunt@ccnet.com>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:45:31 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
Thomas Danley wrote:
> > >You won't find a reputable driver company that doesn't refine there
> > >products using test equipment and use scientific methods to design them,
> >
> > >the days of designing strictly by ear are long over.
> >
> > Thats why 90% of it sounds like crap too!
>
> I don't think the use of test equipment is what makes drivers sound like
> crap, like bad karma or something, rather those in management dictating
> ever lower manufacturing costs per driver.
...
I've been a lurker for some time on this list. I want to support Mr.
Danley on this issue of measurement versus individual subjective
criteria.
There is nothing wrong with using your ears. However, if you want to
build a number of units and have them all sound the same, you had better
understand what characteristics of the prototype must be present in the
production units. For example, you may feel that high end resistors
sound much better than cheap ones. But you had better get the
resistance right; the world's best resistor in the wrong value is no
improvement to a circuit.
Suppose that you believe strongly that material from (once) living
plants makes for much better sound than inorganic materials. You might
want to use carrots as capacitors, radishes as resistors and turnips as
amplifying elements. The tuber philosophy you might call it. Your
faith might be strong but I think your chances of success would be poor.
Electronics is based on knowledge and measurement. Real progress
requires extending the base of knowledge. Intuition and subjective
judgement can often lead to a breakthru but to give a lasting effect, it
has to lead to more knowledge and better measurement. It has to be
transferrable to other people and repeatable captured in real-world
measurements.
Bill Hunt
=========================================================================
From: Joe Pledger <doodle@navicom.com>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:24:30 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
Thomas Danley wrote:
- -big snip-
Well, of course! Welcome to reality! Most things are driven by the
"bean-counters", who are naturally the new grads (with tuition bills)
and six months to get in and make their mark. ( And you thought
prostitution was the oldest profession!!;-)) Those who make it
eventually become CEOs and become rich if they lay enough people off.
Anyone else has made a prior decision to go for art, or some other
field with delayed gratification factor. I guess my point is: Please
value the discussion and concepts found here on the joenet. You won't
find the same in any sales brochure (that I've ever seen). Tom, I agree
with you. If it's a Corporate activity, it's driven by the stock market
and there is no reality involved. Any sense of producing a valued
product has no place in the market formula. Imagined worth is
everything!
Side subject: Someone mentioned Ferrari. (from a comment of another
joenetter).
My youngest went through two of them a few years ago. I told him I
thought it was an plot to promote the imigration of mechanics to the
USfrom Italy. Granted, he had the 308 series (which even farrari says
is their "Rough" model). But he was averaging $200 per month over the
ownership period just for clutch adj/repair work. Still when I ask him
what car of all did you love the best? He'll say the Ferrari!
I just don't understand the kid...I thought his Lotus was the best!
So what am I getting at? Well everyone's ears, scientific approach,
measurements, hookup scheme, room acoustics, mood, and probable hormonal
levels, quality of wine, you name it, is up for argumentative analysis
if one is so inclined. Flame activity tends to inhibit the free exchange
of detail and content. There is a really great spirit of free exchange
here, lets keep it going! OK, so I have tin ears!
Sorry Tom, this wasn't really especially aimed at you, just tagged on
I guess.
Joe Pledger
> Tom
=========================================================================
From: Joe Pledger <doodle@navicom.com>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:41:58 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
William Hunt wrote:
>
> Thomas Danley wrote:
>
> want to use carrots as capacitors, radishes as resistors and turnips as
> amplifying elements. The tuber philosophy you might call it. Your
> faith might be strong but I think your chances of success would be poor.
>
-snip-
Agreeded, I'm getting around 200K on a 2 inch peeled carrot, with probes
inserted 1/8th inch in the ends. Can't get a steady measurement. May be
a good substitue for the CCS.
I should really check the capacitance! Should I use a metal or plastic
clip to hold this on the chassis?
Course,it just came out of the fridge, so there's going to be a drying
effect which needs study.
Sorry, and thanks for putting up with me tonight, we're doing a wine
tasting thingey (Hey Edie, did anyone show up yet? Do we have any
turnips?);-)
Joe Pledger
> Bill Hunt
=========================================================================
From: "Mark K. Long" <long@robby.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:23:24 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
>
>What do you think guys, am I off base here? Maybe I should just sign off
>the list until this guy joins the ranks of Andre Jute....
>
Honestly, you are off base. Don't worry about it, we all have bad days
and need to vent.
I've never heard any of Tom's audio gear, so he could be just as
looney as the rest of us, but the fact that he's really built things
and is making a honest effort to reconcile performance and
measurements makes his contributions very valuable to me. Unlike
Mr. Jute, whose pages and pages of prose would leave me feeling empty,
my delete key pauses when Tom is on the "From:" line, because I know it
could make think about things in a different way.
I find it interesting that in an endeavor whose results we all have
trouble quantifying, that there is so much attachment to pet
theories. Perhaps it is precisely because there are so few absolutes
that we struggle to find something to hold on to as the "truth", and
get so defensive when that truth is questioned in any way.
SE?, PP?, SS?, C37?, CD?, LP? I have no idea, speakers are giving me
enough heartache, I'll go back to lurking, till the next good horn
discussion. Anyone want to talk about dispersion or waveguides?
setting or measuring Q on a horn?
Mark
=========================================================================
From: RALPH POWER <POWER.RALPH@epamail.epa.gov>
Subject: Re: C37- caution: flames -Reply
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:39:37 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
Hi Joe,
You said:
>but the final tweak is always done by ear. I don't care how something "measures",
>I only care how it sounds with the music I listen to.
>there are some things in this universe that CANNOT be measured or
>explained, but that doesn't make them any less real or significant.
I agree wholeheartedly with the above statements and I bet more than a few others
around here do too.
I have never measured my amp and have nothing to measure mine with, but it is the
best sounding amp I have ever had. And I keep making it a little better as I go along.
I don't need a measurement to verify that for me.
We should feel free here to express our findings and impressions here without worrying
about being ridiculed or flamed.
One should take any information from here in the spirit it is given, your mileage may
indeed vary...
A person who professes to know everything only betrays his true ignorance.
I am firmly convinced of my own ignorance.
My 2 cents,
- - Ralph
=========================================================================
From: "Ken Dangerfield" <bpyakd@mail.island.net>
Subject: C37 lack
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:25:24 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n168
Has anyone who has used C37 had a chance to A/B compare it with other
coatings? The point being to identify (if possible) whether there is
something specify to the formulation of C37 which accounts for the
perceived sonic improvements, or whether another suitable coating
(lacquer??) would achieve the same result in some or all situations.
Regards,
Ken Dangerfield
=========================================================================
From: Holger Stein <STEINMUSIC@compuserve.com>
Subject: C37 practice
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:26:03 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n169
Hallo,
First of all I must say that I am astonished that more people in America
than I expected were using C37 Lack,as it is based on a very uncommon idea.
Here in Europe we meanwhile got lots of throughout positive feedback from
people who lacquered things I would not have dreamt of, and C37 is going to
become a widely accepted concept now.
To Doc B.: Your idea to airbrush C37 Lack is very good.The surfaces you can
get this way are excellent, and the effect too.
I am not sure in which form you got the Lack, but one set now also contains
a special thinner, so that it is no problem to airbrush it.
To Ken Dangerfield: Other coatings may work well in a specific case,but the
effect of C37 Lack if it is correctly aplicated is always positive, no
matter where you use it. We got a wide range of experiences concerning the
use of E's C37 Lack, and if you have any questions, please let me know.
Best regards
Holger Stein
STEIN HIFI SYSTEMS
Scharpenberg 64a
D- 45468 Muelheim
Germany
Fon ++49 208 32089
Fax ++49 208 390938
GSM ++49 172 4744254
STEINMUSIC@Compuserve.com
Worldwide distribution for Ennemoser's C37 Lack
and much more...
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: C37 practice
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:49:27 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n169
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Holger Stein wrote:
> First of all I must say that I am astonished that more people in America
> than I expected were using C37 Lack,as it is based on a very uncommon idea.
Uncommon? More like strange. The stuff may work but the derivation is
weird.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: "Norman Tracy" <ntracy@galstar.com>
Subject: C37 special coming, was:C37-The Idea and links
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:08:03 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
Apologies to the list for the private content, but I need to be sure Holger
sees this in case we have a e-mail failure.
To Holger,
You wrote:
"Have to talk about this with Norman (where are you?), who is able to
distribute the stuff."
Did you get my e-mail of 1/28/98 discussing a Joe-net special of C37? If
not I can resend.
To Joe-netters:
As soon as Holger & I overcome the e-mail glitches (if any) and Germany to
USA time difference watch for a special offer on C37.
happy listening
Norman Tracy
Audio Crafters Guild
ntracy@galstar.com
http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
=========================================================================
From: Daniel Normolle <monk@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: C37 Speziallack & mks equivalents
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:58:07 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n180
Norman Tracy wrote:
> Joenetter's,
>
> With all the interest in Ennemoser's C37 Speziallack on the Sound Practices
> mailing list Holger & I thought it would be good to run a special deal so
> you can try it and hear for yourselves.
>
> The regular US price will be $95 per kit. During February the Joenet
> special introductory price is $75 per kit.
> Each 'kit' includes:
> 10 ml of C37
> 10 ml of thinner
> application brush.
>
For those of you still having trouble with metric-to-English conversions,
10 ml equals two teaspoons.
dpn
=========================================================================
From: "Norman Tracy" <ntracy@galstar.com>
Subject: C37 Speziallack - regular pricing & Feb. special
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:27:57 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n180
Joenetter's,
With all the interest in Ennemoser's C37 Speziallack on the Sound Practices
mailing list Holger & I thought it would be good to run a special deal so
you can try it and hear for yourselves.
The regular US price will be $95 per kit. During February the Joenet
special introductory price is $75 per kit.
Each 'kit' includes:
10 ml of C37
10 ml of thinner
application brush.
I have both the 20C lack for ambient temperature use and the 35C lack for
use inside equipment.
I have discovered C37 can be removed from circuit boards using flux
remover. Thus if you do not like it or need a spot off for further
soldering it can be removed. I would not try flux remover on your speaker
cones! :-) There I would consider the application non-reversible!!
happy listening
Norman Tracy
Audio Crafters Guild
ntracy@galstar.com
http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com>
Subject: Re: C37 Speziallack - regular pricing & Feb. special
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:57:31 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n180
Norman Tracy wrote:
>
> Joenetter's,
>
> With all the interest in Ennemoser's C37 Speziallack on the Sound Practices
> mailing list Holger & I thought it would be good to run a special deal so
> you can try it and hear for yourselves.
>
> The regular US price will be $95 per kit. During February the Joenet
> special introductory price is $75 per kit.
> Each 'kit' includes:
> 10 ml of C37
> 10 ml of thinner
If one assumed that the thinner was normal hydrocarbon chemistry (cheap)
the the cost of the C-37 at its reduced price is $28,382.00 per gallon
which seems kind of pricey, but still cheaper than $35,957.00 for the
"normal" price. By weight, at the non sale price,this stuff is about the
same price as pure solid gold. It must be they intend to sell it to
military procurement agencies. In any case the price eliminates the
practical use of it in a production sense.
Tom
=========================================================================
From: "Sellek, Grant (TSA)" <Grant.Sellek@roads.sa.gov.au>
Subject: RE: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:41:55 +1030
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n172
Thanks for this explanation. Here are a couple more questions that
SHOULD be FAQ's
1 How many instrument makers (not including Herr Ennemoser) use C37
on their acoustic instruments? What are their instruments? And (just for
fun) what colour are their instruments?
2 What are the main objections to using C37?
3 What can possibly go wrong from using C37? In any application?
4 Is there some really really expensive ingredient in C37 that makes
it so expensive? Or is Herr Ennemoser just overpricing it so that he
recovers all the patent's worth (his time and experience and experiments
over the years etc. etc.) before the first ten litres are sold?
Surely at half the price he could sell more than double the quantity,
and the same for one tenth the price and 10X the quantity. The
ingredients are probably diagnosable by a chemist, so pricing should not
depend on secrecy so much as normal production and distribution costs
plus the inventor's entitlement.
I doubt that I could afford enough C37 to coat the pair of 15-inch paper
cone drivers for my horn speakers. Nobody objects to Herr Ennemoser
earning his entitlements, but I'll wager that most people would be
happier if he had a wider customer base by lower pricing, so each of us
made a smaller personal contribution!
Grant Sellek
Adelaide, Australia
grant.sellek@roads.sa.gov.au
>----------
>From: Holger Stein[SMTP:STEINMUSIC@compuserve.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 1998 8:17 pm
>Cc: Dieter Ennemoser; INTERNET:sound@mail.tpoi
>Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
>
>Hallo Thomas,
<<cut>>
>here some frequently asked questions answered by Mr. Ennemoser himself:
<<cut>>
> Dieter Ennemoser
>
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: RE: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:05:53 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Sellek, Grant (TSA) wrote:
> Thanks for this explanation. Here are a couple more questions that
> SHOULD be FAQ's
>
> 1 How many instrument makers (not including Herr Ennemoser) use C37
> on their acoustic instruments? What are their instruments? And (just for
> fun) what colour are their instruments?
I fail to see the relevance of this.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Michel Paquette <paqm01@GEL.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:55:21 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
Hello Finn and others,
Finn said:
I once asked the owner of a motorsycle shop, why the glass for the
taillight was so
expensive, and he replied: Because i can`t get more.
The pricing of audio gear and accessories follow that rule, I think.
Well, this may be true with anything that hasn't been made in 30 or 50
years, but I often think that audio accessories are a scam. Peter Belt,
Mpingo disks, David Lucas and such. I think the prices are ridiculous
also: like a CD that "supposed to break-in a hifi" selling for over
hundred bucks. C'mon. Just read any advertisement on cables in
Stereophile or Audio for really off the wall claims.
I'm not saying that all accessories are junk but there are many people who
seem to exploit the insecurities of audiophiles.
Sorry for the rant.
Michel
=========================================================================
From: Finn Hammer <f-hammer@post5.tele.dk>
Subject: Re: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:19:34 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
This is an interesting discussion.
I`ve used the stuff on my LOWTHER PM2 A`s, and am satisfied with it, As Joe R.
mentioned in his article about the Lowther clubs, any substance known to man has, at
one time been smeared on a lowther cone, and although my father was a painter,(so
I`ve seen many kinds of lacquer) I waited over 20 years, to finally get the lacquer
that i would trust to better my lowthers.
In my view, we should consider it a stroke of luck that we are able to benefit from
the findings of an instrument maker, who takes an interest in reproducing music, gets
original ideas, and then actually lets us have some of his lacquer _at all_.
Think about all the hassle about trying to make a replica of the Stradivarius
Lacquer: said to be the secret of its sound. Couldn`t be done, the guy took the
recipe in the grave.
A loudspeaker cone with C37: I can`t help but comparing it to those beautifull
japanese lacquered boxes. They, too, would be just common junk without the topcoat.
Then there is the issue of the pricing, and frankly, I think it is a disaster. When I
opened the carton, I thought: "Boy, Holger; you shure are pushing this to the edge".
It will assure that the acceptance of the concept of the C37 sound will spread
unnecessaryly slow.
This product deserves to be judged by it`s merits, rather than its price, or else,
this will be for the few, like WE 300 B and other overpriced products.
I once asked the owner of a motorsycle shop, why the glass for the taillight was so
expensive, and he replied: Because i can`t get more.
The pricing of audio gear and accessories follow that rule, I think.
Finn
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: RE: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:10:36 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Sellek, Grant (TSA) wrote:
> >From: Kalman Rubinson[SMTP:rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu]
> >> 1 How many instrument makers (not including Herr Ennemoser) use C37
> >> on their acoustic instruments? What are their instruments? And (just for
> >> fun) what colour are their instruments?
> >I fail to see the relevance of this.
>
> The only relevance, in my mind, is that if other instrument makers are
> buying the C37 in the one litre "manufacturer's quantity" and using it
> on their instruments, it would indicate some breadth of acceptance
> amongst his peers that the product is effective in improving the sound
> quality of acoustic instruments. Since H. Ennemoser's product's
> credibility in hifi circles seems to include reference to the
> instrument-making side, then this side could be discussed more openly in
> a FAQ.
The performance required of an instrument which makes a sound is
different from that required of a speaker which has the task of
reproducing that same sound. Hence, I still see no relevance in this
matter.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: jdougher@tir.com (jdougher)
Subject: RE: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:41:56 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Sellek, Grant (TSA) wrote:
> >From: Kalman Rubinson[SMTP:rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu]
> >> 1 How many instrument makers (not including Herr Ennemoser) use C37
> >> on their acoustic instruments? What are their instruments? And (just for
> >> fun) what colour are their instruments?
> >I fail to see the relevance of this.
>
> The only relevance, in my mind, is that if other instrument makers are
> buying the C37 in the one litre "manufacturer's quantity" and using it
> on their instruments, it would indicate some breadth of acceptance
> amongst his peers that the product is effective in improving the sound
> quality of acoustic instruments. Since H. Ennemoser's product's
> credibility in hifi circles seems to include reference to the
> instrument-making side, then this side could be discussed more openly in
> a FAQ.
The performance required of an instrument which makes a sound is
different from that required of a speaker which has the task of
reproducing that same sound. Hence, I still see no relevance in this
matter.
Kal
I want some of the C 37, it would be great for the barbecue this summer. The
flames
would never go out. The problem with this stuff is that it is to high for us
skeptics to try and not high enough for the gold plate crowd. How about a two
tier price structure one for the Joes and one for the rest of the world. Sounds
like a good idea and why not a discount from the hardware guys too. Well we
could
dream couldn't we.
Jim
=========================================================================
From: Bob Chernofsky <bobc@mci2000.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:40:02 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
To: Sellek, Grant (TSA) <Grant.Sellek@roads.sa.gov.au>
Cc: 'INTERNET:sound@mail.tpoi' <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: C37-The FAQ's
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Sellek, Grant (TSA) wrote:
>
>> >From: Kalman Rubinson[SMTP:rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu]
>> >> 1 How many instrument makers (not including Herr Ennemoser) use C37
>> >> on their acoustic instruments? What are their instruments? And (just
for
>> >> fun) what colour are their instruments?
>> >I fail to see the relevance of this.
>>
>> The only relevance, in my mind, is that if other instrument makers are
>> buying the C37 in the one litre "manufacturer's quantity" and using it
>> on their instruments, it would indicate some breadth of acceptance
>> amongst his peers that the product is effective in improving the sound
>> quality of acoustic instruments. Since H. Ennemoser's product's
>> credibility in hifi circles seems to include reference to the
>> instrument-making side, then this side could be discussed more openly in
>> a FAQ.
>
>The performance required of an instrument which makes a sound is
>different from that required of a speaker which has the task of
>reproducing that same sound. Hence, I still see no relevance in this
>matter.
>
>Kal
>
It seems clear to me what the point is Kal. If C37 is said to have a
positive effect on all things when it comes to sound, and resonance one
would hope it would have acceptance in other circles.
Bob
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:30:39 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Bob Chernofsky wrote:
> It seems clear to me what the point is Kal. If C37 is said to have a
> positive effect on all things when it comes to sound, and resonance one
> would hope it would have acceptance in other circles.
I can't agree. "positive effect on all things" is a bit much to swallow.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Bob Chernofsky <bobc@mci2000.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:36:19 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
To: Bob Chernofsky <bobc@mci2000.com>
Cc: Sellek, Grant (TSA) <Grant.Sellek@roads.sa.gov.au>;
'INTERNET:sound@mail.tpoi' <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: C37-The FAQ's
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Bob Chernofsky wrote:
>
>> It seems clear to me what the point is Kal. If C37 is said to have a
>> positive effect on all things when it comes to sound, and resonance one
>> would hope it would have acceptance in other circles.
>
>I can't agree. "positive effect on all things" is a bit much to swallow.
>
>Kal
I am no saying that it does. I am saying the info seems to support this type
of claim. If this is the case it would be informative to see application,
other than audio.
Bob
=========================================================================
From: "Sellek, Grant (TSA)" <Grant.Sellek@roads.sa.gov.au>
Subject: RE: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:19:58 +1030
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
>From: Kalman Rubinson[SMTP:rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu]
>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Sellek, Grant (TSA) wrote:
>
>> 1 How many instrument makers (not including Herr Ennemoser) use C37
>> on their acoustic instruments? What are their instruments? And (just for
>> fun) what colour are their instruments?
>
>I fail to see the relevance of this.
The only relevance, in my mind, is that if other instrument makers are
buying the C37 in the one litre "manufacturer's quantity" and using it
on their instruments, it would indicate some breadth of acceptance
amongst his peers that the product is effective in improving the sound
quality of acoustic instruments. Since H. Ennemoser's product's
credibility in hifi circles seems to include reference to the
instrument-making side, then this side could be discussed more openly in
a FAQ.
Grant
Grant Sellek
Adelaide, Australia
grant.sellek@roads.sa.gov.au
=========================================================================
From: Dale.Simon@ps.net
Subject: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:51:00 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
Kal wrote:
"The performance required of an instrument which makes a sound is
different from that required of a speaker which has the task of
reproducing that same sound. Hence, I still see no relevance in this
matter."
Hi,
After reading the original article, it seems that Ennemoser's
theory was that the mechanics of the human ear produce a
specific distortion spectra that the brain naturally filters
out. He went further, to suggest that if one could alter the
distortions of an instrument or any music or sound producing
mechanism to match the natural distortions of the human ear,
then the brain would more easily filter out those distortions
and the sound would be more natural. So, if his theory is
correct, and C37 lacquer alters the distortion spectra of
everything it touches to be identical or closer to that of the
human ear, then even though the unit does not measure as well,
its faults will be imperceptible to our hearing. Of course,
your pets will probably hate it.
Dale "still waiting for SP" Simon
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:34:43 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 Dale.Simon@ps.net wrote:
> After reading the original article, it seems that Ennemoser's
> theory was that the mechanics of the human ear produce a
> specific distortion spectra that the brain naturally filters
> out.
Nonsense. There's no evidence for this.
Kalman Rubinson
Associate Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience
Director of Medical Neuroscience
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n174
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 Dale.Simon@ps.net wrote:
> Kal wrote:
> "The performance required of an instrument which makes a sound is
> different from that required of a speaker which has the task of
> reproducing that same sound. Hence, I still see no relevance in this
> matter."
>
> Hi,
> After reading the original article, it seems that Ennemoser's
> theory was that the mechanics of the human ear produce a
> specific distortion spectra that the brain naturally filters
> out. He went further, to suggest that if one could alter the
> distortions of an instrument or any music or sound producing
> mechanism to match the natural distortions of the human ear,
> then the brain would more easily filter out those distortions
> and the sound would be more natural. So, if his theory is
> correct, and C37 lacquer alters the distortion spectra of
> everything it touches to be identical or closer to that of the
> human ear, then even though the unit does not measure as well,
> its faults will be imperceptible to our hearing. Of course,
> your pets will probably hate it.
>
> Dale "still waiting for SP" Simon
>
The problem with half-crazy ideas is that there's always that
other half.
Amidst all the other stuff in the current issue of Missouri
Conservationist is an article, "Nature's Noisemaker," about
how to make a real good turkey call using the hollowed-out
leg bones of a turkey.
Doesn't prove anything.
But an interesting idea.
And a good way to fool a turkey... the article says Indians
have used such bone horns for 8000 years.
--Carter
=========================================================================
From: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:26:17 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 05:34 PM 1/28/98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 Dale.Simon@ps.net wrote:
>
>> After reading the original article, it seems that Ennemoser's
>> theory was that the mechanics of the human ear produce a
>> specific distortion spectra that the brain naturally filters
>> out.
>
>Nonsense. There's no evidence for this.
>
>Kalman Rubinson
>Associate Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience
>Director of Medical Neuroscience
What evidence is there against it?
-Tom Suit
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:49:53 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> What evidence is there against it?
That's not how science works. If you propose something that no one has
seen, thought of or demonstrated before, it is incumbent on you to present
some evidence.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:52:57 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> What evidence is there against it?
My other response was a general one. However, there is quite a bit of
evidence against the proposal. Most neurophysiology books adequately
describe auditory transduction and the data do not indicate a
characteristic noise component in the signals. If you propose otherwise,
present data.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:02:19 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 10:49 AM 1/29/98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
>
>> What evidence is there against it?
>
>That's not how science works. If you propose something that no one has
>seen, thought of or demonstrated before, it is incumbent on you to present
>some evidence.
Yes, but you said it was "ridiculous". That kind of statement suggests that
there is evidence to the contrary. Personally, I'm suspicious of it as bones
are largely calcium, not carbon.
-Tom
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:18:28 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> Yes, but you said it was "ridiculous". That kind of statement suggests that
> there is evidence to the contrary.
There is.
> Personally, I'm suspicious of it as bones
> are largely calcium, not carbon.
Depends on the sample and the assay.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:22:44 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 10:49 AM 1/29/98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
>
>> What evidence is there against it?
>
>That's not how science works. If you propose something that no one has
>seen, thought of or demonstrated before, it is incumbent on you to present
>some evidence.
Ennemoser (sp?) presented *some* evidence. Some of the claims are a bit
much though. If coating objects with it makes them sound better, what the
hell, coat your outer ear with it.
But to my original point, the very definition of "ridiculous" implies
overwhelming evidence against a given idea. When you used it in this
case, I tagged you as being similar to the the type that say parafeed
can't work.
-Tom
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:30:24 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> But to my original point, the very definition of "ridiculous" implies
> overwhelming evidence against a given idea. When you used it in this
> case, I tagged you as being similar to the the type that say parafeed
> can't work.
Aha! You think that I am saying something about whether or not the
application of the glop works or, indeed, does anything. I am not. I
termed as 'ridiculous' a specific statement about the operation of
auditory transduction. For this process, there is much information and
the proposition offered is completely unfounded and at odds with present
data.
Let me tag you as the type who cannot separate a repeatable observation
(use of C37 Lack) from an unfounded justification (auditory spectra and
neural filtering). This is a typical audiophile malady.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: "alfred trower" <sedht@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:53:37 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
<snip>
Hey, can someone start up a c37 list, that way, only those who care have
to download this crap.
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: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:10:19 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 12:30 PM 1/29/98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
>
>> But to my original point, the very definition of "ridiculous" implies
>> overwhelming evidence against a given idea. When you used it in this
>> case, I tagged you as being similar to the the type that say parafeed
>> can't work.
>
>Aha! You think that I am saying something about whether or not the
>application of the glop works or, indeed, does anything. I am not. I
>termed as 'ridiculous' a specific statement about the operation of
>auditory transduction. For this process, there is much information and
>the proposition offered is completely unfounded and at odds with present
>data.
So what you are saying is that all the "data" shows that sound that reaches
the nerve inside the ear, after having gone through the mechanical parts
of the ear is *completely* identical to the original sound before it entered
the ear?
- -Tom
PS You can tag me aas whatever the hell you want.
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:54:58 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> So what you are saying is that all the "data" shows that sound that reaches
> the nerve inside the ear, after having gone through the mechanical parts
> of the ear is *completely* identical to the original sound before it entered
> the ear?
Encoded linearly. The point is that the offered explanation doesn't
explain anything and the real-world observations do not prove the
explanation.
> PS You can tag me aas whatever the hell you want.
As fairly you did me.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:03:37 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 04:54 PM 1/29/98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
>
>> So what you are saying is that all the "data" shows that sound that
reaches
>> the nerve inside the ear, after having gone through the mechanical parts
>> of the ear is *completely* identical to the original sound before it
entered
>> the ear?
>
>Encoded linearly. The point is that the offered explanation doesn't
>explain anything and the real-world observations do not prove the
>explanation.
Encoded linearly? What exactly is being encoded?
-Tom
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:07:52 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> Encoded linearly? What exactly is being encoded?
I'm getting tired of this. Try a standard sensory physiology text and
then see if you find any evidence.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Tom Suit <tsuit@UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:20:31 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 05:07 PM 1/29/98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
>
>> Encoded linearly? What exactly is being encoded?
>
>I'm getting tired of this. Try a standard sensory physiology text and
>then see if you find any evidence.
There probably isn't any. If there was, then Ennemoser's theory would
not be new. Whoops, I forgot - everything has already been discovered.
Look, it is known that if you put glasses on someone that inverts the
image they receive, the brain will eventually right the image if the
glasses are worn long enough. So why can't the brain do any data
massaging to information coming from the ear?
- -Tom
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:29:35 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
> >I'm getting tired of this. Try a standard sensory physiology text and
> >then see if you find any evidence.
>
> There probably isn't any. If there was, then Ennemoser's theory would
> not be new.
Theories are a dime a dozen, or less.
> Look, it is known that if you put glasses on someone that inverts the
> image they receive, the brain will eventually right the image if the
> glasses are worn long enough. So why can't the brain do any data
> massaging to information coming from the ear?
You are not reading what I said. I never said that the brain does not
massage information. (In fact, that is one of my major interests.) I
said that there is no evidence of a transductional transform that
requires it.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:38:34 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, alfred trower wrote:
> Hey, can someone start up a c37 list, that way, only those who care have
> to download this crap.
Great.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Jonathan Morrison <ppdiva@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: C37-The FAQ's
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:59:03 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n175
At 05:29 PM 1/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tom Suit wrote:
>
>
>> Look, it is known that if you put glasses on someone that inverts the
>> image they receive, the brain will eventually right the image if the
>> glasses are worn long enough. So why can't the brain do any data
>> massaging to information coming from the ear?
>
>You are not reading what I said. I never said that the brain does not
>massage information. (In fact, that is one of my major interests.) I
>said that there is no evidence of a transductional transform that
>requires it.
>
>Kal
>
>
I'd like to separate this discussion into its individual components.
1. I have always heard that the ear is a relatively high distortion device.
Is this true?
2. I have always heard that the brain filters out that distortion to give
us usable info about the outside world. Is this true? (Upon rereading this
it looks like if (1) is true then (2) would have to be true.)
3. I have read that the brain's filters have a certain response that can be
specified relative to digital audio, i.e. that while in digital audio the
distortion increases with rising frequency and lower level (fewer samples
and fewer bits per sample) the brain's filters have exactly the opposite
response, i.e. they are most effective at lower frequencies and higher
levels. Is this true?
4. I am not sure what you mean by "transductional transform." Do you mean
that my questions (1) and (2) are not true, or do you mean that while there
is filtering in the ear/brain system, that filtering cannot be so narrowly
specified as Ennemoser is doing?
If (1) is false why don't people design microphones to better match the
mechanical properties of the ear?
I have always heard the myth that it was the secret varnish that gave
Stradivari and Guarneri their special sound, and have always thought it
smelled a bit of bullshit. I think that that myth is the starting point for
the marketing of C37, although that might just be sour grapes, since I sure
as hell can't afford the stuff. I do think, though, that even if all that I
have heard about the ear/brain system is correct, a universal panacea in
the form of a tuned damping compound seems a bit farfetched. I think that
the advocates of this product are ignoring mechanical impedance- how can
one density and viscosity work on both a Lowther cone and a circuit board?
It also seems to me that if it is based on a specific frequency that people
with perfect pitch might have a different reaction to it than people
without. OTOH, an interlinked polymeric compound encasing a resonant system
(ain't jargon grand?) could increase that system's rigidity and raise or
focus its resonant frequency regardless of that compound's mass.
I do think that a discussion of how we hear and interpret what we hear is
very relevant to this group- I have some questions about distortion and
measurements but they will have to wait until I'm a bit fresher. Ta, JDM
=========================================================================
From: Holger Stein <STEINMUSIC@compuserve.com>
Subject: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:10:54 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n168
Hallo,
There are some news about the "C37" idea I would like to share with the
list.
Joe Roberts did already review it in SP 1, and with the time more and
more people made excellent experiences with one of Ennemoser's most
efficient tools, the C37 Lack.
Here in Europe we get more and more good reviews from Hifi magazines in
France, Austria Holland and Germany, and we are glad to have Norman Tracy
from Audio Crafters Guild in America, who will not only distribute our
Kits, but also Ennemoser's C37 Lack there.
Norman Tracy's Website adress is
http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG
The official website of Dieter Ennemoser is: www.geocities.com/Cape
Canaveral/Lab/6645
For those who understand German an interesting adress is
http://www.clockwork.de/hirec/trip.htm
It is the online edition of HiFi and Records Review, and there you also
find lots of information about Ennemoser's C37 Lack.
We are also preparing an own website which will contain our whole program,
but it is still under construction.
Best regards
Holger Stein
STEIN HIFI SYSTEMS
Scharpenberg 64a
D- 45468 Muelheim
Germany
Fon ++49 208 32089
Fax ++49 208 390938
GSM ++49 172 4744254
STEINMUSIC@Compuserve.com
Worldwide distribution for Ennemoser's C37 Lack
and much more...
=========================================================================
From: "Bottlehead" <Bottlehead@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:26:35 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n168
> Hallo,
> There are some news about the "C37" idea I would like to share with the
> list.
I finally got around to trying some of this stuff. Put it on the Whamo
drivers, to help me decide if I want to risk coating my PM2As. Seems to do
what they say it does, in fact we could hear a change for the better even
as the stuff was painted on with the drivers playing. Seems to damp out the
higher resonances a bit. Andy Bartha tells me he found the stuff seals up
any porosity in the Lowther cones, improving the bass loading, and does
much of the same peak taming as the cotton stuffing trick. Tucker borrowed
the bottle, to try the stuff on his Exemplar tweets. When I get it back,
the Lowthers get a paint job...
Too bad it's too thick to spray on with an airbrush.
Hey Norman, have you tried it inside your DAC yet?
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: el34@juno.com
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:54:57 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n168
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:10:54 -0500 Holger Stein
<STEINMUSIC@compuserve.com> writes:
>Hallo,
>There are some news about the "C37" idea I would like to share with the
list.
Here is my .02 worth:
You Altec fans MUST try this stuff on your hf diaphragms! It makes a BIG
difference. You can tell it right away even before the stuff is dry. It
takes the metallic edge off resulting in a much more natural sound. I
have tried it with the old style 802D and the new tangerine type drivers.
Works great on both.
A word of caution if you decide to coat the older style drivers, the
clearance between the diaphragm and the phase plug is very small. Use a
light coat, and let it dry for awhile or you will end up gluing them
together. You can use a heavier coat on the back side and the suspension.
Works wonders on arms and pickups too...
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:57:50 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n169
Sounds to me you're overdamping them, especially if you're coating the
suspension, plus on the aluminum diaphragms, I imagine you're adding a
enough mass to lower Fs. I wonder how much it effects impulse and frequency
response.
GM
- -----Original Message-----
>
>You Altec fans MUST try this stuff on your hf diaphragms! It makes a BIG
>difference. You can tell it right away even before the stuff is dry. It
>takes the metallic edge off resulting in a much more natural sound. I
>have tried it with the old style 802D and the new tangerine type drivers.
>Works great on both.
>
>A word of caution if you decide to coat the older style drivers, the
>clearance between the diaphragm and the phase plug is very small. Use a
>light coat, and let it dry for awhile or you will end up gluing them
>together. You can use a heavier coat on the back side and the suspension.
>
>Works wonders on arms and pickups too...
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:57:15 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n169
Greg Monfort wrote:
>
> Sounds to me you're overdamping them, especially if you're coating the
> suspension, plus on the aluminum diaphragms, I imagine you're adding a
> enough mass to lower Fs. I wonder how much it effects impulse and frequency
> response.
>
> GM
>
Hi
My thoughts exactly, the odds of a coating making the dome more rigid
or adding other favorable properties without adding unfavorable ones too
is pretty unlikely. Unlike a direct radiator, adding any additional
moving mass to a compression driver radiator also dictates a lower hf
rolloff. The coating afterall does not "know" what properties to add
that would improve a particular dome, cone or tonearm etc.
Without measuring a "before and after" you don't know what its doing.
Tom
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:30:08 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n169
I thought that might be the case. The 'metallic sound' is mostly in the
higher freqs, so this makes sense. A better solution is to XO around 5k to a
sweet sounding tweeter.
GM
- -----Original Message-----
Unlike a direct radiator, adding any additional
>moving mass to a compression driver radiator also dictates a lower hf
>rolloff.
>
>Tom
=========================================================================
From: Norm Luttbeg <nluttbeg@politics.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:57:39 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n171
Wow! Juno's empirical approach to using C37 and his use of his ears
will certainly get the theorists at any cost group going.
Thanks for the comments, Juno.
=========================================================================
From: el34@juno.com
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:47:02 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n171
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:57:15 -0600 Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com> writes:
>Greg Monfort wrote:
>>
>> Sounds to me you're overdamping them,
<SNIP>
I'm sure you could come up with a thousand and one scientific reasons why
"it won't work".
>The coating afterall does not "know" what properties to add
>that would improve a particular dome, cone or tonearm etc.
>Without measuring a "before and after" you don't know what its doing.
I DID do a "before and after" and "after" was the clear winner! I don't
have the equipment (other than my ears) to measure speaker parameters
with anyway. Most "measurements" have little correlation to how a speaker
sounds with music in a real setting. I don't know about you, but I don't
sit around in an anechoic chamber listening to test signals!
C37 is one of those thing you just have to try. I was given a kit by a
friend (on this list) who was visiting from Germany. I was skeptical, but
since I had the stuff, I decided to try it. I was biased against it, but
THE STUFF WORKS.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
=========================================================================
From: Daniel Normolle <monk@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:16:02 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n171
Norm Luttbeg wrote:
> Wow! Juno's empirical approach to using C37 and his use of his ears
> will certainly get the theorists at any cost group going.
OK, I'll bite. I have three questions:
1) Applying this stuff to speaker cones is irreversible, right? So this
is not like swapping a capacitor and, if you don't like it, your're just
out the cost of the capacitor. Doesn't this tend to bias one's
response--you better like it, because that's the way it's gonna be?
2) C37 is a lacquer, isn't it? Offered, no doubt, at an audiophile-approved
price. Has anybody compared the results from this magical compound
to lacquers from the local hardware store? If so, how? If not,
why not?
3) How do you get the C37 out of your ears?
dpn
(whose theories are reasonably priced)
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:33:17 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n171
Norm Luttbeq wrote:
> Wow! Juno's empirical approach to using C37 and his use of his ears
> will certainly get the theorists at any cost group going.
It is nice he liked the effect, new domes would be expensive.
I don't know about "at any cost" part but I do know there is a
difference between actually knowing what is happening and taking
someones word for it that "it works".
el34@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:57:15 -0600 Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com> writes:
> >Greg Monfort wrote:
> >>
> >> Sounds to me you're overdamping them,
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I'm sure you could come up with a thousand and one scientific reasons why
> "it won't work".
>
> >The coating afterall does not "know" what properties to add
> >that would improve a particular dome, cone or tonearm etc.
> >Without measuring a "before and after" you don't know what its doing.
>
> I DID do a "before and after" and "after" was the clear winner! I don't
> have the equipment (other than my ears) to measure speaker parameters
> with anyway. Most "measurements" have little correlation to how a speaker
> sounds with music in a real setting. I don't know about you, but I don't
> sit around in an anechoic chamber listening to test signals!
You won't find a reputable driver company that doesn't refine there
products using test equipment and use scientific methods to design them,
the days of designing strictly by ear are long over. Your ears while
sensitive to some things are lousy at others.
If you were more familliar with modern measurment techniques, it is
unlikely you would say" Most "measurements" have little correlation to
how a speaker sounds with music in a real setting.", the first step in
finding out what the driver is doing requires reducing or eliminating
the acoustic clutter that the room introduces to better reveal the
drivers actual performance. If you want to listen to what your speakers
do alone, take them outside and listen to them, most speakers sound
vastly better outside w/o room effects. Likewise the idea of the
anechoic chamber is to reduce the number of things that effect the
speakers performance to make its actual performance more measurable or
audible.
Room effects are unavoidable indoors but also unlikely to be altered by
the application of C-37 to your compression driver domes.
On the other hand, even if it were mixed within the Great Pyramid and
then blessed twice by the Pope, the reality is that adding moving mass
to a compression driver radiator lowers the high frequency corner, there
is simply NO way around that. Similarly, it is unlikely that GOD gave
the product an exemption to the other laws of physics that govern how
things work in other areas as well.
Perhaps in addition to the lower roll off frequency, it luckily added
dampening where some was needed or perhaps the added mass in the center
of the dome increased the magnitude of a major resonance or the change
in front volume due to the thickness of the coating effected the hf
cutoff in some way. Any of these are likely to be audible and perhaps
sound "improved" to an individual but without being able to actually
measure anything all you can say is "I think it works", you don't know
what actually happened or why or even if it actually is more accurate
(IE: do a more faithfull job following the input signal).
The coating afterall does not "know" thru ESP or finite element analysis
what properties to add or subtract that would improve a particular dome,
cone or tonearm etc. Without measuring a "before and after" you simply
don't know what its doing. There is no doubt at all that it does
something, exactly what is the question.
Tom
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Danley <tom@ppci.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:58:44 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n172
Holger Stein wrote:
>
> Hallo Guys,
> I just read the last comments on C37 Lack, and must say I am very amused.
> It is a very controverse discussion between people who have made practical
> experiences with C37 Lack and others who have some theoretical concepts in
> mind where C37 does not fit.
> Kal for example mentioned that he is of the opinion that the idea behind it
> is weired.
> There are lots of tweaking ideas around, which are more ore less succesful.
> But what about a new idea which does not only work here and there, but
> everywhere?
> OK, from a scientific point of view it is necessary to interpret all
> effects you get in relation to the knowledge achieved by the experiments of
> the past.
> And if something is still working, whereever you use it, are you going to
> burn the inventor or is it necessary to think further, and maybee find some
> new conceps which fit better to reality?
Hi
Do you mean reality as in measured performance or from an engineering
point of view or percieved reality in the eye of the beholder?
Until you measure the effect you in the domain of the later rather than
the former.
I find parts of this amusing also.
I think it is humorous that someone would suggest to all that there
compresion drivers domes are improved by a coating without knowing what
it does to the actual performance.
It is also humorous in light of the fact that aluminum has a thin oxide
coat that prevents paint, epoxy and other things from developing a good
bond even if fully de-greased first.
Makes one wonder how long it will take before it begins to seperate.
Also humorous is the implication that those that actually design or
invent drivers, like my self, may not be familliar with the technical
relationships that govern there operation.
Wouldn't it seem to you that the folks that design and build these
drivers and have established the relationships governing there design
and operation also might have a handle on Reality?
I would be very surprised that in this special case, the addition of
moving mass in the form of a coating does not cause a lower mass roll
off corner for example, there simply are no exemptions to the laws that
govern how things actually work even if to the ear it sounds better.
> I mean if people who started using the Lack on a CD, and finally also treat
> their 80 000DM speakers with great success as they say, it may be they are
> weired.
> But if you ask 100 people who personally made their experience with C37
> Lack, and everybody tells you it is great, should it not inspire you to
> first try it and then see what questions still occur?
Well there are countless people that buy Monk stones, pointy feet, green
magic markers for there CD's, magic power cords, quartz healing
crystals, water magnetizers and on and on, all things that depend
largely or entirely on psychology to have there "effect" out side of
there real design which is to seperate the buyer from there money and
transfre it to the sellers pocket.
With SO much hooey being successfully sold, there is good reason to be
suspicious of things that in the telling "sound too good to be true".
Like they say in physics, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
proof". Not to say it can't be, it just takes more than saying so.
> So far, we are going to actualize the C37 website continouesly and also
> answer some of the questions.
> And if somebody really thinks he should try this stuff on whatever a
> project, just let me know to see how we can arrange it.
I would be interested in persuing this, I have built inovative drivers
for 15 years and I am working on a full range driver right now and have
plenty of test equipment to quantify its effects. If it works well it
will be specified in the Bill of materials when it goes into production.
Should you question my voracity, go to
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/
pick advanced text search and under inventor, put Danley Thomas and
search. This will list some of the things I have developed.
Best regards,
Thomas Danley
=========================================================================
From: "Bottlehead" <Bottlehead@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:39:12 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n172
> 2) C37 is a lacquer, isn't it? Offered, no doubt, at an
audiophile-approved
> price. Has anybody compared the results from this magical compound
> to lacquers from the local hardware store? If so, how? If not,
> why not?
Well, it sure doesn't smell the like the nasty nitrocellulose stuff I used
to spray on radio cabinets. It actually smells kinda good. Especially the
third or fourth bottle, which I usually share with that big pink rabbit
that starts hanging around the shop about then.
I think it probably has some other stuff in it. It has an almost citrus
smell to it, and is rather mild compared to the fierce top fueler smell
straight lacquer has. Almost like somebody put a little orange blossom
honey in it.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: Holger Stein <STEINMUSIC@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:47:07 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n172
Hallo Thomas,
I regard physics as the art of describing real world phenomens by the aid of mathematics, and I do n
ot want to say that everything invented until now is worth nothing.
What I would like to say is that the mass added by coating a diaphragm is not the reason for the gre
at audiable improvement.
The coating is very thin and long term stable, and although it will add a small amount of mass it wi
ll not significantly change HF rolloff if applied thin.
It is also my opinion that a lot of stuff is sold which brings questionable results, not to say is p
erfectly marketed nonsense where the world does not need more from.
I will look if we can make a limited special offer for those who are not only in the list to show wh
at they have learned but are also interested to widen their horizon of experience.
Have to talk about this with Norman (where are you?), who is able to distribute the stuff.
To Doc B.:
Greetings to your pink rabbit, but are you sure you talk about C37 Lack and not Tequila?
OK, C37 Lack is entirely made of natural ingredients, anyway I would not drink it...
Roberts explanation about how C37 works is quite good, here some frequently asked questions answere
d by Mr. Ennemoser himself:
For those who are interested in further information as Greg, please refer to www.geocities.com/Cape
Canaveral/Lab/6645
FAQ´s January 1998
1. Does C37 Lack dampen the sound (treble-rolloff) and therefore soften ist?
No, dampening would cause „ plastic sound“. Dampening deteriorates solution, and
precise solution ist nessessary to reprocuce complex timbres like that of wood.
C37 Lack shifts the decay-spectrum peaks to frequencies synchronous to those
produced by the ear itself due to it´s material. Brain cancels out these intrinsic
decaying frequencies to hear what´s happening outside the ear, not what concert
is going on inside the ear.
To this topic see also my book „the character of sound“ chapter „The Effect of
Dampening“ and the article in „DER STANDARD“ 16.1.1998.
(If you really want to dampen your speakers, use plastic coating, it´s much
cheaper!!!)
2. Does the added mass change the sound of the drivers?
The effect of the added mass of the C37 Lack (it is very leightweighted and thin)
is neglectable compared with the benefits to soundquality it adds. This is also
the experience of engineers of ALR JORDAN, SCANSPEAK and TANNOY.
3. Does the sequence of C37 frequencies support a new musical scale?
I would not think so, because
a) musical notes are a complexe mixtures of frequencies and
b) the C37 frequencies show impedance peaks rather than linear distortion
(frequency response peaks).
c) the C37 impedances and therefore phasemodulations have their influence on any
scale, wether exotic
or not, be it noise or sound.
4. Is Ennemoser the most out of control violinmaker, incapable of comprehending
physical laws, but fancying weird theories?
I finished an engineering education at the HTL Innsbruck and did 6 years of
practical soundengineering at a radiostation and a filmproduction. (Physical
education shows you the borders of contemporary physics when you seriously deal
with acoustic phenomenas of instruments and loudspeakers. I am telling this to
people who repeat themselves in proudly pronouncing beeing engineers or
physicists).
I learned violinmaking in Mittenwald and have a journeyman´s certificate, I am no
amateur. I did research on each of the 150 Instrumetnts I built, and I listen to
natural sounds when playing the violin twice a week in real orchestras. By means
of this pragmatic way I contrived the C37Theory and not by chatting about
fragments of parameters. I pragmatically earn my living by making new instruments
since 20 years.
Dieter Ennemoser
=========================================================================
From: Robert Jorgensen <robert.jorgensen@advalvas.be>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:55:14 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n172
Tom,
It might be good to re-cap the ideas behind C37. I'll see if I can dig up
the old posts doing so, but very briefly here.
Enemoser, who is the inventor, is an instrumentmaker and as such concerned
with how laquer controls the sound of the instruments he builds. He came
up with the idea that a certain resonance pattern, corresponding to that of
carbon at 37 degrees centigrade (pretty close to that of us humans) seems
very attractive to listen to. The laquer is an attempt to overlay the
resonance patterns of other materials with one more sympathetic to the
human ear. If this misrepresents C37 I'm sure Holger will correct me.
Of course one can't completely count out other more conventional damping
effects. I have not myself experimented with C37. I would like to, but
also very much appreciate your findings.
Greetings from Brussels (the coldest morning of the new year they say)
Robert Jorgensen
Robert.Jorgensen@advalvas.be
=========================================================================
From: Martin Needleman <mrndlmn@beast.toad.net>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:30:48 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
The most effective way to use C37 is to paint it directly on your ears.
mrn
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Norm Luttbeg wrote:
> Wow! Juno's empirical approach to using C37 and his use of his ears
> will certainly get the theorists at any cost group going.
>
> Thanks for the comments, Juno.
>
=========================================================================
From: Norm Luttbeg <nluttbeg@politics.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: C37-The Idea and links
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:18:15 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n173
Given the theory as to why C37 works, the obvious way to deal with the
problem is to remove all your bones.
Martin Needleman wrote:
>
> The most effective way to use C37 is to paint it directly on your ears.
> mrn
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Norm Luttbeg wrote:
>
> > Wow! Juno's empirical approach to using C37 and his use of his ears
> > will certainly get the theorists at any cost group going.
> >
> > Thanks for the comments, Juno.
> >
=========================================================================
From: An-shyang Chu <achu@sandia.gov>
Subject: C4S 2nd time
Date: 19 Mar 1998 14:54:43 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n222
HI Joes,
Try 12AT7, 5965 and 396A with Doc/Camille's C4S in the front end of my 2A3
Baby'O during the past few days. The current is set for ~ 8mA and bias at ~2V
for all three. The final plate voltages are depending on the tubes (via C4S
loading).
5965: good image and details, edgy at times, a bit more pace than 12AT7 (not by
much though)
12AT7: a bit tuby and romantic, forgiving but good (I can see why people keep
using this)
396A (=2C51, 5670): great speed and pace, excellent image and details, extend
high and very-very-very low distortions (did not notice this in my amp until
trying out this tube) This is a great tube and up there with 417A in my book.
I would like to know other people's experiences with this little baby!!
next in line: 6BN4A, 8532, 955 and 417A (=5842Q)
hopper
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: C4S explanation?
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 21:32:22 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n267
Doc and others who have C4S experience:
I give up. I must confess my total inability to figure out how to implement
the Camille C4S boards. I think I understand how to choose R1 and R2,
based on the instructions that came with the boards and the Bluesmaster
series. R1 sets the current, and R2 biases the LEDs at 2ma, dependent on
the supply voltage. Fine and dandy.
What, however, determines what voltage is on the plate of the tube? The
Bluesmaster has 200v on the plate of the driver tube, from a supply of
280v. Doc's recent post regarding the parafeed potato amp says to put 160v
on the plate, from a 300v supply. I have not been able to figure out how
the resistor choices and the supply voltage combine to set the plate
voltage.
Could someone briefly tell me how the dang things work? TIA - Pat, at sea
once again
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: C4S explanation?
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 07:57:37 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n267
Pat,
You're three quarters of the way there.
R1 is setting the current, and holding it, right? You've also chosen your B+
and have set the LED bias for the given B+ voltage.
Along with that you have put a load of beau coup ohms on top of the plate,
so the supply voltage doesn't really figure in to the determination of the
plate voltage. The B+ just needs to be high enough to let the tube swing to
it's full output, i.e., if the plate is at 160V and the signal needs to
swing another 80V, you need at least a 240V B+.
So in general, the only variable left to play with that will affect the
plate voltage is the cathode resistor value. As you alter its value, varying
the bias, you will affect the plate voltage.
This is why I was vague about the cathode resistor value in my
paraspudphonamp post.
You will want to look at the curves for the 417A to determine the proper
grid bias for an operating point of 20 mA at 160V, or whatever op point you
choose to use.
Divide the grid bias voltage, acquired from the curve, by the current that
you have set with R1, i.e., 1.5V/.020A.
(these are bogus numbers, just for example, use the curves to get the proper
bias voltage) Put a cathode resistor of the resulting value, don't forget to
figure the dissipation of the resistor too, and size it properly. Since the
current is constant, now you have set the grid bias 'constant', and the
plate voltage should pull to the proper value.
This makes for a pretty cool trick, really.
If you don't know the proper grid bias, you can plug in different values and
see which way it pulls the plate voltage. When you get the plate voltage
spec'd for a given plate current, you have hit the right cathode resistor
value.
I used this technique to find an operating point for these obscure 7719s I
was using in a preamp. Couldn't find curves anywhere, so I picked a plate
voltage and a current based on a suggested op point and the max dissipation.
Next I set up the load and the LED bias for the B+ I decided to use, and
plugged the tube in, with an arbritrary cathode resistor that I thought
would put me in the ball park. From there I kept adjusting the cathode
resistor value until I got to my design plate voltage.
We've got a meeting today so I won't be available for questions - should be
way cool, LynnO showed up last night with his PP VV32 amps, I have finally
thrown together a nice beefy low DCR and oily cap L-C-L-C dual mono supply
for the VV52 amp, and Tucker is bringing two new preamp circuits, one SE
parafeed, one SE active loaded cathode follower. We'll also put together a
differential PP parafeed line stage, and shoot off SS shunt regs vs. VR
tube, and 5965 vs. WE 395A/5670/2C51. Got a CD of the band (Paul deLay) we
have tentatively booked for VSAC 98 too, for the gang to audition.
Call me tomorrow if you're still having trouble with the loads.
Doc B.
Doc B.
VALVE
coming soon - www.bottlehead.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Currie <tubesguy@mail.execpc.com>
To: sound@deliverator.io.com <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Date: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:28 PM
Subject: C4S explanation?
>Doc and others who have C4S experience:
>
>I give up. I must confess my total inability to figure out how to implement
>the Camille C4S boards. I think I understand how to choose R1 and R2,
>based on the instructions that came with the boards and the Bluesmaster
>series. R1 sets the current, and R2 biases the LEDs at 2ma, dependent on
>the supply voltage. Fine and dandy.
>
>What, however, determines what voltage is on the plate of the tube? The
>Bluesmaster has 200v on the plate of the driver tube, from a supply of
>280v. Doc's recent post regarding the parafeed potato amp says to put 160v
>on the plate, from a 300v supply. I have not been able to figure out how
>the resistor choices and the supply voltage combine to set the plate
>voltage.
>
>Could someone briefly tell me how the dang things work? TIA - Pat, at sea
>once again
>
>Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: Re: C4S explanation?
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 10:30:32 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n267
>This makes for a pretty cool trick, really.
>If you don't know the proper grid bias, you can plug in different values and
>see which way it pulls the plate voltage. When you get the plate voltage
>spec'd for a given plate current, you have hit the right cathode resistor
>value.
>We've got a meeting today so I won't be available for questions
>
>Doc B.
No questions remain, buddy. This is a cool trick indeed. I was actually
about seven-eigths there when I asked the question, since I had added a
question about the cathode resistor, and when I did, it kind of suggested
this answer. Of course, if it was totally wrong, I would have looked like
a total idiot (no snickering out there) so I had deleted it.
This was more than theoretical. While I'm working on the parafeed 845
(Paradildo?) I'm going to redo the spud amp with the C4S and a 25k volume
pot, in place of the 100H choke and 100k pot that I'm using now. Appreciate
the help, again. - Pat
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: An-shyang Chu <achu@sandia.gov>
Subject: C4S first impressions
Date: 16 Mar 1998 10:21:58 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n218
Hi Joes,
Got excited by Doc's Blues Master and went ahead put the C4S active load into my
Baby'O last night (between cooking a pot of stew meat, taking care of a 4.5
month old who has the Blues, arranging baby sitting for the weekend, talking to
my wife about her dad etc..) It ONLY took 5 hrs (should have it done within 1/2
hr, right!) and got it to work the first try (amazed myself).
The active load is set for 8.3 mA (0.95V/115ohm ~ 8.3 mA) and the active load
bias is 315 V using the same HV tap from the 2A3s (using two 332K in parallel
for the diodes). The tube is 5965 and the final plate voltages for the two
channels are 163V and 173V with the same 2.2 V bias at the cathodes (the true
current is ~ 8.8 mA). The bias headroom for the output is then ~ 150V (it is
over kill for the 2.2Vx47~104V swing but it is still safe for the MJE530) This
stage is cap-coupled into the parallel-feed 2A3.
I only have about 20 min last night (softly playing CD) and this morning (NPR
over the radio) to listen to it and so these are just the first impressions:
better speed and lower background. One thing that really stand out is the
background... I notice the changes in takes, studio sounds, and switchings
through the radio way better than before. The voices have more body to them
too. There is however a slight haze over everything (over the background).
This might due to the 1/8 watt CC resistors in the cathodes and current settings
(will change them to 1/4 watt metal film tonight) Or maybe I am running the
5965 too hard?? Low level listing is more relaxed as well. Will report more
later.
Some of the line ups for easy eXperimenting: 396A (=5670, 2C51), 417A (=5842),
and 8532. Any others? better operation points for 5965?
hopper
p.s. Doc! nice work.
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: C4S resend of first section
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 13:09:23 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n373
Hey gang,
I am trying to convert my 45 pf amps to the ccs but just can't seem to
get it right. I am using the C4S circuit from the Blues Master direct
coupled to the 45. I am using the CV378 for slow turn-on.
I get 150V at the top of the C4S but it only drops 10V or so to 138V.
I get the 150V using dropping resistors instead of tying it to the 45
cathode. The 5965 is pulling about 10ma. This leads to a 250V, 40ma,
- -45V operating point for the 45; rather than the 275V, 35ma, -55V I was
expecting to get.
One amp seems to play fine but the other has some serious distortion
(even though the voltages measure the same) depending on the 5965
installed. With some 5965s there is a slight midrange distortion but
with others the distortion is significant across the board.
I hope I didn't hook up the transistors backwards or something. The two
LEDs light up. Here's how I read the layout:
For the 2N2907 in the TO-39 package I have (from left to right):
collector, base, emitter (nearest to the tab).
For the MJE350 in the TO-126 package I have (with the collector tab
facing up and from left to right): base, collector, emitter.
Have been scratching my head for a week now......what's
wrong........help...... :-(
Thanks Michael
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: C4S resend of first section
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 15:54:02 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n373
Thanks very much for your comments Grover.
I measured the voltages of the 5965s that didn't work and the voltage at top
of the C4S is the same as the voltage on the plate. Now I understand where
the distortion is coming from (no load). The best V drop I can get is ten
volts - which means I get very little power out before distortion.
Why does it not 'fire.' Regardless of the 5965, I still get the 10ma draw
through the tube - so the current is there.... What are some of the tweeks to
make it foolproof?
I'll probably change to a simple resistor load - and lose a lot of gain. I am
building this for a friend so minimum maintenance is required.....
Thanks and cheers, Michael
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: C4S resend of first section
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:06:37 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n373
At 1:09 PM -0700 8/2/98, Michael Hsu wrote:
>Hey gang,
>
>I am trying to convert my 45 pf amps to the ccs but just can't seem to
>get it right. I am using the C4S circuit from the Blues Master direct
>coupled to the 45. I am using the CV378 for slow turn-on.
>
>I get 150V at the top of the C4S but it only drops 10V or so to 138V.
>I get the 150V using dropping resistors instead of tying it to the 45
>cathode. The 5965 is pulling about 10ma. This leads to a 250V, 40ma,
>-45V operating point for the 45; rather than the 275V, 35ma, -55V I was
>expecting to get.
>
>One amp seems to play fine but the other has some serious distortion
>(even though the voltages measure the same) depending on the 5965
>installed. With some 5965s there is a slight midrange distortion but
>with others the distortion is significant across the board.
I had this problem with 417As when I tried them with the early version of
the CCS. I think the problem is that some samples don't quite get up to
bias, and the tube *must* be pulling the amount of current you set the CCs
for in order for it (the CCS) to kick in. Otherwise it's providing no or
inadequate load--no sound or distorted sound. However you do this in your
circuit, you have to tweak the input tube to make sure it's drawing the
required current through the CCS.
You are getting less plate voltage and more current through the 45
presumably because you are adding 5mA or whatever to it's cathode, no?
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: C4S resend of first section
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:15:55 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n373
At 3:54 PM -0700 8/2/98, Michael Hsu wrote:
>Thanks very much for your comments Grover.
>
>I measured the voltages of the 5965s that didn't work and the voltage at top
>of the C4S is the same as the voltage on the plate. Now I understand where
>the distortion is coming from (no load). The best V drop I can get is ten
>volts - which means I get very little power out before distortion.
>
>Why does it not 'fire.' Regardless of the 5965, I still get the 10ma draw
>through the tube - so the current is there.... What are some of the tweeks to
>make it foolproof?
Just be sure you have enough voltage for the rms swing you want from the
5965, I think that's all.
>
>I'll probably change to a simple resistor load - and lose a lot of gain. I am
>building this for a friend so minimum maintenance is required.....
>
>Thanks and cheers, Michael
Well, hold on. Couldn't you run the 5965 at 100 volts, and put 150 on the
top of the CCS? That would work, no? 100 volts for 5965, coupled to grid
of 45, that's 156 on the cathode of the 45 and about 460 volts on the
plate--is that right? Then you get some extra current draw on the 45
cathode from the CCS, so just up your total B+ maybe 20 volts to 480 to
compensate and you should be okay.
If this isn't feasible then I guess you could switch to a resistor load.
Keep the direct-coupling but be sure to put 33K/3W resistor between top of
45 cathode resistor and top of 5965 plate load, a la Lofton-white--this
really improves the direct-coupled sound.
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: Paolo Del Giusto <paolo.delgiusto@studioidea.it>
Subject: CA225 informations, thanks
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:23:42 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n578
Hi people,
thank you all for the informations regarding the CA225 chip: it will be
very difficult to find some informations about it, because I'm not sure it
exist..... I don't have the amp in my hands now, I have only a very old
schematic, where CA225 can mean everything. It seems it has 28 pins!
However other IC on the schematic are labeled in the right way, say LM833
or similar.
Again, thank you all, and have a nice week end.
- ------------------------------------------
- ------------Paolo Del Giusto--------------
- ------------------------------------------
- ------paolo.delgiusto@studioidea.it-------
- ------------------------------------------
- ----paolo.delgiusto@elettra.trieste.it----
- ------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: Philippe <Cadique@worldnet.fr>
Subject: Cabasse and tube amp
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:48:03 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n291
Hi sounds lovers
My father gave me old (20 years) cabasse speakers. This is a 3 ways
enclosure with 30 cm bass speaker with medium and tweeter.
I don't know the type, there is only type 310 and a serial number on the
back. Does any one know those speakers ?
I would like to go for a tube amp.
But with the very bad efficiency of the cabasse (with my solid state
amplifier 80W I've to push the volume a lot to get a good level) I don't
know if it's a good idea.
I visited 15 days ago an hight end sound addict. He had Onken enclosure
with Altec speakers, TAD horn and Fostex tweeter. The amplifier was a
300B SE tube amp delivering 7W ! with a passive preamp. The sound was
amazing and very powerfull. This guy told me that if I want to go for
tube amplification I had to use very efficients speakers to get a good
level (this is another philosophy in front of solid state man ...).
So is there a good way to solve my problem.
Philippe Camus
=========================================================================
From: "Le Cleac'h J.-M." <lecleach@cgi.ensmp.fr>
Subject: Re: Cabasse and tube amp
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 17:14:32 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n291
- ----------
> De : Philippe <Cadique@worldnet.fr>
> A : sound@deliverator.io.com
> Objet : Cabasse and tube amp
> Date : lundi 25 mai 1998 12:48
>
> Hi sounds lovers
>
> My father gave me old (20 years) cabasse speakers. This is a 3 ways
> enclosure with 30 cm bass speaker with medium and tweeter.
> I don't know the type, there is only type 310 and a serial number on the
> back. Does any one know those speakers ?
> I would like to go for a tube amp.
> But with the very bad efficiency of the cabasse (with my solid state
> amplifier 80W I've to push the volume a lot to get a good level) I don't
> know if it's a good idea.
Hello Philippe,
In my bedroom I use a pair of Cabasse Clipper 312 and probably your
reference is for an older but not so older Cabasse Clipper.
Efficiency of the Cabasse Clipper is 94 - 95 dB/1W/1m.
The 30cm driver is probably the 30BZ18,I use that driver in a modified
Petite Onken (150 liters) of my own. I yet spoke about that enclosure on
the Joenet, and few friends from the Joenet who visited me have reported
also the results I obtain with it.
> I visited 15 days ago an hight end sound addict. He had Onken enclosure
> with Altec speakers, TAD horn and Fostex tweeter. The amplifier was a
> 300B SE tube amp delivering 7W ! with a passive preamp. The sound was
> amazing and very powerfull. This guy told me that if I want to go for
> tube amplification I had to use very efficients speakers to get a good
> level (this is another philosophy in front of solid state man ...).
Don't worry about the Cabasse, they are a perfect fit with tube amplifiers.
I used my modified Onken during 10 years with tube amplifiers (at the
moment as my system is multiamplied, I use them with a 28 watts class A
Hiraga SS amplifier).
If you don't want to build big bass enclosure with those driver, I
recommand to you to modify the Clipper(closed enclosures) to make them
bass-reflex. 2 holes of 65mm at the bottom of the front face give a good
tuning. If you want go lower than 40Hz in the bass, you have to rebuild a
larger enclosure. If you want to sell your drivers, tell me, mine are
15years old and it could be interesting for me to have another pair. more
recent version of the Clipper use the 30M20, which one is excellent also,
nearly the same Thiele and Small parameters than the 30BZ18.
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, paris, France*
=========================================================================
From: Philippe <Cadique@worldnet.fr>
Subject: Re: Cabasse and tube amp
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:01:52 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n292
Le Cleac'h J.-M. wrote:
> Hello Philippe,
>
> In my bedroom I use a pair of Cabasse Clipper 312 and probably your
> reference is for an older but not so older Cabasse Clipper.
> Efficiency of the Cabasse Clipper is 94 - 95 dB/1W/1m.
> The 30cm driver is probably the 30BZ18.
I opened the Cabasse this morning and the speakers are referenced:
Bass : Cabasse electroacoustic France 30-12
Medium : Type 12-16 (in a self enclosure).
Tweeter: TWM3
> I use that driver in a modified
> Petite Onken (150 liters) of my own. I yet spoke about that enclosure on
> the Joenet, and few friends from the Joenet who visited me have reported
> also the results I obtain with it.
Do you mean that you use other speakers for medium and tweeter (Horns ?)
> Don't worry about the Cabasse, they are a perfect fit with tube amplifiers.
> I used my modified Onken during 10 years with tube amplifiers (at the
> moment as my system is multiamplied, I use them with a 28 watts class A
> Hiraga SS amplifier).
Ok, so I go for it.
As I own electronic equipment (Osciloscope, frequency meter, Bruel and
kjoer voltmeter, etc...)
and as I design my PCB with CAO system, I would like to build the
amplifier by myself.
An old engineer gave me a box full of tube (old but never used):
EL34, 6L6, EL84, ECC 81-82-83 (Telefunken, Mazda, Philips, Siemens) and
also TV tubes.
I know on joenet you don't like so much those tubes, but as I want to
save money and as it's my first experience in tube amp I prefer to use
it.
The French revue LED published some months ago an 8xEL84 class A
amplifier (octuor), they advice to use Chretien or ACEA output
transformer, maybe there is a better choice ?
> If you don't want to build big bass enclosure with those driver, I
> recommand to you to modify the Clipper(closed enclosures) to make them
> bass-reflex. 2 holes of 65mm at the bottom of the front face give a good
> tuning. If you want go lower than 40Hz in the bass, you have to rebuild a
> larger enclosure.
I think it's a good idea.
I'll try this in the future.
> If you want to sell your drivers, tell me, mine are
> 15years old and it could be interesting for me to have another pair. more
> recent version of the Clipper use the 30M20, which one is excellent also,
> nearly the same Thiele and Small parameters than the 30BZ18.
Each time I sell an audio stuff I always regret .....
If my memory serve you advice us some months ago for triodemania 98,
sadly I miss it.
If they do it again please tell it on joenet.
Jim wrote
> The only other thing that
> I might add is that you have heard probally one great system and may be only
> satified with having the high end addicts system so if you buy or build one like
> it you would probally save money in the long run.
My goal is to save money now :=(
Thank you very much for your very good advice, and long life to joenet.
Philippe Camus
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: Cabasse and tube amp
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:24:00 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n293
At 11:01 AM +0200 5/26/98, Philippe wrote:
>Ok, so I go for it.
>As I own electronic equipment (Osciloscope, frequency meter, Bruel and
>kjoer voltmeter, etc...)
>and as I design my PCB with CAO system, I would like to build the
>amplifier by myself.
>An old engineer gave me a box full of tube (old but never used):
>EL34, 6L6, EL84, ECC 81-82-83 (Telefunken, Mazda, Philips, Siemens) and
>also TV tubes.
>I know on joenet you don't like so much those tubes, but as I want to
>save money and as it's my first experience in tube amp I prefer to use
>it.
Ahem! At the risk of speaking for the group as a whole, we like all tubes
here! :-)
>The French revue LED published some months ago an 8xEL84 class A
>amplifier (octuor), they advice to use Chretien or ACEA output
>transformer, maybe there is a better choice ?
Depending on how much power you need, any of the above tubes would make a
fine starter amp. The EL84 is a really pretty tube, especially. Since
it's a first project, perhaps you could build a very simple ECC81/EL84
push-pull amp? There are a number of very easy Mullard-type circuits
available, the parts would be very cheap and the sound would be hard to
beat. I don't know the circuit you mention, but it would be a good option.
VTL made a very lovely push-pull-parallel EL84 amp here that sounded
extremely good.
Grover
=========================================================================
From: "Le Cleac'h J.-M." <lecleach@cgi.ensmp.fr>
Subject: Cabasse carbone membrane compression driver (for military purpose...)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:21:11 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n509
Hello,
Cabasse loudspeakers equipped the new nuclear propulsed french ship
"Charles de Gaulle".
There is on Cabsse's website some informations about the horn loaded
compression drivers with carbon membrane they specially designed for that
ship.
Text is in french, but for those who cannot read it, pictures are
intersting anyway...
http://www.cabasse.com/rp/cabrpcdg.htm
http://www.cabasse.com/rp/cabrpcd1.htm
http://www.cabasse.com/rp/cabrphpc.htm (pictures)
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h
=========================================================================
From: "George Powell" <george_t_powell@smb.com>
Subject: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:21:34 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n160
I just brought a pair of ElectroVoice 12trxb drivers and I looking for a
cabinet design. The Crofton CLASSIC COAX STUDIO REFERENCE MONITORS,
(http://users.fastrans.net/classicaudio/othrspk.html) look like a good
deal but whose has heard of the company or the cabinet. I like the
sound of QUAD ESL's (who doesn't) but I want the efficiency and power.
I fell in love with SET, when I heard Don Gaber's setup at his old shop,
Fi. Living in Brooklyn doesn't give me the space for A-7 and I can't
afford Lowthers.
What's out there in cabinet designs or software design code. I am
looking for a nice tower with a narrow baffle. With triaxial and
coaxial speakers which is better Bass Reflex or Closed Box? Can you do
Tranmission line?
george
p.s. Anybody know any good cabinetmakers?
- --
______________________________________________________________________________
Salomon Smith Barney | EMAIL: George_Powell@smb.com
Capital Markets PC\Novell Operations | VOICE:(212) 723-5967
390 Greenwich Street | Alpha:(800) 225-0256 pin#(87055)
6th flr West | PAGER:(917) 904-5749
New York, N.Y. 10013 | FAX:(212) 723-8961
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
---Bill Gates, 1981
_____________________________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:51:14 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n160
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, George Powell wrote:
> I just brought a pair of ElectroVoice 12trxb drivers and I looking for a
> cabinet design. The Crofton CLASSIC COAX STUDIO REFERENCE MONITORS,
> (http://users.fastrans.net/classicaudio/othrspk.html) look like a good
> deal but whose has heard of the company or the cabinet. I like the
> sound of QUAD ESL's (who doesn't) but I want the efficiency and power.
> I fell in love with SET, when I heard Don Gaber's setup at his old shop,
> Fi. Living in Brooklyn doesn't give me the space for A-7 and I can't
> afford Lowthers.
Hey, I had A7s when I lived in Brooklyn.
> What's out there in cabinet designs or software design code. I am
> looking for a nice tower with a narrow baffle. With triaxial and
> coaxial speakers which is better Bass Reflex or Closed Box? Can you do
> Tranmission line?
The EVs were designed to be used in reflex or folded horn enclosures.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Steve Fellini <steve@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:39:46 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n160
From: "George Powell" <george_t_powell@smb.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:21:34 -0400
I just brought a pair of ElectroVoice 12trxb drivers and I looking for a
cabinet design. The Crofton CLASSIC COAX STUDIO REFERENCE MONITORS,
(http://users.fastrans.net/classicaudio/othrspk.html) look like a good
deal but whose has heard of the company or the cabinet.
I bought a pair of classic coax cabs a couple of years ago to use with
Altec 601As. They were well made, nice-enough looking and the 601s
sounded very good in them. The price wasn't bad either, if I remember
right.
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n161
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, George Powell wrote:
> Any chance some one might have plans or a directions on finding some?
I don't think it works that way. I mean, you can't plug in
"triaxial" and get an enclosure design. In my experiments with
the Jensen coax stuff I had to search back in early ['50s] audio
magazines to find what the manufacturers' had suggested. The
Jensen stuff finally fell into my lap courtesy of another list
member. But I think you'll have to hunt for a cabinet design
intended for your specific driver, and even then remember that
development was less "quasi-scientific" than now. Everything
was big, too, think refrigerator-sized footprints. It -is-
out there, but it will be a search. Public Library.
By the way, though I don't mind the rolled-off higher notes from
the simple compression tweeter on my cheapo bottom-of-the line
15 inch Jensen, I haven't liked the penetrating harshness of the
cast aluminum coax/triax Jensens etc*. I mean it's dive over the
couch and cover your ears.
--Carter
* 'haven't heard a 604 or Stephens.
=========================================================================
From: "Daniel J. Marshall" <danmarshall@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:37:19 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n161
George Powell wrote:
>
> Any chance some one might have plans or a directions on finding some?
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Salomon Smith Barney | EMAIL: George_Powell@smb.com
> Capital Markets PC\Novell Operations | VOICE:(212) 723-5967
> 390 Greenwich Street | Alpha:(800) 225-0256 pin#(87055)
> 6th flr West | PAGER:(917) 904-5749
> New York, N.Y. 10013 | FAX:(212) 723-8961
>
> "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
> ---Bill Gates, 1981
> _____________________________________________________________________________
Well, it so happens that this is one on my pet projects. I have
collected three pairs of older coax speakers and intend to make several
sets of cabinets, most likely duct loaded reflex about 4 ft tall and
about as wide as the speakers, but it may be a while before I get around
to actually starting construction, probably spring.
I have pretty well worked out the constructions details and gathered
bits and pieces to make a plate joiner attachment (also called biscuit
cutter) for an old shopsmith (or drill press). Anyone who has worked
with dowelled joints knows what a pain in the ass they can sometimes be
and I am at a stage of wanting to do something better than screwed/glued
butt joints, but have had my fill of dowelled joints.
Unfortunately the little hand held plate joiners cost about $150 bucks,
which is quite a bit to pay for something that will only be used
occasionally, though they can greatly facilitate cabinetry projects.
I scrounged around and found a replacement "biscuit cutter" blade on
clearance at Home Depot for $13. Using a specially cut flange (these
things have a wierd 27/32 inch [22mm] diameter mounting hole) and a
standard 9/16 shaft-to-1/2 inch thread spindle adaptor, this will
comprise a specialized attachment that can quickly be mounted on the
Shopsmith. Also, will make make a springloaded sliding bed out of MDF,
or whatever, that can be quickly placed over the SS table. Together
this will then comprise a floor model biscuit-joiner-on-the-cheap which
should be more convenient and production oriented than the little hand
held jobbies and will only cost about twenty bucks. I plan to use oak
plywood for the enclosures (cause I already have a couple sheets) and
solid oak corners joined at both intersections by biscuits. By making a
batch of about six cabinets, all similar cuts can be done at one time
thereby minimizing setup time. I glibly prognosticate that by using
this construction technique one should be able to buzz out a set of
cabinets in a few hours. Well, we all know how that goes.
Anyway, that is one of my latest project ideas, for what it's worth.
BTW some of these these old coaxes sound pretty good generally speaking.
So far the ones I have played about with don't do well in the very low
bass range, so if you are a low-bass-freak (like me) you might want to
think about using a subwoofer. This will allow the tower to be a bit
smaller as well. Since I am thinking toward an eventual home theater
setup, the subwoofer sort of goes with the territory anyway.
I would be interested in other's listening impressions of various older
coax speakers and would be willing to share my recent impressions. So
far I have recent experience with the University 312, 312.200, Utah
"Pandorah" (Pan-doh-ray), 8 inch Goodmans 208 triaxioms and some EV
SP12Bs which are full range units, and, of course, the 12 Tannoy Golds.
I do not have any plans currently drawn up, but perhaps will have before
too long, in case you do not find suitable plans elsewhere. This is a
simple enough project that you ought to be able to wing-it alone, I
would think.
Dan Marshall
=========================================================================
From: "George Powell" <george_t_powell@smb.com>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:32:50 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n161
Any chance some one might have plans or a directions on finding some?
- --
______________________________________________________________________________
Salomon Smith Barney | EMAIL: George_Powell@smb.com
Capital Markets PC\Novell Operations | VOICE:(212) 723-5967
390 Greenwich Street | Alpha:(800) 225-0256 pin#(87055)
6th flr West | PAGER:(917) 904-5749
New York, N.Y. 10013 | FAX:(212) 723-8961
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
---Bill Gates, 1981
_____________________________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
From: Petter Eneroth <ehp@ffa.se>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:22:59 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n161
I bought a pair of Goodmans triaxial 12 inch speakers (dont now which
model yet) in their
original enclosures.
It's some kind of variation on bass reflex.
There is an "acustical resistance (some kind of felt material)" in a
square large opening on the
back baffle. I have seen somewhere that this principle is supposed to
broaden the bassreflex
resonance and lower its max resistance value.
I haven't figured out any model name.I would guess they are from the
50's or early
60's. I Badly needed some efficient speakers for my homebrewn 5 watt SE,
no NFB.
Soundwise what is there is pleasant but not much at frequency extremes.
Have been thinking on trying them in open baffles with a subwoofer.
Best regards Petter Eneroth Stockholm Sweden
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cabinets for triaxial Speakers
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:00:32 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n162
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Petter Eneroth wrote:
> I bought a pair of Goodmans triaxial 12 inch speakers (dont now which
> model yet) in their
> original enclosures.
>
> It's some kind of variation on bass reflex.
> There is an "acustical resistance (some kind of felt material)" in a
> square large opening on the
> back baffle. I have seen somewhere that this principle is supposed to
> broaden the bassreflex
> resonance and lower its max resistance value.
Goodmans ARU was discussed in the past. Check dejanews. It came and
went as did similar devices from other mfrs.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Richard C Nevill <rnevill@is.dal.ca>
Subject: Cable Internet Access
Date: Fri, 17 J