| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Myth: High-efficiency Low-power (13 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A quest for a better SET...  Still, there is something in it....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     3  42510  02-05-2005
  »  New  SET and speakers: disregard Volume..  Thoughts form future: about Melquiades and Lamm ML2.0....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     4  48944  02-07-2007
12-28-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
skushino
Seattle, WA
Posts 93
Joined on 07-07-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 1897
Reply to: 1897
Myth: High-efficiency Low-power

augmentin bambini

augmentin
The past 6 - 8 months I have been living with very efficient speakers (~ 109dB/m/w) driven by low-power SET amps. The amps use 300B output tubes for about 7 wpc. On paper, this should be a match made in heaven. In fact, the combination is capable of wonderful nuance, subtley, harmonic richness, and tonality. It is really pleasing, especially on chamber and jazz music. Except for one thing - dynamic energy. I am not referring to loudness. It can deliver more undistorted volume than I care to listen to. I'm referring to immediacy, presence, power, and punch - the life of the music. If you go to the symphony, or live blues, than you know what I am talking about. Next week I'm taking delivery of a 90wpc PP amp, to audition in place of the SET. I need an amp that can maintain the purity of tone and harmonic texture of the SET, while delivering more power, to grab hold and take control the 15" bass driver in my horns.

I searched the archives, but have not found a similar post. Are there any other high-efficiency low-power people who moved to a higher power amp? Are you satisfied now?

Scott
12-28-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 2
Post ID: 1898
Reply to: 1897
Myth? perhaps...

Myth, perhaps but let look what might actually the myth migh be. There is nothing “on a paper” that presumes a good sound. 109dB sensitivity is not automatically means anything and a 300B SET is not a definition of some kind of abstractive quality. In fact 95 % of all 109dB sensitive playback that I have seen I would not consider worth affords as well and 100% of 300B SETs were not interesting. So, let do not refer to the specific, perhaps poor implantations and to the specific ignorantly setup installations.  Still, can we make any generalization? I do not think it would be necessary.

Scott, in your question there are tow phases: the phase about your setup and the phase about a generalization. In context of your setup I really do not know what is going on with you.  The confusion that from my point of view you experience is observable even in the format of your post. You’re unhappy about dynamics but wiling to address the problem with introduction of more powerful amps. More powerful amp will be able amplify the signal to the same amplitude, holding more inpout voltage, but it has nothing to do with dynamic range. To get better dynamic range you need a better amplifier. So if you are unhappy with your compressed 300B SET and if you wiling to make a generalization then it would make sense to try a dynamic-range capable SET, wouldn’t? Topologically and according to all theories the SET is capable to produce dynamic range that is unspeakable for PP, unless some tricks used in PP amps and those tricks have own negative effect to sound. Why your 300B do not have dynamics no one knows….

Still I do not know why you addressing the dynamics limitation of your elections (presumably it is the problems) with “I need an amp that can maintain the purity …. while delivering more power”? Did you heard those foolish intentions with powerful and tonally dead electronic that deliver high sensitively when the loudness goes up but sound still stay at 10% of what it should be? Well, with 90W PP it would be simple to accomplish… I certainly do not say that a powerful PP could not be theoretically interesting? I juts believe in what I experienced and I personally do not see PP that would be able to work with properly made horns.

Also, “to take control the 15" bass driver in my horns” is the separate issues and you know it. Wherever you expect this driver to work as upper bass horn the driver acts as a direct radiator. So, can a 90W PP drive a large and heavy direct radiator? Probably.  Would it do ”immediacy, presence, power, and punch - the life of the music” I do not think so, as well that I do not think that “the life of the music” might be a property of only audio methods.

Scott, as I always suggest before to make any movements or make any changes try to identify the real problem instead of a random addressing of abstractive dissatisfactions

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=432

You can get 800W amplifier but .... is POWER something that you are looking?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-29-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Genn
Moscow
Posts 16
Joined on 06-28-2005

Post #: 3
Post ID: 1899
Reply to: 1897
Re: Myth: High-efficiency Low-power
Scott,

my apologize, but issue of low-power does not have any relationship to the problems, you have described.   The problems could be located in the following areas:
- high output impedance of the last cascade, and amplifier in general,
- relatively high HP-friquency of amp - most of commercial amps are not avaliable to delivery 7W at 20 Hz, due to the size of iron in transformer, 
- low capacitors in the amp - most of commercial amps does not have enought capacitance to produce 7W at 20 Hz for 1..10 sec.
- etc., etc.

High Power amps will have other problems in design.

The solution, which finded Romy - self made 6C33C amp - is probably the optimum one.  I did not see schematic - but diameter of power caps and description of 6C33C workpoint clearly indicated, that he is about extremum of this tube, and tube solution at all.  I like the voice of this tube.

300B - is totally different story.  

Sincerely,  Genn
12-29-2005 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
JLH
Indianapolis, IN U.S.A.
Posts 42
Joined on 07-20-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 1900
Reply to: 1897
Re: Myth: High-efficiency Low-power
Scott,

     Do not pay any attention to the moron advice given on the Audio Asylum. The issue is not with the quantity of the power you have, it is with the quality of power you have. Genn makes some very good points. Most circuits that are accepted among the Audio Asylum are under-designed and will not stand up again a reviling system. High DCR power supplies and cathode bias are sure ways to ensure your amp is a snooze. The 300B is not a good starting point for a good amplifier. This is probably the most over rated tube in history. The deep bias required of this tube makes it an under performer in regards to upward and downward dynamic range capability. (Remember that a ever more negatively swinging grid has proportionally less and less control over plate current and looses control during peak passages.) Basically, this tube can't get out of its own way unless the circuit design is way over the top. A lot of attention must be paid to the power supply and the biasing. Even at that, it still is marginal.
12-30-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Wojtek
Pinckney (MI), United States
Posts 158
Joined on 09-01-2005

Post #: 5
Post ID: 1901
Reply to: 1900
Re: Myth: High-efficiency Low-power
John
Does it also apply to the new generation of 300B's 300 BXL from AVVT , KR or EML ? These are different designs and supposed to address the issues with 300b signature .What tube (besides 6c33c) is a good starting point for an amp in your opinion?
Rgrds
W
12-30-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 6
Post ID: 1902
Reply to: 1900
Sometimes a SET is not juts a SET...

buscopan compositum

buscopan applicazioni.itis.pr.it

I do not think that it is a mater of the output tube. Yes, the 300B is crappy tube but it is too easy to blame the under-performing tube. I would say that in the situation that Scott is experiencing the problem is not with his amplifier but in the ideological place that his amplifier ocupates in context of his installation and with the assessment techniques he uses in his reasoning-causing audio judgments.

What I mean is the Scott (or most of the people who believe that they “do audio” at that mater) asked pretty much the question about nothing and the question that has no relation to practical audio. The fact the Scott used the words that audio people can understand (horns, SET, cables elevators, etc…) does not necessary make his understanding of his own question. I do not knock to the Scott’s door but let look what the conversation was all about. Scott completely voluntary accepted an amplifier that somebody told him was a SET amplifier.  With the same success someone would tell him that it was an amplifier that user the cold fusion…. How the hell the DRD-300B’s sound similar to what SET should sound I do not know. I also do not know where Scott found those “wonderful nuance, subtley, harmonic richness, and tonality” into the sound of THAT SET.  What motivated Scott to use that Welborne Labs DRD-300B only god knows, probably he found it in garbage; he should put it back there… Now let rephrase the Scott’s qestion:

“The past 6 - 8 months I have been living with very efficient speakers (~ 109dB/m/w) driven by an amplifier that I have no idea how it performs. The amps use 300B output tubes for about 7 wpc. On paper, this should be a match made in heaven. In fact, the combination is capable of many things that my idiots-friends form AA taught me it would. It is really pleasing, especially on simple or crappy. Except for one thing – I do not know what it is but let me I call it dynamic. I am not referring to loudness. It can deliver more undistorted volume than I care to listen to. I'm referring to other set of properties that my friend form Audiogon told me about. If you go to the symphony, or live blues, than you know what I am talking about. Next week I'm taking delivery of a 90wpc PP amp, to audition in place of my current cold fusion amplifier. I need an amp that can maintain the purity of tone and harmonic texture that I head the SET might have, while delivering more corrupted voltage into my big and heavy bass drivers that with higher voltage applied to them discontinue to be a direct radiators and become horns.”

Well, the problem is certainly not with Scott but with the general mental approach of audiophiles to their playback. Would Scott be a DIY person (the moronic people that I really cant stand) or buying ready-to-go-audio he never identified for himself the fact the he was using a fundamentally fatly amplifier. So, where the “SET qualities” come to the Scott live: from his own experience or from his repeating the rumors of others? The only advise I can give to Scott, or to anything else at this mater would be forget what he believe he “know” about the amplifiers and do not even to talk about amsp with anybody. Listen an amp and decide for yourself what the amp does wrong. Then, ONLY THEN, after identifying what was wrong, make any move or conclusion. However, this time the conclusion would be about Scott’s own observations but not about the picking and embracing the idiotic rumors of the Morons which whom he is accustomed to socialize in audio.

As I said in “My Playback Rules” section of my site there are very few properly performing SETs out there. SET with all it’s appearing simplicity is the most complicated amplifier if the proper objectives are in aim. The dam industry and the foolish DIYers brew SETs but they do not get the purpose of making an amplifier is not to arrange the electronic parts in a orderly fashion and is not to apply the dead topological concepts - doing this one can accomplish a properly operating but not performing amp. The purpose of making an amplifier is to get out of it the proper Sound. Most of those people out there do not manufacture Sound but juts products and the result of own egos. When you talk with them they talk about this the advances in different topologies but the would never show or even imply Sound that indicate that they looked for it. All those “electricianing” produce brainless equipment - which if 99.9999% of all audio out there.

Yes, there are very few interesting tube that work successfully in SET configurations, there are very few interesting sounding drivers (the most important), there are fundamental disability of SETs working in full range (here is why SET should be multiamped) and there are many other complication with SETs. Still the biggest problems are not with the SET’s mentioned or not mentioned difficulties but with the people who use/make them. As I am very convinced that in a hands of a person who casers and understand how a playback should Sound even a 300B amp would sound appropriately. Unfortunately the majority of the SETs out there do not sound as their designer/builders even tried to get anything out them other then a correct plate voltage… So, what would be the conclusion of using a dead SET:  to get a 90W mastodon?

Yeh, you’re right!

So far the Scott’s frustration do not sound different for me then a situation when he went to a fast food restaurant and was server with kept without frizzier 4 month old burger. Then Scott is eating the burger and begins to spread the pitching about the benefits of vegetarianism…

Still, the problem is not that Scott (and others) needs to change his current SET to the real one. What Scott needs to change is his ways how the audio problems should be approached, interpreted and resoled. Without it Scott will next month engaged in a new round of “inspiring audio frustrations…”

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-30-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 488
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 7
Post ID: 1903
Reply to: 1898
Re: Myth? perhaps...
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Topologically and according to all theories the SET is capable to produce dynamic range that is unspeakable for PP, unless some tricks used in PP amps and those tricks have own negative effect to sound.

I really do not know anything about amplifier design, but I am trying to learn about it so that I do not remain a typical DIY audio-moron.  The symmetry of the differential circuit seems fundamentally appealing, so I am surprised that you say topologically SET is superior, although it is admittedly simpler.  Could you explain why you make this statement?

Adrian
12-30-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 8
Post ID: 1904
Reply to: 1903
Problems with SETs?

Adrian,

what do you see fundamentally appealing in the symmetry of the differential circuits and what the relations between Sound the symmetry? Not to mention that the perfectly symmetric circuits do not exists. I’m very far form the people who could credibly explain to you the advantages of SE design but the dynamic superiority (among many other things) of a properly built SETs well described in literature.  You may try a good SET running in A1 with appropriate speaker and you would see that nothing could stay next to no-feedback SETs dynamic-range wise.

Beside the electrical advantages there are some usability advantages the even larger. In order to increase the dynamic range for 3dB you need to double power of your amp. Boosting the power you gain of dynamic range but this gain would be slower then the dynamic range gain that might take place if your increased the dynamic range of your loudspeakers. So, keeping the power low and the sensitivity of the loudspeaker high you have more dynamic range then the powerful amps and low sensitively dull loudspeaker.

If you run many watts of the “symmetry of differential circuit” (even in Class A1) against 110dB sensitive load then you have the “dynamic range” (primary coming from the loudspeaker) but you will also “loose a lot of sound” into the complications of that differential circuit. At least it was my experience. Yes I have seen people who told me the “properly made PP” might be equal to SET but in ALL those cases the people confidence collapsed what there was the actual needs to DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING to back up their promises. Also, I have to say that I feel that something very positive lives in the transformer cores…

I think the biggest problem with SETs is the complete missing from market any more or less capable high-sensitively loudspeakers that good SETs might be used with. The manufacturers and designers go for power in SET not for Sound as they need to sell those Sets to the customer with 95dB sensitive speakers. The alternative for them is only the foolish domain of full-range drivers with own set of unresolvable problems…

Rgs,
The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-30-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
skushino
Seattle, WA
Posts 93
Joined on 07-07-2004

Post #: 9
Post ID: 1905
Reply to: 1902
Re: Keep stirring the pot
I was traveling yesterday and away from the computer until this evening.  I'm glad to see my post as the source of controversy and even cause for a public flagellation from Romy.  I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. 

Actually, I don't "do audio".  Believe it or not, I don't care so much about the audio equipment.  I have some interest in gear, but it's not why I listen to music.  My last system stayed unchanged for 10 years.  The past 2 years I have spent some time and energy and money assembling another system, that I intend to be good enough to stay unchanged another 10 years, at least.  My system is subordinate to music playback, and serves only as a platform for my enjoyment.  I'm not into having a parade of gear continually circulating through my system.

Back to audio.  I don't care if something is SET, PP, OTL, hybrid, AM, FM, tube, solid state, digital, analog, single-ended, balanced, or bisexual.  If something works for me, it is welcome in my system.  Otherwise, I'll move on.  And I know exactly what I expect from my music playback, soundwise.  I don't know if the DRD300 represents best SET topology / design, but who cares?  I have a specific end-result in mind, and if the DRD does it, then it's good enough for me.  In this instance, it isn't working how I want it to work. 

So next week I will broaden my playback experience by adding my new 90wpc PP mastadon, and Romy's approved Lamm ML-2, in addition to my current DRD-300B amps.  And as a personal favor to the readers at Good Sound Club, I may share my results.  I don't expect anyone to base their next amp decision on my feedback.

So far the Scott’s frustration do not sound different for me then a situation when he went to a fast food restaurant and was server with kept without frizzier 4 month old burger. Then Scott is eating the burger and begins to spread the pitching about the benefits of vegetarianism…

ok...

I post on the usual web sites, including this one, because I hope that out of the dozens of replies, if I'm very fortunate, maybe one person will connect with me and understand what I want, and share their experience.  Mostly, the Internet posts are 99.9% rubbish, don't you think?

Cheers and Happy New Year,
Scott

12-31-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 10
Post ID: 1906
Reply to: 1905
Another search for the better SET?

 skushino wrote:
So next week I will broaden my playback experience by adding my new 90wpc PP mastadon, and Romy's approved Lamm ML-2, in addition to my current DRD-300B amps.  And as a personal favor to the readers at Good Sound Club, I may share my results.  I don't expect anyone to base their next amp decision on my feedback
Scott, I certainly would like do not sound that I have any “Romy's approved amplifiers” or anything like this. ML2 is fine set but Lamm targeted it for speaker with sensitively of 90s. He went for getting a lot of power out this tube, using superfluous regulation and excessive plate current. Not to mention that Lamm did not have good drivers, used quite primitive and low query PSs, employed not the best sounding biasing and a feedback. As the result ML2 from my point of view has some very specific limitations performance-vise, although it WILL be hugely more interesting then DRD-300B, in fact it will be very very very very educational for you…  and I wish each audio person would have a chance to experience the ML2 at one stage of his/her development of other….

If you insist me to endorse something then this is why I make my Melquiades amplifier publicly available. This amp is made to sound is very certain way and this sound present the best that have seen form SETs. Interestingly that the Milq is not design around the idiotic believes in quality of parts, directivity of the wires and other BS – but it made sound in the way how it sounds by totally different means – it could not be understand by reading the schismatic. If you get Melquiades in your listening room driving your Elgars and if you find any amps that would have more dynamics (and at the same time preserving everything else!) then please let me know.

Your feedback would be very much welcomed. I have a LOT of notes about my live with this amp….

Rgs,
The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-02-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 488
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 11
Post ID: 1910
Reply to: 1904
Re: Problems with SETs?

acquistare cialis 5 mg

cialis generico forum
 Romy the Cat wrote:

what do you see fundamentally appealing in the symmetry of the differential circuits and what the relations between Sound the symmetry? Not to mention that the perfectly symmetric circuits do not exists. I’m very far form the people who could credibly explain to you the advantages of SE design but the dynamic superiority (among many other things) of a properly built SETs well described in literature.  You may try a good SET running in A1 with appropriate speaker and you would see that nothing could stay next to no-feedback SETs dynamic-range wise.



I am talking about use with high-efficiency speakers, but really thinking about the topology.  I do not know anything about electronics really so I am hoping someone can shed some light on this for me. 

The ideal circuit in my mind connects the speaker to the electron source, but this cannot be done entirely because we need some modulation circuitry in between.  The transfer of electrons is instantaneous but there is no control.

Differential design creates symmetry and this allows a symmetrical degree of control of the drivers over the positive and negative motion of the drivers.  More control can be better if it leads to more accurate duplication of the source signal.  But there is a lot of circuitry in the way of the electons to get to the driver and this can be a bad thing.

Single ended circuits have the control in one arm of the signal path and a direct connection to the electron source in the other.  This compromise I would guess should make less controlled but more dynamic sounds.  Is this what yoyu are saying????

Adrian
01-03-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
skushino
Seattle, WA
Posts 93
Joined on 07-07-2004

Post #: 12
Post ID: 1914
Reply to: 1906
Re: Nope - I'll pass
If you insist me to endorse something then this is why I make my Melquiades amplifier publicly available.

Romy, I'm not seeking endorsement.  Mine is the only endorsement that matters in my system.  I have my own end-results in mind.  You misunderstood my question, and missed the point completely.  Rather than an intelligent discussion about the myth of High efficiency and Low power systems, most of your reply focused on the short-comings of my current amp.  Since I already arrived at the conclusion that the DRD300B isn't doing the job, your reply is superfluous.  Since this is your web site, it's your prerogative to reply in any manner that entertains you. 

I have some curiosity to build a Melquiades, but since this is your first effort at a DIY amplifier project, I have serious reservations.  It is rare when a first effort in any field ever results in "statement" performance, or comes anywhere near achieving the potential of the concept.  So instead I will wait until you iron out the kinks, then reconsider.

Hugs and kisses,
Scott
01-03-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 13
Post ID: 1915
Reply to: 1914
It is perfectly within your constitutional rights….

 skushino wrote:
   Rather than an intelligent discussion about the myth of High efficiency and Low power systems, most of your reply focused on the short-comings of my current amp. 

Actually I do not think that you are correct in this. Rather than to have an “intelligent discussion”, dismissing the bogus myths I prefer you yourself to assess the validity of the myths and the sources that make you to embrace the myth. It has absolutely nothing to do with your current amplifier.

 skushino wrote:
I have some curiosity to build a Melquiades, but since this is your first effort at a DIY amplifier project, I have serious reservations.  It is rare when a first effort in any field ever results in "statement" performance, or comes anywhere near achieving the potential of the concept.  So instead I will wait until you iron out the kinks, then reconsider.

Well your thinking operates by “achieving the potential of the concept” and by statistics of the “first effort” but this is not the thinking pattern that I use.  I assume you juts do not understand what Melquiades is, how it was created and what objectives were targeted while it was designed. The only reason I proposed you to get Melq because I’m absolutely confident that it would save you a lot of time, a lot of education and a lot of money. How many times you caught me blabbering about something that had no reasons?  I defiantly will not be overly pushing with my proposal; it is interlay up to you, though I do personably feel that you are not ready for the Milq. The Milq is public and feel free to return to your curiosity about this amp in a few years when you get tiered to chance the  “well proven solutions”.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A quest for a better SET...  Still, there is something in it....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     3  42510  02-05-2005
  »  New  SET and speakers: disregard Volume..  Thoughts form future: about Melquiades and Lamm ML2.0....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     4  48944  02-07-2007
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts