[Arny Krueger]

" Frank" wrote in message


By the 1960s we had both tubes and transistors.

True for many applications, but not for others.

The
transistor than was very mature as it was invented in
1947 and much of the physic were been worked out years
ago.

Depends which end of the 60s, you're talking. In 1960 there were no
competitive mainstream solid state power amps, receivers or integrated amps.
By the end of the 60s, there were, but power ratings above 200 wpc were
still in the next generation.

The first stereo amp reviewed by Stereo Review was the Knight kit KG-870, in
1965. It was not competively reliable. The first stereo amp reviewed by
High Fidelity was the Knight KN400, in 1961. It had low power and was not
competively reliable. By 1966 some SS gear with adequate power and
reliability crept onto the market. Really high-powered SS amps waited until
1973 or later.

Nothing wrong with tubes, many high systems end
still use it

More for effect, than good sound at a reasonable cost.

but neither tubes nor solid state could
drive the 901 at very high pressure levels.

For what reason?

r hand, back in the 60s, there was
Electro-Voice 30" woofer that required very power to
drive it,

Its voice coil could handle only about 60 watts. It only
had a few mm of Xmax. A modern 10' subwoofer driver
could probably out-displace it.

It doesn't have to handle many watts as it was very
efficient.

It was not that hard to fry. I know people who have done it without abusing
it.

I have not seen a 10" sub (not a 10') that
could out pump a 30" as the excursion has be 9x times
more.

The 30W had only a few mm Xmax, maybe two or three. PIcking the higher
number, it would take a 10" woofer with 27 mm Xmax to duplicate it. Those
are pretty rare. Being a little more practical, there are popular 18"
woofers with 27 mm Xmax. Derating that to 30 inches puts us at about 7 mm
Xmax, which the 30W most definately can't do.










t he corrected all the
folding angles. A few people I talked to said it did blow
out the match, including a chief engineer - no reason for
them to lie for they were not connected with the project.
It was for his personal use, not commercial. Believe what
you believe.