Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits
to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T, the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and is to replace it entirely. There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs as compared to the whole project is small. Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, much can be done. The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized. A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also solved thereby. The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good. The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today. So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a museum or in the hands of a collector. Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
"Bret L" wrote in message ... Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T, the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and is to replace it entirely. There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs as compared to the whole project is small. Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, much can be done. The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized. A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also solved thereby. The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good. The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today. So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a museum or in the hands of a collector. Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones? Bret, Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or something?? Damn... 8) MarkS |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 25, 5:25�pm, "MarkS" wrote:
"Bret L" wrote in message ... Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. �Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T, the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and is to replace it entirely. There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs �as compared to the whole project is small. Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, �much can be done. The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized. A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also solved thereby. The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good. The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today. So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a museum or in the hands of a collector. Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones? Bret, Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or something?? Damn... 8) MarkS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hi RATs! Relax. Some people understand there is more to Audio than how it sounds. In fact, the sound doesn't matter to some folks. If everything else is correct, it will sound good enough, if you attach speakers, instead of a dummy load. Happy Ears! Al PS Breathed on the Xovers, great improvement, even with speakers. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
"Watt? Me worry?" wrote in message ... On Apr 25, 5:25?pm, "MarkS" wrote: "Bret L" wrote in message ... Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. ?Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T, the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and is to replace it entirely. There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs ?as compared to the whole project is small. Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, ?much can be done. The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized. A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also solved thereby. The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good. The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today. So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a museum or in the hands of a collector. Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones? Bret, Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or something?? Damn... 8) MarkS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hi RATs! Relax. Some people understand there is more to Audio than how it sounds. In fact, the sound doesn't matter to some folks. If everything else is correct, it will sound good enough, if you attach speakers, instead of a dummy load. Happy Ears! Al PS Breathed on the Xovers, great improvement, even with speakers. Al says "Relax" OK! MarkS "Champion of the Under-Amplifier" |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 25, 5:25*pm, "MarkS" wrote:
"Bret L" wrote in message ... Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. *Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T, the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and is to replace it entirely. There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs *as compared to the whole project is small. Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, *much can be done. The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized. A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also solved thereby. The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good. The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today. So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a museum or in the hands of a collector. Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones? Bret, Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or something?? Damn... As i said several vendors offer ST70 kits, but not others. I would like to stop people from wasting time and money on this inferior design. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
Several companies sell replacement transformers and
chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. Authenticity. If you want the true sound of American middle class music of the time, the ST70 would be a reasonable choice of amp. Ian |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 27, 11:56*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote: Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. *Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. Authenticity. If you want the true sound of American middle class music of the time, the ST70 would be a reasonable choice of amp. Ian The sound ot a brand new well assembled and adjusted ST70 at say a 1 watt average power at each channel would be no different from say a UK made Leak which also had EL34 outputs. All the action is covered by the low distortion class A operation and enclosed by a large amount of GNFB. While working at low levels with the sensitive speakers of the 1960s all the amps rated for about 30 watts had vitually no distinguishable sonic signatures mainly because the speakers and pickups and tape replay were so awfully coloured. Once one tries to use the ST70 at quite high levels with low sensitivity modern speakers the action becomes mainly class AB with THD and IMD levels some 5 times higher. Quad, Leak, and other UK brands all lurch along in class AB with modern conditions. Crummy amps like the Quad-II have no proper provision for 4 ohm speaker connections so that you can use an 8 ohm speaker plugged to the 4 ohm outlet to get much more class A because the RLa-a becomes 8ka-a instead of the lousy 4ka-a which is what Quad-II provide. Quad-II only remain in class A if the loads are 32 and 16 on the strappable ouputs of 16 and 8 ohms. This suited the ESL57. I have played around with modifying Dynaco ST70 and been able to get excellent sound at high modern levels with modern loads after fixing the terrible PSU and frightful input/driver stages. The trouble with the 1960 amp designs is that they all were cheap crap foisted on the public by bean counters who always voted to dumb down engineers designs to suit the shareholders and never the listeners. So the True Sound of amercian middle class music reproduction was never much better or worse than British Sound, or French Sound, or German Sound. Amateurs hi-fi enthusiasts of the 1960s could easily access excellent OPTs better than anything used in any consumer brand name designs or kits and then get a quad of 807 from army disposal stores cheaply and make amps that would leave all the expensive commercial amps for dead. I have a customer's pair of Dynaco Mk-III which are waiting for me to fix. I will be totally eliminating all evidence of the cheap jack **** US kit design mentality and making two wonderful amps with decent PSU and all triode drivers with 6550 outputs which I know will work OK with the old Dynaco OPT, existing PTs and the chassis metalwork, although I may also change the PTs if I have cooler running PTs which have 240V primaries. The great thing about the crappy old garbage which my father may have settled for is that it can be hotted up to give more clean watts with modern parts and design. There are now many high-end and low end designs being sold at expensive prices which are no better than the 1960s crap. All respond well to total re-engineering if the OPT and PT have adequate ability. Patrick Turner. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
I have played around with modifying Dynaco ST70 and been able to get excellent sound at high modern levels with modern loads after fixing the terrible PSU and frightful input/driver stages. The trouble with the 1960 amp designs is that they all were cheap crap foisted on the public by bean counters who always voted to dumb down engineers designs to suit the shareholders and never the listeners. So the True Sound of amercian middle class music reproduction was never much better or worse than British Sound, or French Sound, or German Sound. The Marantz, McIntosh, Fairchild and Harmon Kardon were all entirely adequate. Probably the best were the Fairchild and the Marantz. The Mcintosh was the most reliable and trouble free. Although the Brits had the Radford and Leak, along with Wharfedale and Tannoy speakers, no other country came close to the United States in overall audio excellence. We were _the ****ing best_ at SOMETHING in those days! The Germans clearly had the capability but did not market it as a hi-fi product. Had they aggressively marketed the transformers in the Klangfilm gear and the EL156 and other exotic tubes, they'd have been world beaters. Amateurs hi-fi enthusiasts of the 1960s could easily access excellent OPTs better than anything used in any consumer brand name designs or kits and then get a quad of 807 from army disposal stores cheaply and make amps that would leave all the expensive commercial amps for dead. The proper audio tubes were not that much more expensive. You could get GE or TungSol 6550s cheaply enough and even the British Gold Lion KT88 was affordable. The price of a Heathkit with Peerless OPT was only a little more than just the Peerless OPT itself. And in fact the transformers were fairly expensive. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 26, 8:56*pm, "Ian Iveson"
wrote: Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. *Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. Authenticity. If you want the true sound of American middle class music of the time, the ST70 would be a reasonable choice of amp. The middle class had consoles. Dyna specifically catered to a 'bohemian' or "sophisticated beatnik" market niche. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
"Bret L" wrote in message ... On Apr 25, 5:25 pm, "MarkS" wrote: "Bret L" wrote in message ... Several companies sell replacement transformers and chassis and kits to build Dyna amplifiers. Apparently they sell. One has to ask WHY. The Stereo 70 was, like the Model T Ford, hardly the first amplifier on the market, but like the Model T put America-and the world-on wheels, it put America on to "component" hi-fi. Like the Model T it was primitive even in its day and flawed in many respects and so begat a massive modification and accessory industry.And like the Model T, the ultimate modification to "make it into a real car (amp) " was and is to replace it entirely. There are many flaws with the ST70. Some of these can be ameliorated and others not. The ultimate limiting factor is the output transformers, which are no more than adequate and certainly not the best. If one were to wind new transformers, one would hardly want to duplicate the mediocre Dyna iron. Many better designs exist. Most of them are somewhat larger, meaning one would want a larger chassis as well. The cost savings of the inadequate Dyna OPTs as compared to the whole project is small. Accepting the stock ST70 chassis and transformers, much can be done. The first problem is the stock power transformer which is undersized. A larger transformer is easily made, and the concomitant problem of having a high B+ AND heater voltages from the old primary (AC voltages have increased since Eisenhower left office) turns count is also solved thereby. The stock amp had a single 7199 tube whose two sections drove the power tubes. It was a poor circuit and no one would use it today if they had any inkling of good design. A cornucopia of boards can be bought with changed circuits, which vary from stinky to pretty good. The stock bias arrangement is also unacceptable today. So the answer to "Can the ST70 be improved?" is, yes, certainly, but the question really should be, "Why Bother?" When one sees a Model T Ford today we don't think of improving it but of putting it in a museum or in the hands of a collector. Many vintage designs are far superior to the ST70 so if one is to kit out a vintage amp design, why not any of these superior ones? Bret, Your constant berating of this little amp boarders on obsession really...did an ST70 punch you in the nose (or shock you) when you were a little kid or something?? Damn... As i said several vendors offer ST70 kits, but not others. I would like to stop people from wasting time and money on this inferior design. The ST70 was and still is a stepping stone into tube audio. To that end it does its job well. Think about it though. The ST70 is very well known, the kit is easy to copy and the kit assembly instructions already exist as well as many documented mods to increase performance. A newbie to tube audio may go though the assembly and mod of an ST then on to his own design and or reconstruction of a better design (at this point we got 'em, they're hooked). Mark |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 26, 11:12*pm, Bret L wrote:
The Mcintosh was the most reliable and trouble free. I am not sure that McIntosh was intrinsically more reliable than its competitors. However, their traveling clinics did make maintenance trouble-free for the aficionados. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 27, 9:52*am, " wrote:
On Apr 26, 11:12*pm, Bret L wrote: The Mcintosh was the most reliable and trouble free. I am not sure that McIntosh was intrinsically more reliable than its competitors. *However, their traveling clinics did make maintenance trouble-free for the aficionados. The Mcintosh unity coupled design was pretty well bombproof. The bias voltage was set high enough that the idle current was quite low and tubes often lasted decades. The big problems with the amp in the first twenty or thirty years of its life were mostly cosmetic. Of course now any Mc tube amp, besides reissues, needs to be fully recapped as well as replacing some high current resistors and the diodes for good measure. Was the Mc the best SOUNDING amp of its day? it does offer some opportunity for improvement but in applications where it has to work it is an excellent choice. The most sensitive horn speakers are a poor match except for disco or sound reinforcement use. I would love to see the Unity Coupled Mc kitted out for modern builders but no one really wants to wind the transformers, the C-cores are expensive, a special run of insulated wire is needed (which IMO is why Mc themselves went to a lesser transformer on reissues) and some fixturing needs to be built. The Marantz 8B and McIntosh MA230 (which is NOT unity coupled) transformers, are straightforward to wind as are a number of Peerless, Acro, Partridge, and UTC Linear Standard designs. Any of these would be a good choice. The Dyna ST70 is asymmetrical wind as are a number of other questionable transformers, I think the British Rodgers Cadet is in this category. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 27, 4:29*pm, Bret L wrote:
*The Mcintosh unity coupled design was pretty well bombproof. The bias voltage was set high enough that the idle current was quite low and tubes often lasted decades. The big problems with the amp in the first twenty or thirty years of its life were mostly cosmetic. Of course now any Mc tube amp, besides reissues, needs to be fully recapped as well as replacing some high current resistors and the diodes for good measure. I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics, watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction (most?) of the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were usually brought up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. Of course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there had been since the previous service call. I also did not know if the owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the clinics came to town (a more random and representative population). The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that most other brands did not. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
My god,
Give it up Bret, you have been singing the same tune for years. Why don't you design the perfect audio transformer and audio amp and market it. Dynaco is the best value today in tube amplifiers where many got their first taste in tube audio at a reasonable. Are you that bored that you have to bring up the same topic year after year? |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On May 3, 5:42*am, Sal wrote:
My god, Give it up Bret, you have been singing the same tune for years. Why don't you design the perfect audio transformer and audio amp and market it. Dynaco is the best value today in tube amplifiers where many got their first taste in tube audio at a reasonable. Are you that bored that you have to bring up the same topic year after year? Only because people are still selling new kits to build them. What a waste of money. A little more build cost and they could have a good amp. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On Apr 28, 11:16*am, " wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:29*pm, Bret L wrote: *The Mcintosh unity coupled design was pretty well bombproof. The bias voltage was set high enough that the idle current was quite low and tubes often lasted decades. The big problems with the amp in the first twenty or thirty years of its life were mostly cosmetic. Of course now any Mc tube amp, besides reissues, needs to be fully recapped as well as replacing some high current resistors and the diodes for good measure. I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics, watching their techicians at work. *A significant fraction (most?) *of the amps did not meet the distortion specs. *They were usually brought up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. *Of course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there had been since the previous service call. *I also did not know if the owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the clinics came to town (a more random and representative population). The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that most other brands did not. Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days when there was some real service! Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and so if they are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each channel then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone will notice something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature of so much NFB. McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they are clinical and lifeless. Patrick Turner. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
Patrick Turner wrote:
I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics, watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction (most?) of the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were usually brought up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. Of course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there had been since the previous service call. I also did not know if the owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the clinics came to town (a more random and representative population). The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that most other brands did not. Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days when there was some real service! Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and so if they are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each channel then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone will notice something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature of so much NFB. McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they are clinical and lifeless. I've wondered for years what clinical and lifeless might mean but progress is slow. I have this idea that Al is its antipode, but that notion only affords spiritual relief. Are you suggesting that clinical and lifeless is the at the extreme of neutrality? Would that be because of insufficient distortion, or isn't it as simple as that? My hope was that it would turn out to be a result of low output impedance achieved by the use of much feedback, driving low impedance speakers. Hope isn't science, but it's better than nothing. It could be that, for hi fi, a performance should be rendered using equipment from its own epoch. Ian |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On May 7, 10:20*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics, watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction (most?) of the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were usually brought up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. Of course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there had been since the previous service call. I also did not know if the owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the clinics came to town (a more random and representative population). The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that most other brands did not. Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days when there was some real service! Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and so if they are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each channel then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone will notice something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature of so much NFB. McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they are clinical and lifeless. I've wondered for years what clinical and lifeless might mean but progress is slow. I have this idea that Al is its antipode, but that notion only affords spiritual relief. Are you suggesting that clinical and lifeless is the at the extreme of neutrality? Would that be because of insufficient distortion, or isn't it as simple as that? I have a number of clients who prefer vacuum tube amps to solid state amps which they say are neutral, clinical and thus dull, boring and lifeless sounding. A typical example is the Musical Fidelity A1. One guy had one of these and I thought it was smooth as silk compared to some SS horrors. But when he got a pair of 28W SE tube amps he said the music really began to live and sound real. He only used 1/2 a watt per channel output from an available 28W, and the tube THD/IMD artifacts at the 1/2 watt level were very low because the OP tube was in UL and there was 16dB global NFB. Later I changed the design to CFB with much lower THD and lower Rout and the tubes still sounded better. I have lost count of ppl who have told me they like a lone 300B without any GNFB in preference to a 100W SS amp or a 100W PP tube amp with huge levels of NFB. I've heard their systems and I understand why they like such simple amps. Usually they all have very sensitive speakers. There was that guy Cheever who has published somewhere on the Net some years ago and he explains the reasons why there are differences in the sound of amplifiers. There is rather a lot of stuff published about amplifier sound, and they can't all be correct because opinions and hence preferences differ so widely. My hope was that it would turn out to be a result of low output impedance achieved by the use of much feedback, driving low impedance speakers. Hope isn't science, but it's better than nothing. ? It could be that, for hi fi, *a performance should be rendered using equipment from its own epoch. Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment, we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a flat response without colourations. Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow. Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6 months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable. 1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people. Patrick Turner. Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment, we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a flat response without colourations. Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow. Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6 months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable. 1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people. In the United States, the entire 1950s and much of the 1960s were the best of times. The hi-fi equipment was in a Golden Age, you know it and I know it. JBL, Altec, Bozak, Jensen, all that is highly prized and brings big dollars in Asia today along with the McIntosh, Marantz, Fairchild, Fisher, HH Scott, etc. Although prices were in real dollar terms quite high by today's standards- a full system of top flight equipment was roughly the price of a medium price new car- the job situation was fantastic compared to today. Any young man could get a good job, career girls did OK too. Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation. After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred. There always was a tradition of excellent expensive goods for the upper crust so you had Quad, Leak, etc which were quite sophisticated. Germany and Italy, which made good cars and other goods, were never players in hi-fi. The Germans had some remarkable tech but only sold it as commercial equipment. France never did anything with electronics, and the Scandinavians had only bang and Olufson which was always style over substance. I don't know why that was. I have seen Swedish military radios, for instance, which were really first rate. I think you don't really like the UK and really don't like the US in particular. I don't care but if you let that influence your technical judgment that would be foolish. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... On May 7, 10:20 am, "Ian Iveson" wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I remember stading in line at a couple of those McIntosh clinics, watching their techicians at work. A significant fraction (most?) of the amps did not meet the distortion specs. They were usually brought up to snuff by replacing tubes and/or electrolytic capacitors. Of course, I had no idea of how long it had been or how much usage there had been since the previous service call. I also did not know if the owners had super golden ears and hed heard the distortion (making it a biased population of amps) or if they just showed up every time the clinics came to town (a more random and representative population). The amps that were taken to the clinics got regular maintenance that most other brands did not. Ah, the wonders of considering the wonderful good ol' days when there was some real service! Of course McIntosh amps have a very large amount of NFB and so if they are used for civilised listening levels of below 1W on each channel then some very serious faults have to exist before anyone will notice something is wrong because of the hightly corrective nature of so much NFB. McI amps are very neutral sounding. Some might even say they are clinical and lifeless. I've wondered for years what clinical and lifeless might mean but progress is slow. I have this idea that Al is its antipode, but that notion only affords spiritual relief. Are you suggesting that clinical and lifeless is the at the extreme of neutrality? Would that be because of insufficient distortion, or isn't it as simple as that? I have a number of clients who prefer vacuum tube amps to solid state amps which they say are neutral, clinical and thus dull, boring and lifeless sounding. A typical example is the Musical Fidelity A1. One guy had one of these and I thought it was smooth as silk compared to some SS horrors. But when he got a pair of 28W SE tube amps he said the music really began to live and sound real. He only used 1/2 a watt per channel output from an available 28W, and the tube THD/IMD artifacts at the 1/2 watt level were very low because the OP tube was in UL and there was 16dB global NFB. Later I changed the design to CFB with much lower THD and lower Rout and the tubes still sounded better. I have lost count of ppl who have told me they like a lone 300B without any GNFB in preference to a 100W SS amp or a 100W PP tube amp with huge levels of NFB. I've heard their systems and I understand why they like such simple amps. Usually they all have very sensitive speakers. There was that guy Cheever who has published somewhere on the Net some years ago and he explains the reasons why there are differences in the sound of amplifiers. There is rather a lot of stuff published about amplifier sound, and they can't all be correct because opinions and hence preferences differ so widely. My hope was that it would turn out to be a result of low output impedance achieved by the use of much feedback, driving low impedance speakers. Hope isn't science, but it's better than nothing. ? It could be that, for hi fi, a performance should be rendered using equipment from its own epoch. Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment, we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a flat response without colourations. Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow. Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6 months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable. 1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people. Patrick Turner. I dunno Patrick, 55 wasn't too awful bad...small block chevys, Lionel trains, jobs with PENSIONS were common as dirt, people smoked like nuts but that had been going on for sometime by then.... Mark Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow. Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6 months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable. 1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people. Patrick Turner. I dunno Patrick, 55 wasn't too awful bad...small block chevys, Lionel trains, jobs with PENSIONS were common as dirt, people smoked like nuts but that had been going on for sometime by then.... People smoke now just as then. In fact I expect the excessive taxation of tobacco to be rolled back as the US Government figures out that tobacco saves billions. Tobacco smokers die of cancer relatively cleanly in their late 50s through early 70s, presenting in Stage III where heroic eforts are impossible, whereas nonsmokers live a long time with Alzheimers and rack up colossal care bills. I have quoted the case of Arthur Miller before, but to recap: Miller- who just finished writing another play- died at 89, was living with and engaged to a 34 year old woman, and his death was blamed on sixty- plus years of smoking. What was he smoking?? Where do I get it?? |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On May 7, 11:17*pm, Bret L wrote:
Well, if we wanted music as it was reproduced all by 1950s equipment, we might be dissapointed. I don't mean to throw a bucket of water on the warm cosiness of the nostalgic times when our fathers were young and we were toddlers, but hardly anyone my father knew had real hi-fi gear mainly because the speakers were so horrid. And very few ppl were zealous about making a decent listening room and buying a pair of super expensive ESL57 or top line dynamics which really did have a flat response without colourations. Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow. Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6 months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable. 1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people. *In the United States, the entire 1950s and much of the 1960s were the best of times. Despite the horrific losses of the USA's finest young men in WW2, the legacy of winning the war equipped the USA with technological superioity which is now only being challenged. The hi-fi equipment was in a Golden Age, you know it and I know it. *JBL, Altec, Bozak, Jensen, all that is highly prized and brings big dollars in Asia today along with the McIntosh, Marantz, Fairchild, Fisher, HH Scott, etc. None of the US made stuff could be sold at volumes here to make it worthwhile. The US standard of living was way above most other countries. But it pays to remember that only the flagship models gained the good reputaition it deserved; the basic "bread and butter" budget models of audio gear wasn't very good quality. Although prices were in real dollar terms quite high by today's standards- a full system of top flight equipment was roughly the price of a medium price new car- the job situation was fantastic compared to today. Any young man could get a good job, career girls did OK too. Yep, and how things have changed eh. *Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation. In Oz we had favourable trading terms with MOTHER ENGLAND. You see the majority of people in Oz had historical links back to the UK. So we had Quads, Leaks, Radfords, etc, and a little bit of local ot of Oz made selling in small numbers. Hi-fi was never a big thing in Oz, and it still isn't, judging by what I hear from many systems. The main AV entertainment is via the BIG SCREEN, often with attrocious audio quality. In the 1960s and 70s the trade tarriffs which proteced Oz manufacturers of electronics were abolished and we were flooded by cheaper Japanese mades and Oz makers went to te wall. After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred. The UK paid a much higher price than most countries for being amoung winners of WW2. And Germany was producing more steel by 1955 than Britain, and its no wonder Britain had troubles you call a " backward period of austerity and general ****tiness". Margaret Thatcher changed a lot of that..... There always was a tradition of excellent expensive goods for the upper crust so you had Quad, Leak, etc which were quite sophisticated. Some was sophisticated. But I still think Quad-II amps are toys.... *Germany and Italy, which made good cars and other goods, were never players in hi-fi. The Germans had some remarkable tech but only sold it as commercial equipment. *France never did anything with electronics, and the Scandinavians had only bang and Olufson which was always style over substance. *I don't know why that was. I have seen Swedish military radios, for instance, which were really first rate. Well, Europe was the country that was bashed about so much that frivolities like hi-fi were unimportant compared to the basics of getting their whole countries re-built. *I think you don't really like the UK and really don't like the US in particular. *I don't care but if you let that influence your technical judgment that would be foolish.- Hide quoted text - I judge things on their merit, no matter where the stuff is designed and made. I have been the one to re-engineer a whole range of smoke producing hi- fi gear from many countries. I have been able to get far better technical and sonic performance from this mountain of crap. Most of the revered hi-fi makers who produced speakers included gross sonic colourations due to woeful enclosure quality,despicable crossover engineering, and bean counter designs driver units. I apologise to nobody I may offend by having a permanent attitude that all the past audio engineering was mainly crap until proven otherwise. For example, think of AR9 speakers. These were about $4,500 in 1975 when I only earned about twice that much in a job in a year. I once tested a pair when I repaired the woofer surrounds. Bloody disgusting frequency response. It was like having a graphic eq unit with random settings of +/- up to 10dB in 5 bands. And these speakers could blow up many amps. Anyway, I complety re-designed the pair I got here from a customer and fitted new north european drivers completely new crossovers and they began to sing, and they didn't make his amp smoke. So I have little reverence to any brand. I am difficult to please. Patrick Turner. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On May 8, 1:00*pm, Bret L wrote:
Hi-fi in the 1950s was an imaginery goal, a mirage, like a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow. Hi-fi becoming real in 1955 was like having a life where one really experienced love and happiness, but usually such things lasted about 6 months at most, and all that followed was drudgery and stultifing routine. No wonder ppl had a need to smoke cigarrettes and drown one's daily sorrows in beer to make the grim realities more bearable. 1955 was yet another damn depressing year for most people. Patrick Turner. I dunno Patrick, 55 wasn't too awful bad...small block chevys, Lionel trains, jobs with PENSIONS were common as dirt, people smoked like nuts but that had been going on for sometime by then.... *People smoke now just as then. In fact I expect the excessive taxation of tobacco to be rolled back as the US Government figures out that tobacco saves billions. Tobacco smokers die of cancer relatively cleanly in their late 50s through early 70s, presenting in Stage III where heroic eforts are impossible, *whereas nonsmokers live a long time with Alzheimers and rack up colossal care bills. In Oz the number of ppl who smoke has fallen from nearly 50% to 25% over the last 50 years. Of course you seem right about the economics of living longer at huge expense. But then in Oz we have increased our standard of living to allow ppl to live the extra 20 years at the higher expense. I'd rather be aged 63 with a possibility of living until 93 like my mother in 2010 than be 63 back in 1950 when the cure rates for cancer and many other ills were non-existant. I have a fabulous life now compared to most other people my age had back in 1955. 1955 belongs in the dustbin. *I have quoted the case of Arthur Miller before, but to recap: Miller- who just finished writing another play- died at 89, was living with and *engaged to a 34 year old woman, and his death was blamed on sixty- plus years of smoking. What was he smoking?? Where do I get it??- Hide quoted text - The exceptions around us distort our hopes for a future. All my mother's friends who smoked are all dead, and have been dead for many years. Patrick Turner. - Show quoted text - |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
*Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation. In Oz we had favourable trading terms with MOTHER ENGLAND. You see the majority of people in Oz had historical links back to the UK. So we had Quads, Leaks, Radfords, etc, and a little bit of local ot of Oz made selling in small numbers. Hi-fi was never a big thing in Oz, and it still isn't, judging by what I hear from many systems. The main AV entertainment is via the BIG SCREEN, often with attrocious audio quality. In the 1960s and 70s the trade tarriffs which proteced Oz manufacturers of electronics were abolished and we were flooded by cheaper Japanese mades and Oz makers went to te wall. After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred. As I've said before, WWII was a horribly fratricidal and unnecessary war-even had Hitler been born the Treaty of Versailles ensured an encore- and Britain was horribly beaten down. Germany was even worse and by 1960 West Germany was once again a prosperous country with the future bright. Britain was hobbled more by government interference than Germany, "rationalisation" destroyed many of its competitive advantages and the government control of everything meant the kind of bold decisions needing to be made did not get made. Britain was fully competitive in aerospace technology with the US for awhile, but the various Tory and especially Labour governments found everything "too risky" and shut it down. At any rate, in the US it was sink or swim and the swimmers did pretty well. In fact, from 1945 to 1965 America was an economic paradise despite marginal tax rates of up to 90% and a ban on individuals owning gold. We had manufacturing and a hell of a lot of it. The politicians made the determination to apply a two headed attack on manufacturing, excessive regulation on one end and unfettered imports-worse, unfettered export by US copmanies of their technology and tooling to empower foreign plants-on the other. Wages imploded. Well, it was nice while it lasted. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On May 12, 8:31*am, Bret L wrote:
*Britain, THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRY in terms of hi fi ((you just can't seem to understand Australia was not a player in that business so how things were there doesn't count)) had a different situation. In Oz we had favourable trading terms with MOTHER ENGLAND. You see the majority of people in Oz had historical links back to the UK. So we had Quads, Leaks, Radfords, etc, and a little bit of local ot of Oz made selling in small numbers. Hi-fi was never a big thing in Oz, and it still isn't, judging by what I hear from many systems. The main AV entertainment is via the BIG SCREEN, often with attrocious audio quality. In the 1960s and 70s the trade tarriffs which proteced Oz manufacturers of electronics were abolished and we were flooded by cheaper Japanese mades and Oz makers went to te wall. After WWII they had an extensive socialist, backward period of austerity and general ****tiness, but in the mid to late 50s this gray veil was lifted, and a general uplifting of expectations occurred. *As I've said before, WWII was a horribly fratricidal and unnecessary war-even had Hitler been born the Treaty of Versailles ensured an encore- and Britain was horribly beaten down. Germany was even worse and by 1960 West Germany was once again a prosperous country with the future bright. Britain was hobbled more by government interference than Germany, "rationalisation" destroyed many of its competitive advantages and the government control of everything meant the kind of bold decisions needing to be made did not get made. Britain was fully competitive in aerospace technology with the US for awhile, but the various Tory and especially Labour governments found everything "too risky" and shut it down. *At any rate, in the US it was sink or swim and the swimmers did pretty well. In fact, from 1945 to 1965 America was an economic paradise despite marginal tax rates of up to 90% and a ban on individuals owning gold. We had manufacturing and a hell of a lot of it. The politicians made the determination to apply a two headed attack on manufacturing, excessive regulation on one end and unfettered imports-worse, unfettered export by US copmanies of their technology and tooling to empower foreign plants-on the other. Wages imploded. *Well, it was nice while it lasted.- Yeah, it was nice while it lasted for Americans. I'm not so sure many ppl outside the USA benefitted. I went to primary school with a lad whose father was the american chief executive of Coca-Cola in Australia. We used to see him turn up at church on Sunday with his family in a Huge American Car with everyone dressed to kill. None of the rest of us could afford anything like that. But few of us wanted the bull**** existance of "putting on the agony and putting on the style" which we saw in rich folks like those americans at church. And ironically, we mostly thought Coca-Cola was an extremely poor quality drink - just ****en rot-gut. We went to church to worship, not show off, and we wondered what Christ would have thought about all this money worship. Anyway, we could rake over the coals of a golden age if we wanted to but from what I could see of the 1950s, it was just hard work for low wages and ppl slaved for "ultimate dreams" of heaven on earth which never showed up. I discovered materialism, like communism, or nationalism, or religion, does not bring happiness. Most of life is a con. But I heard from David Letterman Himself, that the latest Huge Project in the USA is to drain the Gulf of Mexico, and just fill it up with oil. Just back yer car up to the beach and fill 'er up. Its better to have an oil industry than a fishing industry, and besides, we have nearly emptied the sea of its fish. Patrick Turner. - Show quoted text - |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Stereo 70 Revisited Again
On May 12, 10:58*am, François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 15:53:23 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner wrote: we wondered what Christ would have thought about all this money worship. "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God", Matthew 19:24 "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon", Matthew 6:19-21,24 The logistics of storing one's wealth upstairs in Heaven are rather difficult to arrange. The trouble with being decidedly frugal is that all the other guys get the best ****s in town. Patrick Turner. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereo Bass Revisited | High End Audio | |||
Stereo Bass Revisited | High End Audio | |||
drums revisited (again!) | Pro Audio | |||
DA-P1 Recording Revisited | Pro Audio | |||
Revisited: Alphasonik A-255 Stereo Power Amplifier | Car Audio |