Exotic Amplifier Technologies

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:I4OdnaFaOuCzEQTeRVn-pQ@comcast.com...

"Iain Churches" <taelNOSPAM@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dnbp62$nk1$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...

I don't know the situation in Oz, but in Europe, Crown is often found in
broadcast and recording studios.

The modern Crown amps I've tested have had breathtakingly good
performance. Sound great, too.

Is that the Crown K series or Macro Tech, Arny?

We have a K2, and also two old but incredibly reliable DC300A.

They seem to be highly regarded

Iain

 

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger"

There's been a lot of good Crown amps since the DC300A.

** Shame about the fan noise ruining them for domestic use.



........... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Iain Churches" = massive liar & fraudster

I don't know the situation in Oz, but in Europe, Crown is often found in
broadcast and recording studios.

We have a K2, and also two old but incredibly reliable DC300A.

** The Crown K2 is a class D amp with no fans - no DC rail switching of
course.

The DC300A has no DC rail switching nor fans either.





......... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Iain Churches" <taelNOSPAM@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dnbp62$nk1$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4398ad18@news.comindico.com.au...

"moby" <moby@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:1134070467.764050.253740@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That must be why you see so many Marantz, Yamaha, Hitachi & NAD powered
theatre & stadium concert PA rigs, wheras the minnows of the PA world
like
Crown, QSC, BSS,LabGruppen etc have no problem with rail switching and
rail
riding technology

**Of course. Such amps are rarely used in critical listening situations.
Power output, cost and size and the over-riding factors.

I don't know the situation in Oz, but in Europe, Crown is often found in
broadcast and recording studios.

**Yep. I would assume the situation is the same here. IME, Crown have built
some very good amplifiers (Macro Tech) and some absolute shockers (DC300A).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**Yep. I would assume the situation is the same here. IME, Crown have
built some very good amplifiers (Macro Tech) and some absolute shockers
(DC300A).

** Same tired old lines of self opinionated BULLSHIT from TW.

Yawn ..............




........ Phil

 

[paul packer]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:28:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I still don't buy it that NAD
went downhill during the 90s due to some obscure design flaw in their
products ("PE"). They did probably lose some ground with the
relatively uninspiring 302/304--312/314 amp line, but then quickly
made up for that with the 320/340 line, on up to the current 320BEE.

**And yet, they've ceased building PE technology into their products. If it
was such a brilliant idea, they'd keep doing it.

I can think of several reasons why not. All technology moves on. They
may simply have found a better way of achieving the same end, or
decided such minor power boosting was superfluous. The question is, if
PE amps sounded so bad and NAD discovered this, why did they not
discover it during the design stages? Also, why has no one but you
ever suggested PE amps sound bad? And why do they continue to enjoy
such a fine reputation with vintage gear enthusiasts who are usually
very knowing about these things (check Ebay prices). And why did the
PE amp I had sound so good (pretty much on a par with the much later,
and much celebrated, Rotel 931 Mk11. I was able to directly compare
them over several weeks).

You should know that there's a secret prize for answering these
questions satisfactorily.

 

[paul packer]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:32:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

You should know that there's a secret prize for answering these
questions satisfactorily.

**After you tell me what speakers you used, I should be able to answer your
question.

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to speakers when I
can listen through my trusty Sennheiser HD 595s?

And yes, I know you're now going to say, "Oh well, all bets are off as
amps aren't made to drive headphones." Whatever, I'm convinced
headphones are the great leveller as they remove the power factor and
the inevitable reactive load. I've been listening to amps through
headphones now for 30 years and getting similar results to what others
report using speakers. The only complication is when an amp uses a
separate HP amp, but almost none of them do save the odd NAD pre-amp.

 

[Brian Goldsmith]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote> And yes, I know you're now
going to say, "Oh well, all bets are off as

amps aren't made to drive headphones."

**Nope. Amps ARE made to drive headphones. The trouble is there are a wide
variety of schemes to accomplish this. They do so, with varying degrees of
quality. In some cases, the output stage (for speakers) has absolutely
nothing to do with the headphone circuits.


Whatever, I'm convinced

headphones are the great leveller as they remove the power factor and
the inevitable reactive load.

**Your assumption is faulty. You don't mention which NAD amp you owned, so I
can't tell you how the headphone outputs are configured. I can, however,
tell you that the Rotel RA931-II uses a series resistor of 330 Ohms for the
headphones. If the NAD uses a lower value resistor, or, even better, a
dedicated headphone amplifier, the difference in sound quality could be
substantial. Moreover, your logic is flawed. Although headphones, generally,
will expose minute differences in source and amplification more readily than
most loudspeakers, their impedance curve is more benign than most speakers.
As such, they will place relatively minor demands on amplifiers.
Additionally, I presume you are comparing similarly priced amplifiers?

I've been listening to amps through

headphones now for 30 years and getting similar results to what others
report using speakers. The only complication is when an amp uses a
separate HP amp, but almost none of them do save the odd NAD pre-amp.

**Not so. Many decent quality amps use a headphone amp. Which is EXACTLY the
kind of amp you should be using. In your situation, a power amp stage is
wasted. You would be better off using a dedicated headphone amplifier, or a
preamp which has adequate drive for headphones.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


***** Please dont cross post and take your audiophoolery away from
aus.electronics.

Brian Goldsmith.

 

[paul packer]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:44:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d5e28.16123186@news.iprimus.com.au...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:32:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


You should know that there's a secret prize for answering these
questions satisfactorily.

**After you tell me what speakers you used, I should be able to answer
your
question.

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to speakers when I
can listen through my trusty Sennheiser HD 595s?

**Precisely! I already knew the answer to my question.

Sneaky, Trevor. We'll have to watch you.

And yes, I know you're now going to say, "Oh well, all bets are off as
amps aren't made to drive headphones."

**Nope. Amps ARE made to drive headphones. The trouble is there are a wide
variety of schemes to accomplish this. They do so, with varying degrees of
quality. In some cases, the output stage (for speakers) has absolutely
nothing to do with the headphone circuits.

In very few cases, certainly where budget products are concerned.
Inevitably it's much easier--and quite satisfactory--to run the
headphone socket from the output via a resistor. Where there's a
separate HP amp involved, as in say NAD's 160 pre-amp, the
manufacturer usually crows about it.

Whatever, I'm convinced
headphones are the great leveller as they remove the power factor and
the inevitable reactive load.

**Your assumption is faulty. You don't mention which NAD amp you owned, so I
can't tell you how the headphone outputs are configured.

NAD 7225PE receiver.

I can, however,
tell you that the Rotel RA931-II uses a series resistor of 330 Ohms for the
headphones.

I know. I changed it to a higher value as it didn't allow enough
movement of the volume control. I detected no change in sound quality
afterwards.

If the NAD uses a lower value resistor, or, even better, a
dedicated headphone amplifier, the difference in sound quality could be
substantial. Moreover, your logic is flawed. Although headphones, generally,
will expose minute differences in source and amplification more readily than
most loudspeakers, their impedance curve is more benign than most speakers.

Which relates to what I said about a non-reactive load. Thus taking
the vagaries of speaker load out of the equation.

As such, they will place relatively minor demands on amplifiers.

Exactly; that's the point I'm making. Where the same amp will react
differently to different speakers...well, you get what I mean.

Additionally, I presume you are comparing similarly priced amplifiers?

Yep. All >$500.

I've been listening to amps through
headphones now for 30 years and getting similar results to what others
report using speakers. The only complication is when an amp uses a
separate HP amp, but almost none of them do save the odd NAD pre-amp.

**Not so. Many decent quality amps use a headphone amp. Which is EXACTLY the
kind of amp you should be using. In your situation, a power amp stage is
wasted. You would be better off using a dedicated headphone amplifier, or a
preamp which has adequate drive for headphones.

Disagree. I've listened to several HP amps. I have one now. None of
them sound half as good as my Marantz PM8200. Yes, I know there's a
lot of power wastage and I regret that, but ultimately it's the sound
that matters. Whatever may apply in theory, if one's ears tell a
different story.....

 

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d5e28.16123186@news.iprimus.com.au...

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:32:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


You should know that there's a secret prize for answering these
questions satisfactorily.

**After you tell me what speakers you used, I should be able to answer
your
question.

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to speakers when I
can listen through my trusty Sennheiser HD 595s?

Because your speakers were actually worth a darn?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Brian Goldsmith" <brian.goldsmith@nospam.echo1.com.au> wrote in message
news:4Rxnf.19351$ea6.12113@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

***** Please dont cross post and take your audiophoolery away from
aus.electronics.

**Take your complaint up with the original poster.

***** My complaint is with you as you continued the top posting!

**I do not, nor have I ever top posted. If you are complaining about the
cross posting, then take it up with the original poster. HE initiated the
cross posting.

Further, if you would
care to elucidate what the fuck "audiophoolery" (WRT this particular part
of
the thread) is,


Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


****** WTF is audiophoolery?You are a prime example.

**Clearly, you are an idiot.

I notice you have ceased top posting!

**I NEVER top post.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:439e040b.2904618@news.iprimus.com.au...

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:44:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d5e28.16123186@news.iprimus.com.au...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:32:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


You should know that there's a secret prize for answering these
questions satisfactorily.

**After you tell me what speakers you used, I should be able to answer
your
question.

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to speakers when I
can listen through my trusty Sennheiser HD 595s?

**Precisely! I already knew the answer to my question.

Sneaky, Trevor. We'll have to watch you.

**Not so sneaky, really.

And yes, I know you're now going to say, "Oh well, all bets are off as
amps aren't made to drive headphones."

**Nope. Amps ARE made to drive headphones. The trouble is there are a wide
variety of schemes to accomplish this. They do so, with varying degrees of
quality. In some cases, the output stage (for speakers) has absolutely
nothing to do with the headphone circuits.

In very few cases, certainly where budget products are concerned.

**True.

Inevitably it's much easier--and quite satisfactory--to run the
headphone socket from the output via a resistor.

**True.

Where there's a

separate HP amp involved, as in say NAD's 160 pre-amp, the
manufacturer usually crows about it.

**Nope, but sometimes they do.

Whatever, I'm convinced
headphones are the great leveller as they remove the power factor and
the inevitable reactive load.

**Your assumption is faulty. You don't mention which NAD amp you owned, so
I
can't tell you how the headphone outputs are configured.

NAD 7225PE receiver.

**I have no service manual for that model.

I can, however,
tell you that the Rotel RA931-II uses a series resistor of 330 Ohms for
the
headphones.

I know. I changed it to a higher value as it didn't allow enough
movement of the volume control. I detected no change in sound quality
afterwards.

**Uh huh.

If the NAD uses a lower value resistor, or, even better, a
dedicated headphone amplifier, the difference in sound quality could be
substantial. Moreover, your logic is flawed. Although headphones,
generally,
will expose minute differences in source and amplification more readily
than
most loudspeakers, their impedance curve is more benign than most
speakers.

Which relates to what I said about a non-reactive load. Thus taking
the vagaries of speaker load out of the equation.

**Except that speakers are precisely what most users want from their
amplifiers.

As such, they will place relatively minor demands on amplifiers.

Exactly; that's the point I'm making. Where the same amp will react
differently to different speakers...well, you get what I mean.

Additionally, I presume you are comparing similarly priced amplifiers?

Yep. All >$500.

I've been listening to amps through
headphones now for 30 years and getting similar results to what others
report using speakers. The only complication is when an amp uses a
separate HP amp, but almost none of them do save the odd NAD pre-amp.

**Not so. Many decent quality amps use a headphone amp. Which is EXACTLY
the
kind of amp you should be using. In your situation, a power amp stage is
wasted. You would be better off using a dedicated headphone amplifier, or
a
preamp which has adequate drive for headphones.

Disagree. I've listened to several HP amps. I have one now. None of
them sound half as good as my Marantz PM8200. Yes, I know there's a
lot of power wastage and I regret that, but ultimately it's the sound
that matters. Whatever may apply in theory, if one's ears tell a
different story.....

**I did not say that ALL headphone amplifiers are equal, nor are they
necessarily superior to the amplifier in your Marantz.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Brian Goldsmith]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:439f7033@news.comindico.com.au...

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message


***You are still cross posting and you cant blame the OP!!

Brian Goldsmith.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Brian Goldsmith" <brian.goldsmith@nospam.echo1.com.au> wrote in message
news:e_Onf.20208$ea6.6654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:439f7033@news.comindico.com.au...

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message


***You are still cross posting and you cant blame the OP!!

**You're not getting much smarter, are you?

IF you have a problem with crossposting (or top posting, or whatever you
imagine is a problem), then take it up with the original poster.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[The Real Andy]

I often find top posting quite refreshing as I dont have to read
through all the drivel. I guess it all comes down to personal opinion
in then end. Oh, and just beacuse some fuckwit on has a few web pages
say its bad etiquette does not make the idiot right, its just his
opinion, same as yours.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:50:45 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"Brian Goldsmith" <brian.goldsmith@nospam.echo1.com.au> wrote in message
news:4Rxnf.19351$ea6.12113@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

***** Please dont cross post and take your audiophoolery away from
aus.electronics.

**Take your complaint up with the original poster.

***** My complaint is with you as you continued the top posting!

**I do not, nor have I ever top posted. If you are complaining about the
cross posting, then take it up with the original poster. HE initiated the
cross posting.




Further, if you would
care to elucidate what the fuck "audiophoolery" (WRT this particular part
of
the thread) is,


Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


****** WTF is audiophoolery?You are a prime example.

**Clearly, you are an idiot.


I notice you have ceased top posting!

**I NEVER top post.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"The Real Andy" <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote in message
news:2grvp19vgh1d2skuhkneup0e51leejgp3i@4ax.com...

I often find top posting quite refreshing as I dont have to read
through all the drivel. I guess it all comes down to personal opinion
in then end. Oh, and just beacuse some fuckwit on has a few web pages
say its bad etiquette does not make the idiot right, its just his
opinion, same as yours.

**That is not the point. I disagree with you on the issue of top posting, as
is my right, just as it is your right to prefer it. Mr Goldsmith has
continually berated me for top posting. I do not, nor have I ever top
posted. Mr Goldsmith is, therefore, an idiot.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[paul packer]

Arny Krueger wrote in message ...

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d5e28.16123186@news.iprimus.com.au...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:32:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


You should know that there's a secret prize for answering these
questions satisfactorily.

**After you tell me what speakers you used, I should be able to answer
your
question.

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to speakers when I
can listen through my trusty Sennheiser HD 595s?

Because your speakers were actually worth a darn?

Arnie, I think you well know that speakers that could equal a HP like the
Sennheiser HD595 for sheer reality in every area would cost many thousands,
and I don't have many thousands. Also I don't wish to annoy the neighbours
nor other members of the household. Headphones are perfect for me.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:43a13f41_1@news.iprimus.com.au

Arny Krueger wrote in message ...

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d5e28.16123186@news.iprimus.com.au...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:32:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


You should know that there's a secret prize for
answering these questions satisfactorily.

**After you tell me what speakers you used, I should
be able to answer your
question.

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to
speakers when I can listen through my trusty Sennheiser
HD 595s?

Because your speakers were actually worth a darn?

Arnie, I think you well know that speakers that could
equal a HP like the Sennheiser HD595 for sheer reality in
every area would cost many thousands, and I don't have
many thousands.

I'm not sure that speakers can duplicate headphones, or vice-versa. So the
question of relative costs is rediculous.

Also I don't wish to annoy the neighbours
nor other members of the household.

I'm not debating the advantages of headphones. As you know Paul, I probably
have more headphones and earphones by accident then you have on purpose. But
I also have a few speakers...

Headphones are perfect for me.

That's fine, but Paul if you are sold on the exclusive use of headphones
(nothing wrong with that!) why did you ask the question you did?

 

[paul packer]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:46:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

Oh Trevor, you are forgetful. Why would I listen to
speakers when I can listen through my trusty Sennheiser
HD 595s?

Because your speakers were actually worth a darn?

Arnie, I think you well know that speakers that could
equal a HP like the Sennheiser HD595 for sheer reality in
every area would cost many thousands, and I don't have
many thousands.

I'm not sure that speakers can duplicate headphones, or vice-versa. So the
question of relative costs is rediculous.

Agreed. Speakers and headphones are a totally different listening
experience.

Also I don't wish to annoy the neighbours
nor other members of the household.

I'm not debating the advantages of headphones. As you know Paul, I probably
have more headphones and earphones by accident then you have on purpose. But
I also have a few speakers...

I only have one pair of headphones and one pair of speakers. But I've
listened to scores of phones over the years at length.

Headphones are perfect for me.

That's fine, but Paul if you are sold on the exclusive use of headphones
(nothing wrong with that!) why did you ask the question you did?

Refresh my memory.

 

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 06:42:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

I have about 15 different pairs of headphones and earphones. I mostly listen
to the HD580s Iistening at home for pleasure) Sony MDR 7506 (editing)
Futuresonics IEM (portable digital player) and Shure E-3 (portable CD/MP3
player).

The 580s are a good phone, but I found them a little dull and boring.
The 595 has the same or greater neutrality, a better soundstage and is
more lively--also much easier to drive. I've not looked back since I
bought it, and unless they bring out a "super" 595 it will be my last
phone for many years.