Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I think i used the picture to make a point about the beauty and "transparency " of tubes !
I should not have used the word “see” since we are talking about hearing. I meant to convey that I understand Bonzo’s comment, but I agree with you that Ron refuses to answer my very simple question, and not just on this topic in this discussion. It is a pattern. I usually ask a few times and then I give.
I remember bringing this up almost a year ago when we’re in Bali.
There is no crime in high distortion, and distortion does not correlate with preference, or correlates as people liking it.
That is mostly true. But SETs wouldn't be in business except for the way they make distortion, in particular their prodigious 2nd harmonic. And people also seem to like their 'dynamics', IOW the presence of higher ordered harmonics on the leading edges of transients. You read online and in print magazines about how SETs are so much more dynamic than their low power would seem to suggest quite frequently.
Definitely a Lysergic Acid Diethylamide tripster hipster type answer.
Or possibly a stronger more modern day alternative.
Respect.
LOL.
I have a SET and I separate them only in the sense that one is necessary for the other. We can discuss them separately, but a transparent system will also be dynamic.
Last edited:
An amp with the harmonics will sound louder, have more presence, and be better focusing and resolving, whether or not it is a SET.
There are class-A/AB a D which also have predominently 2nd and 3rd harmonics.
One make get an expansion as we ask the SET to goes up into the distortion region.
It is harder to make an amplifier not sound dynamic, as they need to be used mostly below the level where the distortion products go vertical. So it is either super efficient speakers, low level listening, or high peak-power.
It should only exhibit dynamic contrast as the signal dictates. Anything else is caused by distortion and thus a lack of transparency. The two aspects (transparency and dynamic contrast) are not separate.
To your last point, this is why I use high efficiency speakers while the amps I use can make far more power than I would ever need.
Most amps simply don't have the prodigious distortion that any zero feedback SET will exhibit. There literally is no power level at which an SET does not make audible distortion, since even just 1 Watt is a significant percentage of the usable power they make in most cases.
So I see them as a special case as their distortion is literally an order of magnitude higher than conventional tube amps. So perhaps this is a matter of scale which I've noticed is always tricky in internet conversation- we use many of the same terms but the scale, the effect of those terms is never communicated.
Regardless if an amplifier is going to make distortion above -120dB or so, its distortion must be innocuous which is to say the 2nd and 3rd should be dominant, otherwise the amp will have an unpleasant presentation.
18 watt SET with some feedback driving 105dB 16 ohm corner horns in small room. I hear dynamic contrast that I assume is the presentation of the information on the recording and not excessive distortion.
Feedback changes the metric quite a lot. If you look at my posts you'll notice I was careful to mention 'zero feedback' SETs.
The desperation being so palpable Is quite something to behold !
“Some feedback” …. Hmmm so kinda like only being a little bit pregnant then …
Last edited:
Yes, I made a note of that Ralph and cited my amplifier with the speakers it drives as an example described in your post. Perhaps it is also the reason that I observe dynamics, or dynamic contrast, as being a necessary but not sufficient condition for transparency.
You understand the reasons from a technical point of view and observe it while I have learned about it by living with it. Thank you for describing the technical reasons.
Edit: I remember reading about Pass Labs varying the ratio of second and third harmonic distortion in their various amplifiers to create a variety of presentations pleasing to the customers. With my old Magico speakers, I always thought the more power, the better but generally preferred their high bias class A second harmonic designs over the more powerful class AB amps.
Last edited:
As I told you, I know about, respect and acknowledge Jim Strickland great work at Acoustat . However Peter Walker sentence I addressed predated the Acoustat Spectras (around 1987) for about 20 years ... In this period of time material technology evolved a lot.
I (and many others consider the ESL63 more transparent than the ESL57 - a subjective opinion, depending on how we weight the many factors influencing transparency) Probably for you, being an electrostatic point like speaker with great technical and acoustic properties is not important for transparency, for me the acoustic outcome of this innovative aspect makes the difference - IMO what we particularly prefer is not so much important for out debate.
I am afraid your assumption is not correct. No, I would not ascribe transparency to your description of that presentation. In this description you discuss a variety of sonic things, but not one word about transparency.
Even more confused is that you treat transparency as a binary phenomenon. A system isn't A) transparent or B) not transparent (pick one). That's why I wrote about the spectrum of transparency.
Last edited:
Which question, exactly?
I definitely don't think so.
Maybe that's why you're making this complicated?
Last edited:
Feedback is a negative sonic trait required only where the speaker needs more drive. Better speakers allow for zero feedback sets to drive them to glory. If the speaker is not efficient enough it will require feedback or worse, big push pull or big SS amp.
Last edited:
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |