IMO, an erroneous tittle to create a sensationalist article to sell magazines and make us read the review of a $230 000 SE amplifier - oops, the ML3 was really cheap ... Unfortunately it miseducates most audiophiles.
There is no contradiction or paradox at all in preferences between audiophiles. We have enough people posting in WBF enjoying SET amplfiers to know why they subjectively prefer them.
RH focus on extremes, misrepresenting modern audio engineers and measurements. This article is dated - I would accept in the last century, not in 2024. Martin Colloms and John Atkinson addressed the subject in HiIFi News and Stereophile decades ago with much more depth and seriousness.
BTW, David Berning is a renowned audio engineer and designer, I would love to see measurements of the Berning/Hi-Fi One Reference SET. something that TAS unfortunately does not supply.
BTW, the article inks to an interesting review that most SET lovers will hate. I quote " The innovative technology of David Berning’s output-transformerless topology is realized with cost-no-object implementation by people with a driving passion and uncompromising ethos, resulting in an SET that sounds like no SET before it."
Ok, it uses a single tube in the output ... IMO measurements are urgently needed!
IMO, an erroneous tittle to create a sensationalist article to sell magazines and make us read the review of a $230 000 SE amplifier - oops, the ML3 was really cheap ... Unfortunately it miseducates most audiophiles.
There is no contradiction or paradox at all in preferences between audiophiles. We have enough people posting in WBF enjoying SET amplfiers to know why they subjectively prefer them.
RH focus on extremes, misrepresenting modern audio engineers and measurements. This article is dated - I would accept in the last century, not in 2024. Martin Colloms and John Atkinson addressed the subject in HiIFi News and Stereophile decades ago with much more depth and seriousness.
BTW, David Berning is a renowned audio engineer and designer, I would love to see measurements of the Berning/Hi-Fi One Reference SET. something that TAS unfortunately does not supply.
BTW, the article inks to an interesting review that most SET lovers will hate. I quote " The innovative technology of David Berning’s output-transformerless topology is realized with cost-no-object implementation by people with a driving passion and uncompromising ethos, resulting in an SET that sounds like no SET before it."
Ok, it uses a single tube in the output ... IMO measurements are urgently needed!
it is not truly transformerless...he uses radio frequency transformers after doing some electro magic (no idea how he is doing the transformation...carrier signal or something)...
It can be understood...Mr. Harley is either playing dumb or doesn't have the technical knowledge to dig into the psychoacoustic literature. It is clear from that literature that what we hear is not a direct translation from what is seen on distortion meters or even FFT graphs. The mathematical link has to be made between the measurements and the listener feedback. Without that correlation, the numbers do not mean much.
it is not truly transformerless...he uses radio frequency transformers after doing some electro magic (no idea how he is doing the transformation...carrier signal or something)...
Apart from the ref to magic, etc, Harley also notes
"The SET’s resolution of inner detail..."
The SETs do offer a singularly high level of resolution (their circuit is relatively simple without necessitating feedback - maybe that is one reason); perhaps this is what people find attractive depite the distortion level... beyond the reported magic
Apart from the ref to magic, etc, Harley also notes
"The SET’s resolution of inner detail..."
The SETs do offer a singularly high level of resolution (their circuit is relatively simple without necessitating feedback - maybe that is one reason); perhaps this is what people find attractive depite the distortion level... beyond the reported magic
Again, up to a relatively high level, distortion per se is not what is damaging to sound quality. The make up of that distortion and it's psychoacoustic impact are far more important. If the distortion is of a pattern where it can "hide" in the ear/brain's own distortion then the signal will sound undistorted.
Apart from the ref to magic, etc, Harley also notes
"The SET’s resolution of inner detail..."
The SETs do offer a singularly high level of resolution (their circuit is relatively simple without necessitating feedback - maybe that is one reason); perhaps this is what people find attractive depite the distortion level... beyond the reported magic
Yes, Gregm, quoting from this review can be fun - Robert Hartley was inspired:
" Unlike other SETs that have a distinctive and immediately identifiable sonic signature, the Reference SET is so neutral, transparent, and uncolored that you would never know that you were listening to an SET. "
Yes, Gregm, quoting from this review can be fun - Robert Hartley was inspired:
" Unlike other SETs that have a distinctive and immediately identifiable sonic signature, the Reference SET is so neutral, transparent, and uncolored that you would never know that you were listening to an SET. "
Again, up to a relatively high level, distortion per se is not what is damaging to sound quality. The make up of that distortion and it's psychoacoustic impact are far more important. If the distortion is of a pattern where it can "hide" in the ear/brain's own distortion then the signal will sound undistorted.
You hit the nail directly on the head! If you can use components that deliver sonic pleasure and engagement and are able to “hide” their inherent distortions from the brain you are further along the path to the “suspension of disbelief.” I find that the more engaged I am in a listening session the more I believe in what I’m hearing.This applies to both digital and analog playback.
apple.news
