Re: Happy St Patrick's Day, Boss!

"John Byrns" <byrnsj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:byrnsj-74F5B9.18260819032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <47E19032.BAFB6F9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>

>> Since an solid-state amp doesn't have this miserable distorting lump of
>> iron
>> in the
>> way, NFB is taken BEFORE such a network. That's how we can get THDs in
>> the
>> 0.001%
>> region.

> But do THD numbers that low actually serve any useful purpose, i.e.
> better sound, other than fueling the engineers ego, and making
> impressive numbers to put on the spec sheet?

I have been present at tests where people listened to two identical
tube amps, driving identical pairs of stacked Tannoys.  One amp
had 0.1% THD the other has 1%. Of the panel of ten people, none
could say with greater than 50% accuracy which was which.

And isn't the distortion from the loudspeaker is much greater?

>> Why are you chained to a flawed method of amplification. Tube based
>> amplifiers are
>> inherently HIGH distortion. Why not accept that fact and be happy with
it
>> ?

What we are concerned with is *audible* distortion.
Do you think you can hear 0.1% on music, Graham.


> We are all chained to flawed methods of amplification; even solid-state
> amplifiers are flawed.  I readily accept that tube amplifiers generally
> have higher distortion than solid-state amplifiers have, I don't believe
> I have ever claimed otherwise, unless it was in jest.  However, tube
> amplifiers are capable of sufficiently low distortion such that their
> distortion contribution in high fidelity audio systems is low enough to
> be irrelevant.
>

Yes I agree.  A PP tube amp can easily manage 0.1% at 1kHz at
50W.  So at normal listening levels that's probably reduced by
10dB to 0.03%

Regards
Iain