A Sony' CRTs color is screwed up.

[Phil Allison]

board, and shake it. Usually, a faulty one will rattle. "

I would fire you. All that shit to determine if something is fucking
magnetized at $30 an hour.

** You must be seriously delusional.

FACT:

Remote diagnosis with only a novice informant is a 100% mug's game.

PLUS:

WE do not even know what model it is - just a 19 inch Sony from the early
90s.

WE cannot make any observations or do any simple tests to base a diagnosis
on.

And YOU are not any help with fuckwit posts like this.

I am not trying to insult you,

** Yes you are, you love doing it.

**** off - stupid troll.



..... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

My memory is that Bob used a transistor amplifier. (Indeed, part of the point
of the experiment was his claim that he could make a transistor amp sound like
a tube amp by approximating the latter's frequency response.) An amplifier
with an output transformer would be less "fungible".

Bob reported that at least some amplifiers' transfer characteristics varied
with line voltage. Given that transistor amplifiers generally have follower
outputs and overall feedback, this is somewhat difficult to believe, but I'm
not going to gainsay Bob.


* * Where an audible difference REALLY exists, there will be an easily
measured difference too. This what Bob found and figured he could
emulate with a few passives added to one of his designs. It is not
necessary to match amps so precisely to make them sound
indistinguishable in normal listening circumstances.

Although the final sentence of this statement is almost certainly true, the
belief that audible differences necessarily correlate with "easy" measurements
is wishful thinking, for which there is no proof or contradiction. The
more-general statement that, if something is audible, it /must/ be measurable
is -- almost by definition -- true.

I agree strongly. The human hearing system is a relatively
inaccurate tool for hearing fine details which show up glaringly
in some very simple tests and measurements.

And your proof or evidence for this is...?

Perhaps the fundamental problem with this dispute (which has been going on 60
years) is that there are no hard data about whether amplifiers really do (or
do not) "sound different". Without such data, it is impossible to even begin
to establish meaningful correlations between what is (or is not perceive), and
measurements.

Both "sides" are wrong, and hold unscientific beliefs based on what they want
to think is true.

PS: If you'd like to hear an amplifier that "measures good" but "sounds
awful", try one of the Crown K series, which were discontinued about a year
after they were first manufactured. They were designed by Gerry Stanley, who
had an outstanding 40-year track record for amplifier design. He apparently
botched this one.

 

[Smarty]

"Smarty"

** How many Silver 7s did he sell?

Was it 2 or was it 3 ??

The site covers the Silver 7t & 9t, which are a transistor amps.

The only Carver amps ever sold or advertised in Australia were transistor
models - but I see on the net he has just released some new models that
use tubes.


** Hypothetically only, no way are they likely to be audible.

Bobs emulations were in terms of frequency response and output impedance -
which at least can lead to audible differences.

Bob Carver was and is a colossal bullshitter.

Take his " Magnetic Field " amp nonsense for example - purest marketing
hype and very misleading.



... Phil

Indeed he was a true bullshitter, but he was an extremely capable engineer as well, unlike someone like, let's say, Steve Jobs, a technical light-weight who understood the power of marketing hype and used it most successfully. In a world where actual differences are, as you say Phil, mostly hard to discern, the way that products are selected by unknowing consumers is using the very types of marketing bullshit which these guys throw around.

In Carver's case, he had an amazing and inquisitive mind, and many of
his designs offered things not seen elsewhere. Even the 'magnetic field'
amplifier itself had a remarkable tracking power supply and compact
design which Carver pioneered, and his 'auto correlator' in the earlier
Phase Linear and Carver preamps was a very impressive noise reducer when
tape hiss and other problems were being ignored by many other preamp
builders. His tiny True Subwoofer was another very innovative design. I
was personally a very big fan of his Sonic Hologram, the first consumer
interaural canceller unlike any other device offered at that time except
for a very weak competitor from Sound Concepts using a very noisy bucket
brigrade delay line.

His form of bullshit I find perfectly tolerable since he is person who
knows the engineering details.

 

[Smarty]

Well, some folks would argue that the damping factor, for example, might
be audible if it were to be very different, or that the amount of noise
or type of noise might make an audible distinction, or that the
distortion characteristics could, if extreme, become audible.

Frankly, I don't consider any of these to be "hypothetical", but I agree
that the amplifiers are most likely to sound the same to most people
even if they perceive and claim they hear differences. Double blind
controlled experiments were seldom used to test the human's inevitable
desire to imagine things.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Indeed [Bob Carver] was a true bullshitter...

I would rather say hyperbolic and self-serving.

In Carver's case, he had an amazing and inquisitive mind...

But one lacking discipline and true curiosity. See following.

I was personally a very big fan of his Sonic Hologram, the first
consumer interaural canceller unlike any other device offered
at that time except for a very weak competitor from Sound Concepts
using a very noisy bucket brigade delay line.

I reviewed the Sonic Hologram for "Stereophile". I was pleased to find that,
with my own coincident-mic recordings, the result was much closer to what I'd
heard standing at the mics. The results with commercial recordings -- which
are rarely simply-miked -- were more variable.

The Sonic Hologram was hardly the first consumer crosstalk-canceller. JVC's
BN-5 did an excellent job. The effect with binaural recordings was nothing
short of spectacular.

The Sonic Hologram attempted to get rid of delay lines by substituting
constant-group-delay phase shift. Such circuits cannot actually delay the
signal. Rather, they shift the waveform envelope. * Given how well the Sonic
Hologram worked, I suggested to Bob that /perhaps/ the circuit did "good"
things neither he nor anyone else was aware of, and he should look into it.
"No, it works the way I say." And that was the end of it.

* I'd better explain this. Imagine you've designed an op-amp circuit to
produce 1ms of constant group delay over the audio band. If this circuit
"truly" delayed the signal, then its output would be zero for the first
millisecond after a signal is applied. But this is impossible, because a
finite input (with zero output) would drive the op amp against the rail. What
is actually output is a signal that -- after passing through the feedback
network -- cancels the input signal. (This is The Basic Principle Of Op-Amp
Analysis.)

You can easily show this with Laplace transforms. I did it 30 years ago, and
am not in the mood to do it again.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Smarty"

Indeed he was a true bullshitter, but he was an extremely capable engineer
as well,

** The former destroyed any credibility the latter might have given him.

Some of his amplifier designs were OK while others were piles of utter
rubbish that should never have gone on sale.

That is NOT the hallmark of a "capable engineer".

In Carver's case, he had an amazing and inquisitive mind, and many of his
designs offered things not seen elsewhere. Even the 'magnetic field'
amplifier itself had a remarkable tracking power supply and compact design
which Carver pioneered,

** It did NOT have a tracking PSU - that is one of the many misleading
claims made about it. The "Carver Cube" as it as known was marketed as
something it CLEARLY was NOT and doing that is in breach of consumer
law.

The professional version ( the PM1.5 ) was a near disaster and his other
desperate attempts to eliminate the iron transformer ( eg the PM2.0) were
even worse.

and his 'auto correlator' in the earlier Phase Linear and Carver preamps
was a very impressive noise reducer when tape hiss and other problems were
being ignored by many other preamp builders. His tiny True Subwoofer was
another very innovative design. I was personally a very big fan of his
Sonic Hologram, the first consumer interaural canceller unlike any other
device offered at that time except for a very weak competitor from Sound
Concepts using a very noisy bucket brigrade delay line.

** None of the above are any more than gimmicks - and don't Yanks love
gimmicks.

His form of bullshit I find perfectly tolerable since he is person who
knows the engineering details.

** You are fooling yourself.



.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann"
"Phil Allison"

Oops. Nope.


Guilty as charged. I misread the web page. Sorry(tm).

** You are not alone in that - most posters do not read what is actually
written and their replies show the fact by having little or no relevance.

WS is the biggest offender by far.

So, I devised a comparison scheme similar to yours, where
an identical and known working unit was compared with the test amp by
placing a speaker between the outputs of the amps. If anything was
heard out of the speaker, the test amp had a problem.

** You probably have heard of the Quad ESL63 speaker - but did you know Quad
checked each newly completed example in their factory with a similar method
?

One, fully tested ESL63 was compared with each production unit by placing
the two side by side with a flat response condenser mic on axis of both
about 2 metres away. The speakers were set up in an open area with a thickly
carpeted floor and surrounded by acoustic screens. A square wave signal was
supplied to both speakers at some mid band frequency. Next, the polarity of
the new unit was reversed by a DPDT switch while the operator looked at a
scope screen showing the output of the mic.

The test was passed if the signal seen on the scope all but vanished !!

Not just a neat test, but proof that all ESL63s left the factory identical
in amplitude and phase response across the audio band.


..... Phil

 

[[email protected]]

"One, fully tested ESL63 was compared with each production unit by placing
the two side by side with a flat response condenser mic on axis of both
about 2 metres away. The sp....blabla......"

OK motherfucker, you're right. You don't mind me calling you motherfucker do you ? You ever **** a broad who had kids already ? That is what I was looking for after someone mentioned that thing about the no feedback between the two speakers.

Yup. Quad was that company.

Anyway, unless you spend alot on speakers, usually you are not going to hear much difference in amps. Even if you do it will be hard. It will have to do with the exact amount of feedback and what of the heavy drive contributing to the dampering factor and all this shit. Whether it reproduces up to 30,000 or 40,000 doesn't mean shit. And whether it is 0.003 or 0.002 percentTHD doesn't mean shit. You know there is actually a damping factor curve.

Anyway, I guess I am just going to lay my opinion on y'all now. I think thecrossover shopuld have the lowest inductor and a=capacitor possible, or else the damping factor means shit. Same with all bands. there can be many values chosen, but....

Personally, I am into biamping now, and I am doing it on my next system. There will be absolutely NOTHING between my woofers and their amp. It will control the cone excursion very accurately based on the input (music) waveform.

Now, with mt experience and all this shit, I am starting to think somethingelse. NO PASSIVE CROSSOVERS. Each individual speaker is connected to its own individual amp. The crossover is all at line level.

Now that I think of it I shouldn't be saying this shit because this is the next step. Powered speakers, all of them. Not just the woofers, everything.No more blowing the amp, no more all kinds of shit, and clean ? Each fucking speaker has its own fucking amp. Even the tweeteer is DC coupled and even at those impedances it has a high dampind factor.

In other words, no passive crossover at all. This is the best idea in the world and all this shit except for one thing;

It's been done.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

** It did NOT have a tracking PSU - that is one of the many misleading
claims made about it. The "Carver Cube" as it as known was marketed as
something it CLEARLY was NOT and doing that is in breach of consumer
law.

One reviewer -- Feldman, I think -- was given a grossly inaccurate (ie,
totally fictional) explanation of how the Magnetic Field amplifier worked. It
was reported that he was very, very angry about this.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

** You are not alone in that - most posters do not read what is actually
written and their replies show the fact by having little or no relevance.

Relevance is in the eye of the reader.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

WS is the biggest offender by far.

A little tolerance would be helpful here. In the distant past, I
taught a class which included the usual required reading. It's
amazing the wide variety of interpretations and extrapolations that a
class of students can produce. Many were reading between the lines,
adding futile attempts at reverse engineering that authors intent,
adding parallels to religious or political dogma, or generally letting
the imagination run wild. It's much like that in Usenet, where even
the simplest statements can be easily misinterpreted. In person, we
have clues offered by the tone of voice or personal mannerisms. On
Usenet, we have none of those. I have successfully pissed off people
simply because of my style of writing. If you find someone
misinterpreting what you wrote, I suggest you make an effort to
clarify your writings, rather than criticize the reader.

Actually, misreading and unclear writing are both problems. What Phil can't
see are the times I start responding, realize I misread the post, and "tear
up" the response.

Several years ago I took a difficult college-level reading-comprehension test
and aced it. (I'm sure many in this group would do equally well.) Anyone care
to challenge me...?

 

[[email protected]]

Y'know, no matter what, we are all guilty of hijacking this thread on a trip around the world. I am not talking about trolls or newcomers.

I had been away for a while, things were not like this years ago. I am going with the flow here. It is just hard to fathom the process by which we came from a topic on color CRT purity to Carver's design that had peak currents approaching those of the output of a sustain board in a plasma TV (might be an exageration, not sure) and his fetish for bucket brigade devices.

Then we have a thread about the hifi section of an old Beta and we get to surround sound and all the aspects of it's development, cradle to grave and SQ, QS and their relative relevance and of course sonic holography which isback to those bucket brigade devices.

Did you know that some scientists have found that CO2 reflects IR and therefore it causes global cooling rather than warming ? That part is true, however apparently some bozo faked a Time cover with it or something. Like I care what Time magazine says. Point is, China doesn't give a **** about global warming, they give a **** about money, as should we.

Also, next time Israel fucks with a shipment of arms to Syria, they are likely to get their asses shot the **** down. Then they will whine to the world that someone attacked them and the fact that they were in the other country's airspace attacking shipments lawfully destined for the lawful government of that country will not matter. But yes, I think they are going to findout that others also have MIGs.

A federal court has ruled that you do not have the fundamentla right to produce and consume the foods of your choice. they ruled this way because the party involved did not PROVE this to be a fundamental right. Dontcha think they should err the other way ? Not in AmeriKa.

Now THAT'S how to hijack, amateurs.....

LOL

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann"
"Phil Allison"

For the record, what happened was that it was late when I originally
read the web page. The plan was to reply in the morning. However,
when I went back to the web page in the morning, the page wouldn't
load in my browser. (Trust me. This is not a fabrication). So, I
trusted my untrustworthy memory of the page to add my comment, which
was wrong. My apologies (again).


If you find someone
misinterpreting what you wrote, I suggest you make an effort to
clarify your writings,

** My writing is not at fault.

WS constantly over-snips, ignores whatever context was there and just plain
misreads.

What fouled me up was the schematic.
<http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm>

I'm used to seeing relays with coils and relay contacts with diamonds
for contacts. I also don't like connection tags style, where I can't
tell which way the signal is flowing. The schematic does not show a
box for the amplifiers or the "Y" adapter. With a quick glance, I saw
two relays and ASSUMED that one of them switched the input. I did not
read the entire description as I assumed that everything I needed to
know was in the schematic.

** That was idiotic - it take only a minute or so to read the whole thing.

Rod Elliot re-drew my had drawn schem his way - but it is perfectly clear.

So, who's at fault here?

** You alone.

You invented an non-existent problem with my idea BECAUSE you did not
fucking read it.

Full disclosure: I'm not into audio these day and know nothing of the
Quad ESL63.

** The ELS63s came out in 1982, sold in large numbers and is the best known
electrostatic speaker in history, later ( very similar) versions are in
production now - in China !!

Heaps about it all on the web too.

I will confess to repairing some audio equipment, but my
level of experience with modern hardware is essentially non-existent.

** That really shows.

Ummmm....

** WTF is that supposed to mean ?

<http://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-esl-63-loudspeaker-page-2>

** This has NO relevance top my post at all.

I don't know what went wrong. It could be the reviewer was
overdriving the speakers or that there was DC on the speakers.
However, if it was a defective speaker, the comparison test should
have shown that something was wrong.

** Did you read what I wrote THIS time ??

What does the last line say ??

Where is the Quad factory ?

In the USA or the UK ?

IIRC, the problem with arcing was due to the listening room being at high
altitude and that the reviewer was pushing the speakers to their power
limit.



.... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

WS constantly over-snips, ignores whatever context was there

and just plain misreads.

NOT GUILTY.

Everyone makes mistakes, but I'm not a consistent mis-reader. You are
confusing what people think they read with what you think you were saying.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwerck"

Phil Allison
** It did NOT have a tracking PSU - that is one of the many misleading
claims made about it. The "Carver Cube" as it as known was marketed as
something it CLEARLY was NOT and doing that is in breach of consumer
law.

One reviewer -- Feldman, I think -- was given a grossly inaccurate (ie,
totally fictional) explanation of how the Magnetic Field amplifier worked.
It was reported that he was very, very angry about this.

** I was given a copy of a US magazine ( Stereophile ?) back in the early
80s with several pages of description of Bob Carver's new wonder amp. It
spoke of "magnetic coils" and switching circuits that were never in the
actual product.

Seems Bob tried to make a tracking power supply that way, failed and
reverted to an alternative idea that used a phase controlled triac in the AC
to regulate the DC output of a conventional 50/60 Hz supply. He also made
the AC transformer ridiculously small.

On test, with both channels at full sine wave power under 8 ohm loads, the
AC tranny would make crackling noises and emit grey smoke within 60 seconds
of starting - the test then had stop immediately as the tranny has no
thermal protection. Very unnerving to witness.

The power amp itself used 6 DC supply rails and diode steering to reduce
heat dissipation. None of the above was new to electronics, except maybe for
the use of a tiny AC tranny in a 400 watt amp. The whole kaboodle was
crammed into a aluminium box of just under 7 inches per side.

Seems Bob kept the misleading name, "Magnetic Field Coil Amp" since he had
used it in some un-wise pre-publicity.



..... Phil

 

[[email protected]]

Those amps were fucking junk. Much ado for nothing because they did not achieve any sort of efficiency in real life. I believe you about the one burning up right away, but did they all do that ? I would not be surprised. It probably had just enough to get through the standard IHF preconditioning.

The one I remember working on had a decent size transformer, but it was really flat, a toroid. I might be the only one around who actually saw a paperprint of those things. For some reason he put the triac in the middle between a split primary. Seems to me it would be better off on the hot side.

It also had a commutating supply, and depended on the higher source filtersto remain charged in case of a fast attack. If not the slew rate would have sucked. So would a few choice pieces of music actually. In my view, the amplifier should be ready IMMEDIATELY if not sooner to produce maximum output.

Carver lost me when he lost Phase Linear really. This and the echoplexifiedFM quasistereo were enough to turn me completely off. Just like the surround sound of today. Junk.

T

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

Seems Bob kept the misleading name, "Magnetic Field Coil Amp" since
he had used it in some un-wise pre-publicity.

My memory is that it was even worse. The amp supposed had two signal paths --
a conventional path for "high" frequencies, plus a magnetic amplifier for low
frequencies. IIRC, it was this description that got to Feldman (in both senses
of "got to").