Would like to see it measured...
My experience with it was.... variable - it didn't sound as good as the Quad amps.... lacked smoothness - was a bit rough, perhaps "shouty" in the high end....
I agree. Local feedback reduces distortion and output impedance, widens and flatten bandwidth.
The older I get the less impressed I am with any notion that reproduced sound is ever going to match 'the source'. I suppose, however, that that is the goal; but it is not my goal. Frankly, I don't think it will ever be a realizable, or practical goal.
It isn't "what the microphone heard", it's what the microphone says it heard, which is not the same thing.The older I get the less impressed I am with any notion that reproduced sound is ever going to match 'the source'. I suppose, however, that that is the goal; but it is not my goal. Frankly, I don't think it will ever be a realizable, or practical goal.
Through numerous gear I've never, ever heard any reproduction (i.e. of a recorded musical event) that made me think, "Yes, that really sounds like Ella." Instead, my experience was always, "Yeah, it's the Memorex."
For me, the 'problem' with reproduction turns on the variance in the production--that is what I notice, more often that not. Whether I am listening to records or digit files, it is the production that annoys me, and often makes me unhappy. It is hardly ever the quality of the reproduced sound (I mean the difference in loudspeakers), which, in any case, my ears get used to pretty quickly. In fine, I tend to overlook/ignore the gear, understanding its intrinsic limitations, but instead concentrate more on what the producer was doing, at the console. Some do it 'better' than others. Some producers make a more pleasing product. I guess that is a personal preference, too.
That said, there is a point where the reproduction is low enough, or weird enough, to mask vagaries within the production. We want to avoid that. Probably a table radio or boom box is at the limit. Maybe a Bose 901. But reproduction on any 'decent' hi-fi is usually good enough to show off production values.
Also, there is a point in reproduction where 'what the microphone hears' is so far removed from anything that sounds realistic... that is to say, the performance that the microphone is attempting to pick up. There is a point where the reproduced listening experience becomes completely removed from reality. Here, I'm talking about headphones. The idea that a headphone can be 'natural' sounding in any way is an idea that has pretty much always escaped me. It is not the FR/distortion (and so on) that I'm talking about, but rather the experience of having sound 'direct injected' into the ear canals. Others certainly think differently. Headphones are now the big thing in hi-fi. I am not the customer for high priced headphones, for sure.
As an aside, when I was younger, headphones were never that important, for anyone. I would guess they really took off with the introduction of 'personal' sound--Walkmans, Discmans, and the later Apple digit-pods, now turned into cell-phones. We have a generation or two that probably only 'knows' sound via headphones.
Back in the day one could buy headphone-oriented 'binaural' recordings which were supposed to give a good facsimile of what the ears were supposed to have heard, within a natural sound field. I never listened to any of those, but only read about them.
Sometimes I think I need to get another hobby, but I might be too old to start anything new!
This is well put, and worthy of bearing in mind (I'd opine).
When I started recording, there were two small diaphragm condenser microphones that would be the default choices for recording the standard acoustic steel-strung guitar, instruments like Martin D-28s or Gibson Hummingbirds. The Neumann KM 84 and the AKG C451. These are both very high-quality microphones, their descendants are still in production. However, the difference in sound between these two microphones is very much like the difference between the D-28 and the Hummingbird, the AKG more like the Gibson. That's the degree that 2 different good microphones can alter the sound of what they are recording. You want brighter, more "wiry"? AKG. More "mellow", a little "darker"? KM 84.
With 'modern' recording techniques, multi-miking, 24 track (plus) recorders, mixing consoles and ancillary devices, it probably makes no sense to even talk about individual microphones, at least in the context of the end listener at home. Or even possibly the engineer in the booth, who is putting it all together in a form that will have little in common with whatever each individual microphone is picking up, at that particular location.
www.audiosciencereview.com
With the reputation "Flame Linear" amps have not sure how good that makes him look.We need a reconditioned Phase Linear 700B tested. If not to show the world how good Mr. Carver was before he lost the plot.
Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Carver Crimson 275 tube stereo power amplifier. It was purchased new by member @paulbottlehead and given to me for testing. It costs US $2750. I really like the way the amplifier looks. The burgundy color is attractive as is the handle. On the...
Never heard that phrase before. We used tens of 700B at Abbey Road studios during the 70s and none burned, neither mine did.
"Flame Linear" is all over the internet.... I have no idea if it is "real" or urban legend. Reading the stories it sounds like they are fine with 8 ohm loads at home or in a studio but they ran into trouble when used (abused) for live performances.
Internet legends older than half century are not reliable. Take this one from me.
All over the Internet is actually three entries even when a forced search is done.
I suspect that poor @amirm might be dealing with more than just popped mains fuses if he pressure-tests even a rehabilitated 700B... and I think he's got enough home ownership angst goin' right now already!
You see, if you'd also heard the two box Rega player at almost double the price of the mk1 'clamshell' Planet, you'd start to hear what 'we're' all going on about, as the Jupiter/Io pair (- the Io model name was originally a dac they made -) better reproduced differences in recordings, production and so on. The Planet, bless it, tended to make things sound more 'the same' and it's very high output impedance (the Apollo R to this day is the same apparently) makes it harder to match with modern 10k loading in amps. We sold all our Planets with the Klotz AC110 based 'Couple' interconnect and the remote and it was still competitive with the Arcam direct competition of the time... yes, I'm fully aware that a baby Topping or latest Schiit among other dacs would eat it alive, but it was a good buy back in 1998 or so before home theatre took the interest away and people refused a top loading CD player
Can we also rule-out the mention of Carver's mag-amps... please.
