Robert Harley's TAS Editorial

[KeithR]

This is one of the most interesting reads in TAS in a long time and sure to strike up some debate.

His thesis is the Lamm ML2.2s he's had in for review have totally changed his more objectivist opinion on what you can and can not measure/hear or solely attribute to SET distortion and the conundrum of the single ended triode philosophy in these modern units.

It will be interesting to read what the WBF membership thinks about the article, so here's the thread to post opinions.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is one of the most interesting reads in TAS in a long time and sure to strike up some debate.

His thesis is the Lamm ML2.2s he's had in for review have totally changed his more objectivist opinion on what you can and can not measure/hear or solely attribute to SET distortion and the conundrum of the single ended triode philosophy in these modern units.

It will be interesting to read what the WBF membership thinks about the article, so here's the thread to post opinions.

Can TAS be read online?

Tim

 

[andromedaaudio]

NO i dont think so , i went into 3 magazine shops this weekend to buy a TAS , and couldnt find it , Yet , ill try some more shops later .
It has a article also with designers viewpoints , which sounds interesting

Can TAS be read online?

Tim

 

[rbbert]

You can pay to read TAS online, and some of each issue eventually shows up at TAS website, with unpredictable delays.

When I read the editorial I certainly don't get any impression of Harley as an objectivist. He talks about conventional wisdom, but doesn't say he subscribes to it (and certainly his writing career shows few if any signs of "objectivism", no matter how defined).

Some potential areas of investigation Harley doesn't mention include Bob Carver's "transfer function" (can it measure and reproduce SET sound?) and many amplifier measurements that are outside the "traditional measurements arsenal" for which no consistent auditory correlations exist. Interestingly, none of the amplifier designer's interviewed (who include both Carver and Lamm) say anything about SET's, although that subject was a little outside the range of questions asked.

 

[thedudeabides]

Agreed. What I found interesting is the amp designer panels take on Class D amplification.

 

[microstrip]

Can TAS be read online?

Tim

Tim,

No, it is a paid magazine. The key question about The Single-Ended Triode Paradox is:

So how can some of these amplifiers that are the antithesis of good textbook engineering sound so magical?

If you do not believe they really sound magical, you will not loose anything for not reading it. Your usual interpretation of SET sound is dismissed as this simplistic interpretation.

IMHO for a few usd for a one year digital subscription is a good investment.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

Tim,

No, it is a paid magazine. The key question about The Single-Ended Triode Paradox is:

So how can some of these amplifiers that are the antithesis of good textbook engineering sound so magical?

If you do not believe they really sound magical, you will not loose anything for not reading it. Your usual interpretation of SET sound is dismissed as this simplistic interpretation.

IMHO for a few usd for a one year digital subscription is a good investment.

Find a copy of TAS 104 and read my seminal article on SET. It's an industry reference.

 

[KeithR]

You can pay to read TAS online, and some of each issue eventually shows up at TAS website, with unpredictable delays.

When I read the editorial I certainly don't get any impression of Harley as an objectivist. He talks about conventional wisdom, but doesn't say he subscribes to it (and certainly his writing career shows few if any signs of "objectivism", no matter how defined).

Sorry, I should clarify. I don't mean objectivist in the internet forum way. RH has always been a room measurement guy and a "why things sound the way they sound" guy and that is what I mean. His book I believe tries to explain many things in more traditional views. Does he believe in cables? Yes, and I believe he wrote an article on them regarding why. He does not believe in double-blind tests for a host of reasons. He seems to value modern "technology" and measurements higher than more subjective "it's good because it sounds good" guys.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A guy who believes in cables and doesn't believe in blind listening is probably no kind of objectivist, internet forum or otherwise. I wondered what you meant when you said that. I've never been under the impression that TAS was anything close to objectivist. With that said, I think the magic in SET is no mystery. It's added harmonic content. But I think most SET has far too much of it for most people. Put a relatively high amount of grunt in your SET, into efficent speakers, and it probably starts sounding more like high-powered tube gear, with a little extra, but not too much, of the special sauce. I have had an SET headphone amp in for evaluation. It had a lot of power for a head amp -- 500 milliwatts, and it had no headroom issues at all. In fact, it went back, not because it had too much harmonic extras, or because I didn't like it, but because it sounded so much like a vintage SS integrated amp I had that I didn't see much point in spending the money. Probably the result of it having so much power for the purpose, in spite of being SET.

Aren't Lamms really powerful for SET? What's that rule about the simplest, most obvious answer usually being the right one? Or we could imagine immeasurable magic. That would probably be more fun.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

A guy who believes in cables and doesn't believe in blind listening is probably no kind of objectivist, internet forum or otherwise. I wondered what you meant when you said that. I've never been under the impression that TAS was anything close to objectivist. With that said, I think the magic in SET is no mystery. It's added harmonic content. But I think most SET has far too much of it for most people. Put a relatively high amount of grunt in your SET, into efficent speakers, and it probably starts sounding more like high-powered tube gear, with a little extra, but not too much, of the special sauce. I have had an SET headphone amp in for evaluation. It had a lot of power for a head amp -- 500 milliwatts, and it had no headroom issues at all. In fact, it went back, not because it had too much harmonic extras, or because I didn't like it, but because it sounded so much like a vintage SS integrated amp I had that I didn't see much point in spending the money. Probably the result of it having so much power for the purpose, in spite of being SET.

Aren't Lamms really powerful for SET? What's that rule about the simplest, most obvious answer usually being the right one? Or we could imagine immeasurable magic. That would probably be more fun.

Tim

There are more several more powerful SETs than the LAMMs that use different output tubes such as the WAVAC, Krons, etc..

 

[fas42]

No, it is a paid magazine. The key question about The Single-Ended Triode Paradox is:

So how can some of these amplifiers that are the antithesis of good textbook engineering sound so magical?

If you do not believe they really sound magical, you will not loose anything for not reading it. Your usual interpretation of SET sound is dismissed as this simplistic interpretation.

It's not a paradox at all, of course. SET will distort badly, measurably, on big voltage swings; but negligibly on low level, fine detail material. Big bangers will get the grunt stuff right, because that's where all the engineering is done, to make sure this works correctly; but because of how all the bits fit together, the actual physical configuration of the parts, this gets in the way of minimising that unpleasant low level distortion. Which is where the magic is ...

This is why all the really expensive high power machines achieve, or should do so, SET like sound; because the engineers have worried about all that lesser stuff that makes all the difference.

Frank

 

[MylesBAstor]

It's not a paradox at all, of course. SET will distort badly, measurably, on big voltage swings; but negligibly on low level, fine detail material. Big bangers will get the grunt stuff right, because that's where all the engineering is done, to make sure this works correctly; but because of how all the bits fit together, the actual physical configuration of the parts, this gets in the way of minimising that unpleasant low level distortion. Which is where the magic is ...

This is why all the really expensive high power machines achieve, or should do so, SET like sound; because the engineers have worried about all that lesser stuff that makes all the difference.

Frank

Perhaps, just perhaps we're measuring the wrong things?

 

[KeithR]

A guy who believes in cables and doesn't believe in blind listening is probably no kind of objectivist, internet forum or otherwise. I wondered what you meant when you said that. I've never been under the impression that TAS was anything close to objectivist. With that said, I think the magic in SET is no mystery. It's added harmonic content. But I think most SET has far too much of it for most people. Put a relatively high amount of grunt in your SET, into efficent speakers, and it probably starts sounding more like high-powered tube gear, with a little extra, but not too much, of the special sauce. I have had an SET headphone amp in for evaluation. It had a lot of power for a head amp -- 500 milliwatts, and it had no headroom issues at all. In fact, it went back, not because it had too much harmonic extras, or because I didn't like it, but because it sounded so much like a vintage SS integrated amp I had that I didn't see much point in spending the money. Probably the result of it having so much power for the purpose, in spite of being SET.

Aren't Lamms really powerful for SET? What's that rule about the simplest, most obvious answer usually being the right one? Or we could imagine immeasurable magic. That would probably be more fun.

Tim

You need to read the article PP. He specifically addresses the incremental distortion issue and why this is not the case with what he has heard.

You would never put RH and SET in the same sentence if you read them regularly as I think Myles and others would agree.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You need to read the article PP. He specifically addresses the incremental distortion issue and why this is not the case with what he has heard.

You would never put RH and SET in the same sentence if you read them regularly as I think Myles and others would agree.

I will read it if I get a chance.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) With that said, I think the magic in SET is no mystery. It's added harmonic content. But I think most SET has far too much of it for most people. Put a relatively high amount of grunt in your SET, into efficent speakers, and it probably starts sounding more like high-powered tube gear, with a little extra, but not too much, of the special sauce. I have had an SET headphone amp in for evaluation. It had a lot of power for a head amp -- 500 milliwatts, and it had no headroom issues at all. In fact, it went back, not because it had too much harmonic extras, or because I didn't like it, but because it sounded so much like a vintage SS integrated amp I had that I didn't see much point in spending the money. Probably the result of it having so much power for the purpose, in spite of being SET.

Aren't Lamms really powerful for SET? What's that rule about the simplest, most obvious answer usually being the right one? Or we could imagine immeasurable magic. That would probably be more fun.

Tim

Tim,

As Hartley wisely said simplistic interpretation. And when you refer to listening tests carried with headphones you show you are out of the game of this TAS editorial. The magic of SETs does not work with headphones - it needs adequate speakers and room. Otherwise no more of that feeling of the musicians being present in the room making music contemporaneously? (just another Hartley quote)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

As Hartley wisely said simplistic interpretation. And when you refer to listening tests carried with headphones you show you are out of the game of this TAS editorial. The magic of SETs does not work with headphones - it needs adequate speakers and room. Otherwise no more of that feeling of the musicians being present in the room making music contemporaneously? (just another Hartley quote)

Micro...you know I don't believe in magic. I do, however, believe in headroom.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Micro...you know I don't believe in magic. I do, however, believe in headroom.

Tim

And how do you objectively define headroom? AFAIK, lack of headroom just results in distortion (lots of it, to be more exact).

 

[FrantzM]

Tim,

As Hartley wisely said simplistic interpretation. And when you refer to listening tests carried with headphones you show you are out of the game of this TAS editorial. The magic of SETs does not work with headphones - it needs adequate speakers and room. Otherwise no more of that feeling of the musicians being present in the room making music contemporaneously? (just another Hartley quote)

Mic (I like to shorten names so pretty soon it will be M )

I know you have elected yourself the defender of all causes High End and that is fine.. But your point about SET not working with headphones is pushing the envelope to the point of bursting ... I never thought that being an audiophile required so much imagination ... I had the opportunity to hear a Woo SET Headphones amplifier and all the magic of SET minus their flaws was present ... Your point of view about SET requiring a room and speakers is singular

 

[fas42]

Perhaps, just perhaps we're measuring the wrong things?

I agree. Most measurements are about the limits of performance, rather than the distortion spectrum at low power outputs. If you ran such types of tests, say, the distortion spectrum of several sine waves mixed as a test signal, looking for intermodulation distortion in other words, where the average power was only 1 watt, into a realistic speaker load, this would be a very interesting comparison between different amplifier toplogies.

Frank

 

[microstrip]

Mic (I like to shorten names so pretty soon it will be M )

I know you have elected yourself the defender of all causes High End and that is fine.. But your point about SET not working with headphones is pushing the envelope to the point of bursting ... I never thought that being an audiophile required so much imagination ... I had the opportunity to hear a Woo SET Headphones amplifier and all the magic of SET minus their flaws was present ... Your point of view about SET requiring a room and speakers is singular

FrantzM, (please note I respect your nick )

Please read the article of Hartley in TAS and my whole posts before saying that I said something I never said. I said that the magic of SEts (in the full sense of the word as used by Hartley in TAS 223 - ) does not show using headphones. I never said that SETs do not work with headphones. If by chance listening to a singer using headphones creates an holographic picture of a singer in the middle of your room between your speakers please tell me what is the model.

If you read carefully you will notice that I always use italic or bold in quotes. Magic is my posts refers to Hartley use of the word, not my free interpretation or others. Surely, when some one quotes me , all becomes italics and confusion can arise, but repliers should always read the original posts.

BTW, thanks for taking note once more of my support to the high-end audio industry and all its professionals. They supply me with excellent products and recordings that I enjoy a lot. When , as very often happens, my humble experience supports them I am not ashamed of it and report it, even if I can not explain why the illusion happens.