[sdhensley]

I don't need to discuss the amp. Do your own research. It's the Bottlehead Paramounts in the 300B config. Knock yourself out.

 

[bfreedma]

I don't need to discuss the amp. Do your own research. It's the Bottlehead Paramounts in the 300B config. Knock yourself out.

Lol. You necroed a two year old thread to NOT discuss it?

 

[Steve Eddy]

I don't need to discuss the amp. Do your own research. It's the Bottlehead Paramounts in the 300B config. Knock yourself out.

And as I said, "accuracy" just isn't something that comes to mind when I think of 300B SET amps. They have prodigious amounts of distortion and their highish output impedances can alter the frequency response of the loudspeakers they're driving. They can sound wonderful, but it's not because of their accuracy. So I think your comment should have been simply "they sound wonderful," and left out the "pure tonal accuracy" bit.

se

 

[sdhensley]

Because all 300B's sound the same right? It couldn't be that this design is very different. I gotcha. But, it's also clear that many folks here have preconceived notions and I can say nothing to open their minds. So carry on.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Lol. You necroed a two year old thread to NOT discuss it?

Ha! I thought this was a new thread. Didn't pay attention to the dates.

But yeah, that's hilarious. Resurrects the thread to assert his 300B amp is "pure tonal accuracy" and doesn't understand why that assertion should raise some eyebrows.

se

 

[sdhensley]

All I can say it let your own ears be the judge.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Because all 300B's sound the same right?

That's not what I said.

It couldn't be that this design is very different.

What, you mean that it's a parafeed design?

Yes, that relieves you of the added distortion you would otherwise get using an air-gapped output transformer with bias current flowing through its primary, but it doesn't help with the distortion you're getting upstream. And it will stil have a rather highish output impedance so you're still left with the response effects from that.

I gotcha. But, it's also clear that many folks here have preconceived notions and I can say nothing to open their minds.

When you use words like "accuracy," you don't open anyone's mind by making the assertion and then defend it with waving of hands and stomping of feet.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

All I can say it let your own ears be the judge.

That's all well and good for personal preference. But don't use that to make assertions of "accuracy." If you want to do that, show us the objective evidence.

se

 

[BeatsWork]

My epiphany came after having a technician spend over an hour carefully calibrating my new 75" TV to "Reference" standards. I dutifully saved the settings he worked so hard on and after adjusting the TV to where everyone in the family felt it looked best I never used those presets again.  My learning - accuracy is not my goal.  It's what makes me happy and I apply the same logic to audio and spend my time listening to new material rather than obsessing about technical precision.  To each his own but I realized that the pursuit of "perfection" was ruining my enjoyment of "excellent".

 

[sdhensley]

Well, unless you could come to my house and hear it you simply could not understand now could you? My experience building and judging systems of course means nothing to you, nor should it. but it means a lot to me. I know when I hear a system that accurately reproduces the timbre that the engineers meant to be heard. I know what tonal accuracy is and sonic accuracy. Can I put them in words for others? A resounding NO is all I can say. I cannot. But my ears know it when they hear it. It is all of this and it is not fatiguing to listen to. You may as well be sitting front center stage. But hey, continue to go by electronic measurements.

 

[bfreedma]

Well, unless you could come to my house and hear it you simply could not understand now could you? My experience building and judging systems of course means nothing to you, nor should it. but it means a lot to me. I know when I hear a system that accurately reproduces the timbre that the engineers meant to be heard. I know what tonal accuracy is and sonic accuracy. Can I put them in words for others? A resounding NO is all I can say. I cannot. But my ears know it when they hear it. It is all of this and it is not fatiguing to listen to. You may as well be sitting front center stage. But hey, continue to go by electronic measurements.

How what it be possible to know what "the engineers meant to be heard" without having them discuss it with you as you listen?

One of the most valuable elements of measurements is that they remove the need to discuss things like accuracy with words or be in the same location as the gear in question.

 

[sdhensley]

You asked: How what it be possible to know what "the engineers meant to be heard" without having them discuss it with you as you listen?
 
Because I listen to a lot of live music in recordings.

 

[bfreedma]

  You asked: How what it be possible to know what "the engineers meant to be heard" without having them discuss it with you as you listen?
 
Because I listen to a lot of live music in recordings.

 
I don't see how you're experience with other live music recordings could tell you exactly what the engineer intended on a different/specific recording.
 
Or on the ones you have listened to for that matter.  It's your preference, which no one will argue with, but it isn't in any way Reference or a representation of "perfect tonal accuracy".

 

[sdhensley]

Well, please educate me. You tell me what perfect tonal accuracy is and how to measure it. Please. Indulge me. After you do some research I expect you to crawfish some, but hey, go for it.

 

[Steve Eddy]

How what it be possible to know what "the engineers meant to be heard" without having them discuss it with you as you listen?

The only way to hear what "the engineers meant to be heard" would be to listen to it through the same monitoring system that the engineers used during the mastering. And I can assure you they weren't using 300B monoblocks through a pair of Klipsch KG 5.5s. Not only that, but various recordings will have been mastered on a wide variety of monitoring systems. So to think that a given system will give you what "the engineers meant to be heard" is sheer folly, no matter how much live listening you've done. Hell, different recording engineers will have used different setups and recording techniques to make the recording in the first place. You would have to argue that all amps, loudspeakers and recording/mastering techniques sound the same, in which case it wouldn't matter what system you used.

The "I've listened to a lot of live music," therefore I know what "the engineers meant to be heard" argument is just a load of vain, egotistical nonsense.

se