BoatBanter.com - Technology Updates

On 1/13/14, 7:43 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 7:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:

I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :)
They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance,
and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp
configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great
sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.

Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp
running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the
pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a
"passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.

Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however
they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)

You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other
than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn
shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz

That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up
at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat
the
house anymore.

What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the 60
cycle hum

To some people tube amps have a warmth that solid state lacks. I am not
sure I go along with that, but in the true audiophile world solid state
is a no-no.

There is really no reason that a well designed tube amp should "hum" any
more than a solid state amp. Most of the hum originates from using AC
to power the filaments in the tubes. A 6L6 power tube requires 6 volts
for the filament, a 12AX7 requires 12 volts and so on. High end tube
amps will typically use rectified AC meaning "DC" to power the
filaments. That usually all but eliminates any 60hz hum.

I believe the truth about tubes vs solid state has a different origin.

You don't hear anyone comparing tube versus solid state for modern,
digitally recorded music. It's really a throwback to analog recordings
that used tube circuitry to both record and reproduce classic music.
That's what people got used to hearing and when played on solid state
amps, you'll hear the complaints about it being too bright and lacking
warmth.

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Modern Telecasters have much improved pickups from a technology point of
view but they don't sound like the 1950's versions. Musicians often are
trying to capture the exact tone of a guitar used in an old recording
and find they can't quite get it right with a modern Telecaster. It
cracks me up because they revert to additional pre-amps and effects to
try to make the technologically superior, new Telecaster sound like the
inferior 1950's version.

Musicians also love tube amps because you can overdrive them and distort
the crap out of the sound. Kills me. A solid state guitar amp won't do
that and again has to rely on signal processing circuits to recreate the
distortion.

I like 'em sounding clean.

I attend a lot of chamber music concerts and I listen to the same sort
of music on my main stereo. My criteria for the latter is, how much does
it sound like "live." I don't expect it to sound exactly the same, but I
do think the two should sound very similar.

I'm not sure you can really tell with modern, studio-created rock music.
For sure, "heavy metal" doesn't sound the same in person as it does on
the CD's, which I think are chemically produced in studios. I was at a
live Aerosmith concert a few years ago, decent seats, and they obviously
could not reproduce on stage the tracks they laid down digitally.

I presume it is pretty much the same for the individuals and small
groups you've showcased. They aren't overly endowed with electronics, so
if they produce a CD, they can pretty much sound like it on the small
venue stage.

You would be amazed at what a good recording engineer can do now-a-days
using computer mixed and generated "recordings". I've been playing
around with some professional software on the iMac and it's incredible
what can be done once you become familiar with the particular software
capabilities. Pro-Logic is one of the most popular of the various
software offerings but has a steep learning curve as I am discovering.
But even Garage Band, once you learn what it can do can produce very
high quality recordings.

One of the guys associated with the new shop is an established recording
engineer and has a studio in the same facility that the guitar shop and
performance venue is in. Many locals produce their EPs and CDs with
him. I've heard them perform live, then I hear them perform the same
songs recorded with Joe (the recording engineer) and it's mind blowing
to hear the difference. Pro Tools even has an "autotune" feature so if
a singer is slightly off key, the software will correct the pitch.
Amazing stuff.

I've been spending some time doing some goofy recordings just to learn
the software. Some have come out sounding very good ... near pro
quality and I am basically on page one of the 900 page learning curve.

Arrgh. I don't have the desire or energy these days to cope with
extraordinarily complex software. It's why I dumped Photoshop
entirely...much too complex for my relatively simple photo processing
needs.