In article <h2cmf5$49k$6@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
>> <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>>> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
>>>>> I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB
>>>>> because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM
>>>>> broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and
>>>>> harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl
>>>>> versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
>>>> My apologies for repeating myself, but this silly argument seems to
>>>> have been repeated a few times and needs nailing down.
>>>>
>>>> Saying that a comparison between FM and DAB is like a comparison
>>>> between vinyl and CD is nuts. DAB uses destructive digital bit-rate
>>>> reduction; CD doesn't. CD audio is sampled at more than twice the
>>>> highest frequency most people can hear, with enough bits to give a
>>>> dynamic range greater than any mechanical gramophone system and
>>>> certainly well beyond that of a typical living room, and then no
>>>> information is thrown away. None at all. It's better than FM, better
>>>> than gramophone records, better than tape cassetes, and it stays that
>>>> way all the way to the customer.
>>>>
>>>> The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such
>>>> a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even
>>>> theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before
>>>> the signal even gets to the transmitter.
>>> Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
>>> reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
>>>
>>> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
>>> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
>>> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
>>> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
>>> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
>>> few parts per million.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Yes of course the DAB system should be better, how many bits do you
>> think it needs in practice?..
>>
>> Mind you good FM demod systems don't have -that- much distortion..
>
>No. 0.1% mono and 0.3% stereo was what I got with the RCA chipset. In 1975.
>
Its improved a bit since then .. 'tho the bits have dropped
otherwise;!..
--
Tony Sayer
In message <h2cmdh$49k$5@news.albasani.net>
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Dave Higton wrote:
> >
> > You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
> > being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
> > introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
> > distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
> > that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
> > few parts per million.
> >
> Sadly though, it isn't.
"Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com...
> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
>> > I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB
>> > because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM
>> > broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and
>> > harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl
>> > versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
>>
>> My apologies for repeating myself, but this silly argument seems to
>> have been repeated a few times and needs nailing down.
>>
>> Saying that a comparison between FM and DAB is like a comparison
>> between vinyl and CD is nuts. DAB uses destructive digital bit-rate
>> reduction; CD doesn't. CD audio is sampled at more than twice the
>> highest frequency most people can hear, with enough bits to give a
>> dynamic range greater than any mechanical gramophone system and
>> certainly well beyond that of a typical living room, and then no
>> information is thrown away. None at all. It's better than FM, better
>> than gramophone records, better than tape cassetes, and it stays that
>> way all the way to the customer.
>>
>> The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such
>> a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even
>> theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before
>> the signal even gets to the transmitter.
>
> Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
> reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
>
> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
> few parts per million.
>
The point is that analogue systems are generally very linear by design, even
if individual components aren't. The major distortion as such is that the
bandwidth may not be perfectly flat, but our ears are fairly tolerant to
such errors.
Don't forget that our ears aren't entirely linear!
DAB on the other hand has an alarmingly low bit rate. The consequence is
where the decoded signal doesn't follow the original.
Dave Higton wrote:
> In message <h2cmdh$49k$5@news.albasani.net>
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dave Higton wrote:
>>> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
>>> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
>>> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
>>> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
>>> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
>>> few parts per million.
>>>
>> Sadly though, it isn't.
>
> Please explain what you mean.
>
> Dave
"The DAB system *can* be engineered..."
" Sadly though, it isn't."
Fredxx wrote:
> "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com...
>> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
>>>> I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB
>>>> because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM
>>>> broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and
>>>> harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl
>>>> versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
>>> My apologies for repeating myself, but this silly argument seems to
>>> have been repeated a few times and needs nailing down.
>>>
>>> Saying that a comparison between FM and DAB is like a comparison
>>> between vinyl and CD is nuts. DAB uses destructive digital bit-rate
>>> reduction; CD doesn't. CD audio is sampled at more than twice the
>>> highest frequency most people can hear, with enough bits to give a
>>> dynamic range greater than any mechanical gramophone system and
>>> certainly well beyond that of a typical living room, and then no
>>> information is thrown away. None at all. It's better than FM, better
>>> than gramophone records, better than tape cassetes, and it stays that
>>> way all the way to the customer.
>>>
>>> The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such
>>> a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even
>>> theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before
>>> the signal even gets to the transmitter.
>> Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
>> reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
>>
>> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
>> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
>> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
>> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
>> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
>> few parts per million.
>>
>
> The point is that analogue systems are generally very linear by design, even
> if individual components aren't.
Not really. We are lucky that we have one relatively linear component -
the resistor, and by using feedback with THOSE we can achieve pretty low
distortion set-ups from VERY badly distorting components..transistors
and FETS.
>The major distortion as such is that the
> bandwidth may not be perfectly flat,
That is not a distortion.
And its pretty possible to build an amplifier flat from DC to well over
100Khz.
In the video game, flat to 50Mhz is on the cards, but the power is not
as high. A few watts, not a few hundred.
but our ears are fairly tolerant to
> such errors.
>
Indeed. What our ears really do NOT like is high order harmonics and
intermodulation products. The harmonics we hear as 'edginess' and the
intermodulation we hear as lack of clarity or muddiness.
> Don't forget that our ears aren't entirely linear!
>
> DAB on the other hand has an alarmingly low bit rate. The consequence is
> where the decoded signal doesn't follow the original.
>
>
Precisely. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the digits: the
implementation is just crap, thats all.
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h2edu4$md7$1@news.albasani.net...
> Fredxx wrote:
>> "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com...
>>> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The point is that analogue systems are generally very linear by design,
>> even if individual components aren't.
>
> Not really. We are lucky that we have one relatively linear component -
> the resistor, and by using feedback with THOSE we can achieve pretty low
> distortion set-ups from VERY badly distorting components..transistors and
> FETS.
>
I was thinking of demodualtors, which don't rely upon resisitors to give a
linear response. It's normally inherent in their transfer characteristic.
>
>
>>The major distortion as such is that the bandwidth may not be perfectly
>>flat,
>
> That is not a distortion.
>
> And its pretty possible to build an amplifier flat from DC to well over
> 100Khz.
>
> In the video game, flat to 50Mhz is on the cards, but the power is not as
> high. A few watts, not a few hundred.
Video does not demand the same dynamic range as audio.
>
> but our ears are fairly tolerant to
>> such errors.
>>
> Indeed. What our ears really do NOT like is high order harmonics and
> intermodulation products. The harmonics we hear as 'edginess' and the
> intermodulation we hear as lack of clarity or muddiness.
>
>> Don't forget that our ears aren't entirely linear!
>>
>> DAB on the other hand has an alarmingly low bit rate. The consequence is
>> where the decoded signal doesn't follow the original.
>>
>>
> Precisely. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the digits: the
> implementation is just crap, thats all.
>
Agreed. And the idea of having 2 different DAB systems!
> Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head
> of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry
> and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader
> whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in
> Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things.
Did we do any better with a Prime Minister who had degrees in chemistry
and had previously worked as a researcher?
"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8763eczj1t.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> "neverwas" <notahasbeen@all.all> writes:
>
>> Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head
>> of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry
>> and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader
>> whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in
>> Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things.
>
> Did we do any better with a Prime Minister who had degrees in chemistry
> and had previously worked as a researcher?
But she saw the error in her ways, gave up science to do a degree in law.
After all law is far easier and better paid than either science or
engineering!
>>> BTW it's not some old obsolete non HSDPA 3g dongle is it?
>>> non HSDPA will only go up to nearly 400kbps
>> It's locked in my draw at work currently, but it's this:-
>>
>> http://www.itpro.co.uk/607902/vodafo...oadband-dongle
>> Mark
>>
>>
> It says up to 7.2mbps so it is HSDPA, but you may be in a Voda area that
> hasn't
> yet been upgraded to 3.5g, you need 3.5g updated cells to get above 400kbps
Well, here in Cairo I was getting about 4 Megs on Voadfone Egypt
yesterday :-) Better performance than back home in the Thames Valley
just 15 miles from VF's HQ !
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
In message <Tp-dnQn95db27dXXnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d@bt.com>, jasee
<jasee@btinternet.com> writes:
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>
>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
>> results as well.
>>
>> If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
>> then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
>> quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
>> was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
>> but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
>> law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
>> wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
>> a difference.
>
>sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective.
>Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
>blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
>right way.
>
I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in
effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that
cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. I
tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried
away, with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often
justifiably). What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are
among the best ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are
double-blind _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd
certainly agree that the technical data should be presented too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Boss: We must maintain a sense of urgency. Speed is the key. We must be faster
than the competition.
Dilbert: Does that mean you'll sign the stuff that's been on your desk for a
month? (Scott Adams, 1998-12-26)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <Tp-dnQn95db27dXXnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d@bt.com>, jasee
> <jasee@btinternet.com> writes:
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
>>> results as well.
>>>
>>> If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
>>> then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
>>> quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
>>> was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
>>> but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
>>> law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
>>> wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
>>> a difference.
>>
>> sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is
>> subjective.
>> Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
>> blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
>> right way.
>>
> I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in
> effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that
> cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques.
It can be, but you have to devise some interesting tests. Viz, As I saif
before the difference between a good phase shift in the IF strip and a
poor one with truncation of signal at 125Khz or more from the band
centre makes an audible difference: You can measure that, but very few
reviewers would know how. Or have the equipment.
> I
> tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried
> away, with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often
> justifiably). What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are
> among the best ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are
> double-blind _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd
> certainly agree that the technical data should be presented too.)
As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure
that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has
at home' and has got used to.
It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working
on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and
learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was
lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the
whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen to
the material ;-)
Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response,
step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things
that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that
muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a hard
thing to measure.
In message <h2hpj4$7le$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
[]
>As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure
>that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has
>at home' and has got used to.
(-:
>
>It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working
>on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and
>learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was
>lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the
>whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen
>to the material ;-)
I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
>
>Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response,
>step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things
>that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that
>muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a
>hard thing to measure.
>
Indeed, though such instruments for audio bandwidths, especially as PC
cards, are a lot cheaper than they were, and of course CDs are a good
source of test tones (I have one with several pairs of tones for
measuring HID). If you have a good CD player of course!
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the
sixth.)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CfBaqwpMQGTKFwrF@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Tp-dnQn95db27dXXnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d@bt.com>, jasee
> <jasee@btinternet.com> writes:
>>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
>>> results as well.
>>>
>>> If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
>>> then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
>>> quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
>>> was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
>>> but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
>>> law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
>>> wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
>>> a difference.
>>
>>sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective.
>>Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
>>blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
>>right way.
>>
> I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in
> effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that
> cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. I
> tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried away,
> with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often justifiably).
> What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are among the best
> ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are double-blind
> _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd certainly agree that
> the technical data should be presented too.)
A double blind test is a double blind test, whatever it is attempting to
measure!
From the scientific point of view, you can test for anything and the results
should show whether 'it' exists of not. And it doesn't matter if the human
test subjects _are_ the sort of people who actually pay thousands of pounds
on interconnections or dogged 'traditionalists'.
I think you're confusing the issue by mentioning subjectivity in connection
with double blind tests: its simply not in it. Thats the point, subjectivity
is ruled out. There has to be an objective difference for a postive result
to show in a double blind test. If some aspect of musicality (or whatever)
can be reliably observed in double blind tests, then it exists! There's no
subjectivity about it. Of course it's always useful if you can back it up
with some comparative technical data.
In article <bjcc1fM6STTKFw75@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
> I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
> 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
> them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
> took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
message news:VA.0000075c.007a5072@escapetime.removethisbit .myzen.co.uk...
> In article <bjcc1fM6STTKFw75@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> wrote:
>> I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
>> 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
>> them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
>> took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
>
> I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
> earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
> loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
> really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
> generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.
I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in certain
organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't see what the
fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so
noisy that I sent it back.
In article <eoidnfkKspGxQdDXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@bt.com>,
jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in
> certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't
> see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I
> bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven with
Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad transistor amp was
the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was changed for a better one
shortly after introduction.
The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching a
cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best in a long
room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course it only went down
to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances
made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker.
--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *
jasee wrote:
> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:VA.0000075c.007a5072@escapetime.removethisbit .myzen.co.uk...
>> In article <bjcc1fM6STTKFw75@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>> wrote:
>>> I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
>>> 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
>>> them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
>>> took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
>> I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
>> earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
>> loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
>> really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
>> generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.
>
> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in certain
> organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't see what the
> fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so
> noisy that I sent it back.
>
>
Early quad transistor amps were crap really. I had one on the bench..
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50750c013edave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <eoidnfkKspGxQdDXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@bt.com>,
> jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
>> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in
>> certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't
>> see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I
>> bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
>
> You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven with
> Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad transistor amp was
> the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was changed for a better one
> shortly after introduction.
>
> The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching a
> cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best in a long
> room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course it only went down
> to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances
> made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker.
I borrowed the quads for about a couple of weeks in London and they were
with valve amps and yes the room was more of less square and the particular
organ had a low 32cycle (IIRC) note which you simply couldn't hear at all.
The 405 I bought myself later but changed for a Raford transistor amp which
was simply worlds better. Never did like valves anyway.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <eoidnfkKspGxQdDXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@bt.com>,
> jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
>> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in
>> certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't
>> see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I
>> bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
>
> You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven with
> Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad transistor amp was
> the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was changed for a better one
> shortly after introduction.
>
> The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching a
> cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best in a long
> room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course it only went down
> to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances
> made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker.
>
IIRC they didn't go down that far at any power at all. ISTR about 100Hz
plus..always needed a subwoofer IMHO, and sensitivity was pretty shocking.
I always felt the quad valves were good, but neither the 303 nor the 405
were in any way special: Certainly I was able to beat them with my own
designs.
jasee wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:50750c013edave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> In article <eoidnfkKspGxQdDXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@bt.com>,
>> jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
>>> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in
>>> certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't
>>> see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I
>>> bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
>> You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven with
>> Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad transistor amp was
>> the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was changed for a better one
>> shortly after introduction.
>>
>> The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching a
>> cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best in a long
>> room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course it only went down
>> to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances
>> made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker.
>
> I borrowed the quads for about a couple of weeks in London and they were
> with valve amps and yes the room was more of less square and the particular
> organ had a low 32cycle (IIRC) note which you simply couldn't hear at all.
> The 405 I bought myself later but changed for a Raford transistor amp which
> was simply worlds better. Never did like valves anyway.
>
>
The Radford WAS good, from distant hazy memory.
These days, with FET outputs and as long as you are prepared fr an amp
that runs fairly hot, you can beat bipolars hands down really, and knock
valves into the middle of the last century, where they belong ;-)
But there is no incentive to do that. People Want Valves, and a tranny
amp handbuilt and tuned costing £700 is simply not there marketing wise
when it come to the pure red glow of a few EL34's..
I liked the ELS for classical at modest volume, but they were hopeless
for jazz or rock. My favorites were horns..good horns, with either bass
reflex for the bottom, or infinite baffle. Never did build any concrete
bass horns..
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> jasee wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:50750c013edave@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> In article <eoidnfkKspGxQdDXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@bt.com>,
>>> jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original
>>>> quad electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs,
>>>> as in certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really
>>>> couldn't see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405
>>>> amplifier I bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
>>> You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven
>>> with Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad
>>> transistor amp was the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was
>>> changed for a better one shortly after introduction.
>>>
>>> The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching
>>> a cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best
>>> in a long room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course
>>> it only went down to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And
>>> the lack of resonances made it appear bass light compared to a
>>> honky cabinet speaker.
>>
>> I borrowed the quads for about a couple of weeks in London and they
>> were with valve amps and yes the room was more of less square and
>> the particular organ had a low 32cycle (IIRC) note which you simply
>> couldn't hear at all. The 405 I bought myself later but changed for
>> a Raford transistor amp which was simply worlds better. Never did
>> like valves anyway.
> The Radford WAS good, from distant hazy memory.
>
> These days, with FET outputs and as long as you are prepared fr an amp
> that runs fairly hot, you can beat bipolars hands down really, and
> knock valves into the middle of the last century, where they belong
> ;-)
Quite right!
>
> But there is no incentive to do that. People Want Valves, and a tranny
> amp handbuilt and tuned costing £700 is simply not there marketing
> wise when it come to the pure red glow of a few EL34's..
>
> I liked the ELS for classical at modest volume, but they were hopeless
> for jazz or rock. My favorites were horns..good horns, with either
> bass reflex for the bottom, or infinite baffle. Never did build any
> concrete bass horns..
Transmission lines were the answer, Radford built a good one as did IMF
(IIRC), but there were lots of homemade designs.
On 25 June, 19:29, "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessn...@f2s.com> wrote:
> > So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
The Times style guide says "analog (in computer context); but keep
analogue as in an analogous or parallel thing"
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 19:55:14 +0100, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Transmission lines were the answer, Radford built a good one as did IMF
>(IIRC), but there were lots of homemade designs.
I had a pair of TDL Monitors for some time driven by a QUAD 606 but changed them
for ATC SCM 20SLs driven by AVI monoblocks for reasons which I can't remember.
At that time we were listening to a lot of live classical music and the ATC/AVI
combination was the only set up I've owned which didn't disappoint after
returning home from a concert. We still have them, fourteen years on.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
jasee wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> jasee wrote:
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:50750c013edave@davenoise.co.uk...
>>>> In article <eoidnfkKspGxQdDXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@bt.com>,
>>>> jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original
>>>>> quad electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs,
>>>>> as in certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really
>>>>> couldn't see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405
>>>>> amplifier I bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
>>>> You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven
>>>> with Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad
>>>> transistor amp was the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was
>>>> changed for a better one shortly after introduction.
>>>>
>>>> The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching
>>>> a cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best
>>>> in a long room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course
>>>> it only went down to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And
>>>> the lack of resonances made it appear bass light compared to a
>>>> honky cabinet speaker.
>>> I borrowed the quads for about a couple of weeks in London and they
>>> were with valve amps and yes the room was more of less square and
>>> the particular organ had a low 32cycle (IIRC) note which you simply
>>> couldn't hear at all. The 405 I bought myself later but changed for
>>> a Raford transistor amp which was simply worlds better. Never did
>>> like valves anyway.
>> The Radford WAS good, from distant hazy memory.
>>
>> These days, with FET outputs and as long as you are prepared fr an amp
>> that runs fairly hot, you can beat bipolars hands down really, and
>> knock valves into the middle of the last century, where they belong
>> ;-)
>
> Quite right!
>
>> But there is no incentive to do that. People Want Valves, and a tranny
>> amp handbuilt and tuned costing £700 is simply not there marketing
>> wise when it come to the pure red glow of a few EL34's..
>>
>> I liked the ELS for classical at modest volume, but they were hopeless
>> for jazz or rock. My favorites were horns..good horns, with either
>> bass reflex for the bottom, or infinite baffle. Never did build any
>> concrete bass horns..
>
> Transmission lines were the answer, Radford built a good one as did IMF
> (IIRC), but there were lots of homemade designs.
>
>
Not for rock they weren't.
Too much dealy in em. Bass drums and guitar sounded crap...
In message <h2lj51$8ud$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>I always felt the quad valves were good, but neither the 303 nor the
>405 were in any way special: Certainly I was able to beat them with my
>own designs.
H.W.Hellier wrote about the designs and the Quad triples, I seem to
remember that these were more glowing than the later "feed forward" 405.
When ever has there been a good Hi-Fi amp without a lot of feedback and
a virtual earth point?
--
Clive
Clive wrote:
> In message <h2lj51$8ud$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>> I always felt the quad valves were good, but neither the 303 nor the
>> 405 were in any way special: Certainly I was able to beat them with my
>> own designs.
> H.W.Hellier wrote about the designs and the Quad triples, I seem to
> remember that these were more glowing than the later "feed forward" 405.
> When ever has there been a good Hi-Fi amp without a lot of feedback and
> a virtual earth point?
My own experience was that in chasing paper specs, a lot of relevant
stuff got missed. By far and a way the largest issue with a transistor
amp is the crossover distortion in a typical class B or AB style design.
Unlike calves, this gets much worse at low levels..but due to the way
valves work, it was usual to measure distortion at high power. And IKhz.
Whereas using a small 10KHz signal could often show ghastly distortion
of several percent..
The key is to use modified class AB with bipolars, and run in class A
for small signals, and also to try never to actually switch one side
OFF, as that led to issues with time delay switching it back on: A nasty
problem of thermal stability was then encountered.
The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses,
negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that
almost a non problem.
Everyone used feedforward at some point to sharpen up transient
response, and compensate for overall lag. .
In article <h2pr6r$kn6$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Whereas using a small 10KHz signal could often show ghastly distortion
> of several percent..
> The key is to use modified class AB with bipolars, and run in class A
> for small signals, and also to try never to actually switch one side
> OFF, as that led to issues with time delay switching it back on:
That was true in early days. However by the early 1980s I found that the
main problem with audio power bipolars tended to be the switch-off time due
to carrier storage in the base region.
That said, during that time the good japanese bipolars had pretty well
cracked this and even with designs that delivered over 100wpc you could get
negligable crossover problems even with bias of the order of 10mA per pair.
> A nasty problem of thermal stability was then encountered.
Again, that was certainly a serious problem in early days, particularly if
you used Ge devlces like the beloved <sic> AL102. :-) But provided you
knew how to work out the stability margin and select the emitter resistor
it wasn't so much of a problem by the early 1980s in my experience. By then
makers could produce devices with consistent specs, unlike in earlier days
when every device seemed like a 'one off special'. 8-]
> The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses,
> negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that
> almost a non problem.
Must admit I never liked power FETs for audio as the ones I tried years ago
all liked to hoot at HF, had a habit of current limiting, and shoved
capacitance where I didn't want it. But again this was in the 1980s so I
imagine they rapidly improved and have been fine for some years.
Overall, I'd be happy to use amplifiers that employ either bipolar or fet
if the designer has produced a decent result.
> Everyone used feedforward at some point to sharpen up transient
> response, and compensate for overall lag. .
Not sure I am "everyone" then. But my memory is fallible. :-)
>> The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses,
>> negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that
>> almost a non problem.
>
> Must admit I never liked power FETs for audio as the ones I tried years ago
> all liked to hoot at HF, had a habit of current limiting, and shoved
> capacitance where I didn't want it. But again this was in the 1980s so I
> imagine they rapidly improved and have been fine for some years.
>
That was merely a question of adapting your driving circuits.
A bit of gate resistance cured the hoot, and you just ended a lot of
gate current to wake them up..
The 80's was when I gave up the whole game as not paying a decent wage,
and turned to computers for income...
> Overall, I'd be happy to use amplifiers that employ either bipolar or fet
> if the designer has produced a decent result.
>
Well.. yes.
As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist
product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass
market price sensitive product, where bullshit sold more amps than quality,.
Personally I blame socialism. Too much disposable income in the hands of
people with no taste and even less discretion ;-)
Its the same with cars..until you actually drive a car that has any sort
of handling at all, you cant work out what the fuss is about.
Having said that, I no longer do, nor do I really care much about the
quality of the audio equipment I have.
In the end, I want to listen to the music, not the equipment. Being 'in
the business' ruined the experience of a live rock concert for many years..
In article <h2spb4$jcl$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >> The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses,
> >> negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that
> >> almost a non problem.
> >
> > Must admit I never liked power FETs for audio as the ones I tried
> > years ago all liked to hoot at HF, had a habit of current limiting,
> > and shoved capacitance where I didn't want it. But again this was in
> > the 1980s so I imagine they rapidly improved and have been fine for
> > some years.
> >
> That was merely a question of adapting your driving circuits.
> A bit of gate resistance cured the hoot, and you just ended a lot of
> gate current to wake them up..
Plus having engineered in another RC rolloff, probably with some included
inductance. :-)
Yes, I did find that stopping the hoot that way was easy. Alas, my
experience at the time was using that time-honoured method (as per grid
stoppers of a pervious age) then fouled up the performance in some other
way. So you then spent your time chasing other problems. There were other
'solutions' but again I decided they just shoved around where a snag popped
up.
I'm sure FETs got better and this became a non-problem. But I decided in
the 1980s that at that time they were more of a pain than bipolars,
particularly when the japanese started producing some really superb audio
power ones. so you could almost forget about secondary breakdown and
carrier storage. And at that time I'd have needed quite a few FETs in
parallel to get me the peak currents I wanted and the bipolars cheerfully
provided. That was the days of apogees, etc. 8-]
> The 80's was when I gave up the whole game as not paying a decent wage,
> and turned to computers for income...
I went back into academia. If you can't beat em, teach em... er, I mean,
learn more. :-)
> > Overall, I'd be happy to use amplifiers that employ either bipolar or
> > fet if the designer has produced a decent result.
> >
> Well.. yes.
> As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist
> product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass
> market price sensitive product, where bullshit sold more amps than
> quality,.
> Personally I blame socialism. Too much disposable income in the hands of
> people with no taste and even less discretion ;-)
I tend to point at the dealers who valued an exclusive dealership with a 40
percent markup over actually selling gear that simply did the job with no
hype or an inflated price. But I guess 40 percent of a high price, and no
local competition, was simply too tempting.
And of course 'reviewers' who moved to fantasy island when writing their
articles. :-) The result was a decade or more where anyone who doubted
the magic brands and bull was obviously not to be taken seriously. Hate to
think how much damage that did to many makers and engineers who simply
wanted to produce decent kit, but weren't in the magic circle. Jim Sugden
springs to mind as an example I recall of someone who decided that the bull
made the game one worth walking away from.
The remains are with us still. e.g. Mains cables that cost over a 1000 quid
and have pretty blue lights on them to 'improve the sound', etc. <sigh>
> Having said that, I no longer do, nor do I really care much about the
> quality of the audio equipment I have.
It matters a lot to me for the reason you give below...
> In the end, I want to listen to the music, not the equipment.
That's why I still care about the audio gear I use, and that I should use
it in an optimum way. It allows me to enjoy the results more. But I do that
in ways that do make engineering sense to me. Not by buying eyecandy or
jewellery for audiophiles. :-)
> Being 'in the business' ruined the experience of a live rock concert for
> many years..
Fortunately I realised after a few years that I was focussing on things
like watching waveforms on a scope or trying to hear the quack from LS
cones to find problems, not listening to music. Once I'd realised this I
changed tack. I now rarely buy equipment and mostly just enjoy the music.
Most of the main gear I use for audio is decades old. Still works fine. And
unlike a lot of modern kit is easy to fiddle with if needed.
I do still experiment and try to learn more, though. Most recent example
being a look at using Linux boxes for playing audio. I was not surprised to
find some problems, but pleased that they could be sorted out OK. If anyone
is interested, the results are here
However I do wonder how many people are listening to systems that are
fudging up the sounds without them knowing this or that they can be
improved. I was able to generate and measure test files to find the
problems. But I guess most people can't/don't do this, and then presumably
either think it is OK or if not, may blame something else.
In message <5076a55ba7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writing at 15:28:44 in his/her local time
opines:-
>> As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist
>> product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass
>> market price sensitive product, where bullshit sold more amps than
>> quality,.
>
>> Personally I blame socialism. Too much disposable income in the hands of
>> people with no taste and even less discretion ;-)
>
>I tend to point at the dealers who valued an exclusive dealership with a 40
>percent markup over actually selling gear that simply did the job with no
>hype or an inflated price. But I guess 40 percent of a high price, and no
>local competition, was simply too tempting.
>
>And of course 'reviewers' who moved to fantasy island when writing their
>articles. :-) The result was a decade or more where anyone who doubted
>the magic brands and bull was obviously not to be taken seriously. Hate to
>think how much damage that did to many makers and engineers who simply
>wanted to produce decent kit, but weren't in the magic circle. Jim Sugden
>springs to mind as an example I recall of someone who decided that the bull
>made the game one worth walking away from.
>
>The remains are with us still. e.g. Mains cables that cost over a 1000 quid
>and have pretty blue lights on them to 'improve the sound', etc. <sigh>
>
>> Having said that, I no longer do, nor do I really care much about the
>> quality of the audio equipment I have.
>
>It matters a lot to me for the reason you give below...
>
>> In the end, I want to listen to the music, not the equipment.
>
>That's why I still care about the audio gear I use, and that I should use
>it in an optimum way. It allows me to enjoy the results more. But I do that
>in ways that do make engineering sense to me. Not by buying eyecandy or
>jewellery for audiophiles. :-)
>
>
>> Being 'in the business' ruined the experience of a live rock concert for
>> many years..
>
>Fortunately I realised after a few years that I was focussing on things
>like watching waveforms on a scope or trying to hear the quack from LS
>cones to find problems, not listening to music. Once I'd realised this I
>changed tack. I now rarely buy equipment and mostly just enjoy the music.
>
>Most of the main gear I use for audio is decades old. Still works fine. And
>unlike a lot of modern kit is easy to fiddle with if needed.
>
>I do still experiment and try to learn more, though. Most recent example
>being a look at using Linux boxes for playing audio. I was not surprised to
>find some problems, but pleased that they could be sorted out OK. If anyone
>is interested, the results are here
>
>http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Linux/Sou...Computing.html
>
>However I do wonder how many people are listening to systems that are
>fudging up the sounds without them knowing this or that they can be
>improved. I was able to generate and measure test files to find the
>problems. But I guess most people can't/don't do this, and then presumably
>either think it is OK or if not, may blame something else.
>
>Slainte,
>
>Jim
Ah the Armstrong 223! I had one of these, and I well remember buying the
stereo decoder add-on and installing it - thus becoming one of the
pioneers in hearing the Northampton stereo 'birdies'.
Funny how 10 (genuine, RMS) watts could practically make your ears bleed
back then, and my home cinema, today, alleges it puts out 850.
But the Rogers Cadet Mk III could certainly drive that pair of 8in
Wharfedale RS/DDs, in their kit cabinet, and the Garrard SP25 with its
cheap Goldring cartridge did the business.
That was entry level hi-fi back then, IIRC; but the gap between that and
the 'finest' radiogram was a yawning chasm, populated by more coloration
than a Disney cartoon.
And the finest radiogram was dearer than that system - though it did
have space to store some LPs at least.
For me, it was never 'money no object' - it was always 'how cheap can I
get good sound?'
What did for the old-style 'hi-fi', IMHO, was a closing of the gap - to
the point where the second-best system in our house, a £180 JVC micro
setup, needs close A/B listening to distinguish it from the Arcam CD/
Audiolab amp/ Spendor BC1s setup I now have; at 'normal' listening
levels at least.
So no wonder hi-fi went three ways - cheap mug's-eyeful stuff that is no
better than it should be; £kkk bling that says 'look at me' instead of
'listen to me'; and the honest but narrowing middle ground where the
good stuff still wins out over the mass-produced - but you have to
concentrate to hear the difference.
Hell, even the best MP3 players sounded like they were underwater until
a few years back - but my iPod Touch (with Sennheiser PX200s, of course)
beats my last-generation Sony Walkman cassette player into a cocked hat
(and doesn't skip like my portable CD player, even though that may be a
little better, objectively and subjectively, if I can keep it still
while I play it).
But what about the modern, subjective, 'hi-fi' review? I have to confess
they send me screaming as being just too unscientific and sometimes
outright bullsh; but even back in the old days, I knew the 'B&K graph'
reviews in HI-FI News were missing something, when the graphs from the
Shure 75EJ stylus looked just like those from the 75ED - yet two seconds
was all it took to tell them apart when you swapped them over.
And it was pretty 'subjective' when I took the Cadet to the local hi-fi
repairer and said that it sounded sort of 'like a lorry struggling up a
hill instead of the car cresting it that it always used to' - and he
found the main power supply capacitor had failed, which sounded like a
pretty plausible explanation.
Do cables make a difference? Sure they do. With Litz cables on my Luxman
M300, whacking the treble over to full would make it oscillate rather
badly.
Do they ever make a *good* difference? Pass. But to put the £30 Tesco
DVD player with HDMI, on our 20in Bravia TV in the bedroom, I wasn't
going to spend the same again on an HDMI cable (let alone the twice
that, like the QEDs that feed BluRay to the 46in behemoth in the
lounge), so I bought a £3.50 one.
Just for grins, though, I tried it in the lounge. None of us could see
any difference, even on my THX demo disc (though in fairness that isn't
BluRay, but other discs we tried were).
OTOH, £20 SCARTs showed a visible difference over in-box freebies.
But none of this was double-blind of course, so don't take my word for
it :-)
--
Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
..
Linear Mode
