Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Melquiades Amplifier
In the Thread: Single-stage Melquiades vs. DHT amps
Post Subject: Those least three possibilities…Posted by Romy the Cat on: 12/4/2008
fiogf49gjkf0d

 drdna wrote:

In my mind, there are at least three possibilities, and they must be interpreted by experiment with caution:

1. irregular fluctuations in signal (I will call this "noise") result in irregularities in output signal we listen to and find pleasant; it adds to output signal a quality of "random pace" we like. It should not duplicate itself exactly on multiple listenings.

2. "Noise" acts as analog dithering, to enhance ability of listener to interpret low-level information about pace, emotional content, etc. It should make a low-resolution system sound like a higher resolution system, yet still the sounds will retain many elements of lower resolution, couterintuitively.

3. "Noise" sounds less irritating than IDHT (where the regularity of signal may be more like constantly repeating record "ticking"). The sounds may still be unchanged but the ability to relax and listen is enhanced. Music may sound "less strained" or "more natural."

I look forward to the results.


Those least three possibilities might describe something only if the entire notion of “elections behavior” was responsible for randomness of DHT. Then my “Homework # 4334” experiment will be (or will not be) able to mimic it. There is another “ugly” possibility. This DHT’s randomness might not be due to “elections behavior” but rather due to electrons quality.  I mean the material of cathode or the mater of the coating that was used in let say 1942 was very different then what we use today and therefore the electrons that were evaporating from those old DHT cathodes juts were different type of electrons. If it’s the case then there is nothing that might be done. I know that there is a group of people ho do hunt what they call “period tubes” and who swear that they better.  I would like aside my entire attitude toward to the “vintage sufferers” who persistency demonstrates very poor sound and just would say the following. If that tube from let say 1942 does have “different sound” then it is not well known to me if it was because the contraction or material (under material I imply the tie of vacuum and the rest of the things).

This is why I think it is very interning something like Emission Lab Company that makes the “period tubes” with contemporary production. If they are smart, and I presume that they are, then they shell be able to make even better DHT tubes then what was made 60 years back. The key is to have these tubes properly evaluated sonically in context to the vintage tubes. This will give an idea if the alleged advantage in randomness for DHT tubes derives from the “behavior” of electrons or from their “quality” of electrons. Did anybody heard a sane and without hype analyses of the sound the Emission Lab’s tubes (or the tubes of a similar serous re-manufacture) compare to the sound of “period tubes”?

Rgs, Romy the Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site