Merlin wrote:

Are your observations regarding the ZH270 relating to comparisons with other push pull designs or SET's?

Merlin wrote:

I wasn't aware you had owned two Bernings - just the one. Which models did you own? The ZH270?

Merlin wrote:

Secondly could you explain which characteristics of the recording are destroyed, and what mechanism David Berning uses to acheive this?

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=4116#4116

Merlin, I have nothing against Bernings, in fact I found it all educational as I never had exposure to them. Well, perhaps I did hear them at some kind of hi-fi show but just did not paid attention. I hardly believe that I will hear Bernings as I’m loosing more and more interest to amplifiers out there, do not go to shows/demos and hardly ever willing to practice lately in listening of other playbacks. The glories and Moronic times of audiophic Psychoticism are gone for me... I have interest only in a very limited scope of subjects that I am interested, no more or less, and my experience with “new” is restricted not my exposure but my wish…. That all makes highly unlikely that I will hear that Siegfried SET.

Considering above, I might only to bark to the passing train, regardless if the train cares gold of shit.  So, subsequent with “barking instinct” I will tell you what I do not like in that Bernings saga – I do not like how David Berning and you talk and to think about the advantages of Berning topology.

I read careful what David says about his ideas and there are very many slippery moments that do not make me comfortable. I would defiantly not implicate David in the moments but in what we hear from others we’re mostly looking in their expressed thinking the moments that are related to our experience. In what David say I like many aspects beside the rational the leaded him to invention of his amplifiers. In his experiments David got rid of transformer and replaced it with a DC transformer, claiming that it is “better”. His “A Time to Dream” section is clearly indicates that David tend to conceptual thinking and in design his amplifier he was fighting with absentminded engineering objectives and design an amplifiers instead of designing of Sound, Do you remember the biblical tail how Jacob left his uncle Laban , the spotted sheep story? I personally accept or believe in nothing less than that “designs philosophy”. Therefore the David’s complains about what he see dissatisfying in transformers, cyclotrons or Futtermans  I take with a certain dose of skepticism.

If (a definitive “if”) that Siegfried sounds interesting then it sounds interesting but it is NOT because what you and David are trying to convince yourself and others. The allegatively-positive sound from Siegfried is NOT an indication that transformers are bad and I feel Davis preoccupation with the subject of “transformer hate” is juts his obsession. (That he is perfectly entitled to have, BTW).

As for me, I feel a little difficult to accept an idea of using 70-years ago-made direct heated triode and then drive with it a pulse amplifier. From a different perspective I did not feel absurd a couple years ago to accept an idea of a time delay machine for upperbass horns that use FM modulator/demodulator, what a hypostat!!!

The “resulting sound” is the only one thing that maters, right? If so then, let toss away the prejudges and let the that Siegfried to fight for it’s space under sun. It looks like he does the things for you and for your ported JBL driver, the driver that enfeebled you to feel “extremes limitation due to the ML2’s core saturation”....

Ok,ok, ok it was not your quote but it was very close… :-)

Merlin wrote:

Secondly could you explain which characteristics of the recording are destroyed, and what mechanism David Berning uses to acheive this?

Actually it would be a reversed question to David Berning:

“What kind evaluation mechanism he used in order to assert that his pulses -modulating impedance matching devise is more characteristically–transparent then a transformer.”

What is particular should be under the aim BTW is not the “characteristics of the recording” but the “characteristics of performance”. There are many audio devises with transformer in a signal path the do sound very correct. World it mean that the transformers are not the evil and were not the quality party to begin with?

Romy the Cat wrote:

David got rid of transformer and replaced it with a DC transformer, claiming that it is “better”.

drdna wrote:

Romy the Cat wrote: David got rid of transformer and replaced it with a DC transformer, claiming that it is “better”. And I should point out that not only is there still a transformer in the circuit, but many other components are added, including transistors.  I have no doubt that this topology give reduced measured hysteresis distortion, but I wonder what all the other components are doing to the sound?

Meriln, this is one of the subjects that disturbs me in your description: your bring OTL consciousness to justify Berning and you bring all those foolish OTL people as witnesses to give credentials to Berning. We all know Doctor Gizmo and all know his view about the things and the reasons of his interest in the things. Read my article “Immediate Gratification by Surrogate Sonic Effects” at:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=3611

Dr. Gizmo was not a fool but he knew that he writes for fools. So, his cherishing and blabbering the entertainable and hyper-selebrateable mediocrity was his routine, and it was not something that other might care or take under consideration. The late Terry Cain was in the same, or even in the more shattered boat. He was very pleasant guy personally but his results in Audio were beyond any rational criticism. Presumably his understanding of Sound and Audio methods were at the same level and It is no surprise that all “those” people crowded around the OTL world. I do not mean just the Gizmo and Terry but all that community of full-range drivers with sewer-pipe-horns, driven by some kind of Atmosphere OTL. I am not accidentally mention the Atmosphere amps – people involved with them should have ears cut, Still I do know a lot of people who do sing serenades to the Atmosphere OTL… The familiar serenades….  I would not even mention your comments about the “facts” that no one sell the Berning amps – it was openly cheap and you know it.

What was actually interesting in this thread were not your attempt to convince yourself publicly that Bernings is worthy amp but you posting your own thoughts about your amplification.  I think if you did it initially I would eliminate many unnecessary posts. Still, as I can see it, -  making amplifier that would make jazz to sound  Gizmo impressive is as simple/primitive as to compete with the handicap athletes from local Special Olympic team.

I still do not feel comfortable with Berning idea and I relay do not see rational behind what David offers. He butters up people with fear of core saturation at LF but it is truely bogusness. There are zillion way to deal with the problem, block DC with a cap and use no gap-transformer for instance. I do not say that it is better solution for the “transformers fear” but it will sound like shit and at the same time have no “feared saturation”, think about it.

What I do say is that each conversion mechanism has own language and own intrusion into the fine, and in many instances mysterious, mechanism of sound organization. I do feel (and that feeling is NOT backed up by any evidences) that pulses modulator might be more intrusive and more disturbing “ceremony” then a transformer. A transformer has easy understandable, easy predictable and easy measurable boundaries - LF limitations. There are ways to deal with it (DSET one of them, BTW). Also, transformers (or DSETness) allow mitigating of demands. You might go for ambitious transformer or for DEST if your sonic objective, your room and the capacity of your acoustic system might accommodate those demands. Dose it mean that if you use no lower then 60hz capable speakers (most of the speakers out there) then you do not need Berning’s impedance matching as it would not stress low end?  Sure, David Burning offers a very different approach but it has nothing to do with the fact of transformer absents, in fact I would not call David’s amplifiers  as SET at all as they’re not truly triode amplifiers anymore. 

I certainly am not saying that the Berning conversion is bad but I do say the David’s conversion is much more complicated in terms of sound transformations. David is preoccupied with pushing his Zero-Hysteresis hyperbola and it is very much possible that his design do have no hysteresis. So what? David, stresses juts one among dozens others measurable factors, and it is among those factors  that we know. Do I have to remind you how many amplifiers sound  out there where their designers have in this mind ONLY the lowest number of harmonic distortions?

You see, we do not hear distortions. Let me say it again, as it is very loaded statement: humans do not hear distortions. We do not register distortion but only hear ONLY the residue of mechanisms that create the distortions. I afraid that Mr. Berning’s ZOTL ideas have larger opportunities for exhibiting various  electronic contamination of sound becose his conversion is MUCH more complex. Will those contaminations be shown on David’s Berning measurement tools? Ro answer this question it is necessary to look much further then “design concepts” and to use different assessing methodologies that would be serving the interests of Sound instead of the interests of design objectives….

BTW, the comments of some folks who reportedly heard Bernings amp as who found that it was juts a “good” Hi-Fi is a good illustration that to build an amp having only no-hysteresis objective is too undemanding objective to have.

I have a local guy here in Massachusetts: Dan Banquer. He is some kind amplifier designer that trying to make noise in the same level community where Bernings makes waves. Dan has a mental fixation that amplifier should not hase noise and all his metals capacity completely enslaved with this objective. I heard his amps in his home a few years back, and it is true – his amps have no noise; however it is all that his amps do as in any other aspects of music reproductions his amps demonstrate the intelligence of a refrigerator. When Dan Banquer played to me his amps and asked me what I think I told him, after which he kicked me out of his house – he juts did not know that he was doing a favor for me by aborting that session…

What I am trying to say? I am trying to deliver a thought that in a seriously sounding amplification there is a LOT OF MORE then absent of hysteresis-inspire distortions and hate of transformers.  Your pointing to Berning amps was very good thing but I hardly see it as some kind of Pandora Box. Rather I see it as another entry in a long line of “opportunities”, the opportunities that might or might not burst though then a higher level then a Masonic secretive handshake …

Merlin wrote:

If there's one thing I hate about internet forums it's people postulating about sounic characteristics and possible failing in equipment they have never heard.

Merlin, I was under impression that it is very obvious that whatever I am able to say on the subject is pure speculation. You know very well that if I did have any personal familiarity with Siegfried amplifier then I would speak with very different tone and manner, regardless if I were right or wrong. I did not see me postulating about “sonic characteristics of Siegfried” but rather I explored my initial reaction to the Siegfried’s anecdotic rumor. I do not see anything wrong with it …

Merlin wrote:

FWIW Romy, David has been making waves and creating groundbreaking designs for over 30 years - this is no new kid on the block. David is preoccupied with improving on existing solutions. That is his raison d'etre. I think he succeeds in many areas and a number of very knowlegable individuals tend to agree with that. If you don't, that's fine. Opinions are interesting. But good opinions are based on experience.

But I do not think you would be satisfied if in responds to your motioning Siegfried I would reply only with word “OK”, would you? You went a long way from obscure phraseology of your initial posts to quite eloquent explanations of own views – I appreciate it and I think it serves good service to the subject of this thread.

Merlin wrote:

The Siegfried addresses my concerns neatly and successfully - and is without doubt as pure a form of triode amplification as anything on the market as evidenced by the transfer characteristics being preserved so clearly.

The “transfer characteristics being preserved so clearly”… Interesting view….

Merlin wrote:

I'm not here to "big up" the amp anyway - you can't buy one even if you want to. But at least now you are aware of the existance of amps that don't suffer from the traditional SET failings.

Merlin, I think you are missing a whole point. The Siegfried might not suffer from the traditional SET failings but it is not a SET topology anymore. It is still a single-ended amplifier it is uses triode of course but  it sound does not necessary is indicative to the sound, advantage and disadvantages of single-ended amplifiers. If you have an out stage of CD player build around a bipolar transistor and the CD player us used in a broadcast of in your local FM radio station then would it be possible to label the sound that you pick at your FM tuner as something the is characteristic to the bipolar out stages? I doubt. Siegfried own class amplifiers, I think and I wish your guys when try to talk about advantages of Siegfried will talks about it’s own sound instead of accusing SET in what they do. A reasonable question would be: why I do not feel that you just do the following:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=432

 because so far I did not hear from you that you explore the subject of SET appropriately.  David, decagrams do not show SET operation but show actually an operation of a broken amplifier. You suggest that your 93dB ported driver, which is notoriously “upper bass” (like all the rest JBL bass drivers), did not allow you to be happy with ML2 extreme frequency. You might be right in your conclusions (even if you are Jazz listener) but I doubt that you are correct claiming SET for your finding. Then we have Terry Cain, the most indicative person in this testimony. Do you know if Terry used Siegfried during his demonstrations? Because it he did then I might heard the Bernings and the only question I would have: “how the Berning’s frequency extremes helped to Terry Cain’s Sound”? Do you see where I am coming from? I am trying to put together what I heard from numerous Terry’s attempts and your comment: “large increases on 2nd harmonic at the bottom end”.

Merlin wrote:

If there's one thing I hate about internet forums it's people postulating about sounic characteristics and possible failing in equipment they have never heard.

David has been making waves and creating groundbreaking designs for over 30 years - this is no new kid on the block. David is preoccupied with improving on existing solutions. (...) I think he succeeds in many areas and a number of very knowlegable individuals tend to agree with that. If you don't, that's fine. Opinions are interesting. But good opinions are based on experience.

But at least now you are aware of the existance of amps that don't suffer from the traditional SET failings.

The excellent post, morricab! There is secondary point in your post - the core saturation is not the fundamental problem of SETs but it is become an issue when we go for power.  If you do not need to drive 92dB sensitive bass drivers with a 6W SET and the core saturation might not become the subject.

What is important in this thread is that Devid Berning promotes his topology as something that offsets the imperfection of the transformers and particularly the core saturation problems. However, as we clearly see the core saturations are a problem only if the designer is Morons. Yes the truly HF capable transformer for high current as with high inductance to keep the saturations of the back is very difficult and costly to make and here is where the DSET topology save everything and has virtually no limitations.  So, I frankly speaking do not take Devid Berning’s pitching about the harm of transforms seriously, in fact I feel he fools himself in it. The Berning’s solution is a perfectly reasonable stand-alone solution – it is good or bad solution - it still does not illustrate anything about the subject of SETs and output transformers.

So, what is better: Berning’s DC transformers circuits or the classic gaped AC transformers? Who knows! It would be interesting to put together a properly made SET against the Berning amps use the same diver and the same output tubes. Still, it would likely portray the specific implementation then the advantage of disadvantage of a given topology…. Listening the stand along Berning would do as well….

If to place bids then I would bid on the classic SETs as I feel that it would have way less convoluted and less intricate conversios. Still, my bid worth as much my Daw predation for a new day…

morricab wrote:

You are also right that to get everything you want from an output transformer requires a VERY expensive construction and top materials.  However; even an expensive transformer is no guarantee of success.

Sorry to accent it again but the DSET is. A LF transformer of DSET dos not care about capacitance and HF phase shifts - is just pumps inductance with core mass or with turns. The MF-HF transformer of DSET do not care about inductance of power saturation as LF are filtered out from the channel. What might be more simplistic and elegant?

morricab wrote:

Overall SET amps like Lamm and KR audio sound cleaner and more correct AND they also measure cleaner and more correct...with little or no corrective feedback (Lamm uses a bit I believe and KR audio uses none).

It would be interesting to learn why Lamm wean for feedback in ML2. Obviously he wanted to keep the amp as much as possible accommodated for wider margin of perspective speakers. Also he had no good driver in input stage as 12AX7 can not handle the line-level input (too low bias). So, he jacked up the 12AX7’s bias with feedback in order do not drive the input stage into overload.

morricab wrote:

I think that in fact measurements DO mean something when the amp is not using negative feedback, which seems to mask the true behavior of the amplifier (ie. open loop linearity).  The more linear an amp is open loop (ie. without negative feedback) I think overall the better it will sound.  This includes errors from the power supply, circuit layout (eg. hum and noise), OPT, thermal issues etc.  All of these things will have a profound affect on the open loop linearity and many designers cover up these issues (but do not cure them) with negative feedback. I mentioned the dynamic bias issue with PP amps.  It is more a problem with OTL but it is also a problem with transformer coupled PP amps and is partially why they don't achieve the overall purity of a SET.  When you bias an amp statically, you can match them pretty closely.  However; put a demand on the tubes and watch them diverge!  I know of only one amp on the market that addresses this issue with a kind of dynamic biasing scheme (not disclosed) and that comes from VacuumState.  It is an 18 watt 300B PP amp (the designer refers to it as differential as it has no phase splitter and is fully differential) that is the first I have heard to get the low level resolution and tone color of a SET.  Also bass is quite controlled and natural.  It is better than most SETs I have heard and as it uses a very good OPT, my guess is that it has minimal distortion in the bass as well in addition to being zero negative feedback.  www.vacuumstate.com

What you say sounds logical to me but I have no further PERSONAL experiences with feedback in power amps. I heard many of then with different feedbacks, including positive feedback but was about all that I did with feedbacks….

Merlin,
 
might I ask you if you can recognize anything from my post:

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=6020