Slashdot Mirror

As impedance drops, you have to raise the amount of current delivered to reach the same voltage to the speaker. Referencing this table, getting an 8 ohm speaker to 28V takes 3.5A of current, while it takes 28A at 1 ohm. Since the wall current available is typically 15A, you can't just adjust an 8 ohm amplifier design to work at 1 ohm. There are transistor related reasons that favor lower current designs too. If you want to tap into the cheap audio amplifier designs, which are available in large quantities at low prices, they are much more likely to run into the limitations of the wall current and transistor current handling limits at low impedance.

Most car speakers aim at 2 to 4 ohms instead because that power supply can deliver a lot of current, but the base power supply voltage you're running from is lower: ~12V instead of ~120V.

There's a fake power transistor underworld.

That and a delay. You can have surround sound on the cheap if you're willing to go 4.0 (actually 3.0 since both rear speakers are the same in Dolby Surround)

That's what I did years ago while in college. It's called a Hafler matrix.

http://sound.westhost.com/project18.htm

Consumers measuring technology impact judging only by their pockets reveals a very narrow mindset. For example, you might save $20 on your bill by using CFL bulbs, but you are really forcing the power plant to produce more to compensate your severely distorted electrical power factor.

As CFLs gradually gain market share, their impact on power plants' budgets will certainly force the latter to raise the prices. The most important cost is the environmental pollution technology causes. CFL bulbs suffer seriously in that direction, contrary to incandescent bulbs which are just glass and tungsten. For a global approach to CFL pros and cons, see http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Unfortunately, what you are really doing by using CFL bulbs is stealing from the power plant, which has to produce more to counteract your distorted power factor. Read more here: http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

This link provides an excellent overview of different lighting technologies, including incandescent, CFL and LED.

I completely agree with the author; CFLs have enough issues (low power factor, limited working temperature range, built with hazardous materials, etc.) not to merit banning incandescent bulbs altogether. Each technology has its place.

>>>>>Enclosed fixtures (the heat kills compact fluorescents) Upside-down fixtures (ditto)
>>
>>Nonsense

Translation: "You are lying c64_love." - Well contrary to what you believe CFLs are *not* perfect. They have flaws. I've SEEN the CFLs die within 6-9 months when used in my upside-down kitchen and bathroom lights. That is no longer than a standard bulb lives! And when I open them up, yes, they died from heat (the caps are swelled and leaking). But since you think I'm "full of nonsense" try reading these 20,000 posts from other people who had the same experience: ----- "Recessed or enclosed fixtures. It is not recommended that you use CFLs in an enclosed indoor ceiling fixture" - www.michigan.gov - "Do not use standard CFLs in recessed cans and air-tight enclosed fixtures. CFLs are more sensitive to heat than ordinary bulbs" - seattle.gov - "Places that you frequently turn the light on and off or use for only short bursts at a time - like closets - are not ideal for CFLs. Frequent on and off cycling can reduce the life of CFLs"

Continued: http://www.google.com/search?q=enclosed+fixtures+kill+CFLs

Here's an engineer that actually took time to TEST the CFLs inside enclosed fixtures, and discovered that it gets VERY hot inside. Note in the picture the damaged cap..... the ones in my bulbs looked far worse than that. http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#exist

I agree, superb.net is a good hosting service. We used them for several years, but have moved to another provider for reasons completely unrelated to the service/support/security we received with Superb (we had to switch because of states claiming that web hosting constituted a "nexus" for tax purposes).

I would recommend Superb for hosting, as well as our current provider Westhost. We've had good service and good support, with people who actually know what they're doing. Quite refreshing!

The problem with all these calculations is that they're crap, and not just because they didn't factor in breakage. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

They forgot to take into account that the lumen is in many ways a subjective measurement when different light types are involved, as any true measurement of brightness perception must necessarily depend not only on the light source, but also on the environment around it. First, different people's eyes may perceive light differently, so there is no one true measure of how bright people perceive a light source when it is at a particular frequency. Second, if I am trying to look at something whose colors happen to fall between the characteristic wavelengths of the phosphors in a fluorescent bulb, it can take several times as many lumens to achieve the same perceived brightness as with a continuous spectrum. This is why I'm always horrified by stores selling clothing under fluorescent light. It's complete fiction in terms of color perception.

They also failed to take into account the fact that CFLs become dramatically dimmer before they fail, unlike modern incandescent blubs. If you care at all about the amount of light, count on having to either swap bulbs out at a faster rate (thus increasing the up-front cost) or turning on more lights than you otherwise would (thus increasing the energy cost). Thus, it is likely that if you look at all the factors involved, CFLs are not significantly more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs, all while producing light that is less pleasing, causing headaches, depression, and other negative health effects, and costing a heck of a lot more. Divide this by the power factor to find out the actual load on the power grid, and you may well find that incandescents are actually more efficient, depending on the circumstances.

But by far, the biggest problem with these studies is that they universally fail to take into account all the places where neither CFL nor LED bulbs can be used at all. Start with outdoor lighting. Outdoor lights, by their very nature, must be sealed. CFLs contain lots of electronic components, including electrolytic capacitors. In a sealed enclosure, these parts can heat up beyond the thermal limits of their components within minutes. Therefore, for outdoor use, you should not use CFLs, period. (Yes, some manufacturers claim that their bulbs can be used outdoors in certain circumstances, but if you install them, be aware that the bulbs will fail much, much sooner than their rated lifespan would suggest, and if it is cold out, you should expect to have no light at all; in short, unless you life in California or Oregon, you shouldn't seriously consider CFLs as a viable outdoor light source.)

LED lamps will almost certainly have the same thermal failure problems for precisely the same reason. Electronic circuits are simply not designed to operate at such high temperatures, and when you try to use them that way, they will fail much, much sooner than they ordinarily would. This use can make incandescent bulbs seem positively cheap by comparison.

Likewise, ovens, refrigerators, etc. cannot use any of these types of lights because fluorescent tubes are highly sensitive to temperature extremes and LEDs are AFAIK always made of plastic and would melt. Perhaps somebody could design one with a solid glass lens, but even still, I doubt they would survive the temperature swings of an oven for very long.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm gives a great explanation of pretty much everything wrong with these sorts of "studies". I'm pretty fed up with the same tired B.S. arguments being trotted out by manufacturers to try to convince people to buy CFLs and LED lights. They look ugly, their light is ugly, and they have a high up-front cost. I'd rather wait for some of these new incandescent bulb technologies to exceed the efficiency targets instead.

These are not "shadow shift production runs". As far as I know such devices in the semiconductor market do not exist. Production for discrete components is almost always done in house. For digital IC's the foundry in question(there are not many) would be likly caught. There is significant post-production work after device fabrication that the foundry typically is not involved with.
    These are different designs being sold as genuine parts. In order to actually be cheaper then the part they are imitating they must cut corners somewhere so typically the operating tolerances are much less.
    MJ15003 devices are widely used for audio power amplifiers and as such are rarely run at maximum ratings for continuous periods. Initially the parts may work fine but 1 month later, they fail. A good article about this is here http://sound.westhost.com/fake/counterfeit-p1.htm

A 20w device with a PF of .5 will draw 40 VA. Volt-Amps is the rating used for generating and distribution equipment (transformers, line reactors, switching stations, etc). Volt-amps is the raw produced current, whereas watts is the delivered, usable power. This seems to be a common misunderstanding when people start throwing around watts and volt-amps and power factor.

The math: VA = W / PF W = VA * PF PF = W / VA

For example, a theoretical 1 Megawatt alternator provides 1000A at 1000V. So, you get 1,000,000 VA, or at a PF of 1 you get 1,000,000 watts. If the entire grid connected load for this alternator had a power factor of 0.5, then the delivered, usable power would only be 500kW, and that is the amount the meters would read for billing. The alternator still had to provide 1MVA. This is why large commercial users have surcharges for low power factor and discounts if they have a high power factor. Hence the move to variable frequency drives in large commercial gear. VFD systems allow them to bring the power factor of the motors much closer to unity.

So, right now a CFL may have an internal efficiency of 50+%, but the power factor is so bad that they are not much better than incandescent when you look at the actual grid load.

Power Factor

Of the links provided by the GP, this one is probably the best, if long.

The poor Power Factor rating of CFLs means that the power grid must provide more energy to start them. The consumer may save money at home, but unless the power factor of CFLs can be improved, the electrical grid itself will have to be upgraded if we all switch to CFLs.

But there's no "if" because governments have already legislated the elimination of incandescent bulbs!

An explanation of the power factor (search for the heading "Power
Factor and Switching")
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cp/lig3_e.html

More summaries of problems:
http://www.cours.polymtl.ca/inf1040/2008automne/Olivier_CanadianReviewDec2007.pdf
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Current research:
http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=49db90a6e3e3d

Search for "power factor":
http://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/technology_tips/buying_guides/lighting/compact_fluorescent_lamps.html

Here, you'll see that the "requirement" for "Energy Star" labelling is
a power factor of only 0.50!
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/business/manufacturers/specifications/compact-flour.cfm?attr=12

CFLs aren't a drop in replacement for incandescent bulbs. Using CFLs with dimmers is dangerous(and will extremely shorten their lives). Using CFLs in sockets controlled by a TRIAC is a bad idea, the bulbs will pulse very slowly(maybe once an hour) and it will extremely shorten the life of the bulb. Ceiling fans with remotes will usually use TRIACs. http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm points out a lot of problems with CFLs.

Used correctly, CFLs will save some power, but blindly replacing bulbs is a really bad idea.

• Most CFLs are a fire hazard when used with dimmers(even when dimmer is set to maximum)
• Most CFLs have a power factor of 0.5. A device with a power factor of 0.5 means the device uses twice the rated power. Residential power users don't usually pay for the power needed to correct for a low power factor.

You can find CFL bulbs that overcome these limitations, but it's unlikely you will find them in a store near you. If you really want to be green, buy florescent lamps where you don't have to throw out the ballast and bulb at the same time and don't use more light than you need.

This article has been up for quite a while and is a very thorough technical analysis for anyone interested:

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

The lack of lead in solder is a technological issue and as such is solved by more advanced technology. Certainly there are few people here who are opposed to higher technology?

Opposed to unnecessary more complex and fragile solutions, yes. It's sort of like the proposal to ban incandescent lamps and wall transformers in Australia, even though the higher technology doesn't measure up.

The lack of lead in solder is a technological issue and as such is solved by more advanced technology. Certainly there are few people here who are opposed to higher technology?

Opposed to unnecessary more complex and fragile solutions, yes. It's sort of like the proposal to ban incandescent lamps and wall transformers in Australia, even though the higher technology doesn't measure up.

It is a good point though - CFLs are no magic, and most people just dismiss bulbs altogheter because of CFLs low consumption. Other points rarely considered are:

      * Complexity: A bulb is nothing more than a tungsten wire stuck in vaccum / low pressure gas. CFLs include the phosphor-coated tube containing mercury and a complete switching circuit to provide the high voltage required by it. This, of course, impacts in...

      * Cost. Bulbs can be made for cents while CFLs are several times more expensive. This can be compensed by power consumption savings though. Also impacts...

      * Reilabilty: Bulbs, while fragile, are quite reliable and have a well defined working life, and are very electrically rugged devices. CFLs can fail for a number of reasons - construction, heat, power fluctuations. This is not a problem in most homes, but still, something to be taken into consideration.

      * Strobing: CFLs flicker at high frequencies, but, much like a fluorescent tube, the effect can be noticed (in cheaper models specially) and gets worse in all devices with age.

      * Enviroment handling: Bulbs are very rugged, and in fact, if you need to light in very cold or hot areas, might be your only choices.

      * Control: Bulbs, being basically resistances, can be easily dimmed.

      * Color rendition: Bulbs have a very good color rendition and temperature - they can even be bought with coatings for "daylight" color and such. Power ratings provide a nice variation on intensities too. Still, CFLs have got a lot better in this respect lately.

      * Unity power factor: Bulbs, being resisitve devices, have an unity power factor, while CFLs will usually be much lower - anywhere from 0.6 to 0.2. This means that for a given power rating the device has to draw more energy than it consumes which is promptly "returned" to the source, but the power plant and wiring has to account for this behaviour.

      More food for thought in this excellent article. I like CFLs and use them extensively at home, but to dismiss (and ban!) bulbs altogheter only because they consume less power is shortsighted, to say the least. They still have their place, and both technologies can coexist in the future.

CFLs do less than you think. A simple measure of real power consumption is not enough because the power factor on CFLs is atrocious. The power company has to provide the apparent power even if you're not paying for it. A good explanation of this can be found here.

the confirmation by Sony that DSD technique, used in SACD, uses multi-bit PCM during recording and mastering processes and that only uses one-bit technique as it applies to consumer playback

There a couple things I've noticed that havn't really been addressed here yet, and that's power factor. Compact florencent lights have horrible power factor by comparison to the incandecent lights. Which while it means that people who are using the lights pay less, the power plants will have to supply even more than what's being paid for, which could mean that there is the need for more power generation, and bigger power line gauges. Another issue is that since it's a throw away product, they use the cheapest components in them, this means that there's a much higher chance of spectacular failure. People with dimmers can't use CFLs either, since while it'll look like it might work, it'll draw around 5 times as much current (even if the dimmers are set to 100%), which could pose a serious fire hazard. Other issues include that CFLs still generate a lot of heat, even though they do generate less, and because of the cheaper components, the enclosure has to be properly ventalated, which could result in people having to pay a hell of a lot more just to replace all their recessed lighting and other fixtures. There's also a lot of other places where CFLs are impossible to use, like in an oven for instance, where the CFL would pretty much melt right away. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be used, I just think there's a lot of hurdles that need to be beaten before they will actually be liable yet. http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.ht m check out this lovely little website.

I was just going to order a VPS from
http://www.westhost.com/

But then I read their TOS http://www.westhost.com/terms-conditions.html

"storing or otherwise handling in any way lewd, obscene, pornographic or satanic materials."

Fuck that!

define obscene
define satanic

fucking idiots.

I was just going to order a VPS from
http://www.westhost.com/

But then I read their TOS http://www.westhost.com/terms-conditions.html

"storing or otherwise handling in any way lewd, obscene, pornographic or satanic materials."

Fuck that!

define obscene
define satanic

fucking idiots.

I personally use WestHost for VPS and EasySpeedy for dedicated, and I am happy from both of them.

I found this article helpful when I was shopping for an SSL certificate.

$15 sounds like a lot for a vps to me! For example, I use Westhost, who offer a linux vps for $3.95 without MySQL or $6.95 with. I'm sure there's probably cheaper around but I've found them to be quite good.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but you mean "earth" or "ground", not neutral. See http://sound.westhost.com/psu-wiring.htm#4.0 (although I'm sure that there are more complete articles out there on the subject).

This approach to generating rear ambience from recordings is generally credited to amplifier designer David Hafler, who popularized it in the 70's. For a clear diagram of how to wire this up that may be easier to understand than the text here see http://sound.westhost.com/project18.htm It's also possible to insert a fixed or variable resistor to adjust the volume of the rear speakers relative to the front; see the "Can I play binaural recordings through loudspeakers?" section of http://www.headwize.com/faqs.htm for a sample there. Finally, you can even derive a passive center channel if you're really hardcore; I don't really like the look of the diagrams at http://kantack.com/surround/surround2.html but it covers all these approaches.

Dynaco sold a little box called the QD-1 that simplified the wiring of these during the original Quad craze. They re-introduced a series 2 version as a cheap Dolby Pro-Logic decoder during the beginning of the home theater craze. The newer version is reviewed at http://kantack.com/surround/surround4.html , which is a pretty spot on commentary about the limitations of this type of decoding. Both models are floating around ebay for not much money.

However, note that the effectiveness of this circuit presumes that your amplifier has a shared ground between the left and right channel circuits. While this is generally true, there are amplifiers (like any balanced design) where the ground of the left channel and that of the right are unrelated. Hooking up this circuit to such an amplifier will either a) shut it down, b) trip a fuse, or c) blow the output transistors, depending on the robustness of the design. Be very careful you know what you're playing with here. If you don't know enough about electronics to check if your amplifier channels have a common ground or not, you probably shouldn't be playing around with this circuit.

Dead Can Dance is close to a best case for this approach; really well produced studio work with lots of hard panned instruments sitting in one channel or the other pop into surround this way, and minimal vocals in the center. The best demo I ever found for how effective this circuit could be was the instrumental title track to the Alan Parsons Project "I Robot", which was downright freaky in pseudo-surround.

It's quite straightforward to measure THD with an oscilloscope and about $15 worth of electronics.

THD is a conservative measurement of audio fidelity. It measures a wide range of artifacts of nonlinearity of audio systems. Quite a lot of THD can be masked (from those of us with normal hearing); conversely, however, a system with low THD is likely to be a good system. The other obvious measurement to make is intermodulation distortion (IMD). This is an even easier measurement to make on an oscilloscope, and reveals some problems that THD measurement cannot.

The big farce in all of this is that speakers (and even reference headphones) are a disaster. The distortion introduced in turning electrical currents into sound waves dwarfs anything modern electronics will do to the signal.

Gold does not corrode, but the problem is, if it is underlaid with nickel metal for plating purposes, well, there's a junction right there. Bad idea.

You may find this page and this page in particular, and the rest of the site in general, enlightening.

Gold does not corrode, but the problem is, if it is underlaid with nickel metal for plating purposes, well, there's a junction right there. Bad idea.

You may find this page and this page in particular, and the rest of the site in general, enlightening.

My advice is to continue managing your own hardware. Having my own rack hardware in my property and my own dedicated Internet fat pipes, while being able to modify and hack the systems in any way I want is my dream. True, I'm a nerd, but I can't imagine anyone not enjoying changing some RAM or a SCSI hard disk occasionally. It may mean you may have more downtime and maybe even lose some money if your servers support your business, but money isn't everything in this world, there is happiness too, and I personally love to delve deep into hardware.

But because I'm not a yuppie I do not own my own servers, dataroom, and fat pipe. Therefore, when I wanted to start my website, I had to buy the services of a webhosting firm.

I chose WestHost (the link leads to my affiliate page for them, their website is www.westhost.com) which is based in Utah, USA. I have my website hosted there for a year and I really like their immediate support. When you send them an e-mail you can usually except an answer within hours. The services they offer are VPS and dedicated servers, all with ssh access of course, but I am not sure whether they do colocation. It's not a big firm, I think it's family-owned, but they have a beautiful professional datacenter (they have photos somewhere on their site) with P4-3GHz servers with Redhat-based OS (equiped with a nice control panel they have developed) and a very useful forum where existing customers and prospective new customers can discuss, so perhaps you can go there and ask us (the existing customers) about our experiences with them.

Therefore if I was in your shoes, I would first reconsider and try to continue managing my own hardware, and if I could not, then I would ask WestHost whether they can help you.

The link you provided is OK. Just a few comments for those who bothered reading it:
The guy is obviously a musician, not a HiFi guy. Nothing wrong with that, although the two camps do have slightly different priorities in their respective quest for good sound. Each will tolerate some things the other won't, but good is good and bad is bad.

Actually Rod Elliot (the guy who runs that site, The Audio Pages) can be considered a HiFi guy; he has a lot of info and schematics for audio gears of all kind (most quite good, i've built a few) - yet he keeps it all scientific and objective instead of falling for snake oil ("magic" audio cables, burn-in, bizarre gadgets, etc). In a way, it's a refreshing read if you're into HiFi. His article on PMPO ratings is dead on, IMHO.

As for speakers ratings, you're right. Basically, the max power input rated for a speaker is the one that the coil wire will take sustainedly before self destroying; the efficiency, which is measured in dB/W, can vary wildly and depends on a gazillon things. A 40W speaker might take short passages of 50-60W but will destroy itself with a 100W amplifier. It's not easy to measure the power output of a speaker, but it's a (small) fraction of the power input.

And PSUs... well, since PSUs became available for as cheap as $15 bucks, the build quality has obviously gone downhill. I use two powersupplies in my main system - the second one is an old AT 300w psu (turned on by the main one) which feeds all drives. This ended all my griefs with power.

Here's a good article explaining PMPO raitings. It should clear all confusion.

I've had a good expereince with WestHost. http://www.westhost.com/.

Their basic package is:
15gb Bandwidth a month
600mb Space
Virtual Private Server
$7.95/month USD

I will however advise there are some latency problems with their cheapest package (average ping 150ms), though throughput is very good.

They have a VERY nice datacenter: http://www.westhost.com/datacenter.html.

Their uptime is ranked by CNet at 100% over the past 56 weeks and I have never seen my website go down.

They have 24/7 live phone support (with wait time never exceeding a couple minutes), 24/7 live online chat, and e-mail support. The only problem I had was when the MySQL server install didn't work quite right and tech support was very helpful and got it resolved quickly.

All just incase you need 24/7 network monitoring, an eathquake resistant datacenter, backup generators (with atleast 3 days fuel), triple connections that scale to OC-48, a private microwave-based backup network system, and biometric security.

I've had a good expereince with WestHost. http://www.westhost.com/.

Their basic package is:
15gb Bandwidth a month
600mb Space
Virtual Private Server
$7.95/month USD

I will however advise there are some latency problems with their cheapest package (average ping 150ms), though throughput is very good.

They have a VERY nice datacenter: http://www.westhost.com/datacenter.html.

Their uptime is ranked by CNet at 100% over the past 56 weeks and I have never seen my website go down.

They have 24/7 live phone support (with wait time never exceeding a couple minutes), 24/7 live online chat, and e-mail support. The only problem I had was when the MySQL server install didn't work quite right and tech support was very helpful and got it resolved quickly.

All just incase you need 24/7 network monitoring, an eathquake resistant datacenter, backup generators (with atleast 3 days fuel), triple connections that scale to OC-48, a private microwave-based backup network system, and biometric security.

Look at DVD-A and SACD as another exampe of this argument.

Check out CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-A

HD-DVD on it's own would probably have sufficient bandwidth for an HD movie, but take the space off for the ordinarry DVD layer and you just have to reduce the transfer quality to fit it all on. I guess this will be the Superbit equivalent of DVD.

If your a Home Theatre geek link me you want the best transfer possible. Unfortunatleley the mass market wins.

Here are some links on how the grid and customer transformers work.

You can use your existing power transformer so long as you don't exceed its power rating. Here is one utilities regulations.

And of course this hinders centralized control - if a power line needs to be worked on, how do you guarantee that no current is flowing in it?

convert the pole transformers to be dual and rig it so that if you generate excess power, your metering runs backwards

slightest mismanagement can cause blackouts and other system failures

Look. I'm not interested in a argument for its sake. Every time you pull some new reason out of the air that solar can't work I've proved you wrong and uninformed. If you want to learn more, or have informed opinions you want to share, then fine - but I am starting to feel this is going nowhere. (have you learned anything about solar in this process?)

Nice links. And here's some karma whoring (not that me needs it).

Creative people and projects:
- http://www.diyaudio.com/ (DIY audio equipment forum)
- http://sound.westhost.com/projects.htm (audio stuff schematics)
- http://headwize.com/projects/index.htm (DIY headphone stuff)
- http://www.hauptwerk.co.uk/pedalboard.html (DIY MIDI pedalboards, just add keyboards and software and you have a MIDI organ)
- http://www.diysubwoofers.org/ (what it says)
- http://www.plasmatweeter.de/eng_plasma.htm (DIY ionic tweeter)

Places to buy stuff:
- http://www.newark.com/ (major electronics retailer)
- http://www.mouser.com/ (major electronics retailer)
- http://www.tubesandmore.com/ (components for vintage electronics)

Getting stuff made:
- http://www.olimex.com/ (cheap PCBs)

Actually I was thinking a mix of the two. Take his project but remove the el-cheapo duracell battery tester and replace with a VU meter or something similiar. A schematic similar to this would work, although either the voltage supplied would have to be upped or some resistors need to be changed on that schematic, either way it would work and actually look somewhat decent (and respond in realtime too!)

Put it on top of your stereo or in your cabinet and be the uber-geek (mine's right next to my PC so it makes sense :) Apologies for the image, it a few years old - when I used to actually run Windows.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, if you're going to record LPs on your computer you have to pipe your record player's outputs through a phono preamp. You can use an old stereo with a phono input or a discrete phono preamp.

I've been looking into making a discrete preamp for a while. There are many circuits available on the web, some more complicated and some more simple.

My first try is going to be the second one on this page. Interesting note: It looks like maxim thought it was good enough to copy in their application note.

Only to audiophiles who use worthless and unquantifiable terms like "warmth" and "roundness".

Those guys are wankers - but valves do have a different sound. When valve amps clip, they have a nicer sound then transistor amps. This is thought to be caused by a more 'rounded' curve, caused by even order harmonics. see this page for more information.


A good quality cd in a good quality system is more than adequate for any normal human being who doesn't base their life's worth on the amount of vacuum (sp) tubes in their living room.

Remember when 256 colour graphics cards came out? I bet you thought 'Wow! I'll never need more then those'. When high colour came out 'This is great - more won't make a difference, since the eye can't see any more'. as technology improved, so did our desire for more quality.

I use WestHost and I am very happy with them for the past 4 years.
They seem to meet all your requirements.

Ralph

FACT: most people can hear up to at least 30 kHz. No, they cannot hear a pure sine wave at that frequency. But they can hear a difference if such frequencies are or are not present in the music. Moreover, almost all music contains such frequencies. No, not as pure sine waves. And it is not even the harmonics that cause the effect. Rather, because to duplicate the waveform transients, you must have the high frequencies. (Think Fourier.)

Yes, such transients are reproduced on vinyl. No, they are not reproduced on CD.

There are various controlled studies demonstrating these things. Since you are such an authority, I shouldn't need to give you references, but since I'm so magnanimous, I'll give a few anyway:

• M. L. Lenhardt et al., "Human ultrasonic speech perception", Science [sciencemag.org] 253: 82 [1991].
  
• T. Oohashi et al., "High-frequency sound above the audible range affects brain electronic activity and sound perception", AES Preprints [aes.org]
  91: 3207 [1991].
  
• P. Mills, "The need for extended high-frequency bandwidth [westhost.com]" [1999].

Your final star'ed points are just dumb. You don't give any references, because of course you don't have any. Get a good turntable/arm/cartridge. The reverse of most of what you say is true. E.g. your claim of 60dB dynamic range is nuts: the range is over 100 dB. You are confusing the noise floor of a high-hiss record with dynamic range--but you can hear 20 dB into that noise, and a good record need not have high hiss. Vinyl has poor bass??? It's much better than CD. And so on.

1. You don't actually rebut my point.

2. Have you tried listening with a good turntable/tonearm/cartridge? Again, you avoid the main issue.

As for (B), since you are such an authority, I shouldn't need to give you references, but since I'm so magnanimous, I'll give a few anyway:

• M. L. Lenhardt et al., "Human ultrasonic speech perception", Science 253: 82 [1991].
  
• T. Oohashi et al., "High-frequency sound above the audible range affects brain electronic activity and sound perception", AES Preprints
  91: 3207 [1991].
  
• P. Mills, "The need for extended high-frequency bandwidth" [1999].

3. This is just point 2 again.

4. We agree here, I think. I was referring to analog equalizers (which seems to be what your original post was citing).

Your last comment seems an attempt to slip by the issues. My remark was hardly ad hominem (think about it).

The clause about scripts running in the background was stolen from another web-hosting company - WestHost. It's not just similar - it's identical letter for letter!

From the WestHost TOS:
(http://www.westhost.com/policy.html)
"We may allow programs to run continually in the background. These are considered on a one-to-one basis and an extra charge will be incurred based on system resources used and operational maintenance needed."

From the Page Creators TOS:
(Google cached version)
"We may allow programs to run continually in the background. These are considered on a one-to-one basis and an extra charge will be incurred based on system resources used and operational maintenance needed."