Damping Factor:
A DF of 1:
1) the impedance curve gets superimposed on the basic frequency response of the speaker.
2) Any hi Q resonances can be exacerbated by the lack of damping.
Both of those must be addressed before any other judgments can be made. Most speakers are designed around a hard voltage source (or should be for the basic goal of interchangability). Many high end amps are not quite a hard voltage source. Some tube amps are anything but.
A DF of 1:
1) the impedance curve gets superimposed on the basic frequency response of the speaker.
2) Any hi Q resonances can be exacerbated by the lack of damping.
Both of those must be addressed before any other judgments can be made. Most speakers are designed around a hard voltage source (or should be for the basic goal of interchangability). Many high end amps are not quite a hard voltage source. Some tube amps are anything but.
It adds the low frequency boost at 100Hz to the total measured frequency response due to the fact that a simulated speaker load will have an added inductance that will rise in impedance at about 100 Hz. Therefore, the VOLTAGE DROP across the resistor will be less at 100 Hz and the effective Voltage Output will be more than if you did NOT have an inductor as part to the loudspeaker load.
This is also the unfortunate part of CURRENT DRIVING a loudspeaker as well, as the boost at 100 Hz would be even more pronounced with pure current drive.
Therefore, the reason the WAVAC power amp appears to have a pronounced boost at 100 Hz has little or nothing to do with anything internal to the amplifier, but to its effective DAMPING FACTOR, which is very low, but still useful for driving most loudspeakers, especially horns.
This is also the unfortunate part of CURRENT DRIVING a loudspeaker as well, as the boost at 100 Hz would be even more pronounced with pure current drive.
Therefore, the reason the WAVAC power amp appears to have a pronounced boost at 100 Hz has little or nothing to do with anything internal to the amplifier, but to its effective DAMPING FACTOR, which is very low, but still useful for driving most loudspeakers, especially horns.
Hi,
Wavac's amp's mostly use negative Feedback, both local (Cathode) and global looped feedback.
Everything of course. Practically each and every Wavac Amp is based on on a Design by Shishido San, all but the 300B SE and 833SE Amp have been published in MJ.
Ciao T
Wavac's amp's mostly use negative Feedback, both local (Cathode) and global looped feedback.
Everything of course. Practically each and every Wavac Amp is based on on a Design by Shishido San, all but the 300B SE and 833SE Amp have been published in MJ.
Ciao T
In any case, it would appear that a ruler flat frequency response, while a great starting point, is not absolutely necessary to make a good sounding amp. There are other factors, apparently. That is what I like to look for, rather than just criticism condemning an 'eccentric' design. What I care about is what sounds good, especially when I go to hi fi shows. Often, but not always, big vacuum tube single ended designs sound pretty good, usually better, in general than most anything else. This is a common perception that audiophiles tend to agree on. WHY, is still beyond me! I want to know too, so that I can make my designs better and more appreciated by the most sophisticated of listeners. At the moment, I do OK, but I could do better. I know this from polite feedback that I get from fellow audiophiles, who will pay almost any price to get the best sound possible. With the exception of the Blowtorch, I have never been completely successful. I attribute this to a completely no-holds-barred approach to the Blowtorch and its open loop operation. The only other component that I hold to the same standard in my own experience is the Marantz 10 tuner. You have to 'miss' something after using it for awhile to know what I mean. It has little or nothing to do with measured specs., but to the effort put forward by the designers to do the best possible when they designed it.
The sound you heard was my point whizzing over your head.
"Eccentric" is a kind way of describing a $300k amp with such astoundingly poor performance. I can't imagine John releasing a design that bad and hoping that the size, price, and hype were good enough to line his pockets.
Hi Sy,
Sorry, either my hearing is extremely bad, or you neither had or made any point. I'm inclined to the latter.
Sorry, I am missing it again, but why are comparing the fatness of a pig to the green-ness of the designated hitter rule?
What is your point? Are you griping that the amplifier is too expensive? Or that it's designer made design choices that have results you do not like? Or are you complaining that it is too expensive for the subjective performance (I am sure you have heard it to criticise it)?
Sorry, I fail again to any relevance or point in the above, it does seem to sound vaguely like a dig against John though, maybe I am mistaken in this too.
It sounds seriously like a dig against Wavac though, or more precisely against them "lining their pockets" (which sounds noble from anyone who works pro-bono but hypocritical from anyone else).
There are many companies that are trying to line their pockets. In fact, there are many individuals too trying to line their pockets.
Now Wavac makes an Amplifier that measures "astoundingly poor" in traditional terms, though is described by some also as "astoundingly good" in subjective sonic terms and then puts a high pricetag onto it. I believe that under current laws and general perception such a business practice is entirely legitimate. Does this amplifier sound "Bad"
Sy, you are a citizen in the US. If you disagree with the business practices of Wavac (and other companies that make expensive items), I think a letter to your Congress Man to put a stop to it and raise a law against this Amplifier being imported from Japan is more useful than griping on a public forum. Of course, your Congress Man might own that Wavac Amp...
In contrast, just a hypothetical case, there could be companies out there that are trying to line their pockets by advising packaging companies how to remove certain substances, shall we hypothetically call the Substance X-Something, from packaging when there is no evidence that said substance is harmful (and non that it is not) and a sister company tries to line it's pockets by certifying the removal?
And continuing hypothetically, in order to create pressure on the packaging makers that seem resistant to the sales pitch said companies would start a publicity campaign going on at length on how bad said X-Something is really scary and much worse than all the other stuff recently removed from plastic?
I mean here one company claims X-Something is harmful without evidence and offers services to remove X-Something, following which another company of the same quango certifies that company 1 has removed X-Something and for sales they try to scare the general public...
It may perfectly legitimate business of course, hypothetically speaking, though I am sure some would, hypothetically speaking, have moral qualms.
Not hypothetically I think it is a dicey thing to criticise other people's business practices, especially ones that are perfectly legitimate, as one can never be too sure how others view the business practices oneself, or companies for which oneself works may be perceived by others...
So, let him who works pro-bono throw the first stone at people and companies that charge and let him who sits in a glasshouse be careful with these rocks.
Ciao T
Sorry, either my hearing is extremely bad, or you neither had or made any point. I'm inclined to the latter.
Sorry, I am missing it again, but why are comparing the fatness of a pig to the green-ness of the designated hitter rule?
What is your point? Are you griping that the amplifier is too expensive? Or that it's designer made design choices that have results you do not like? Or are you complaining that it is too expensive for the subjective performance (I am sure you have heard it to criticise it)?
Sorry, I fail again to any relevance or point in the above, it does seem to sound vaguely like a dig against John though, maybe I am mistaken in this too.
It sounds seriously like a dig against Wavac though, or more precisely against them "lining their pockets" (which sounds noble from anyone who works pro-bono but hypocritical from anyone else).
There are many companies that are trying to line their pockets. In fact, there are many individuals too trying to line their pockets.
Now Wavac makes an Amplifier that measures "astoundingly poor" in traditional terms, though is described by some also as "astoundingly good" in subjective sonic terms and then puts a high pricetag onto it. I believe that under current laws and general perception such a business practice is entirely legitimate. Does this amplifier sound "Bad"
Sy, you are a citizen in the US. If you disagree with the business practices of Wavac (and other companies that make expensive items), I think a letter to your Congress Man to put a stop to it and raise a law against this Amplifier being imported from Japan is more useful than griping on a public forum. Of course, your Congress Man might own that Wavac Amp...
In contrast, just a hypothetical case, there could be companies out there that are trying to line their pockets by advising packaging companies how to remove certain substances, shall we hypothetically call the Substance X-Something, from packaging when there is no evidence that said substance is harmful (and non that it is not) and a sister company tries to line it's pockets by certifying the removal?
And continuing hypothetically, in order to create pressure on the packaging makers that seem resistant to the sales pitch said companies would start a publicity campaign going on at length on how bad said X-Something is really scary and much worse than all the other stuff recently removed from plastic?
I mean here one company claims X-Something is harmful without evidence and offers services to remove X-Something, following which another company of the same quango certifies that company 1 has removed X-Something and for sales they try to scare the general public...
It may perfectly legitimate business of course, hypothetically speaking, though I am sure some would, hypothetically speaking, have moral qualms.
Not hypothetically I think it is a dicey thing to criticise other people's business practices, especially ones that are perfectly legitimate, as one can never be too sure how others view the business practices oneself, or companies for which oneself works may be perceived by others...
So, let him who works pro-bono throw the first stone at people and companies that charge and let him who sits in a glasshouse be careful with these rocks.
Ciao T
Maybe the Wavac is something else. A shrine that exposes the beauty of the rare tubes.
That it plays some music is then only a secondary effect.
By the way, whatever you say about Michael Fremer, i heard his private system over the years on occasion and he is able to produce excellent sound with a wide variety of equipment. He did more for the modern Vinyl movement then anybody else.
That it plays some music is then only a secondary effect.
By the way, whatever you say about Michael Fremer, i heard his private system over the years on occasion and he is able to produce excellent sound with a wide variety of equipment. He did more for the modern Vinyl movement then anybody else.
Well said, Thorsten. It is surprising that you and I agree on so much, yet we have never met, and have been raised in different cultures, initially. However, we do share a lot of personal experience with audio design, apparently.
The Wavac is a painful reminder of something that measures 'strangely' yet can sound very good. Now, the next year at CES, I again went to the Wavac exhibit, and I was disappointed with the sound quality. However, they went to digital source, smaller amp, and different speakers. Not the same at all, so they appear to not be consistent. Still, LAMM, that year, had a similar amp at CES, and it sounded wonderful. It was digitally sourced, but sounded very, very good. It was a French based digital player that cost about $20,000, but worth it.
The Wavac is a painful reminder of something that measures 'strangely' yet can sound very good. Now, the next year at CES, I again went to the Wavac exhibit, and I was disappointed with the sound quality. However, they went to digital source, smaller amp, and different speakers. Not the same at all, so they appear to not be consistent. Still, LAMM, that year, had a similar amp at CES, and it sounded wonderful. It was digitally sourced, but sounded very, very good. It was a French based digital player that cost about $20,000, but worth it.
I might remind you of who provided the extra pin on this and the AD744. I get no respect.
I would never say this years ago but these things were done to let you folks have some extra handles to play with. As long as there was a legitimate use I could get away with it.
Last edited:
What about power amps ? Even if none is at the same standard as Blowtorch and Marantz 10, which ones are, in your opinion, among the best you've heard ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.