Whatever. Clearly you can't back up your statement and would rather argue semantics in the hope of diverting attention from your dubious claims.I take it your "bullsit detector" is able only to ask rhetorical questions.
What makes you think that the modifications could not have enabled the amp to deliver more current?Whatever. Clearly you can't back up your statement and would rather argue semantics in the hope of diverting attention from your dubious claims.You're making yourself look daft now.
My electronic engineering degree.What makes you think that the modifications could not have enabled the amp to deliver more current?
What was it that you learnt during your undergraduate studies that leads you to believe that the mods could not have delivered more current?My electronic engineering degree.
About electronics, duh. You know, Ohm's law, circuit analysis, amplifier design and all that stuff.What was it that you learnt during your undergraduate studies that leads you to believe that the mods could not have delivered more current?
For your purpose, it will have to suffice, I might as well try and explain it to a cat. I don't particularly feel I have to justify myself to you.It is not enough to say "I have a degree, I am therefore an expert."
I'm having fun toying with him. :minikev:Stop hogging the OP please.Better to rise above?
I've had the SHL5's too and agree that they were seemingly more extended but to my ears, ultimately not as smooth as the Turnberrys I now have. In fact I found the SHL5's to be a little beamy and harsh in the treble (don't know if that was the super tweeter or the treble unit but they weren't the most refined in the treble). You're right though, as with both speakers, once the music starts, you can just sink into the music and enjoy. The Tannoys do have some good treble detail and after listening now for quite some time, I won't be investing in super-tweeters as I don't believe that augmenting the treble (as there is an overlap at audible frequencies which boosts audible treble response) will be desirable and of any benefit. On the amp now doing duty, they seem remarkably well balanced, more so in fact than the SHL5's did but with the added benefit of genuinely well extended and taut bass, something where I found the SHL5s lacking.It's interesting that Tannoy offer the Super Tweeter as an upgrade ?I have the Turnbery's and agree that the treble response is a little less extended and not as clean as other speakers can be.
My Harbeth's have a better top end .
I think the differences l are more apparent through Vinyl than CD , due to Vinyl's extended top end.
I enjoy both speakers and soon stop hearing the differences when the music starts.Thats the key to a good Musical System,one that's carefully put together,though it's quite hard as there are a lot of hard bright ,forward sounding pieces of equipment out there !
If I had believed/known that my claim was in any way extraordinary I would have sought the requisite extraordinary evidence. I am no expert in these matters. I was, however, the paying customer pleased with the results and I found that the amp, post-modification, seemed to exert more authority over speakers. It seemed to have more 'guts.'This will not end well op:
Why?I'm having fun toying with him. :minikev:
Patronising.About electronics, duh. You know, Ohm's law, circuit analysis, amplifier design and all that stuff.For your purpose, it will have to suffice, I might as well try and explain it to a cat. I don't particularly feel I have to justify myself to you.
As you're so fond of pointing out, the onus is on the one making the claim to back it up. Please do so without further waffle and hand waving.
Wow, you're on a roll now.It is unfortunately common, although perhaps with good reason in the hi-fi industry that the experts, like Pete and Anthony are reluctant to share their knowledge.
"I'm not an expert, yet I still feel the need to pontificate on these matters" The above is an entirely subjective opinion, so where does the assertion of more current delivery come from? That's an objective claim. Or does 2+2=5?If I had believed/known that my claim was in any way extraordinary I would have sought the requisite extraordinary evidence. I am no expert in these matters. I was, however, the paying customer pleased with the results and I found that the amp, post-modification, seemed to exert more authority over speakers. It seemed to have more 'guts.'
More handwaving and mis-direction. :roll:We can argue all day long over who is making the more extraordinary claim, Pete or me, with the 'winner' (or is it loser?) being required to provide the extraordinary evidence.
Rubbish. Explaining technical matters in layman's terms is not easy, that's a skill I don't posess, I'm no teacher. However, in simple terms: No substantive changes are made to the output stage, retaining the original topology and the output transformer. Changing the tube type is a red-herring, KT88 and 6550 are so similar as to make little difference. The changes to bias current will have a marginal effect.Pete, given his stated background should have no difficulty whatsoever in backing up his claim that the modifications would have done very little, if anything, to increase the amount of current that the amp supplied to the speakers.
Probably because it results in the kind of thing above.It is unfortunately common, although perhaps with good reason in the hi-fi industry that the experts, like Pete and Anthony are reluctant to share their knowledge.