Does anyone care to ask an amplifier designer a technical question? My door is open.

@fsonicsmith

Let me ask you this Roger; other than one of Ralph’s amps, which modern era top-tier tube amps have you actually sat down and listened to with not just your own planar speakers, but also modern coned speakers across a decent spectrum?

Other than designing amplifiers Roger has a pretty robust repair business and is an authorized repair shop for Allnic. Lots of vintage and modern equipment, solid state and tubed, crosses his path. I know because for the last 3 years I have been the repair intake person. As he has mentioned previously, Roger also measures anything he can get his hands on and has notebooks full of test notes for equipment that spans the ages. Also, Roger does not design planar speakers, he designs electrostatic speakers, there is a difference, perhaps you might read up on that.

Are you living in a cave?

Actually he has quite a nice house with a very nice system.

When we’re bored we go visit local folks to hear their modern systems (this past weekend we heard Avantgarde horns with their associated electronics) and Roger is pretty active with the SFAS, with the responsibility for running the upcoming phonostage shootout in January. My point is that Roger is very up to speed regarding current designs and design "philosophies," but testing and measurements are still critical to producing quality components and the principles behind these measurements go back in time. Ohms Law is still Ohms Law after all. Unless I missed something it hasn’t been updated or modernized.

Same is true for balanced amplifier design. Today we see all sorts of designers referring to their equipment as balanced. In many cases the design is just balanced at the input, not throughout (then there are the pseudo balanced designs). The only person I know that has been doing true balanced tube designs consistently (and in adherence to the balanced standard) has been Ralph Karsten and he’s been at it for over 40 years. However, the concept is not so modern, in fact it wasn’t developed for home audio use, but rather first utilized by the phone company to drive long cable lines (although I am unclear if the phone company developed the standard which I have heard referred to as the 600 ohm standard).

So Fred Sonic Smith (I assume that’s what your handle references) perhaps you should leave us. You bring zero value, you do not possess the knowledge or credibility to refute anything Roger says and although their opinions greatly differ, at least Ralph has the credentials and reputation to partake in those discussions. Let him do so if he wishes, he needs no help from you.

I re-entered because I could not resist. I saw that your irascible behavior has continued and not just towards me, so I felt better about re-entering.

Actually that was your cue to leave and stay away. You re-entered because you enjoy trolling here.

(although I am unclear if the phone company developed the standard which I have heard referred to as the 600 ohm standard).

The 600 ohm aspect has to do with the spacing of the lines on telephone poles. You've seen them many times - that spacing causes the resulting transmission line to have a characteristic impedance of 600 ohms. This means that if terminated by a 600 ohm load, there will be no reflections at the termination in the transmission line- its not that the impedance of the transmission line is 600 ohms.
So output transformers driving a balanced line were set up to drive a 600 ohm load. When the balanced line system was brought into studio and radio station applications, the 600 ohm became a standard which stood for many years and many pro audio components still support it.

I’d like to add this: I appreciate the fact that there are two professionals contributing here, despite the fact that there is tension that’s been created by disagreement. I’m trying to read through the commentary to the points being made, the examples being given, and the facts. The reality is, there are many ways to arrive at the same destination. I’ve listened to, and owned A LOT of gear in my life, though none, so far, by either of these designers. Some products allow the music to communicate to you, some don’t, and a combination of components may speak to me, but not to you. I know this isn’t a technical question, but I felt compelled to write it nevertheless. 

Also, FWIW, I’ll mention that Keith Herron, whose company and products (especially his phono stage) are about as non-controversial and highly regarded as they come, suggests that with his particular phono stage no loading whatsoever will often be found to be preferable with LOMCs, regardless of the cartridge type. (The LOMC input of his phono stage is FET-based, and it applies a load resistance to the cartridge that is nearly infinite when load resistors are not connected externally, to RCA jacks that are provided for that purpose). And I have found that to be the case in my own system, with an AT-ART9 cartridge having a recommended load of "100 ohms minimum."

I am glad this has been brought up. I met Keith at an audio show (IIRC the last THE SHOW Las Vegas held at St. Tropez). He had his phono stage there and because I didn't see any loading capability on it assumed it was MM only. He quickly corrected me by pointing out the cartridge he was using. When I asked him why no loading feature he provided an eloquent response that went over my head, but after my own testing, from that day forward I have never loaded a MC cartridge, regardless of the cartridge manufacturer's recommendation. Keith added a loading feature in the next design iteration and continues to offer it today and we can probably guess why.

@fsonicsmith 

I think you are mistaken. I don't recall ever entering into any debate of any kind let alone some type of trolling-skirmish with you. IMO, you are once again confused.
Let me ask you this Roger; other than one of Ralph's amps, which modern era top-tier tube amps have you actually sat down and listened to with not just your own planar speakers, but also modern coned speakers across a decent spectrum? I ask because as I have said previously in this thread, you keep referencing ancient amplifiers of the remote past which you conveniently choose to piss all over. Others have asked you this same question too and you have not responded. Are you living in a cave?
I re-entered because I could not resist. I saw that your irascible behavior has continued and not just towards me, so I felt better about re-entering. I do respect you and your knowledge base, but it also pays to be a gentleman. Towards the end of his life, Charley Hansen (you misspelled his name a few posts ago-shame on you) was very vocal about MQA and his debate with JA on another forum became quite heated. Throughout that give and take, both managed to remain polite and civil. You could take a lesson from them.
I brought up Charley Hansen's interview towards the end of his life about his latest iteration of amps finally-in his opinion-capturing the sound of the best modern tube amps. Have you sat down to listen to any of his amps? Have you analyzed why they might sound as they do from an engineering standpoint?
I am into vinyl, thank you. I am the proud owner of a Manley Steelhead, which I bought new. I love it and love Manley. I wish the aesthetics of their amps suited me more. I acknowledge that letting aesthetics get in the way of a purchase decision seems silly. I also acknowledge that Ralph's views on cartridge loading differ from my own. But as you quoted me (accurately), I have 1% of your engineering knowledge and his too. But I have years and years of empirical experience and based upon that, I have chosen to disregard Ralph's views on cartridge loading as simply not applicable to my particular system and experience.

Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone, however your last post was rather heavy handed. But lets shake hands and move on. 

I hope to be brief because this is not on topic. I do not think I have ever mentioned Charley Hansen in any post. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would like to read an interview that you particularly like, could you please provide a link? He made excellent equipment and I can see from JAs measurements he did a good job on the three major characteristics of a good amplifier, one that would drive a wide variety of speakers well. On this I am in complete agreement with Charley. Im not sure why I need to listen to his amps, I am confident they sound find. Charley and I are on the same page with what is important. Though some may take objection to the following here is what I have found:

If you compare several amplifiers that meet the three criterion of damping, low distortion, good current delivery then these are what I call good amplifiers. Good performing amplifiers tend to sound very similar because they are GOOD. Now if we take one of those ampifiers and compare it to amplifiers that do not meet the three criterion (there are more than 3 but the first 3 are the most obvious) in an A/B setup, levels matched, the differences can be quite alarming and immediately obvious on either pink noise or the proper choice of source material. This has been my experience over 45 years of doing this. I invite others to get their opinion. I invite you to come listen, bring any amp you like and lets have a go at it.

In the current setup I am using QUAD 57s and a few cone speakers. I prefer ESLs and find them more revealing. I think everyone knows I moved to Santa Barbara from VIrginia specificaly to work with Harold Beveridge in 1978. As I recall he paid me $500 a month plus royalties on my preamp. I didnt do it for the money I did it to apprentice to a master. 

In the past year I have repaired and listened to a Reference Line SS amp, A big 833 SE amp. Several Single ended 45, 2A3, 300B. Of course I listen to all of mine and aways to the strict A/B. 

As to modern amps, on some we are going backwards. The Cary SLI 150 is an example. While it measured badly it sounded fine to Herb because he played it at the low range of power where the distortion is low. This is a very common occurance at Stereophile. Once a broken EAR amp got a great sonic review and upon test it was discovered to be very distorted about a few watts. However below that level where the reviewer used it there was no appreciable distortion. It is clear to me that most reviewers do not put a high power amp through its paces. Its just not how they listen. 

These days anyone who can get an amp to work at all and has the ability to get it to market ends up doing so. 

Eveanna Manley is a close friend, I have stayed at her home when David was still around. I have sold them EI EL84s. I know the stingray well from the point of supplying tubes. The bias control range is rather narrow, Have you had any trouble getting tubes that will not bias up in the range of the pot? We had do do selecting for some customers.