Retubing 17 thousand tubes...hmm...ouchWikipedia said:Physically, ENIAC was massive compared to modern PC standards. It contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered joints. It weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8 feet (2.4 m) by 3 feet (0.9 m) by 100 feet (30 m), took up 1800 square feet (167 m²), and consumed 150 kW of power.
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gifBy the simple (if expensive) expedient of never turning the machine off, the engineers reduced ENIAC's tube failures to the more acceptable rate of one tube every two days.
Retubing 17 thousand tubes...hmm...
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
Ive heard plenty, and Ive built a millet hybrid tube headphone amp. I prefer that type of sound only with smaller jazz groups, where the added warmth doesnt muddy anything up.What tubed setup have you heard?
Because if you haven't...what basis do you have to make any sort of judgement about this sort of thing? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Totally agreed. Speaker selection makes or breaks a flea-powered setup //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gifEither way, spending a hefty amount of cash on an amp is worthless unless you have the speakers to match.
Is there a "put the test instruments away and listen to the music" truth as well? Maybe the only things we can quantify are the hard numbers, like the distortion characteristics, SNR, etc, etc...but what would be the point in reviewing equipment if that was the case?and measurments are the only truths we know in audio.
And I don't have the clap dammit //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/furious.gif.fc81ca146dbff91fede3ed290dbc4f4c.gifLet's re-cap:
Toob owners are senile, SQ is a myth, and Corevette owners are still dicks //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gifLet's re-cap:
Toob owners are senile, SQ is a myth, and Corevette owners are still dicks //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/woot.gif.aaa6090e619a97b6090d16dd863c5a69.gif For Dennis' STD//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/word.gif.64b12e39f936af3b4fff38a1c0bd0244.gif
Poor Jazn with his STD. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsdown.gif.d22f25895e9b40f2300c953691dacfa2.gif
Most people can't really relate to graphs unless they are heavy into this hobby, hence why we need words like "warmth" or "gritty" as descriptors. I am pretty skeptical of reviews based on total empiricism, because none of us have the exact same hearing.Is there a "put the test instruments away and listen to the music" truth as well? Maybe the only things we can quantify are the hard numbers, like the distortion characteristics, SNR, etc, etc...but what would be the point in reviewing equipment if that was the case?
I don't know, I just think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between lunatic subjectivity and blind objectivity. Or maybe Evan's right and lugging those heavy transformers around and listening to all that distortion has just made me senile and delusional.