[Baumli]

Gentry and gentlemen,

About 10 years ago I had two Apt-Holman amplifiers. They were both the "Apt-1" which I think is the only amp Holman made. They were different in that one had rack handles. I got rid of them but can't for the life of me remember who got them. (Which goes to show I play these audiophilic games too often!) My memory was that KDHX got them, and that later, Zaw at Alpha-Tech bought them from KDHX. But no one has any memory of this. And my memory is vague. Am I getting addled at the age of 66? Or "daff," as the Brits say? Or "senile" as the politically incorrect say? Or "limited" as my wife says, being politically correct?

Regardless, I don't know what happened to them. If anyone knows of a pair of Apt-Holman's, one with rack handles, would you please let me know?

Thanking you, from the depths of senectitude.

Still a junior member,

Francis Baumli
Phone: (314) 966-2167

[Bob in St. Louis]

You're not a Junior member in my book Mr. Baumli.

[Baumli]

Dear Bob,

You are very kind with your understated accolade.

Maybe it's time for me to start thinking of becoming a Senior Member. After all, it seems I am having a Senior Moment with these two amplifiers. I swear, I have sold or traded hundreds of pieces of equipment in the last 30 years, and I can remember where every one of them went. Some of these memories are vague. My ARC SP-10 went to a fellow in California. I don't remember his name, but at least I remember the transaction, and know the outlines of what happened. But as for the Apt-Holman amps? I haven't a clue of a memory as to what I did with them. Surely I sold both to the same person. It seems I gave them (for a tax write-off) to KDHX, but the people there who claim to be "the folks that know" believe it never happened, but if it did, they would have sold them to Zaw Win of Alpha-Tech. And Zaw says he never bought any Apt-Holman amps from them. And I have learned over the years that if Zaw has any one aptitude that really stands out, it is a prodigious memory. He doesn't forget anything.

But obviously I've forgotten a great deal. So you see--this isn't just a senior moment. It is a plenum of indecipherable amnesia. Yes; "Senior Member" must be my aspiration.

But now, I'd better bring this to a close, or I'll forget what I'm writing about.

Dotty and daff,

Francis Baumli

[Baumli]

Dear patient members,

Thanks to many of you for abiding my recent obsession about what I did with those two Apt-Holman amplifiers. I racked my brain and kept coming back to the feeling--only a feeling--that I had donated them to KOPN for a tax write-off. One night it occurred to me that I might check my old tax files, if I still have them going back that far. I had the paperwork for the amplifiers I had replaced the Apt-Holman's with, so this told me the approximate time I got rid of the Apt-Holman's.

Sure enough. Matters had transpired as I had suspected. It was on March 14, 2003, that I donated them to KOPN for a shameless tax write-off. Once I saw the paperwork, I even remembered taking them in, and who received them.

Not that this now does me much good. Nobody there remembers receiving them, or knows what happened to them. I suspect someone grabbed them for their own use, or they got sold in one of their equipment garage sales.

Well, maybe there are two Apt-Holman's in the Saint Louis area, one with chrome rack-mount handles. So if anyone spots them, you might tell them that someone you know is crazy enough to want them back and consider bringing them back to life. (It's hard to believe they're still working; those power-supply caps would be at least 40 years old by now.)

Meanwhile, I have a lead on three (yes; three!) such amps. Who has wise advice about how to go about upgrading them, improving them, and yet retaining their signature sound? (Is this asking too much?)

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanking you in advance,

Francis Baumli

[daves]

Francis, I would consider picking up the McCormicks and upgrading the one to a Deluxe, before I would subject myself to the special torture that is involved in buying and upgrading amps of a slightly lesser god.

I have listened to the beat up Apt I have against the smaller McCormick, and the APT has a lower ceiling. The Apt is a nice aesthetic, with its lower slimline build, but there it ends.

[macrojack]

Is there something special about the Apt 1 that has escaped my attention? As I recall, back in the early 1980s, the Apt Holman amplifier was the next step up from a Hafler kit. Is there more than nostalgia driving this pursuit? Your vocabulary certainly betrays any claim you may stake to senility.

[Baumli]

Dear Macrojack,

First, a word about Hafler amps. I have never been impressed by that amp but once. I've heard them in their original state, I've heard John Hellig's upgrades, and none of these to my ear sound like a first-rate high-end amp. Maybe entry-level high-end, but that's all. I say this with all due respect to John Hillig, a fellow I think the world of, and who often does great work. He's a big believer in the sound of his upgraded Hafler's; I'm not. I've often felt that they might sound like great amps if only he would replace the output transistors instead of using the original 40-year-old MOSFET's. He says he doesn't replace them because he can't get new ones that have the same value as the old ones. I wish he had found a new transistor that would work, and then built his upgraded power supply etc. around that transistor, instead of building a remarkably robust power supply around those old transistors.

All this having been said, I must admit that I have heard two Hafler amps that sounded world class. They were either the "200" or the "220." I just can't remember which. For a while, about 25 years ago, George Merrill (of turntable fame) sold a kit for upgrading that Hafler amp. It cost about $70, was a bunch of parts in a plastic bag, and it worked wonders. You installed the parts yourself, which wasn't very difficult if you were good with a soldering iron, and this truly was a display of how only a few minor changes could make a colossal difference. The only drawback was that this installation inverted the signal, and that meant making adjustments with your wire if indeed you might be a person who can even hear inversion. (A lot of people can't.) With the exception of this kit, which worked with only one model of the Hafler, I was never impressed with Hafler--either in its original incarnation or in upgraded versions.

I didn't think the Apt-Holman amp was merely a step above the Hafler. I thought it was a true high-end amp, and still do. If I proceed with my project, they won't replace my McCormack amps. (I went from Apt-Holman to McCormack, and that was a definite major step up.) If I upgrade some Apt-1's they would go into a second system. (Which I need about as much as I need a second wife.)

I do have trepidation about proceeding this way. I have heard many Apt-1's (as they are called) that were repaired, with new caps, and that sort of thing. But I've never heard one that was seriously upgraded. I've never even heard one with what I would consider essential, but minimal, upgrades: better RCA's instead of those cheap pewter-metal ones, IEC inlets instead of that cheap 16-gauge hard-wired power cord, decent speaker binding posts instead of the original ones that are made of pot metal and plastic and now that they are old break easily, and (for God's sake!) an on-off switch. I knew a fellow who had seven of these in a home theater system, and he left them on all the time. (Along with his big power-hungry Threshhold, which pulled a huge amount of current. His electric bill reflected this practice!)

The fact is, with all their demerits--especially the three I mention aside from the lack of an on-off switch, I think the Apt-1's remain one of the best-sounding solid-state amps ever made. Period. So thus my obsession.

Can't I be allowed one obsession before I die? At the age of 66, I have been chaste, verbally continent, and financially conservative all my life. Or so I believe. Allow me this one indulgence. This one immersion into what surely is a harmless dissipation.

[Baumli]

Dear Macrojack,

I didn't finish my reply to you. A problem, which has happened before with this website, is that what I was writing just suddenly jumped off the screen and got posted. Rather embarrassing, to write a reply, and appear to have finished it without even the courtesy of a salutation.

You are generous to believe that my prose does not indicate senility. In truth, it may indicate something worse. It may be the case that nothing of this is actually happening--that I am a 95-year-old man dreaming all this while lying in a bed in a nursing home. What is worst, perhaps you are my roommate, and we are sharing the same hallucination--for a few minutes, in a kind of cosmic meeting of deteriorated minds. How could we possibly be sure that things are otherwise?

So let's hurry up and finish this dialogue before our shared dream diverges.

Meanwhile, would you pass me that bedpan?

All the best,

Francis Baumli

[thunderbrick]

More musical and lilting text, until the Providential appearance of one Francis Baumli, has never graced the hallowed archives of this or any other forum.

And once he, daft, deaf, or otherwise, departs this rotating spacecraft, we shall all the poorer be.   Except, of course, those who've so frantically thumbed through their dictionaries when each of Lord Baumli's 77+ missives has appeared.

[Baumli]

Dear folks,

This reply is to daves and to thunderbrick.

Dave, I didn't notice your post when it came through. Yes; the McCormack amps are better. I've already got them at the "Deluxe" level. I may take them to the "Ultra" level once I save the money. (And saving money, for audio, is always difficult. It seems I spend about 400% of my audio budget each month as it is.) I wouldn't consider the Apt-Holman's except as a second system. But maybe that's crazy. Could we start an Audioholics Anonymous support group? Or Audiophiliac Maniacs Primal Therapy Scream Session? Of course we could, but we all know it would only make our addiction worse.

The accolades you extend toward me are very kind, Thunderbrick, but not quite deserved. Dealing with words is what I do. It's my work. As translator, lexicographer, etymologist, and philologist. I even do a great deal of work for the "Oxford English Dictionary" (and I'm such a pedant it bothers the hell out of me that such an august book here gets mention, but this website won't let me underline its title as good grammar dictates, forcing me to put it in quotation marks). I have my abilities, but I also have huge deficits. For example, although I'm an audiophile, I don't understand circuit design at all. People have explained to me what an op-amp is about half a dozen times, but within a minute my understanding starts to grow vague and within two minutes it is gone. Shameful, considering that there are so many people in our little club who have the capabilities of the best circuit design engineers. Dave Sheckleton whom I talked with tonight always impresses me, as does Scott Faller, Chris Hoff, and ... well, this could be a long list.

Speaking of words, Thunderbrick, I would like to know how you came up with your "handle." I know what a "thunderpot" is, and I've heard the expression, well, I don't quite remember it, of course, but it ends with the word "brick." I wonder: Were you conjoining the two meanings? Confessions are in order here. Maybe prostration.

Always curious,

Francis Baumli



 

[charmerci]

 I even do a great deal of work for the "Oxford English Dictionary" (and I'm such a pedant it bothers the hell out of me that such an august book here gets mention, but this website won't let me underline its title as good grammar dictates, forcing me to put it in quotation marks).

Type the sentence, highlight/mark the word you want then click on the  U  icon above right. Easy peasy!

[Baumli]

Dear folks,

Back in Oct. 2014 I began a query regarding some Apt-Holman amps I once owned, and also asked for advice about upgrading this unit. Dave of daves fame made the comment that I would be much better off upgrading my McCormack's further, noting that they have a "lower ceiling." Well ... ? Being an idiot with some of these matters, I don't know what you mean by "ceiling" Dave. I looked up what J. Gordon Holt might mean, and he didn't address this topic, although he did address "noise floor" but with a definition I did not at all understand.

When Harry Pearson died not long ago, many people gave accolades to his constant reminder that we go to "the absolute sound," i.e., live music, for our reference point by which to judge recorded material. I had never needed to be reminded of this; perhaps I subsequently appreciated his (sometimes clumsy) attempts to extend the audio vocabulary. But he was dding to what Holt did, and at a snail's pace, compared to what Holt gave us. I once spent a day with Harry Pearson at his New Mexico place about 25 years ago. His mood whs a constant ricochet between bad temper--even yelling, and profuse apologizing for how he had just behaved. Fortunately, a friend of his was there and helped keep him calmed down. This friend told me it was thought Harry had uncontrolled diabetes, and this accounted for his mood swings. I don't know, but I never wanted to see him again. Regardless, I did appreciate his contribution to the audio vocabulary.

The problem is, we unwashed heathen do not always understand that vocabulary. So as to what "ceiling" and "floor" is when it comes to noise, or sound, or music, could you, Dave, or somebody else, kindly explain these two words (or concepts) in a way that a novice at electronics can understand? Or would you at least try?

Any input would be vastly appreciated.


Ignorant, and maybe stupid too,

Francis Baumli

[daves]

Francis, a lower ceiling is another way to say child of a lesser God. The Apt is good, and can be improved, but the McCormack is quite good and can be made great. Hence the Apt will reach its upper limit of performance quicker than the McCormack will reach its limit.

[vintage9594]

Dave, that is an excellent explanation.....

[Baumli]

Dave,

I agree that yours is a fine explanation. Frankly, I thought you were referring to something much more technical--you know, an equation or some such.

Still, there remains a minor philosophical question here. I once pissed off a Ph.D. who lived outside of Columbia, Missouri when, at night, we were standing in his front yard and he said, "You can almost see Columbia from where we stand."

I said, "If all you can do is almost see it, then how do you know you could see it at all?"

I had a point, but I concede that my point didn't entirely refute his. However, the same point can be made here in a more interesting way regarding stereo units and upgrades. Namely, I have heard McCormack amps that were upgraded all the way to the "Ultra" level.  (Lordy! Pass Labs and Threshold step aside!)  I have never heard an Apt Holman that was upgraded at all. New caps, new resistors, and that sort of thing, and maybe a few of the parts were slightly better than the originals, but not clearly so. The fact is, any Apt that I heard which got upgraded at all hadn't really received a major upgrade; rather, any minor upgrade was secondary to a repair. I've never heard one which a person with considerable knowledge of such things took and tried to upgrade to everything it could do. And I've never even heard of anyone else to try and do this. I've read about people doing minor upgrades--I think this was on the Audio Nirvana site. But not major upgrades.

So ... since you've never heard an Apt that has been upgraded to the hilt, how can you say it has a lower ceiling than a McCormack that has been upgraded all the way?

I assure you that I ask this question, not as a challenge, but out of genuine curiosity.

All the best,

Francis Baumli

[OzarkTom]

I was a Hafler and a Apt Holman dealer back in the 80's. I liked the Apt much better than Haflers for sound, but I do not recall anyone of ever modding the amps. I believe the preamp was modded though.

I met Thomlison Holman in one of the booths at the CES show around 1983 and he told me he just got a job working with George Lucas in the movie industry and was bowing out the audio business. Of course THX stands for Thomlison Holman Xperimental, he became famous designing this format for the movie industry.

[daves]

Francis, if you want, I have a rather kludgey Apt 1 that you would be welcome to mod the heck out of. It was in a shed and cosmetically looks like a 70 year old Bridgette Bardot, but would be a great platform.

The only highly modded Apts I have heard were at an architects house in Rhode Island, on a pair of Carver like Motauri? Flatline 150s, 25 years ago. Some arc tube amps sounded better, but my tastes then and now are more tilted to bass, scale and dynamic presentation than imaging, and the ARC bass with planars was better.

[Baumli]

Dear Dave,

I'll sure take you up on your offer, partly because I can imagine few things more sexy than a 70-year-old Bridgette Bardot.

As to one amp having a higher "ceiling" than another, I was discussing this today with a fellow who does stock car racing. He said it's like starting with a car. You know that you can do more things with one car than with another just on the basis of what you have to start with. He said, "Just look under the hood of the amplifier." I think that nails it for me. I've looked inside many a McCormack, but never inside an Apt. So I'll take it from there.

Thank you for your input on all this. It's given me much to think about. (Actually to obsess about.)

All the best,

Francis Baumli

[Baumli]

Dave,

Just to be true to my pedantic inclinations, I must point out that you misled innocent me into misspelling the lady's name. It is spelled "Brigette Bardot."

In looking her up, I was reminded of what a gorgeous woman she once was. But as to how sexy she now is? I may have to rethink what I said earlier. But then, I've always been good at degrading myself. As we used to say in Northwest Missouri: " ... lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut." That's where I've always been.

Very best,

Baumli

[Baumli]

Dear gentlemen,

Lest we forget, somewhere amidst this "thread" there was my confusion over what Dave Sheckleton meant by "ceiling," and this was thoroughly clarified. I should perhaps add that part of the reason I was confused is that "floor," or "noise floor," is a term often used in audio. Frankly, I realize that I don't know what it means. In J. Gordon Holt's book, THE AUDIO GLOSSARY, he defines "floor" as, "The practical lower limit of a system's dynamic range--usually around 15 dB lower than its background noise level."

Well, I must be an idiot, but I don't know what this means. I always thought "noise floor" was a sort of subjective test. In other words, if your system is on idle, and you put your ear to the speaker and can't hear anything--or hardly anything, then it has a low noise floor. But apparently the meaning is more complicated.

Would someone mind giving me a clear, easy-to-understand definition of what "floor" or "noise floor" means? And explain to me exactly why it is important to have a low noise floor? I thank you in advance (and will thank you in arrears too).

Ignorantly yours,

Francis Baumli