metal film resistors

[Marko]

I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes because
they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.

I see no basis for this in specifications for metal films. Any opinions or
facts? Thanks, Mark

[Mikkel C. Simonsen]

Marko wrote:
>
> I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes because
> they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
>
> I see no basis for this in specifications for metal films. Any opinions or
> facts?

Facts? There's no problem using metal film resistors in tube gear. But
you should use 0.5W types, as the 0.25W types often have a low voltage
rating.

If they sound better or worse than carbon films or carbon comps is a
different matter - try all types and see what you like.

I just use what I have. Mostly metal films and sometimes ancient carbon
comps.

Best regards,

Mikkel C. Simonsen

[Ian Iveson]

Good quality metal films should be stable and distort hardly at all.
Poor quality metal films can be noisy and distort due to
manufacturing defects (eg local heating effects due to thinner parts
of film, and poor lead attachment). I guess the same goes for
carbon, but sometimes I think folk compare good carbon with poor mf
and come to false generalisations.

I suspect that some folk like carbon for the same reason they like
paper and oil caps...harmonic distortion. I don't know what the
mechanism for that is...possibly poor heat conduction and
temperature coefficient on the part of carbon?

It would be interesting to compare typical capacitance and
inductance for the two types. If ringing occurs with one type and
not the other, these would be the parameters to compare I suppose.

I have read lots of times that mf gives a relatively "hard" sound.
I take it that means low distortion rather than high odd harmonics.

cheers, Ian

"Marko" > wrote in message
...
> I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes
because
> they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
>
> I see no basis for this in specifications for metal films. Any
opinions or
> facts? Thanks, Mark
>
>

[Ronald]

> Buy everything you are interested in and put it in a circuit and listen.
We
> ain't talkin' Megabucks here ;)

And what if we talk about Riken Ohm , NOS A.B. and Tantalium resistors
.......

[Ross Matheson]

"Marko" > asked:

: I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes because
: they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
:
: I see no basis for this in specifications for metal films. Any opinions or
: facts? Thanks, Mark

What about the jokes???

You know, metal "ringing", carbon "damped" ;=}) Must be a slow day ...

Seriously, the only caveats I've heard of are some voltage limitations
for metal films - but not espcially quantified - perhaps a few hundred
volts? Mikkel's .25W mention is a new one on me too, but logical given
the size. Anybody point to accurate voltage limit specs? (I'm feeling
too tired to go searching all the resistor mfr databases right now:=)

"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."
Dave Plowman's everchanging sig. on uk.ra.

"The Greeks had three kinds of columns - Corinthian, Doric, and Ironic."

[Ross Matheson]

François Yves Le Gal > wrote:

: >Anybody point to accurate voltage limit specs?
:
: Typical values for metal film resistors are:
:
: 1/8 watt max working voltage 150 V (dc or peak ac)
: 1/4 w MWV 200 or 250 V
: 1/2 W MWV 300 or 350 V
: 1 W MWV 500 V
:
: Metal oxide resistors are somewhat lower (1 W MWV 350 V).
:
: Typical high voltage resistors, using thin film sputtered on ceramic cores
: and then cemented, are qualified for 1.6 KV or 3.6 KV, depending on the
: models/manufacturers.

WOW! C'est très bon!
It's a fast day after all! [it must have just been a slow night here:=})]
Thanks very much, François! (et Mikkel!) - this is something that was
always just a vague concept until now! Archived for reference ...

I've been (just tonight, too) pulling more electrolytic caps *and* metal
film resistors (and even smarter looking ceramic and other ones) from
recent (ie relatively new) reject/faulted/junked photocopier SMPS's ...

Ross

[Ross Matheson]

François Yves Le Gal > plaisanter avec:

: Fred Nachbaur > wrote:
:
: >Just as the "crystalline clarity" of a tube's sound is due to its being
: >made of glass, the metaphysical aspect's of a resistor's sound depends
: >on the poetry of its construction materials.
:
: So metal 6L6 tubes are blurred?
: :-)

No, they have a sturdy, solid, well formed soundstage, although perhaps not
projecting such a sense of transparent delicacy as their glass cousins:-)

[I have a NOS pair right here and I really like their weight and shape;=})]

[Ross Matheson]

: > Archived for reference ...
:
: These are typical values, quite variable depending on the
: manufacturer/model.

Thanks for the caveat. The typical values are a useful guide, nevertheless,
and I'll be sure to look up specific manufacturers if it gets critical.

[Chuck Harris]

So what does that say about silicon which is a crystal and is the
purest material man knows how to manufacture?

Silicon transistor circuits have a crystalline purity that rivals
the artwork of Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistene Chapel?

-Chuck

Fred Nachbaur wrote:
>
>
> François Yves Le Gal wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:31:40 GMT, Fred Nachbaur >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Just as the "crystalline clarity" of a tube's sound is due to its
>>> being made of glass, the metaphysical aspect's of a resistor's sound
>>> depends on the poetry of its construction materials.
>>
>>
>>
>> So metal 6L6 tubes are blurred?
>> :-)
>
>
> Not so much blurred as "lacking in transparency."
>
> "Blurred" applies more to those almost opaque black 6V6GT's. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Fred

[Mikkel C. Simonsen]

Ross Matheson wrote:
>
> "Marko" > asked:
>
> : I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes because
> : they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
> :
> : I see no basis for this in specifications for metal films. Any opinions or
> : facts? Thanks, Mark
>
> What about the jokes???
>
> You know, metal "ringing", carbon "damped" ;=}) Must be a slow day ...
>
> Seriously, the only caveats I've heard of are some voltage limitations
> for metal films - but not espcially quantified - perhaps a few hundred
> volts? Mikkel's .25W mention is a new one on me too, but logical given
> the size. Anybody point to accurate voltage limit specs?

0.25W resistors often have a 200 or 250V limit. 0.5W resistors generally
have a 350V limit. I don't remember if the 1W or 2W types have higher
voltage ratings, but I guess I could look that up...

Best regards,

Mikkel C. Simonsen

[Patrick Turner]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:43:19 GMT, Fred Nachbaur >
> wrote:
>
> >Not so much blurred as "lacking in transparency."
> >
> >"Blurred" applies more to those almost opaque black 6V6GT's. ;-)
>
> Oh, I see, and music coming out of those eastern-European tubes with pink or
> blue colored glass sounds different. Blue for rock, pink for lounge muzak...
> :-)

You silly fellow, blue for boyos, and pink for girlies,
Duh.

Patrick Turner.

[Kirk Patton]

"Marko" > wrote in message
...
> I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes because
> they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.

Hi Mark,

I have seen some concern about inductive and capacitive aspects of certain
types of metal films in certain applications -- even though most specs say
they are 'non-inductive' or don't address the issue. Anecdotally, I have
seen RF transmitters, broadcast exciters, etc. with lots of metal films
throughout, and carbon composition resistors retained in the high-frequency
areas. This may be the source of the 'ringing' comment you mentioned . . .

I do think it is safe to say that the level of extra reactance in modern
metal films is low enough to be extremely unlikely a point of concern in
tube audio electronics -- maybe in a tube VHF transmitter you might worry
about it. It is also safe to say that modern metal films definately have
substantially lower noise and tighter tolerances than carbon composition
resistors (even modern carbon comps), and thus it is very possible for them
to change the sound of the device in question.

As a general rule, I believe in preserving the value of collectable and
valuable historic equipment by using original parts when appropriate, but
for new designs or substantial modifications I feel that the more the
artifacts of the parts are reduced, the closer you will be to hearing the
sound of the circuit itself . . . and hopefully if the circuit is doing its
job, closer to the sound of the music.

I recommend that you heed the advice others have posted regarding voltage
ratings, and enjoy the performance of modern resistors -- if there is indeed
any ringing, it can be measured, analyzed, and dealt with through proper
circuit changes rather than blindly swapping parts.

Best regards,

Kirk Patton

[Chuck Harris]

Ross Matheson wrote:
> Chuck Harris > wondered:
>
> : So what does that say about silicon which is a crystal and is the
> : purest material man knows how to manufacture?
>
> Doped?

The silicon crystal ingot that they grow for ICs, etc. is as pure
as we can make anything. The silicon crystal ingots are 12 inches
in diameter (300mm), and several feet long.

The doping is done to the sliced wafers, and is also done with great
care.
>
> : Silicon transistor circuits have a crystalline purity that rivals
> : the artwork of Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistene Chapel?
>
> Sistine:-)

Pick, pick, pick. I are an engineeer! Not an artifist!

>
> Now hang on, surely artificial diamonds are more "pure" than
> semiconductors, which are 'impure' by definition!

Ah, not the si crystals that are grown for IC manufacture! They
are as near to perfect as anything man has ever had his hand in.
>
> But your heart's in the right place:-)
> Ever read "The Agony And The Ecstacy", a historical fiction sort of
> biography of Michelangelo? Impressed me as a kid, at any rate:-)

Not yet, but maybe one day.

-Chuck

[Marko]

Thank You for all the replies. I am presently wrestling with
airconditioning problems. I will read all of them when I get to it. Thanks
load guys, Mark (top post)
"Kirk Patton" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Marko" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes
because
> > they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I have seen some concern about inductive and capacitive aspects of certain
> types of metal films in certain applications -- even though most specs say
> they are 'non-inductive' or don't address the issue. Anecdotally, I have
> seen RF transmitters, broadcast exciters, etc. with lots of metal films
> throughout, and carbon composition resistors retained in the
high-frequency
> areas. This may be the source of the 'ringing' comment you mentioned . .
..
>
> I do think it is safe to say that the level of extra reactance in modern
> metal films is low enough to be extremely unlikely a point of concern in
> tube audio electronics -- maybe in a tube VHF transmitter you might worry
> about it. It is also safe to say that modern metal films definately have
> substantially lower noise and tighter tolerances than carbon composition
> resistors (even modern carbon comps), and thus it is very possible for
them
> to change the sound of the device in question.
>
> As a general rule, I believe in preserving the value of collectable and
> valuable historic equipment by using original parts when appropriate, but
> for new designs or substantial modifications I feel that the more the
> artifacts of the parts are reduced, the closer you will be to hearing the
> sound of the circuit itself . . . and hopefully if the circuit is doing
its
> job, closer to the sound of the music.
>
> I recommend that you heed the advice others have posted regarding voltage
> ratings, and enjoy the performance of modern resistors -- if there is
indeed
> any ringing, it can be measured, analyzed, and dealt with through proper
> circuit changes rather than blindly swapping parts.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kirk Patton
>
>

[Robert Casey]

>
>
>Seriously, the only caveats I've heard of are some voltage limitations
>for metal films - but not espcially quantified - perhaps a few hundred
>volts? Mikkel's .25W mention is a new one on me too, but logical given
>the size.
>
Voltage rating of the paint that covers the body of the resistor? Well,
just be sure that
it si in the air and not touching something else. Internal arc over?
Could be an issue....

[Robert Casey]

Fred Nachbaur wrote:

>
>
> Just as the "crystalline clarity" of a tube's sound is due to its
> being made of glass, the metaphysical aspect's of a resistor's sound
> depends on the poetry of its construction materials.

Yessss :-)

You know, some english major advertising types take off with this sort
of thing.
English majors are trained to pack in multiple meanings in words, where the
engineer or scientists hate this. Because multiple meanings can cause
confusion
when they want a specific concept and no others.

One time I was at Fry's (Silicon Valley electronics shop) with an old
classmate
who was in town. Saw the guide books for various computer OS's. I said
"I hear that you can be certified for using Windows". He said "How do you
mean that? :-)" "Both ways :-)" (certified insane, or certified as
knowing
how to run windows by Microsoft). My classmate perfers unix.

[Fred Nachbaur]

Ross Matheson wrote:
> : > Archived for reference ...
> :
> : These are typical values, quite variable depending on the
> : manufacturer/model.
>
> Thanks for the caveat. The typical values are a useful guide, nevertheless,
> and I'll be sure to look up specific manufacturers if it gets critical.

Also useful to remember - those are manufacturers' "cover your a$$"
values (with the emphasis on $$, in case they get sued and such). Just
as a toggle switch may only be *rated* for 120 VAC, 10A, but will
probably work perfectly well as a B+ switch for 400 VDC.

Caveats and YYMV's all around, of course, but if you look at vintage
(and even not-so-vintage) gear, you'll often find these kinds of ratings
significantly exceeded.

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

[Fred Nachbaur]

hehe... you might want to post your question and comment over at
rec.audio.high-end. I'm sure that Stewart Pinkerton and Arny Krueger
will welcom you with open arms. ;-)

Cheers,
Fred

Chuck Harris wrote:
> So what does that say about silicon which is a crystal and is the
> purest material man knows how to manufacture?
>
> Silicon transistor circuits have a crystalline purity that rivals
> the artwork of Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistene Chapel?
>
> -Chuck
>
> Fred Nachbaur wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> François Yves Le Gal wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:31:40 GMT, Fred Nachbaur >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just as the "crystalline clarity" of a tube's sound is due to its
>>>> being made of glass, the metaphysical aspect's of a resistor's sound
>>>> depends on the poetry of its construction materials.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So metal 6L6 tubes are blurred?
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so much blurred as "lacking in transparency."
>>
>> "Blurred" applies more to those almost opaque black 6V6GT's. ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Fred
>
>

--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

[Fred Nachbaur]

François Yves Le Gal wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:57:26 +1000, Patrick Turner >
> wrote:
>
>
>>You silly fellow, blue for boyos, and pink for girlies,
>
>
> Would Liberace qualify for pink toobs?
> :-)

Only *flaming* pink ones.

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

[Marko]

I think I have encountered Arny before. Once is enough. MH
"Andy Evans" > wrote in message
...
> Stewart Pinkerton and Arny Krueger >>
>
> There are just some things you don't mention in polite company............
>
> === Andy Evans ===
> Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
> Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

[Ross Matheson]

Chuck Harris > averred:

: Ross Matheson wrote:
: > Chuck Harris > wondered:
: >
: > : So what does that say about silicon which is a crystal and is the
: > : purest material man knows how to manufacture?
: >
: > Doped?
:
: The silicon crystal ingot that they grow for ICs, etc. is as pure
: as we can make anything. The silicon crystal ingots are 12 inches
: in diameter (300mm), and several feet long.
:
: The doping is done to the sliced wafers, and is also done with great
: care.

I sit corrected :-) Thanks for the info - I was guessing, early am!

: > : Silicon transistor circuits have a crystalline purity that rivals
: > : the artwork of Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistene Chapel?
: >
: > Sistine:-)
:
: Pick, pick, pick. I are an engineeer! Not an artifist!

Okeh, I respekt yur expurtese in thet thar area!
Field effects, FET's, I just started reading about too...
The basics of matter, space, time, the universe - is the answer 42;-?})

: > Now hang on, surely artificial diamonds are more "pure" than
: > semiconductors, which are 'impure' by definition!
:
: Ah, not the si crystals that are grown for IC manufacture! They
: are as near to perfect as anything man has ever had his hand in.

Sounds like an impressive "Exhibit A", then, after all!

: > But your heart's in the right place:-)
: > Ever read "The Agony And The Ecstacy", a historical fiction sort of
: > biography of Michelangelo? Impressed me as a kid, at any rate:-)
:
: Not yet, but maybe one day.
:
: -Chuck

There are more than a million stories in the nekkid globe. That wuz one:-)

[Ross Matheson]

(Andy Evans) wrote:

: Stewart Pinkerton and Arny Krueger >>
:
: There are just some things you don't mention in polite company............

*Please* don't bring your inane ukra ****fights and whinging bull**** here!
This IS normally polite company! IMO it doesn't need that sort of agenda!
Thanks!!

[Marko]

"Kirk Patton" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Marko" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes
because
> > they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I have seen some concern about inductive and capacitive aspects of certain
> types of metal films in certain applications -- even though most specs say
> they are 'non-inductive' or don't address the issue. Anecdotally, I have
> seen RF transmitters, broadcast exciters, etc. with lots of metal films
> throughout, and carbon composition resistors retained in the
high-frequency
> areas. This may be the source of the 'ringing' comment you mentioned . .
..

I don't know that metal films do have a tonal effect. I was only told this.
The advice I received was that metal films tended to cause supersonic
oscillations. I know that actual inductance of metal films is no more than
carbon, they are both spiralled similarly. I thought mabey it had to do
with some sort of molecular peculiarity, possibly due to some strange
circular patterns the electrons may take within the path through the
resistor element. Sort of like little molecular eddy currents. I rebuilt
my first tube amp, a Heath W-2 with metal films. I don't like the sound of
it. I used Arco paper/mylar caps which have the classic paper sounds so I
know the caps aren't the problem. I think the audiophile rage about
polypropylene is unfounded. The hard dielectrics seem to have a hard sound.
Paper is flexible. I say this because I have some teflon caps which sound
like paper. Teflon is very flexible and has a sound similar to a Vitamin-Q.
Teflon's are rare special order components for hi-temp. If they ever catch
on audio may improve in general.
>
> I do think it is safe to say that the level of extra reactance in modern
> metal films is low enough to be extremely unlikely a point of concern in
> tube audio electronics -- maybe in a tube VHF transmitter you might worry
> about it. It is also safe to say that modern metal films definately have
> substantially lower noise and tighter tolerances than carbon composition
> resistors (even modern carbon comps), and thus it is very possible for
them
> to change the sound of the device in question.

Definately, there is much lower noise, in metal film. thick film resistors
which are not sputtered but painted have noise comparable to carbon, as do
metal oxide.
>
> As a general rule, I believe in preserving the value of collectable and
> valuable historic equipment by using original parts when appropriate, but
> for new designs or substantial modifications I feel that the more the
> artifacts of the parts are reduced, the closer you will be to hearing the
> sound of the circuit itself . . . and hopefully if the circuit is doing
its
> job, closer to the sound of the music.

Agreed, but although I have a massive assortment of NOS carbon comps, easily
100,000 of all values and all wattages, they are basically unuseable because
they have gone out of tolerance as much as 30%. A design engineer from the
60s said they had to "bake" their design assortments of comps every couple
years to bring them back into tolerance.
>
> I recommend that you heed the advice others have posted regarding voltage
> ratings, and enjoy the performance of modern resistors -- if there is
indeed
> any ringing, it can be measured, analyzed, and dealt with through proper
> circuit changes rather than blindly swapping parts.

I doubt that they will ring, but I thought I would check with you guys
first. I would be using RN70D metal films for the most part so the voltage
rating wouldn't be a critical factor. Good point though. I also have a lot
of old NOS Dale and T.I. military carbons which I suspect will have a much
better sound than the metal films. Just a strong hunch. Thanks for the
interesting reply, Mark
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kirk Patton
>
>

[Ross Matheson]

"Marko" > apparently fell under the influence and announced:

: I think I have encountered Arny before. Once is enough. MH

Your enormous experience and detailed memory obviously serves you poorly!
Perhaps you just enjoy partaking in poisonous or foolish gossip. Forget it!

: "Andy Evans" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Stewart Pinkerton and Arny Krueger >>
: >
: > There are just some things you don't mention in polite company............

Yeah, and idiotic emnities from other groups would be one of them, thanks!

[Ian Iveson]

"Ross Matheson" > exploded in an astonishing
moment of clarity

> IMO Arny Kreuger and Stewart Pinkerton have both had a great deal
of
> entirely unjustified and pathetic, immature garbage flung their
way from
> equally pathetic immature posters. Both have a great deal of sense
to offer
> in their postings, and technically are generally quite correct in
them.
>

woof. woof.

Defenders of the state of the art. Killers on the road.

Of course they speak the truth, that is rarely the issue. Having
spoken their truth, they devote their lives to preventing other
people from discussing other truths.

Arny is my patron saint of audio technicians. Lord Stewart is not
merely the emperor's lap dog, he is the emperor.

I hung on their every word.

cheers, Ian

>
PS
> Let's not invite that sort of crowd over here:=})
perhaps we ought...I feel so guilty for talking behind their back.

[Marko]

"Ross Matheson" > wrote in message
...
> Fred Nachbaur > insinuated:
>
> : hehe... you might want to post your question and comment over at
> : rec.audio.high-end. I'm sure that Stewart Pinkerton and Arny Krueger
> : will welcom you with open arms. ;-)
> :
> : Cheers,
> : Fred
> :
> : Chuck Harris wrote:
> : > So what does that say about silicon which is a crystal and is the
> : > purest material man knows how to manufacture?
>
> I'm a little sorry to see this inane prejudice aped over here.
> I may not have been around as long as some (only '95 or so) and >
> IMO Arny Kreuger and Stewart Pinkerton have both had a great deal of
> entirely unjustified and pathetic, immature garbage flung their way from
> equally pathetic immature posters. Both have a great deal of sense to
offer
> in their postings, and technically are generally quite correct in them.
>
> It has seemed to me that when either have stepped down or stooped to
> retorts that they were already provoked. Nevertheless, they (and it's even
> more absurd to "pair" them; both are individuals) have always seemed to me
> to keep a relatively sane balance amongst the madness, which is more than
> can be said for their frothing at the mouth detractors (and the ones that
> don't froth but just barb or perpetuate their disparaging agendas), IMO.
>
> Let's not invite that sort of crowd over here:=})

The reply:
Ross said the following:

I'm a little sorry to see this inane prejudice aped over here.



I may have
> kept quiet while observing some of the degenerate postings and propaganda
> aimed against (and separately) the aforementioned, but enough is enough.



have always seemed to me
> to keep a relatively sane balance amongst the madness, which is more than
> can be said for their frothing at the mouth detractors (and the ones that
> don't froth but just barb or perpetuate their disparaging agendas), IMO.
Let's not invite that sort of crowd over here:=})
(end of quotes)


frothing at the mouth ?

degenerate postings and propaganda
aimed ....?

inane prejudice ?

You know dude, if you would cork up your BS most of it would stop. MH

[Ross Matheson]

"Marko" > wrote:

: frothing at the mouth ?
:
: degenerate postings and propaganda
: aimed ....?
:
: inane prejudice ?
:
: You know dude, if you would cork up your BS most of it would stop. MH

Hey, I'm sorry all round. I do regret the personal remarks. I do apologise.
<makes note to self to never drink that stein^HHHHH brand of beer again>
However, I see no reason to carry attacks on people who don't even post here
into this newsgroup. OTOH, Marko, I apologise for my rudeness to you!
And Fred, if I was rude. Andy, I still believe the ukra prejudices mistaken.
Ian, I don't have the energy for the philosophical debate right now! :=})
Maybe later, in another form. Additional apologies to any others offended.
Cheers. Or not, as the case may be. One may as well move on, if possible.
Sincerely,
RdM.

[Marty Dippel]

In article >,
Fred Nachbaur > writes:

>
> The word "metal" suggests hardness, brittleness, and in a poetic sense,
> is used to connote lack of soul or a mechanical nature.
>
> The word "carbon" suggests softness, smoothness, and since it forms the
> basis for organic life, can imply a living, dynamic nature.
>
> Just as the "crystalline clarity" of a tube's sound is due to its being
> made of glass, the metaphysical aspect's of a resistor's sound depends
> on the poetry of its construction materials.
>
> How's that for a definitive answer? :-p
>
> Cheers,
> Fred


It's just amazing- when I see reports from the Golden Ears about sonic
differences between any two similar components of differing material
composition (wire insulation, RCA connector dielectric, speaker wire,
resistors, capacitors, active devices....) it almost always boils
down to exactly what you speak of here.

And curiously enough, the physical appearance of the subject almost
always correlates to its alleged "sonic signature"- i.e., given
a phenolic phono connector Vs, a ceramic one, the ceramic one is the one
to sound "brittle", "sharp", or "edgy".

Wonder why it's never the opposite?

Well, anyway, I suppose I'll never need to worry about it, really.
My ears aren't NEARLY sophisticated enough to detect these subtle
nuances.

I once thought of cashing in on this phenomenon, but I suspect that I'd
rather not have these folks for my customers.

I find myself content to remain bemused by naked emperors and awestruck
citizenry. It's fun to watch the parade.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Dippel High Energy Physics
Sr. Systems Analyst The University of Chicago

[TubeGarden]

Hi RATs!

Everybody is naked. Parades are social activities. Hermits are always on
parade.

It is more fun to listen to stuff than to talk about it, but, some talk all the
time, so listening is difficult, perhaps impossible :)

Nice outfit!

Happy Ears!
Al


Alan J. Marcy
Phoenix, AZ

PWC/mystic/Earhead

[Fred Nachbaur]

Ross Matheson wrote:
> "Marko" > wrote:
>
> : frothing at the mouth ?
> :
> : degenerate postings and propaganda
> : aimed ....?
> :
> : inane prejudice ?
> :
> : You know dude, if you would cork up your BS most of it would stop. MH
>
> Hey, I'm sorry all round. I do regret the personal remarks. I do apologise.
> <makes note to self to never drink that stein^HHHHH brand of beer again>
> However, I see no reason to carry attacks on people who don't even post here
> into this newsgroup. OTOH, Marko, I apologise for my rudeness to you!
> And Fred, if I was rude. Andy, I still believe the ukra prejudices mistaken.
> Ian, I don't have the energy for the philosophical debate right now! :=})
> Maybe later, in another form. Additional apologies to any others offended.
> Cheers. Or not, as the case may be. One may as well move on, if possible.
> Sincerely,
> RdM.

Hi Ross,

Not to worry, I didn't take your comment personally, though I must admit
I was a bit surprised. I certainly respect your opinions, as I'm sure
you know, and you're right; "ad hominems", even in jest, can lead to
situations that none of us want. I appreciate your putting a stop to it
before it got out of hand.

For the record, I do admire Arny Krueger. Some time ago one of his posts
hit home with me, and I could see where he's coming from; he pointed out
that he used to be involved in maintenance of mission-critical equipment
using tubes. From a background like that, his aversion to hollow state
is completely understandable.

Even SP can be amusing and (occasionally) informative in spite of what I
personally perceive as puffery. So my comment was not meant as an attack
on either of these individuals, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Best regards to all silly rodents, solid, hollow, and otherwise... ;-)

Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

[Choky]

knowledgeable or not,
arrogant man is arrogant man;
I always enjoy more in >THIS< ignorant company ,then on occasional lurk at
FRAO
hehe

ps.in 85% of cases Arny will take ya as a moron,when you just mention word
"tube".
that's why he is in my killfile long time ago
--
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
YU


"Fred Nachbaur" > wrote in message
. ..

> For the record, I do admire Arny Krueger. Some time ago one of his posts
> hit home with me, and I could see where he's coming from; he pointed out
> that he used to be involved in maintenance of mission-critical equipment
> using tubes. From a background like that, his aversion to hollow state
> is completely understandable.
>
> Even SP can be amusing and (occasionally) informative in spite of what I
> personally perceive as puffery. So my comment was not meant as an attack
> on either of these individuals, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
>
> Best regards to all silly rodents, solid, hollow, and otherwise... ;-)
>
> Fred
> --
> +--------------------------------------------+
> | Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
> | Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
> | http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
> +--------------------------------------------+
>

[Marko]

Thanks for the apology Ross, but I think your perspective is basically in
order. No sense letting the "poisonous" threads get started. From now on I
promise to behave. MH
"Ross Matheson" > wrote in message
...
> "Marko" > wrote:
>
> : frothing at the mouth ?
> :
> : degenerate postings and propaganda
> : aimed ....?
> :
> : inane prejudice ?
> :
> : You know dude, if you would cork up your BS most of it would stop. MH
>
> Hey, I'm sorry all round. I do regret the personal remarks. I do
apologise.
> <makes note to self to never drink that stein^HHHHH brand of beer again>
> However, I see no reason to carry attacks on people who don't even post
here
> into this newsgroup. OTOH, Marko, I apologise for my rudeness to you!
> And Fred, if I was rude. Andy, I still believe the ukra prejudices
mistaken.
> Ian, I don't have the energy for the philosophical debate right now! :=})
> Maybe later, in another form. Additional apologies to any others
offended.
> Cheers. Or not, as the case may be. One may as well move on, if possible.
> Sincerely,
> RdM.

[Bob Hedberg]

I experimented with resistors a while back, by accident. I was fixing
an old tube radio, and replaced the feedback resistor with a metal
film. I could hear a difference, and it wasn't good. I went into a
long testing session, and found the carbon comps sounded the best,
followed by ratshack carbon films (the only films I had). All other
metal, and oxide resistors either tended to have a edgy (metallic?)
sound or imparted a strange flatness (mostly the metal oxides) to the
sound. Only the carbons imparted a smooth, deep sound to the radio.
Needless to say, I've since stocked quite a large amount of carbon
comp resistors.

I don't know how wirewound resistors would stack up, but I imagine
they should be neutral, if anything.


Bob Hedberg.

"Marko" > wrote:

>I was told that metal film resistors should not be used with tubes because
>they make the circuit ring. Carbon films sound better.
>
>I see no basis for this in specifications for metal films. Any opinions or
>facts? Thanks, Mark
>

Bob H.

Just grab that plate in one hand, the chassis in the other,
and FEEL the power of tube audio!!!
(not literally, of course, just kidding. DON'T DO THAT!)