AMC CVT2030 STEREO TUBE AMPLIFIER

[Max Holubitsky]

Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes, but
for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.

[Shrivel]

I'm probably a bit biased (I own an AMC AV81HT pre-amp) but I've found
nearly every AMC unit to be an absolute bargain and to offer top-notch sound
quality. I say "nearly" every because the first AMC pre-amp I bought was a
short-lived piece that had center channel and rear channel amps built into
it and it suffered from pretty horrid noise. Although I've never owned the
piece in question, I've heard it several times at my dealer's shop and loved
it (it was especially amazing in conjunction with AMC CD player).

If I weren't such a home-theater junkie, I'd very likely own one. I highly
recommend it, especially if you can get one in the 200 dollar neighborhood
used.

Burton T. Maugans


"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes, but
> for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>

[Max Holubitsky]

Hey Guys

Thanks for the replies. I haven't managed to find a bad review of AMC's
tubed equipment yet, aside from some people having reliability problems with
their tube integrated. The specs for their tube amps don't say anything
about damping factor, which could possibly be a problem area (I find a lot
of inexpensive tube amp designs don't mention this spec for a reason)
If it's above 10 or so though this looks like a great way to go. This amp
isn't for me, but I want to recommend something in good conscience that has
a good price to performance ratio, for use with reasonably sensitive
speakers, in a medium sized room, (16x25) with my old Rotel line stage Pre,
and a Marantz CD-53. The system is slightly bright as is, and the old
reciever recently bit the dust, so it's time for a new amp.

Max



"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Shrivel wrote:
>
> >I'm probably a bit biased (I own an AMC AV81HT pre-amp) but I've found
> >nearly every AMC unit to be an absolute bargain and to offer top-notch
sound
> >quality. I say "nearly" every because the first AMC pre-amp I bought was
a
> >short-lived piece that had center channel and rear channel amps built
into
> >it and it suffered from pretty horrid noise. Although I've never owned
the
> >piece in question, I've heard it several times at my dealer's shop and
loved
> >it (it was especially amazing in conjunction with AMC CD player).
> >
> >If I weren't such a home-theater junkie, I'd very likely own one. I
highly
> >recommend it, especially if you can get one in the 200 dollar
neighborhood
> >used.
> >
> >Burton T. Maugans
> >
> >
>
> I haven't heard their tubvd equipment, but I share your enthusiasm for
their
> products. I had a chance a few years ago to hear one of their higher
powered
> SS models (at least 100 watts/chanel but I don't know the model number)
driving
> a pair of Eminent Technology LFT-VIIII hybrid planar speakers. These 2
pieces
> together gave many of the "higher priced spreads" a real run for money
IMHO.
> The ET's, at about $ 1600/pair compare very favorably with the Magnepan
1.6
> QR's, have better bass due to an effective woofer system, and don't
require as
> much power to drive to satisfying lievels IME. As for the AMC SS
amplifier
> that was driving them, all I can say was it was not at all harsh, sounded
very
> well balanced, and definitely provided adequate power and dynamics with
most
> types of music I heard, including full-scale orchestral and electric rock.
I
> agree with you that the AMC products, while not as highly advertised or
touted
> as some other brands, should be considered by those looking for high
quality
> entry level audio gear.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes, but
> >> for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
> >> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

[Max Holubitsky]

> If I weren't such a home-theater junkie, I'd very likely own one. I
highly
> recommend it, especially if you can get one in the 200 dollar neighborhood
> used.
>

You really think I can find one that cheaply? At that price, I can't see it
having much competition.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes, but
> for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.

**Until you have to fix the bloody things. They're unreliable and the
soldered tubes ARE a MAJOR PITA. Don't buy one. Failure rate is around 100%.


--
Trevor Wilson (who has serviced dozens of the bloody things, both in and out
of warranty)
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Daniel]

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message >...
> Shrivel wrote:
>
> >I'm probably a bit biased (I own an AMC AV81HT pre-amp) but I've found
> >nearly every AMC unit to be an absolute bargain and to offer top-notch sound
> >quality. I say "nearly" every because the first AMC pre-amp I bought was a
> >short-lived piece that had center channel and rear channel amps built into
> >it and it suffered from pretty horrid noise. Although I've never owned the
> >piece in question, I've heard it several times at my dealer's shop and loved
> >it (it was especially amazing in conjunction with AMC CD player).
> >
> >If I weren't such a home-theater junkie, I'd very likely own one. I highly
> >recommend it, especially if you can get one in the 200 dollar neighborhood
> >used.
> >
> >Burton T. Maugans
> >
> >
>
> I haven't heard their tubvd equipment, but I share your enthusiasm for their
> products. I had a chance a few years ago to hear one of their higher powered
> SS models (at least 100 watts/chanel but I don't know the model number) driving
> a pair of Eminent Technology LFT-VIIII hybrid planar speakers. These 2 pieces
> together gave many of the "higher priced spreads" a real run for money IMHO.
> The ET's, at about $ 1600/pair compare very favorably with the Magnepan 1.6
> QR's, have better bass due to an effective woofer system, and don't require as
> much power to drive to satisfying lievels IME. As for the AMC SS amplifier
> that was driving them, all I can say was it was not at all harsh, sounded very
> well balanced, and definitely provided adequate power and dynamics with most
> types of music I heard, including full-scale orchestral and electric rock. I
> agree with you that the AMC products, while not as highly advertised or touted
> as some other brands, should be considered by those looking for high quality
> entry level audio gear.
>

I have a 3050A 50 wpc integrated which I bought for $300 from Audio
Advisor a few years ago. It wants to suggest the NAD 3020A in its case
design and name. (I think the designer used to be with NAD.) It feels
a lot more substantial than the 3020A, though, which I bought it to
replace. I like it just fine, with a Rega Planet and Paradigm Atoms. A
very pleasant-sounding system.

[Shrivel]

My apologies. I was thinking of the prices of the solid state amps in their
range (it been quite a while since I've seen the 2030). What kind of prices
are you finding on eBay for the thing?

BTW, I was unaware the tubes were soldered onto the board in that amp. If
that's the case, it should be a concern - that's a pretty big technical
"faux pas" that shouldn't be ignored. I still stand by my opinion that it's
a great sounding amp, but the life-span of a vacuum tube ain't that great
and unless the thing's selling for a rock-bottom price, it might be best to
avoid it :-(





"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
>
> > If I weren't such a home-theater junkie, I'd very likely own one. I
> highly
> > recommend it, especially if you can get one in the 200 dollar
neighborhood
> > used.
> >
>
> You really think I can find one that cheaply? At that price, I can't see
it
> having much competition.
>
>

[Bruce J. Richman]

Compulsive liar, Krueger, exhibits his poor reading comprehension and
deliberate misrepresentation of what others have said:


>revor Wilson" > wrote in message

>
>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes, but
>>> for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
>>> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>
>> **Until you have to fix the bloody things. They're unreliable and the
>> soldered tubes ARE a MAJOR PITA. Don't buy one. Failure rate is
>> around 100%.
>
>No doubt.
>
>Anybody who understands tube technology should immediately see what an
>accident going some place to happen this POS is.
>
>30 wpc isn't bad for a pair of EL34s, in class AB. In class A operation as
>the manufacturer claims, their useful life has to be vastly reduced.
>
>When I had amps with (socketed) EL34s, the rule of thumb was replace them
>every year. At a few bucks apiece, this was no biggie. A $20 bill and a
>quick bias adjustment or three (until the tubes settled in) and I was
>stylin'. Well that was life in the middle of the last century, and things
>have improved greatly since then.
>
>What does a good EL34 cost today? Well, anywhere from $8 each and up. Not
>that bad if the $8 tubes are any good, all things considered.
>
>But AMC runs its tubes class A, vastly increasing current and heat. Note
>that the manufacturer brags about all the cooling fans he's added at
>http://www.amchome.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AO&Produ
>ct_Code=CVT3030as .
>
>Just blowing the heat away doesn't address the stress on limited-life
>internal components like cathodes.
>
>For the final ghastly touch, AMC solders the tubes in place. One would think
>that in 80 years that someone would have invented a good tube socket! Of
>course they did at least 50 years ago, so why doesn't AMC use them? Anybody
>ever hear of dynamic obsolescence?
>
>
>Richman's recommendation of planar speakers makes some sense because it's
>probable that their load impedance doesn't cause the AMC quite the audible
>coloration hassle that you get with more typical speakers. Regrettably,
>planar speakers are usually inefficient, so where does a short-lived 30 wpc
>get you, anyway?
>
>Bottom line, this is a boutique item for people who literally have money to
>burn. People who recommend crap like this would appear to be on a personal
>influence power trip. I did say Richman, didn't I?
>
>;-)
>
>In the end the dupes, I mean new owners have the final insult: They have to
>listen to this amp for a little while until it breaks! They will probably
>shortly be lusting after new speakers. After all the wailing and gnashing of
>teeth, it's got an output transformer, no doubt a relatively high output
>impedance, and its sound changes audibly with every different speaker you
>hook up to it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
\

As usual, the compulsive liar, Krueger, tries pathetically to misrepresent and
distort what another person has said.
As my post re. AMC products clearly indicates, there is an endorsement of the
Eminent Technology LFT-VIII planar/hybrid loudspeaker - not a pure planar as
the liar, Krueger, suggests. This endorsement was based on my personal
listening experiences with this speaker. Also, contrary to compulsive liar
Krueger's false report, I specifically mentioned hearing this speaker with an
AMC SOLID-STATE AMPLIFIER of at least 100 watts/channel power rating (model not
specified). I think most readers would agree that 100 watts/channel is usally
considered enough to drive even what might be a relatively inefficient speaker
such as the ET planar/hybrid. (ET recommends a minimum of 75 watts/channel as
suitable).
Of course, contrary to compulsive liar Krueger's fraudulent report, I did not
comment at all about AMC's tubed amplifiers, nor any other tubed amplifier in
combination with this ET speakers. I specifically described the subjective
qualities of the SS AMC amplifier, which I thouht were quite good.

Sioce compulsive liar, Krueger, has deliberately omitted my post so that he
could distort and misrepresent what I said, I'll unfortunately have to now
reproduce it here to further illustrate the degree of his deception and
fraudulent comments. I said the following re. the AMC SS amplifier/ET speaker
combination:

"I had a chance a few years ago to hear one of their higher powered
SS models (at least 100 watts/chanel but I don't know the model number) driving
a pair of Eminent Technology LFT-VIIII hybrid planar speakers. These 2 pieces
together gave many of the "higher priced spreads" a real run for money IMHO.
The ET's, at about $ 1600/pair compare very favorably with the Magnepan 1.6
QR's, have better bass due to an effective woofer system, and don't require as
much power to drive to satisfying lievels IME. As for the AMC SS amplifier
that was driving them, all I can say was it was not at all harsh, sounded very
well balanced, and definitely provided adequate power and dynamics with most
types of music I heard, including full-scale orchestral and electric rock"

The reference for the above post is:

Message-id: >

Note that, contrary to compulsive liar, Krueger's false assertions, there is
neither mention nor recommendation of AMC's tubed amplifiers here, and
certainly not in conjunction with the ET planar/hybrid loudspeaker.

<Expect compulsive liar Krueger to now try and backtrack and rationalize his
deliberate deceptive postings by claiming that my reference to AMC products
means I've endorsed their tubed products as well - a typical Krueger word-game,
parsing ploy - that has been exposed here by many of his targeted enemies that
he has fraudulently misrepresented>

One would think that after years of having his lies, deceptive deletions of
what others have actually said on RAO, and deliberate distortions &
misrepresentations of their words, he would finally "get it". But sadly, this
does not appear to be the case. He just continues to insult the intelligence
of all those who don't share his agenda-driven need to try and modify reality.

My thankis to Mr. Krueger for once again providing all on RAO to experience
once again a classic and transparent example of his typical efforts to
misrepresent and lie about what another poster has actually said. It's always
a pklasure to expose his lies and deceptions.

ROFLMAO!




Bruce J. Richman

[Max Holubitsky]

> eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less than what it
> is worth.
>
> If this thing really does have soldered-in tubes, it is just more evidence
> that the essence of selling tubed audio gear is sadism.
>
> It's way expensive ($1100) for just an integrated amplifier.

That's the CVT 3030 - the 3020 is a power amplifier, not an integrated amp, and
while it retails for $999 it can be had for $359 with a one year warrenty on
eBay.

> 30 wpc is marginal when it comes to power output, and frankly I don't see
> how they get 30 wpc out of a pair of EL34s in class "A".

They don't, I read a review of the 3030 (looks like the same power amp as the
3020) in a magazine which tested it, and found the class "A" claim to be false
advertising. It's just a plain class AB amp with solid state driver circuity. I
don't see what all the fuss is about "pure class A" operation anyhow.

> IME EL34's are hard put to do 30 wpc for very long in class AB and that is
> a cakewalk compared to true class A.

Tell this to the guitar folks. EL34's can reliably put out 50W, and more per
pair. In fact, if you want to push them, you can get 100W out of a single pair
of EL34s, without exceeding any of their design ratings. I wouldn't expect them
to last very long like that, but they are capable - 30W is idling.

> Then, they soldered-in these doomed-to-a-quick-death output tubes?
>

I'd probably install tube sockets the first time the tubes needed changing,
however if the amp is plagued by other reliability problems, I'll take it off
the list. EL34s are cheap and widly available, and I don't think reliability of
the tubes themselves will be a problem provided they are changed every couple
years, and a good brand is used in the first place.

[Max Holubitsky]

Shrivel wrote:

> My apologies. I was thinking of the prices of the solid state amps in their
> range (it been quite a while since I've seen the 2030). What kind of prices
> are you finding on eBay for the thing?

Around $360 or so although cheaper is surely possible. I haven't been looking
for very long.

> BTW, I was unaware the tubes were soldered onto the board in that amp. If
> that's the case, it should be a concern - that's a pretty big technical
> "faux pas" that shouldn't be ignored. I still stand by my opinion that it's
> a great sounding amp, but the life-span of a vacuum tube ain't that great
> and unless the thing's selling for a rock-bottom price, it might be best to
> avoid it :-(

If I can get it really cheaply, I would do it with the intent of installing tube
sockets... I believe that the latest versions of AMC tube products have tube
sockets installed, but at the price that they command, there are plenty of other
alternatives. The one huge advantage AMC seems to have over much of its
competiton, is they actually make reasonably priced tube gear that dosen't look
like it belongs next to a jacob's ladder and some flashing lights in some horror
movie set.

[Max Holubitsky]

> **Until you have to fix the bloody things. They're unreliable and the
> soldered tubes ARE a MAJOR PITA. Don't buy one. Failure rate is around 100%.

This is good to know. Most tube equipment I have owned has been extremely
reliable, aside from the output tubes getting weak every few years. If other
stuff is going to go wrong with it, it's a symptom of bad design, and I may as
well just forget about it.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Daniel P. Lynch wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
>...
>> Shrivel wrote:
>>
>> >I'm probably a bit biased (I own an AMC AV81HT pre-amp) but I've found
>> >nearly every AMC unit to be an absolute bargain and to offer top-notch
>sound
>> >quality. I say "nearly" every because the first AMC pre-amp I bought was
>a
>> >short-lived piece that had center channel and rear channel amps built into
>> >it and it suffered from pretty horrid noise. Although I've never owned
>the
>> >piece in question, I've heard it several times at my dealer's shop and
>loved
>> >it (it was especially amazing in conjunction with AMC CD player).
>> >
>> >If I weren't such a home-theater junkie, I'd very likely own one. I
>highly
>> >recommend it, especially if you can get one in the 200 dollar neighborhood
>> >used.
>> >
>> >Burton T. Maugans
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I haven't heard their tubvd equipment, but I share your enthusiasm for
>their
>> products. I had a chance a few years ago to hear one of their higher
>powered
>> SS models (at least 100 watts/chanel but I don't know the model number)
>driving
>> a pair of Eminent Technology LFT-VIIII hybrid planar speakers. These 2
>pieces
>> together gave many of the "higher priced spreads" a real run for money
>IMHO.
>> The ET's, at about $ 1600/pair compare very favorably with the Magnepan 1.6
>> QR's, have better bass due to an effective woofer system, and don't require
>as
>> much power to drive to satisfying lievels IME. As for the AMC SS amplifier
>> that was driving them, all I can say was it was not at all harsh, sounded
>very
>> well balanced, and definitely provided adequate power and dynamics with
>most
>> types of music I heard, including full-scale orchestral and electric rock.
>I
>> agree with you that the AMC products, while not as highly advertised or
>touted
>> as some other brands, should be considered by those looking for high
>quality
>> entry level audio gear.
>>
>
>I have a 3050A 50 wpc integrated which I bought for $300 from Audio
>Advisor a few years ago. It wants to suggest the NAD 3020A in its case
>design and name. (I think the designer used to be with NAD.) It feels
>a lot more substantial than the 3020A, though, which I bought it to
>replace. I like it just fine, with a Rega Planet and Paradigm Atoms. A
>very pleasant-sounding system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It sounds like you made a very wise choice. I've heard some SS equipment that I
cvouldn't stand (such as many of the Krell products) and others, such as some
of the AMC amplifiers and a few Classe products that I could very easily live
with.
As an aside, I listen to SS amplification just about every day in a car audio
system powered by an Audio Arts 4-channel amplifier diriving 4 sets of MB Quart
2-way speaker systems (with separate crossovers). My only comment is - I wish
that Audio Arts made home equipment as well, and then maybe I'd be using it
there also. The amplifier sounds very clean, clearly is not overly stressed by
the speakers despite having fairly moderate power ( 35 watts/channel times 4),
and never sounds overly harsh, analytical or bright. So there is no question
in my mind that SS amplification can be very appropriate for certain
amplifications and certain types of speakers.

Fortunately, unlike the compulsive liar and slanderer, Krueger, I don't suffer
from the irrational form of dichotomous thinking that compels me to lie,
distort and misrepresent the views of other people.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message



>> IME EL34's are hard put to do 30 wpc for very long in class AB and
>> that is a cakewalk compared to true class A.

> Tell this to the guitar folks.

Guitar amps and Hi Fi amps are two wildly different applications.

>EL34's can reliably put out 50W, and
> more per pair. In fact, if you want to push them, you can get 100W
> out of a single pair of EL34s, without exceeding any of their design
> ratings. I wouldn't expect them to last very long like that, but they
> are capable - 30W is idling.

No it isn't. I've had a number of HiFi amps with EL34 outputs and simply
know better.

Let's look at an official EL34 spec sheet. Skipping over all the strictly
NOT HiFi class B modes of operation we come to
http://www.triodeel.com/6ca7ap4.gif . There near the top we see the
manufacturer's view - 35 watts, but at 5% distortion. Definately NOT hi fi
at even this relatively low level of power. The old Dyna stereo 70 rated
EL34s at 35 watts, but in practice a few months of use and you were down to
about 30 watts at low distortion which hung on for a year or more, if you
were reasonably lucky.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message


> Krueger once again tries to frauduilently represent what I have said:

I've never done anything frauduilently.

>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes,
>>> but for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
>>> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>>
>> IME, stuff on eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less than
>> what it is worth.

> Another example of Krueger's arrogance.
> The success of eBay has a lot to do with people being able to get
> relatively high value for their dollar,not marginal savings.
> For example, a number of new products are sold on eBay on a regular
> basis at substantial discounts below MSRP. Of course to compulsive
> liar Krueger's way of thinking, that doesn't matter, since he
> arrogantly tries to define "worth" in terms specific only to him.

Tell you what, Richman you tell me your ebay ID and I'll tell you mine.
Let's take this discussion out of the abstract and into the area of personal
experience.

[Max Holubitsky]

> Let's look at an official EL34 spec sheet. Skipping over all the strictly
> NOT HiFi class B modes of operation we come to
> http://www.triodeel.com/6ca7ap4.gif . There near the top we see the
> manufacturer's view - 35 watts, but at 5% distortion. Definately NOT hi fi
> at even this relatively low level of power. The old Dyna stereo 70 rated
> EL34s at 35 watts, but in practice a few months of use and you were down
to
> about 30 watts at low distortion which hung on for a year or more, if you
> were reasonably lucky.
>
>
>

Okay Arny, at 375V on the plate? That's less than half the rated maximum
voltage! Are you kidding?

Turn the page and look at this one http://www.triodeel.com/6ca7ap5.gif
Have you heard of the Dynaco MK-II? Or any number of other amps which get at
least 50W from a pair of AB1 EL34's?

Not to mention that 5% THD is with *zero negative feedback* - have you ever
looked at the performance of a solid state amp with no negative feedback?

I normally see your posts as being biased, which is cool, because it's never
bad to have an opinion and defend it - overly neutral people can get boring
but this is just technically inaccurate.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:04:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>
>> Krueger once again tries to frauduilently represent what I have said:
>
>I've never done anything frauduilently.
>
>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes,
>>>> but for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
>>>> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>>>
>>> IME, stuff on eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less than
>>> what it is worth.
>
>> Another example of Krueger's arrogance.
>> The success of eBay has a lot to do with people being able to get
>> relatively high value for their dollar,not marginal savings.
>> For example, a number of new products are sold on eBay on a regular
>> basis at substantial discounts below MSRP. Of course to compulsive
>> liar Krueger's way of thinking, that doesn't matter, since he
>> arrogantly tries to define "worth" in terms specific only to him.
>
>Tell you what, Richman you tell me your ebay ID and I'll tell you mine.
>Let's take this discussion out of the abstract and into the area of personal
>experience.

Arny's is arnyk.

This is public record.

Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.

The most interesting thing about Arnold is that he apparently isn't
the best of eBayers, as he doesn't give a lot of feedback in return to
the feedback that *he's* been given. His percentage of feedback
given/received ratio is only 50%. Poor performance indeed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
. ca
>> Let's look at an official EL34 spec sheet. Skipping over all the
>> strictly NOT HiFi class B modes of operation we come to
>> http://www.triodeel.com/6ca7ap4.gif . There near the top we see the
>> manufacturer's view - 35 watts, but at 5% distortion. Definately NOT
>> hi fi at even this relatively low level of power. The old Dyna
>> stereo 70 rated EL34s at 35 watts, but in practice a few months of
>> use and you were down
> to
>> about 30 watts at low distortion which hung on for a year or more,
>> if you were reasonably lucky.

> Okay Arny, at 375V on the plate? That's less than half the rated
> maximum voltage! Are you kidding?

Not in the least.

Maybe you ought to look at the rec.audio.tubes google archives and see what
guys like ned carlson say about running EL34s with 750 volts on the plates.

> Turn the page and look at this one http://www.triodeel.com/6ca7ap5.gif
> Have you heard of the Dynaco MK-II? Or any number of other amps which
> get at least 50W from a pair of AB1 EL34's?

These amps were very popular in my days with tubes. What Dyna claimed and
what showed up in public tests of them (i.e., Mac Clinics) were let's say
divergent.

Upgrading MK II amps to use 6550s is a popular mod.

> Not to mention that 5% THD is with *zero negative feedback* - have
> you ever looked at the performance of a solid state amp with no
> negative feedback?

The spec given was for just the output stage. So let's look at the
distortion of the output stage of a SS amp without feedback. I've done this
test a number of times and partially due to the fact that most SS amp output
stages are push-pull emitter followers with lots of local negative feedback,
their distortion without feedback under similar conditions is not gross -
typically under 1%. If you look at studies of sources of distortion in SS
power amps (i.e., Doug Self's web site) he finds that other parts of the amp
are very significant contributors.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:04:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Krueger once again tries to frauduilently represent what I have
>>> said:
>>
>> I've never done anything frauduilently.
>>
>>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes,
>>>>> but for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
>>>>> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>>>>
>>>> IME, stuff on eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less
>>>> than what it is worth.
>>
>>> Another example of Krueger's arrogance.
>>> The success of eBay has a lot to do with people being able to get
>>> relatively high value for their dollar,not marginal savings.
>>> For example, a number of new products are sold on eBay on a regular
>>> basis at substantial discounts below MSRP. Of course to compulsive
>>> liar Krueger's way of thinking, that doesn't matter, since he
>>> arrogantly tries to define "worth" in terms specific only to him.
>>
>> Tell you what, Richman you tell me your ebay ID and I'll tell you
>> mine. Let's take this discussion out of the abstract and into the
>> area of personal experience.
>
> Arny's is arnyk.
>
> This is public record.
>
> Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
> but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.

The guy was nervous. I silently suffered with his crap because I got a good
deal.

> The most interesting thing about Arnold is that he apparently isn't
> the best of eBayers, as he doesn't give a lot of feedback in return to
> the feedback that *he's* been given.

Sometimes I do people favors by not leaving feedback. In other cases I'm
dealing with people who have 100's, sometimes over 1000 pieces of feedback
already.

>His percentage of feedback
> given/received ratio is only 50%. Poor performance indeed.

Whine, whine whine. It's the price I pay for using an obvious eBay userid
around compulisvely condescending sourpusses like Weil.

Notice how forthcoming Weil is with his own eBay ID. I guess he's got
something to hide or is just plain paranoid.

[Max Holubitsky]

> Not in the least.
>
> Maybe you ought to look at the rec.audio.tubes google archives and see what
> guys like ned carlson say about running EL34s with 750 volts on the plates.

I am not saying that running EL34s with 750 volts on the plate is a good idea,
just that a pair of EL34s had the potential to develop well beyond 30W of power.
Not to mention, that the operating conditions I showed you were at 500V on the
plate, which is far more reasonable than 750.

Therefore, restricting power output of the amp to 30W qualifies as a
conservative use of the tube, which will prolong the life span of the tubes.
Your original point was that the tubes in the amplifier in question were being
pushed to their limit, and I wholeheartedly disagree - most of the operating
conditions shown in the data sheet create far more than 30 Watts. Even the
venerable Marantz 9 gets more than 30 W out of each pair of EL34's.

> The spec given was for just the output stage. So let's look at the
> distortion of the output stage of a SS amp without feedback. I've done this
> test a number of times and partially due to the fact that most SS amp output
> stages are push-pull emitter followers with lots of local negative feedback,
> their distortion without feedback under similar conditions is not gross -
> typically under 1%.

Local negative feedback is still negative feedback. Further, it is possible to
design a tube amplifier with local feedback loops that will knock the output
stage distortion to well below the 5% quoted, even before global negative
feedback is considered. The 50W amplifier design in the back of some RCA tube
manuals shows a good example of this technique, and that particular design has
excellent specifications.

There is obviously no contest between ultra low distortion ss amps, and the best
tube amps, when it comes to distortion measurements, but a well designed EL34
amp will have much, much less than 5% THD at 30W. If it actually did have 5% THD
it would sound terrible.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message



> Arny's (eBay id) is arnyk.

> This is public record.

I know an eBay ID that Weil uses, but since he's paranoid about it being
blabbed around, I won't post what it is. I also don't know that its the only
one he uses.

However I will say that I don't share his taste in sub-$2 refrigerator
magnets which is all that I can see that he has used eBay for lately.

There you go, David Weil, last of the big spenders!

BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio gear as
have been virtually all of my transactions.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:04:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:04:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Krueger once again tries to frauduilently represent what I have
>>>> said:
>>>
>>> I've never done anything frauduilently.
>>>
>>>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered tubes,
>>>>>> but for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they get on
>>>>>> audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>>>>>
>>>>> IME, stuff on eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less
>>>>> than what it is worth.
>>>
>>>> Another example of Krueger's arrogance.
>>>> The success of eBay has a lot to do with people being able to get
>>>> relatively high value for their dollar,not marginal savings.
>>>> For example, a number of new products are sold on eBay on a regular
>>>> basis at substantial discounts below MSRP. Of course to compulsive
>>>> liar Krueger's way of thinking, that doesn't matter, since he
>>>> arrogantly tries to define "worth" in terms specific only to him.
>>>
>>> Tell you what, Richman you tell me your ebay ID and I'll tell you
>>> mine. Let's take this discussion out of the abstract and into the
>>> area of personal experience.
>>
>> Arny's is arnyk.
>>
>> This is public record.
>>
>> Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
>> but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.
>
>The guy was nervous.

Yeah, he probably thought he wasn't getting paid because you took so
long to pay. And then you communicated with him the same way you
communicate around here. No wonder he was 'nervous".

>I silently suffered with his crap because I got a good deal.
>
>> The most interesting thing about Arnold is that he apparently isn't
>> the best of eBayers, as he doesn't give a lot of feedback in return to
>> the feedback that *he's* been given.
>
>Sometimes I do people favors by not leaving feedback. In other cases I'm
>dealing with people who have 100's, sometimes over 1000 pieces of feedback
>already.

So? This means that you don't need to add your own feedback?

>>His percentage of feedback
>> given/received ratio is only 50%. Poor performance indeed.
>
>Whine, whine whine. It's the price I pay for using an obvious eBay userid
>around compulisvely condescending sourpusses like Weil.

<shrug>

You're the one who disclosed your eBay ID, so it doesn't matter
whether or not it was obvious or not. It was "obvious" the day you
revealed it here on RAO.

>Notice how forthcoming Weil is with his own eBay ID. I guess he's got
>something to hide or is just plain paranoid.

No, I'm just smarter than you are, apparently. Of course, you're on
record as thinking that a person's feedback record is not a big deal.
I happen to disagree.

BTW, the answer is "a little bit of b".

[Max Holubitsky]

> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio gear as
> have been virtually all of my transactions.

My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:04:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:04:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Krueger once again tries to frauduilently represent what I have
>>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>> I've never done anything frauduilently.
>>>>
>>>>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered
>>>>>>> tubes, but for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they
>>>>>>> get on audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IME, stuff on eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less
>>>>>> than what it is worth.
>>>>
>>>>> Another example of Krueger's arrogance.
>>>>> The success of eBay has a lot to do with people being able to get
>>>>> relatively high value for their dollar,not marginal savings.
>>>>> For example, a number of new products are sold on eBay on a
>>>>> regular basis at substantial discounts below MSRP. Of course to
>>>>> compulsive liar Krueger's way of thinking, that doesn't matter,
>>>>> since he arrogantly tries to define "worth" in terms specific
>>>>> only to him.
>>>>
>>>> Tell you what, Richman you tell me your ebay ID and I'll tell you
>>>> mine. Let's take this discussion out of the abstract and into the
>>>> area of personal experience.
>>>
>>> Arny's is arnyk.
>>>
>>> This is public record.
>>>
>>> Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
>>> but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.
>>
>> The guy was nervous.

> Yeah, he probably thought he wasn't getting paid because you took so
> long to pay.

I've got 10 days under the rules. This guy seemed to think that there were
like 12 hours in a day.

> And then you communicated with him the same way you
> communicate around here. No wonder he was 'nervous".

Hey guys, its Weil's mind reading act. he knows all about this transaction
and reports just the facts.

>> I silently suffered with his crap because I got a good deal.

>>> The most interesting thing about Arnold is that he apparently isn't
>>> the best of eBayers, as he doesn't give a lot of feedback in return
>>> to the feedback that *he's* been given.
>>
>> Sometimes I do people favors by not leaving feedback. In other cases
>> I'm dealing with people who have 100's, sometimes over 1000 pieces
>> of feedback already.

> So? This means that you don't need to add your own feedback?

There's no rule saying that I do.

>>> His percentage of feedback
>>> given/received ratio is only 50%. Poor performance indeed.
>>
>> Whine, whine whine. It's the price I pay for using an obvious eBay
>> userid around compulisvely condescending sourpusses like Weil.
>
> <shrug>

> You're the one who disclosed your eBay ID, so it doesn't matter
> whether or not it was obvious or not. It was "obvious" the day you
> revealed it here on RAO.

Why don't you reproduce the post where I revealed it.

>> Notice how forthcoming Weil is with his own eBay ID. I guess he's got
>> something to hide or is just plain paranoid.

> No, I'm just smarter than you are, apparently.

Thanks for admitting that you think that hiding your activities is a good
idea, Weil.

>Of course, you're on
> record as thinking that a person's feedback record is not a big deal.

I believe that would be true. Especially when they are 100% positive which
obviously your's aren't given your paranoia.

> I happen to disagree.

Which is why you hide your activities, natch.

> BTW, the answer is "a little bit of b".

BTW, that's not relevant to the eBay you were using the last time I tracked
you down. That answer would be more like a distant b... But I'll remember
the new one and keep that it on my records for when you actually use it for
something.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:44:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:04:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:04:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Krueger once again tries to frauduilently represent what I have
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never done anything frauduilently.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone here ever own/try one? Not crazy about the soldered
>>>>>>>> tubes, but for the price they go on ebay, and the reviews they
>>>>>>>> get on audioreview.com, it looks like somewhat of a bargain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IME, stuff on eBay pretty much gets sold for not that much less
>>>>>>> than what it is worth.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example of Krueger's arrogance.
>>>>>> The success of eBay has a lot to do with people being able to get
>>>>>> relatively high value for their dollar,not marginal savings.
>>>>>> For example, a number of new products are sold on eBay on a
>>>>>> regular basis at substantial discounts below MSRP. Of course to
>>>>>> compulsive liar Krueger's way of thinking, that doesn't matter,
>>>>>> since he arrogantly tries to define "worth" in terms specific
>>>>>> only to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell you what, Richman you tell me your ebay ID and I'll tell you
>>>>> mine. Let's take this discussion out of the abstract and into the
>>>>> area of personal experience.
>>>>
>>>> Arny's is arnyk.
>>>>
>>>> This is public record.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
>>>> but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.
>>>
>>> The guy was nervous.
>
>> Yeah, he probably thought he wasn't getting paid because you took so
>> long to pay.
>
>I've got 10 days under the rules. This guy seemed to think that there were
>like 12 hours in a day.
>
>> And then you communicated with him the same way you
>> communicate around here. No wonder he was 'nervous".
>
>Hey guys, its Weil's mind reading act. he knows all about this transaction
>and reports just the facts.
>
>>> I silently suffered with his crap because I got a good deal.
>
>>>> The most interesting thing about Arnold is that he apparently isn't
>>>> the best of eBayers, as he doesn't give a lot of feedback in return
>>>> to the feedback that *he's* been given.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I do people favors by not leaving feedback. In other cases
>>> I'm dealing with people who have 100's, sometimes over 1000 pieces
>>> of feedback already.
>
>> So? This means that you don't need to add your own feedback?
>
>There's no rule saying that I do.

No, it's just good eBay citizenship. Thanks for showing the world yet
again that you have very little consideration for protocol and others.

>>>> His percentage of feedback
>>>> given/received ratio is only 50%. Poor performance indeed.
>>>
>>> Whine, whine whine. It's the price I pay for using an obvious eBay
>>> userid around compulisvely condescending sourpusses like Weil.
>>
>> <shrug>
>
>> You're the one who disclosed your eBay ID, so it doesn't matter
>> whether or not it was obvious or not. It was "obvious" the day you
>> revealed it here on RAO.
>
>Why don't you reproduce the post where I revealed it.

You revealed it the day you posted the link to the turntable that you
won on eBay.

Are you denying that you posted a link to the closed auction of the
Rega turntable that you bought?

>>> Notice how forthcoming Weil is with his own eBay ID. I guess he's got
>>> something to hide or is just plain paranoid.
>
>> No, I'm just smarter than you are, apparently.
>
>Thanks for admitting that you think that hiding your activities is a good
>idea, Weil.

I think it is sometimes (or not freely revealing it).

Does the fact that you probably aren't willing to reveal your social
security number on USENET mean that you're "hiding something"?

>>Of course, you're on
>> record as thinking that a person's feedback record is not a big deal.
>
>I believe that would be true. Especially when they are 100% positive which
>obviously your's aren't given your paranoia.
>
>> I happen to disagree.
>
>Which is why you hide your activities, natch.
>
>> BTW, the answer is "a little bit of b".
>
>BTW, that's not relevant to the eBay you were using the last time I tracked
>you down. That answer would be more like a distant b... But I'll remember
>the new one and keep that it on my records for when you actually use it for
>something.

Why did you deceptively edit this post?

PS, I've used the same eBay that I've always used.

[John Stone]

in article , Max Holubitsky at wrote
on 8/8/03 3:23 PM:

> There is obviously no contest between ultra low distortion ss amps, and the
> best
> tube amps, when it comes to distortion measurements, but a well designed EL34
> amp will have much, much less than 5% THD at 30W. If it actually did have 5%
> THD
> it would sound terrible.
>

A good example of this is the venerable Marantz 8B. 35wpc 20Hz-20kHz with
less than .5% THD . It met this spec with ease, and the tubes lasted a lot
longer than a few months. I owned one for years and never did anything to it
other than replace and rebias output tubes every few years.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said of ****-for-Brains:

> Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
> but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.

"eventually got the money, not quick, not the best communication,
ended well."

I'll bet Turdy told the seller he was completely dependent on public
assistance and/or long-term disability payments in order to buy
sympathy.

[George M. Middius]

Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:

> > BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio gear as
> > have been virtually all of my transactions.

> My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?

You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay somebody
with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:25:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>

>>> Arny's (eBay id) is arnyk.

>> This is public record.

>> I know an eBay ID that Weil uses, but since he's paranoid about it
>> being blabbed around, I won't post what it is. I also don't know
>> that its the only one he uses.

> It is.

So you say Weil, but I'll shortly prove that you are not to be trusted at
all.

Weil, your word is your bomb, speaking figuratively.

LOL!

>> However I will say that I don't share his taste in sub-$2
>> refrigerator magnets which is all that I can see that he has used
>> eBay for lately.

> Then you should know that I have a spotless feedback record and have
> actually posted more feedback comments than I've received. Also, I'd
> argue that the quality and consistency of what people write about me
> far exceeds what they write about you. Yes, that's an IMHO.

>> There you go, David Weil, last of the big spenders!

> Well, it's not much worse than an $80 slide projector.

Sure it is, One of the fridge magnets closed for a penny, didn't it? The
other for under $2. What a hoot!

I bought the slide projector for a pretty good reason - I needed the slide
projector to show some slides I have to my kids when they were in town last
June. I was having a hard time even finding one to borrow from friends, and
rental make eBay prices look good.

>One has to
> wonder what kind of torture something like that is going to have to
> undergo.

Lame and petty but characteristic of Weil.

>> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200,

> This is a lie.

> Unless shipping was $114.

Let me see. Ohh, that's old news. Can't read can you Weil? It's dated May
27, but I've been very clear in recent RAO postings that I just completed
another transaction for a Creative Labs Jukebox 3. Yes here it is.

<Well guys, since Weil is such a prick I won't post the whole transaction
ID, but the last 4 digits are 3479. If you look at closed auction for the
device indicated, you'll see more proof that Weil is a big-mouthed fool who
goes around calling people liars when they are telling the absolute and
totally verifiable truth.>

>> and was for audio gear as
>> have been virtually all of my transactions.

> Only half of your currently viewable transactions have been for audio.

Wrong again Weil. My most recent transaction is clearly viewable, and you as
an eBay user can verify it easily via private email with the seller. The
transaction is done and the item in question is in my possession. You can
search google and see technical comments from me about it that would be
pretty hard to falsify.

> Only about half of my transactions have been for audio, although one
> of them was for more than $4,000. The breakdown is something like
> this:

> About 6 refrigerator magnets.
> About 30 coins and stamps.
> A couple of books.

So you say, Weil. But since you are so free about making such nasty false
claims about me, why extend you *any* credibility at all?

For all we know you've been selling stuff to yourself to build up your
feedback rating.

Since my feedback has been a little controversial in one or two places, it's
far more clear that it's the real thing.

[Max Holubitsky]

> A good example of this is the venerable Marantz 8B. 35wpc 20Hz-20kHz with
> less than .5% THD . It met this spec with ease, and the tubes lasted a lot
> longer than a few months. I owned one for years and never did anything to it
> other than replace and rebias output tubes every few years.

Nice amp! That is about what you can expect in terms of reliability, with a good
tube amp.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Stone" > wrote in message


> in article , Max Holubitsky at
> wrote on 8/8/03 3:23 PM:

>> There is obviously no contest between ultra low distortion ss amps, and
the best
>> tube amps, when it comes to distortion measurements, but a well
>> designed EL34 amp will have much, much less than 5% THD at 30W. If
>> it actually did have 5% THD
>> it would sound terrible.

The fact of the matter is that most amps are used well below full output
nearly 100% of the time and they have less than rated distortion at the
power levels where they are actually used. Therefore the distortion at rated
power could be even larger than 10% without terrible sound as actually used.

> A good example of this is the venerable Marantz 8B. 35wpc 20Hz-20kHz
> with less than .5% THD . It met this spec with ease, and the tubes
> lasted a lot longer than a few months.

What constitutes a tube *lasting* is generally subjective. Typically a tubed
amp is performing well below spec, but still in some sense operating, when
the tubes are replaced. If you test your amp on the bench every few months,
then you can know for sure that its operating within spec. But few people
actually did that.

I think its possible that the Marantz had significantly beefier output
transformers than the Dyna ST-70, that these transformers had less
distortion, and therefore the tubes ran longer before the total distortion
in the amp rose above 0.5%. Weight of the 8B is given as 55-57 pounds.
Weight of the ST-70 is given as something like 32 pounds which seems about
right. I'm sure the extra 20+ pounds weren't just the chassis!

> I owned one for years and
> never did anything to it other than replace and rebias output tubes
> every few years.

Nothing different from what I did with my tubed amps which admittedly peaked
out with a Dyna ST-70 and a Eico ST-70. This is simply what one did in those
days if one was interested in good sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message

>> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio
>> gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.
>
> My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?

OK Max so you want to show us how big of a *man* you are.

Yawn.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> dave weil said of ****-for-Brains:
>
>> Apparently, recently someone had a substandard experience with him,
>> but was generous and gave him a positive rating anyway.
>
> "eventually got the money, not quick, not the best communication,
> ended well."
>
> I'll bet Turdy told the seller he was completely dependent on public
> assistance and/or long-term disability payments in order to buy
> sympathy.

Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.

NOT!

[Max Holubitsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>
> >> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio
> >> gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.
> >
> > My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?
>
> OK Max so you want to show us how big of a *man* you are.
>
> Yawn.

Obviously that was your intent - who on earth cares you spend $200

[Max Holubitsky]

> The fact of the matter is that most amps are used well below full output
> nearly 100% of the time and they have less than rated distortion at the
> power levels where they are actually used. Therefore the distortion at
rated
> power could be even larger than 10% without terrible sound as actually
used.
>

Not going to disagree with you. I think that pushing an amp into the region
where it's producing 10% distortion, and then measuring it's power at that
level, is a great way to inflate the power output rating for marketing
reasons. It's not an apples to apples comparison though, to an amp which
produces 0.1% distortion at the same power level.

> > A good example of this is the venerable Marantz 8B. 35wpc 20Hz-20kHz
> > with less than .5% THD . It met this spec with ease, and the tubes
> > lasted a lot longer than a few months.
>
> What constitutes a tube *lasting* is generally subjective. Typically a
tubed
> amp is performing well below spec, but still in some sense operating, when
> the tubes are replaced. If you test your amp on the bench every few
months,
> then you can know for sure that its operating within spec. But few people
> actually did that.
>

I generally test the tubes in my amps once every several months, and replace
them every year or two. I've tested my amps for power output and distortion
with really worn out used tubes, just to see the difference, and power
output drops in half. The key is to replace them before the performance
really starts to degrade, and before the amp really starts to diverge from
spec.

> I think its possible that the Marantz had significantly beefier output
> transformers than the Dyna ST-70, that these transformers had less
> distortion, and therefore the tubes ran longer before the total distortion
> in the amp rose above 0.5%. Weight of the 8B is given as 55-57 pounds.
> Weight of the ST-70 is given as something like 32 pounds which seems about
> right. I'm sure the extra 20+ pounds weren't just the chassis!
>

The Dyna ST-70 is a great amp, but it's still a budget design, and has its
limitations.

> > I owned one for years and
> > never did anything to it other than replace and rebias output tubes
> > every few years.
>
> Nothing different from what I did with my tubed amps which admittedly
peaked
> out with a Dyna ST-70 and a Eico ST-70. This is simply what one did in
those
> days if one was interested in good sound.
>
>
Same thing still holds true to today.

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>

>>>> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio
>>>> gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.

>>> My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?
>
>> OK Max so you want to show us how big of a *man* you are.

>> Yawn.

> Obviously that was your intent - who on earth cares you spend $200.

The same kind of lame brain who brags about his $0.01 and $1.99
transactions, namely Weil.

If you don't see the humor Max, explaining it to you is futile.

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:45:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.

Why are you not forthcoming with your mug shots?

--
Thine

[Max Holubitsky]

> > I generally test the tubes in my amps once every several months, and
> > replace them every year or two. I've tested my amps for power output
> > and distortion with really worn out used tubes, just to see the
> > difference, and power output drops in half. The key is to replace
> > them before the performance really starts to degrade, and before the
> > amp really starts to diverge from spec.
>
> I'm not talking about testing tubes, I'm talking about testing amps. Tubes
> are just one of several sources of distortion in tubed amps.
>

Fair enough, but assuming the other components in the amp are fairly new,
the tubes are the only thing that will degrade with use.

> > Same thing still holds true to today.
>
> Not for just about 100% of everybody. There's only a tiny but noisy
minority
> left who haven't long ago, updated to superior modern technology.

That's true. I should have said same thing holds true to today for owners of
tube amplifiers.

Speaking of updating to "modern technology", I am currently constructing an
amplifier based on National Semiconductor literature, which may replace my
tube amps for day to day use, once it's completed, depending on how I like
the sound.

If you want, check out http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-1192.pdf and look at
the 200W amp. I know it's op amp based, but the specs look pretty
incredible, and I figured it might be fun building a high powered SS amp,
with excellent specs. It will definitly exceed the frequency response and
dynamic range capabilities of my speakers. I haven't got a dummy load big
enough to test it with, but I think clipping it would blow my speakers,
anyhow!

[Max Holubitsky]

> I checked out some technical details before I made that rather specific
> clain about that specific amp.
>
> If you check the RAO archives you can find me beating John Atkinson up for
> making similar unfounded claims about an amp that was somewhat unusual.
I'm
> really not into hypocracy so I wouldn't make the same mistake myself if I
> could avoid it.
>

Point noted.

>
> They are sold because they can be sold, I guess. One looks at SETs and
sees
> an amp with virtually every worthwhile technical refinement that has been
> made to tubed amps in the past 75 years removed. What does one make of
that?

I haven't had experience using one, so I can't really comment on their sound
quality. Based on specs alone, I think one can draw his own concusions as to
how they will sound, but people do buy them.

>
> > I don't think you made an unreasonable assumption,
> > because if the amp had a good damping factor it would likely be
> > mentioned in the specs.
>
> The specs say that 14 dB of overall feedback is used. That combined with
the
> presence of output transformers pretty much says that this amp is no great
> shakes when it comes to having a low output impedance.
>
> A tubed amp with 14 dB of feedback probably has a damping factor in the
> range of 12-20 @ 8 ohms, for an output impedance of more than 1/3 of an
> ohm. That's relatively high by modern standards. There are probably 0.5
dB
> to 1 dB or more frequency response variations in the amp's response due to
> output impedance and speaker impedance variations, alone. Factor in
> additional response variations due to the output transformer and you've
got
> something that could pass as an equalizer, regrettably one that varies its
> response somewhat arbitrarily as you change speakers, one that you can't
> adjust and one you can't bypass.
>
>

I agree there too - *however* 1/3 ohm wouldn't even be all that bad. I
seriously doubt I could hear a 0.5dB variation in frequency response, given
normal speakers, with a fairly smooth impedance curve, in a normal room.

I don't know if 14dB of global NFB is enough though, because that's only a 5
times reduction in output impedance over an amp with no NFB at all - this
translates into a damping factor of 4 or 5 for an ultralinear output stage,
and much, much worse if it's a pentode output stage. I wonder if they're not
employing some other tricks to cut down the output impedance.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
...
> > **Until you have to fix the bloody things. They're unreliable and the
> > soldered tubes ARE a MAJOR PITA. Don't buy one. Failure rate is around
100%.
>
> This is good to know. Most tube equipment I have owned has been extremely
> reliable, aside from the output tubes getting weak every few years. If
other
> stuff is going to go wrong with it, it's a symptom of bad design, and I
may as
> well just forget about it.

**Smart move. These things are absolute crap. It reached a point where the
Australian distributor was supplying entire modules, because none of the
warranty agents wanted to desolder the damned tubes, or fault find the
output stages. There's a bunch of solid state stuff, associated with each
tube, you know. It fails, when the tubes fail. There are better, more
reliable tube amps to be had, if that is your preference. They're a whole
bunch easier to repair too.

In the final analysis, you should ask yourself this: "Why are these things
so common in the second hand market-place?"


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Bruce J. Richman]

Thee Signal wrote:


>Lived EHT > wrote:
>
>>>Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.
>>
>>Why are you not forthcoming with your mug shots?
>
>They are all coated in smegma?
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>

Could it ber that they've been used for the same purpose that he uses $ 100.00
bills?




Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Paul wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:
>
>>>>>Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.
>>>>
>>>>Why are you not forthcoming with your mug shots?
>>>
>>>They are all coated in smegma?
>>
>>Could it ber that they've been used for the same purpose that he uses $
>100.00
>>bills?
>
>LOL! Nice one Bruce, I almost choked on my fag :-)
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think you should perhaps use a different choice of words, Paul..The phrase
"choke on my fag" could be interpreted as another reference to Krueger's
alleged criminal activities.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
. ca
>>> I generally test the tubes in my amps once every several months, and
>>> replace them every year or two. I've tested my amps for power output
>>> and distortion with really worn out used tubes, just to see the
>>> difference, and power output drops in half. The key is to replace
>>> them before the performance really starts to degrade, and before the
>>> amp really starts to diverge from spec.

>> I'm not talking about testing tubes, I'm talking about testing amps.
>> Tubes are just one of several sources of distortion in tubed amps.

> Fair enough, but assuming the other components in the amp are fairly
> new, the tubes are the only thing that will degrade with use.

That would be what we expect, but exceptions are not uncommong.


> Speaking of updating to "modern technology", I am currently
> constructing an amplifier based on National Semiconductor literature,
> which may replace my tube amps for day to day use, once it's
> completed, depending on how I like the sound.
>
> If you want, check out http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-1192.pdf and
> look at the 200W amp. I know it's op amp based, but the specs look
> pretty incredible, and I figured it might be fun building a high
> powered SS amp, with excellent specs. It will definitely exceed the
> frequency response and dynamic range capabilities of my speakers. I
> haven't got a dummy load big enough to test it with, but I think
> clipping it would blow my speakers, anyhow!

The LM3886 seems to be the IC that *everybody* likes. Search google on
LM3886, gaincard and gainclone...

The 200 watt amp is basically limited to 8 ohm loads which I see as a
possible issue. Too many "8 ohm" speakers that dive down to 4 ohms.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:45:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.
>
> Why are you not forthcoming with your mug shots?

It seems unfair for you to demand that I provide evidence to support your
delusions.

[Lived EHT]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:56:20 +0100, Thee Signal >
wrote:

>LOL! Nice one Bruce, I almost choked on my fag :-)

You're taking the ****. And Arnii will think you're trying to eat,
albeit indigestibly, a homosexual.

--
Thine

[Lived EHT]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:31:06 +0100, Thee Signal >
wrote:

>I'm not convinced Kruegers son existed. What proof have we got?


Beyond a few dents in a baseball bat, who knows?

--
tHINE

[dave weil]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:22:48 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> > BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio gear as
>> > have been virtually all of my transactions.
>
>> My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?
>
>You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay somebody
>with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.

Well, it was a lie anyway. His last transaction was a purchase for $86
plus shipment.

Well, it was more than my refigerator magnet, that's fer sure.

[Max Holubitsky]

> > Fair enough, but assuming the other components in the amp are fairly
> > new, the tubes are the only thing that will degrade with use.
>
> That would be what we expect, but exceptions are not uncommong.

Caps deteriorate over time and resistors drift, but if you use modern 1%
metal film resistors, good quality Sprague or Mallory electrolytics, and
plastic film coupling caps, there really should be no problems. Passive
components have come a **long** way since the days of your EICO or Dynaco,
and tube electronics gain as much from modern passive components as SS
electronics do.

Obviously, if you are speaking about 10% carbon composition resistors, cheap
generic electrolytics, and old paper coupling caps, it's a different story.


****

>
> The LM3886 seems to be the IC that *everybody* likes. Search google on
> LM3886, gaincard and gainclone...
>

That's why I'm building it. A couple years ago, I rebuilt an old Yamaha
receiver with LM3886's because I didn't want to bother troubleshooting an
old amp with no circuit diagram. I was pleasently suprised by the results,
and it's currently used as a home theatre left and right amp. The chips are
even free, as engineering samples.

> The 200 watt amp is basically limited to 8 ohm loads which I see as a
> possible issue. Too many "8 ohm" speakers that dive down to 4 ohms.
>
>

I think it's the 100W BTL amp that is limited to 8 ohms, the 200W amp will
do 4 ohm just fine, as it used 4 ICs in series parallel.
I've got the power supply assembled already, and am just finishing the PCB
design for the amp. I got a huge torrid power transformer for it, a robust
rectifier, and lots of filter capacitance. My Tannoy Saturn S6's are rated
at 6 ohms, and 90dB at one meter - I can't possibly see ever getting near
to clipping this amp, in practice.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny "CLK" Krueger exhibits his ignorance re. his neologistic use of strange
language:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:22:48 -0400, George M. Middius
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:
>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for
>>>>>>> audio gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.
>>>
>>>>>> My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000
>>>>>> pennies?
>>>
>>>>> You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay
>>>>> somebody with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.
>>>
>>> Just when I thought I'd seen the ultimate in delusional claims from
>>> the Middiot.
>>>
>>>> Well, it was a lie anyway. His last transaction was a purchase for
>>>> $86 plus shipment.
>
>>> Weil, I've thoroughly debunked this claim but yet you persist in it.
>>> Why is that Weil? Need more public ridicule?
>
>> Does anybody understand what C-L-K is referring to? One just can't
>> get enough of that ridicule!
>
>Let's see if I can explain it to you at a level that you can understand,
>Richman.
>

<deletion of Krueger's simplistic attempt to deny taking responsibility fo his
moronic spelling error>

IOW, you refuse, as usual to acknowledge that you make spelling errors on a
regular basis on RAO. The only reason I even condescended to call you on it is
because you do so to others.

Thanks for once again demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Now, I'll let you get back to your compulsive fabrications.

Just keep trying to tell everybody about redicule. Maybe you can make up some
more incoherent words to go with this one.

LOL!




Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:21:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:22:48 -0400, George M. Middius
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:
>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for
>>>>>>> audio gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.
>>>
>>>>>> My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000
>>>>>> pennies?
>>>
>>>>> You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay
>>>>> somebody with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.
>>>
>>> Just when I thought I'd seen the ultimate in delusional claims from
>>> the Middiot.
>>>
>>>> Well, it was a lie anyway. His last transaction was a purchase for
>>>> $86 plus shipment.
>
>>> Weil, I've thoroughly debunked this claim but yet you persist in it.
>>> Why is that Weil? Need more public ridicule?
>
>> Does anybody understand what C-L-K is referring to? One just can't
>> get enough of that ridicule!
>
>Let's see if I can explain it to you at a level that you can understand,
>Richman.
>
>Dave Weil went up the hill.
>
>Dave Weil shouted: Arny, your last eBay transaction was $86 and you're a
>liar to say otherwise.
>
>Arny went up the hill.
>
>Arny proved conclusively that his last eBay transaction was actually
>$232.50.
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3037123479&category=15058

Actually, I think this is the first time that you actually posted a
link to the item. You were previously afraid to post it. But, of
course, I conceded the point without even going there anyway.

I *did* point out as well that you don't seem to be a very good eBay
citizen because you don't seem to be very adept at posting feedback
either.

>Arny pushed on Weil, and Weil tumbled down the hill and hurt his head
>(again).
>
>From the bottom of the hill, Weil again said Arny, your last eBay
>transaction was $86 and you're a liar to say otherwise.
>
>Arny stood on the top of the hill and laughed. Everybody laughed because it
>is obvious that there is something wrong with Weil's head.
>
>See Weil's head bleed.
>
>See Weil's head bleed some more.
>
>Bleed Weil, Bleed!

Boy, that was funny.

Yes, I admitted that I was wrong about that.

However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

Just curious.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Thee Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
> >**Smart move. These things are absolute crap. It reached a point where
the
> >Australian distributor was supplying entire modules, because none of the
> >warranty agents wanted to desolder the damned tubes, or fault find the
> >output stages. There's a bunch of solid state stuff, associated with each
> >tube, you know. It fails, when the tubes fail. There are better, more
> >reliable tube amps to be had, if that is your preference. They're a whole
> >bunch easier to repair too.
> >
> >In the final analysis, you should ask yourself this: "Why are these
things
> >so common in the second hand market-place?"
>
> So why do they solder them? Is it to tie the buyer to AMC for future
> repairs?

**You would need to ask the morons who built them. The tubes are arranged
horizontally. Perhaps it has something to do with that. Whatever it is, if
you plan on installing tube sockets, you'll be in for a rude shock. The job
would be a complete nightmare, if it is do-able at all. In fact, you do what
I have suggested to more than one owner of these shtiboxes: Go buy a nice,
second hand Rotel RA971. It should cost about the same money and will
deliver fabulous reliability, ease of service (if ever required), adequate
power, excellent load tolerance and stunning sound quality (far, far better
than any AMC).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message


> * There is no technical impediment to building SS amps, which use
> lots of local NFB and minimal Global NFB. Some specialist amplifier
> manufacturers do just that. Guess what? They offer some of the
> benefits commonly attributable to tube amps and most of the benefits
> attributable to SS amps. Best of both worlds, if you ask me.

One little problem. AFAIK tube amps have zero benefits as compared to SS
amps. Tell me just one!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
> claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
> when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
> your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

I never denied that I posted the information that led to the discovery of my
eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

> Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
> your "head going to bleed"?

I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
>> claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
>> when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
>> your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.
>
>I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
thing?

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.

<Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue>

<Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
discussing something he won in the recent past.>

<Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
a bad idea but he revealed mine.>"

You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
auction). Then you say that I revealed yours. Unless you can find
someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
statement.

So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements. First, I
you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I "revealed"
your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.

I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.

>I never denied that I posted the information that led to the discovery of my
>eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction".

You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
auction. You posted the link. And, as you have pointed out in the
past, posting a link to something communicates the information.

>> Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
>> your "head going to bleed"?
>
>I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that
you're wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
>>> claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
>>> when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
>>> your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.
>>
>> I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.
>
> You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
> thing?

Not at all, since we were talking about two different things, i.e., your
eBay id versus mine.


> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
> recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
> ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.
>
> <Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue>
>
> <Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
> a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
> discussing something he won in the recent past.>
>
> <Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
> a bad idea but he revealed mine.>"
>
> You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
> because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
> auction).

I properly explained my claim that I didn't reveal my id on RAO, so there
was no lie.

>Then you say that I revealed yours.

With great flourish Weil, I might add. The objective was to embarrass and
humiliate me, but unfortunately you made yourself look pretty silly.

> Unless you can find
> someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
> to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
> statement.

That would be your claim Weil, not mine.

> So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements.

The alleged false statement is a creation of your twisted mind, Weil.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the group for
the humiliating behavior of Dave Weil.

> First, I you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I
"revealed"
> your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.

"First, I you did..."????

In English, please!

> I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.

I decline to sexually mutilate myself to be like you, Weil.

>> I never denied that I posted the information that led to the
>> discovery of my eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
> recently won something in an auction".

That's true.

> You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
> auction. You posted the link.

And posting a link to a closed auction isn't mentioning it?

LOL!

>And, as you have pointed out in the
> past, posting a link to something communicates the information.

Not exactly, it provides a link to that communication. The information is
not communicated until the link is followed. In this case the link takes the
reader off of RAO, so the information in question was not posted on RAO.

>>> Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
>>> your "head going to bleed"?

>> I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

> Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that you're
wrong.

There's a key element here that you're missing Weil. You have to show where
I was wrong. You ain't done that.

[Max Holubitsky]

>
> **You would need to ask the morons who built them. The tubes are arranged
> horizontally. Perhaps it has something to do with that. Whatever it is, if
> you plan on installing tube sockets, you'll be in for a rude shock. The
job
> would be a complete nightmare, if it is do-able at all. In fact, you do
what
> I have suggested to more than one owner of these shtiboxes: Go buy a nice,
> second hand Rotel RA971. It should cost about the same money and will
> deliver fabulous reliability, ease of service (if ever required), adequate
> power, excellent load tolerance and stunning sound quality (far, far
better
> than any AMC).
>

Wow - who would have thought? I never did get why someone would actually
solder in the output tubes. I noticed that on their website, all the new
products have tube sockets - this is not much of a suprise!

[dave weil]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:36:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
>>>> claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
>>>> when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
>>>> your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.
>>>
>>> I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.
>>
>> You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
>> thing?
>
>Not at all, since we were talking about two different things, i.e., your
>eBay id versus mine.
>
>
>> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
>> recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
>> ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.
>>
>> <Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue>
>>
>> <Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
>> a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
>> discussing something he won in the recent past.>
>>
>> <Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
>> a bad idea but he revealed mine.>"
>>
>> You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
>> because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
>> auction).
>
>I properly explained my claim that I didn't reveal my id on RAO, so there
>was no lie.

But you *did* reveal your id on RAO by posting the link to the closed
auction that you won.

>>Then you say that I revealed yours.
>
>With great flourish Weil, I might add. The objective was to embarrass and
>humiliate me, but unfortunately you made yourself look pretty silly.

Nope. I didn't reveal it because you had already done that yourself.
You can only reveal it once. And you did it.

>> Unless you can find
>> someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
>> to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
>> statement.
>
>That would be your claim Weil, not mine.
>
>> So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements.
>
>The alleged false statement is a creation of your twisted mind, Weil.
>However, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the group for
>the humiliating behavior of Dave Weil.

I see. YOu can't admit your mistake. Thank you for showing the group.

I love it when you spin like this. It really shows the group your true
colors.

>> First, I you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I
>"revealed"
>> your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.
>
>"First, I you did..."????
>
>In English, please!

First, you *did*...

>> I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.
>
>I decline to sexually mutilate myself to be like you, Weil.

Oh, you don't want to grow a set, eh?

>>> I never denied that I posted the information that led to the
>>> discovery of my eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.
>
>> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
>> recently won something in an auction".
>
>That's true.

It's *NOT* true. You posted a link to eBay that revealed your ID. Is
this true or not? Be a man and answer this direct question.

>> You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
>> auction. You posted the link.
>
>And posting a link to a closed auction isn't mentioning it?

Nope, not when you're talking about revealing your ID. Does posting
the link allow everyone on the group to see your ID or not?

>LOL!
>
>>And, as you have pointed out in the
>> past, posting a link to something communicates the information.
>
>Not exactly, it provides a link to that communication. The information is
>not communicated until the link is followed. In this case the link takes the
>reader off of RAO, so the information in question was not posted on RAO.

You once claimed that posting a link on your site that referred to
other information revealed that information. Now you're claiming that
it isn't true.

Spin little man, spin.

>>>> Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
>>>> your "head going to bleed"?
>
>>> I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.
>
>> Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that you're
>wrong.
>
>There's a key element here that you're missing Weil. You have to show where
>I was wrong. You ain't done that.

I have indeed shown that you were wrong.

You revealed the name arnyk as your ID by posting the link that showed
arnyk as the winner of the auction that you claimed you had won.

You lose.

Again.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> >> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
> >> recently won something in an auction".
> >
> >That's true.
>
> It's *NOT* true. You posted a link to eBay that revealed your ID. Is
> this true or not? Be a man and answer this direct question.

In case anybody has forgotten, a certain RAOer of long ago posted
an offer of a substantial cash award ($10,000) for anybody who can
get Mr. **** to answer a question he has previously ducked.

Good luck, dave.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>
>
> > * There is no technical impediment to building SS amps, which use
> > lots of local NFB and minimal Global NFB. Some specialist amplifier
> > manufacturers do just that. Guess what? They offer some of the
> > benefits commonly attributable to tube amps and most of the benefits
> > attributable to SS amps. Best of both worlds, if you ask me.
>
> One little problem. AFAIK tube amps have zero benefits as compared to SS
> amps. Tell me just one!

**Tube amps, per se, have none. SOME tube amps have SOME advantages, over
SOME SS amps. Depends on the implementation.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> You revealed the name arnyk as your ID by posting the link that showed
> arnyk as the winner of the auction that you claimed you had won.

Weil, tou reveled your ID by bragging that you just won an AR turntable, I
believe for a certain price.. Since the link to eBay is well known, and
searching closed auctions is well-understood, it was as good as a link to
the closed auction. I determined your ID in a few seconds.

<Note this all happened months ago, and the evidence mentioned has scrolled
off eBay. Therefore, what I just did is not the same as revealing Dave's ID>

Note that Dave has again played the hypocrite, because he thinks that
safeguarding eBay IDs is important, but he went out of his way to again
reveal mine.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:45:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> You revealed the name arnyk as your ID by posting the link that showed
>> arnyk as the winner of the auction that you claimed you had won.
>
>Weil, tou reveled your ID by bragging that you just won an AR turntable, I
>believe for a certain price.. Since the link to eBay is well known, and
>searching closed auctions is well-understood, it was as good as a link to
>the closed auction. I determined your ID in a few seconds.

And yet, that's not the same thing as posting a direct link. After
all, you had no proof that that ID was me. It didn't bother me to
confirm it by talking positively about certain recent purchases. But,
until I did that, I could have denied that the ID was mine and you
wouldn't have been able to prove that it was me, short of purchasing
something from me.

><Note this all happened months ago, and the evidence mentioned has scrolled
>off eBay. Therefore, what I just did is not the same as revealing Dave's ID>

Actually, you haven't revealed my ID. If you do, then you are doing a
wrong thing because I haven't authorized you to do it.

>Note that Dave has again played the hypocrite, because he thinks that
>safeguarding eBay IDs is important, but he went out of his way to again
>reveal mine.

I think that safeguarding ones ID is important if someone thinks it's
important, which you obviously didn't because you posted a direct link
to it (like you don't think it's important to safeguard your wife's
work phone number).

I, on the other hand, have never done that. You could have never
confirmed my ID without my assent during this exchange and I only did
that *because* you haven't revealed the ID.

I find it funny that you would go through the trouble of stalking me
on eBay, but I guess that goes with the territory.

[tor 2 u]

dave weil wrote in message >:

> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
> >> claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
> >> when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
> >> your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.
> >
> >I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.
>
> You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
> thing?
>
> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
> recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
> ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.
>
> <Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue>
>
> <Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
> a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
> discussing something he won in the recent past.>
>
> <Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
> a bad idea but he revealed mine.>"
>
> You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
> because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
> auction). Then you say that I revealed yours. Unless you can find
> someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
> to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
> statement.
>
> So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements. First, I
> you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I "revealed"
> your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.
>
> I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.
>
> >I never denied that I posted the information that led to the discovery of my
> >eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.
>
> "So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
> recently won something in an auction".
>
> You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
> auction. You posted the link. And, as you have pointed out in the
> past, posting a link to something communicates the information.
>
> >> Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
> >> your "head going to bleed"?
> >
> >I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.
>
> Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that
> you're wrong.

Why should Arny admit anything to you when he just proved you're a
pedophile, you ****ing drug addict? Go ahead and deny what we all know,
it makes good theatre.




Stop picking on Arny Krueger!