On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:38:02 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

As ever, Harry got it wrong - it was potato(e).

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))

regards

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))

regards

Iain


I would be more reticient to show my age.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:38:02 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

As ever, Harry got it wrong - it was potato(e).

Gosh, it was worth two replies!!

Tomato, tomatoe....
Potato, potatoe...
(As Jenn says) Let's call the whole thing off.... :-)

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))

regards

Iain


I would be more reticient to show my age.


One can be familiar with the works of Mozart
without having been born 250 years ago.


Was he the guy who did
"Who's That Little Doggie in The Window?"



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
Clyde Slick wrote:
One can be familiar with the works of Mozart
without having been born 250 years ago.


Was he the guy who did
"Who's That Little Doggie in The Window?"

ITYM "How much is that doggy in the window?"

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/doggy.html ;-)

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

Assuming those cables are specified for the job in hand it's a fair enough
comment. Of course that doesn't stop some 'interconnect' suppliers from
making cables which modify the sound in some way.

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Have you ever tried copying vinyl to CD then running an A/B comparison? I
have - and you can't tell the difference.

Do it the other way around and anyone can.

This should tell you something.

Vinyl can 'sound' better than CD to some as it's adding to the original
recording. Not reproducing it accurately. This might give a 'pleasant'
result on some things but not on others.
It's also very unlikely that anything you have on both vinyl and CD came
from the same master - they will both have gone through a re-mastering
process which makes comparison even more difficult.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:02:23 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))

Don't it suck, when you mis-spell education? :-)

BTW, I don't think George or even Ira would have considered this a
particularly formal piece!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:15:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Clyde Slick wrote:
One can be familiar with the works of Mozart
without having been born 250 years ago.


Was he the guy who did
"Who's That Little Doggie in The Window?"

ITYM "How much is that doggy in the window?"

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/doggy.html ;-)

And it wasn't Mozart, it was Merrill....... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:04:36 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

A guy in the next village has one, a 'girly' 289 that he dare not take
out when the roads are wet! I may have 'only' 250 galloping horses
under my bonnet, but I can apply all of them to wet or muddy
tarmac........

Well, obviously I was making reference to a 427, since that's one that
could do 0-100-0 in a tick over 12 seconds.

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
clubs in it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal. What I want is an
outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
engineers now give me. One way of doing that is by having a very
silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before. Your
way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.

Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
(if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
lies a lot). I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.

It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
can even love more than one amp at a time.

Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
unlovable...

Andre Jute
And never the twain shall meet.

On 1 Mar 2006 19:06:29 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.

Not above the noise floor. Being in the industry, Dave *does* know
this.

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.

So don't use SET amplifiers.

What I want is an
outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
engineers now give me. One way of doing that is by having a very
silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before.

I have one of those - it's solid state and has only 2nd order
distortion above the noise floor. I also have a low-bias Class AB amp
with the same characteristic.

Your
way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.

Utter nonsense, and not supported by *any* objective evidence.

Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
(if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
lies a lot). I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.

Which makes it even more perverse that they would claim improved
accuracy for such fundamentally crippled devices. BTW, my very first
'hi-fi' amp was a low-powered SET - but I've progressed since those
days.

It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
can even love more than one amp at a time.

Yes, but they can't sensibly believe that SET amps are more accurate.

Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
unlovable...

Actually, we *have* an ideal world, where all well-designed
amplifiers, tubed or SS, sound the same as each other, because they
sound the same as their input signal. This of course does not apply to
SET amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:54:19 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:04:36 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

A guy in the next village has one, a 'girly' 289 that he dare not take
out when the roads are wet! I may have 'only' 250 galloping horses
under my bonnet, but I can apply all of them to wet or muddy
tarmac........

Well, obviously I was making reference to a 427, since that's one that
could do 0-100-0 in a tick over 12 seconds.

In the wet? :-)

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....

IOW, a fun car!

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?

It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?

I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
the music, higher order harmonics.

Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html

Figure 8:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -28 dB
3 -38 dB
4 -60 dB
5 -62 dB
6 -60 dB
7 -62 dB
8 -83 Db (strange anomoly at 420 Hz)
9 -90 dB
10 -95 dB
11 -62 dB
12 -90 dB
13 -68 dB
14 -90 dB
15 -62 dB
16 -100 dB
17 -90 dB
18 -72 dB

Since when is not the 18th harmonic a higher order harmonic?

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.


Then get a good SS amp with reasonable amounts of loop feedback!

Compare the above to the Adcom GFA 7805
http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramp...om/index4.html

Figure 8:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -95 dB
3 -82 dB
4 -110 dB
5 -90 dB
6 -100 dB
7 -98 dB
8 -105 dB
9 -105 dB
10 -115 dB
11 -115 dB
12 -102 dB
13 -110 dB
14 -120 dB
15 -110 dB
16 -110 dB
17 -100 dB
18 -112 dB


What
I want is an outcoming signal that sounds more like the
concert hall than what the engineers now give me.

So how is adding audible noise and distortion going to help that?

One way
of doing that is by having a very silent class A sound
from devices operated along only the most linear part of
their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that
the odd and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the
mix than before.

Wrong - the Adcom above has far less of every order of distortion than the
Wavac.

Your way of thinking appears to hold it
axiomatic that a solid state device is a paradigm of fine
sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for whatever
reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The
one that works a lot better is Class A operated at high
voltage and high current into a high impedance with
little or no negative feedback.

The facts say otherwise.

Andre Jute wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Yet still produce a vastly less distorted signal than any SET.

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.

Then why use an SET?

What I want is an
outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
engineers now give me.

What if the music was not recorded in a concert hall?

One way of doing that is by having a very
silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before. Your
way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.

An opinion not supported by the facts.


Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
(if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
lies a lot).

I get it, in Jute/McCoy world, truth is a lie.

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
can even love more than one amp at a time.

Love what you like, but SET's are better suited to being doorstops and
paperweights than for reproducing audio signals.


Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
unlovable...


Actually all amps should simply amplify and in no audible way change
the signal being amplified.

..

On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
wrote:

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?


I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
from a average example of a SET.

--
Nick

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
ragazine reviews?
I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
SS amp with loop feedback? For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.

Regrettably, the Stereophile web site is kinda deficient in terms of reviews
of the classic SEt amps whose tests I'd like to review. John Atkinson and I
may share a preference for p-p tubes as opposed to SETs, if the SP web site
online review situation is any indication.

So here's an alternative of the few available:

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ue/index4.html

Figure 12:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -40 dB
3 -55 dB
4 -75 dB
5 -72 dB
6 -85 dB
7 -95 dB
8 -95 dB
9 -90 dB

(data runs out 1 KHz due to Stereophile's choice)

Still about 20 dB dirtier than the SS amp, even for the highest harmonics
for which data is available.

BTW note that figure 12 is miscaptioned as being a 50 Hz test. It's labeled
on the chart as being a 100 hz test. The chart label is consistent with the
data, but the caption isn't.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:07:22 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....

IOW, a fun car!

That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at significantly
higher speeds in safety, and with total control of my vehicle. For the
alternative and lots of fun, there's always the one horsepower option.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?


I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
distortion isn't cancelled out?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:39:31 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
wrote:

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

That would be fine, if psychos like Jute wouldn't keep peddling this
'ultrafidelista' crap. Interestingly, while he reserves the term
ultrafidelista for 'zero feedback' SET lovers, he claims that he
himself prefers a much higher-powered PP amp with NFB. Is this guy
seriously deranged, or what?

That was indeed the ultimate rhetorical question........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:07:22 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote
a set of golf clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often
the driver....

IOW, a fun car!

That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at
significantly higher speeds in safety, and with total
control of my vehicle.

Points well taken. I have a friend with a fully-restored 60s muscle car, a
428 Cougar to be exact. Its anything but the car you want to drive fast on
even a straight road (drum brakes) let alone a curved one (dead steering and
numb handling).

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on
here there again seems to be a wish to modify the
incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
ragazine reviews?


I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much
odd-order distortion as PP amps, it's just that the
vastly higher even-order distortion isn't cancelled out?

Good chance of that, all things considered. ;-)

There's a well-known cure for audible distortion in amplifiers, one that has
worked well for about 50 years or more in both tubed and SS amps. It's
called inverse feedback, either local or global. SETs try to minimize
inverse feedback, presumably so that they will sound appreciably different
from good amplifiers that exploit inverse feedback and sound cleaner and
smoother.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:39:31 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
wrote:

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as
saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A
triode-linked EL34 push pull amp with adjustable
negative feedback. I have PP amps too, several. I've
never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for
anything more than soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not
it's "more accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

That would be fine, if psychos like Jute wouldn't keep
peddling this 'ultrafidelista' crap. Interestingly, while
he reserves the term ultrafidelista for 'zero feedback'
SET lovers, he claims that he himself prefers a much
higher-powered PP amp with NFB. Is this guy seriously
deranged, or what?

Nahh, Jute is just following the "Tubed Equipment Marketing Manual" which
starts out:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some
of the tim"

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far

from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

Sorry. Maybe if enough of us use that speeling then the fault will lie
at your end :-)


OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
distortion isn't cancelled out?

Yes, fully aware of that thanks. Just as you are aware of the difference
between a A1 and A2 output stage.

--
Nick

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:50:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at
significantly higher speeds in safety, and with total
control of my vehicle.

Points well taken. I have a friend with a fully-restored 60s muscle car, a
428 Cougar to be exact. Its anything but the car you want to drive fast on
even a straight road (drum brakes) let alone a curved one (dead steering and
numb handling).

In other words, Detroit iron, the very type that you were responsible
for, Arnold.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:12:43 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far

from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

Sorry. Maybe if enough of us use that speeling then the fault will lie
at your end :-)

Maybe if you check your indents, you'll find that I wasn't the one
referencing those tests.

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
distortion isn't cancelled out?

Yes, fully aware of that thanks. Just as you are aware of the difference
between a A1 and A2 output stage.

A2 is for schmucks. OTOH, A3 is for the intelligent. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


OTOH, A3 is for the intelligent. :-)

"Taxi!"

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts
get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

It's a true statement

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as SS
or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Yet another true statment.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV,
or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

And the proof that thin is not so is where?

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.

No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that
doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion.


He's always been rude and abusive to people who are rude and abusive.

You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with
me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall
you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton.
And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults and
name-calling.

The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without
****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in the
group.

Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
wrote:

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

Fine as long as they don't claim it is more accurate than a SS amp. Jute
goes on rants about this crap and then gets ****ed when he's shown his
factual errors. That plus the lies and attack threads make him far from
logicial. I think that most of it is crap designed to pull people's chains,
and that's how he gets his fun.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Yet another true statment.


Why do you act like all CD recordings have the same sound quality?
It simply isn't so and I have quite a few albums that do sound lots
better than their CD release. I also have a few albums that stand up
well against most CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to
a level the technology is capable of, but rarely delivers.

ScottW

Scottie said:

I have quite a few albums that do sound lots
better than their CD release. I also have a few albums that stand up
well against most CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to
a level the technology is capable of, but rarely delivers.

Mikey say: Scottie insane. Go buy bananas! Lie down quick!

In article et,
wrote:

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts
get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

It's a true statement

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as SS
or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Yet another true statment.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV,
or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

And the proof that thin is not so is where?

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.



Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
wrote in message
nk.net...

"Glenn Richards" wrote
in message
If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've
"suffered severe hearing damage at birth".

Yet another true statment.


Why do you act like all CD recordings have the same
sound quality?

Straw man.

It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.

Bad mastering. So what?

I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology is
capable of, but rarely delivers.

Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low distortion
that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording of live music
or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most electronic
instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality sound.

Therefore, you probably have no CDs that actually perform to a level the
technology is capable of.

"Jenn" wrote in message


Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

Having a good technical background in audio, whether formal education or
OJT, seems to help people understand the difference between actual sound
differences and illusionary sound differences. They have a good pragmatic
sense of what sounds good and what doesn't, and what makes a difference and
what doesn't.

For example, if you take a typical RAHE so-called subjectivist poster and
drop him into any of the production-related audio groups, where people work
with sound in a productive way as opposed to just consuming it, they are
typically eaten alive often in just a few days. Case in point, Harry Lavo,
several times now.

It's also interesting to recall what happened to Middius when he tried to
post in some of the more serious audio groups. Crash and burn in just a few
days. Again several times now.

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:37:23 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article et,
wrote:

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts
get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

It's a true statement

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as SS
or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Yet another true statment.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV,
or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

And the proof that thin is not so is where?

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.

Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

Oh, are you claiming better hearing, Jenn? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:37:23 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article et,
wrote:

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
truth/facts
get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

It's a true statement

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as
SS
or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Yet another true statment.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
WAV,
or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

And the proof that thin is not so is where?

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.

Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

Oh, are you claiming better hearing, Jenn? :-)

Wouldn't think of it! ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...&
: Even most electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce
: truely CD quality sound.

nonsense opinion heavily embedded in optional copout adjectives,
noted.
or, can we have some facts on this, mrKrueger ? Like, what have you
measured, exactly - names & numbers, please :-)
(oh, and define sans ambigue: ~true CD quality sound~
handy for future reference, eh)

Rudy