Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
bassett[_2_] bassett[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
..

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the careful
matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the output stages
by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a 30
year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very last
'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's

At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of transforming
something into what you consider expectable or comparable to a modern day
design. and at the very least on a par with what is available today.

Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the starting
handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have been an
advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we now have
modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.

In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply that,
nothing more nothing less, Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.

Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to start
manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the production
costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price wise to Jo
Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and for that to
happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory of choice,
with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to protect the
Copyright's of such valuable documents


bassett


  #82   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
TT TT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 716
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain

Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer alike.
I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and make more
money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of
the box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them
themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak
and dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers could
be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for new
product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.


**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the careful
matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the output stages
by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's reputation.

Trevor Wilson

As I said and now you have confirmed, you and Peter get to make more money
;-) I still see no downside at all from your perspective.

Cheers TT


  #83   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"bassett" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
.

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the
careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the
output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a
real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a 30
year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very last
'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's


**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

* Amplifier topology (BJT) has not altered since 1965.
* MOSFETs and IGBJTs are the only new devices, necessitating new topologies
to enter the market place. MOSFETs suck (sound-wise) and IGBJTs have never
succeeded.
* Even so-called 'digital amplifiers' (aka: Class D) are not new. They were
around several decades ago.

There you go. No amplifier is significantly new, nor innovative. Peter Stein
released his innovative products in 1976. They were and still are, very
different to almost every other product on the market.


At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of
transforming something into what you consider expectable or comparable
to a modern day design. and at the very least on a par with what is
available today.


**I'll put a 1976 model ME up against any mass market product available
today.


Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the starting
handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have been an
advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we now have
modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.


**I'd LIKE to update my Commodore to one or more of the following:
* Direct injection Diesel.
* Direct injection petrol.
* Hybrid Diesel/electric engine.
* Side curtain air bags.
* Stability programme.
* Etc.

I can't because GMH don't make the technology able to be retro-fitted, nor,
if it was, economically viable. At least Peter Stein ensures that his
customers can keep their products up to date. Which is more than can be said
of Rotel, Yamaha, Marantz, Onkyo, Krell, etc.


In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply
that, nothing more nothing less,


**ALL amplifier designs are at least that old.

Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.


**I have news for you: Instead of throwing their amps away, ME owners can
simply update them.


Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to
start manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the
production costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price
wise to Jo Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and
for that to happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory
of choice, with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to
protect the Copyright's of such valuable documents


**That much is correct. The rest is just wrong.

Trevor Wilson


  #84   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"bassett" wrote in message

Face facts twevy
you an arsehole with nothing but leakage
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain

Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer alike.
I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and make more
money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of
the box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them
themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak
and dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers could
be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for new
product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.


**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.


No argument there Trevor, BUT this requires the non-technical customer to
first find a local tech who is prepared to remove the faulty module, then
the thing has to be sent to FNQ for repair and then replaced by the local
tech.
Let's just for one moment assume not everything goes a planned. A module
suffers some miniscule phyiscal damage on return from PS and as a result an
electrical fault develops. The local tech fails to visually inspect the
module carefully on re-installation, and at switch on the "smoke gets out"
or it creates another fault. Who accepts responsibility? Who pays for the
damage? This is a legal mindfield and you bloodly well know this. ME has
now been exposed for its lack of support documentation. No tech in his
right mind is going to swallow up the cost of hours on the phone to PS when
the information could easily be gleaned from a service manual, thereby
minimising any misunderstanding9s).

* There are others who service and support ME products.


I've asked yopu this question before and you've failed to reveal anyone else
other than PS and your good self.

Due to the careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products,
servicing the output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed
successor/s) is a real bad idea.


Codswallop TW and you know it. If ME employees (and now PS on his own)
spent part of the production time sitting down with a transistor tester hand
grading semiconductors it deserves to have gone out of business. And to
what tolerances are you suggesting anyhow? This is just the same sort of
snake oil bull**** Perreaux used to peddle and it has turned out to be
bull****.

* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.


Fully agree there TW, but if they don't know what they are doing and the
smoke geats out than surely they need to accept they ****ed up.
I get this problem with idiots who think they know all about PCs, except
it's the OS that gets out of wack and the system crashes. No physical or
electrical damage but the loss of data can be just as, if not more costly.

* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.


As I wrote earlier in this post. 3rd party liability issues if something
goes wrong.
Who are the appointed successors?

* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.


Same here, but not nessecarily limited to ME.


* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's reputation.


All the more reason to have full service documentation available to
eliminate the guesswork.:P
A competent tech would heed to the documentation oan follow the service
recommendation strategies.
If it says match Q25 to a certain gain range before replacing, this can
easily be done by any qualified service tech.

The products reputation can't be harmed except (maybe) if it is ME580 Hi-Cap
as this the is ONLY ME product still in production.
ALL the other ME amplifiers haven't rolled of the production line in years
so in essence there is no reputation to protect.


Cheers,
Alan


Trevor Wilson






  #86   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain

Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer alike.
I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and make more
money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of the
box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak and
dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers could
be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for new
product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.


**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.


Neither Peter Stein or yourself are providing adequate support at all.

If you were, there'd be an avaiable service manual for all models.

Don't ****en lie Trevor.

Shut the **** up, and only talk to Peter Stein, and tell him, don't
****en ask him,
that sevice manuals must be prepared within a month.


* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the careful
matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the output stages
by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case of
ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.


The ME website does not list the available knowledgeable service techs
around Oz or elsewhere.

THERE ARE NO MANUALS, so all techs are effectively mushroom cowboys,
kept in the ****en dark, and fed on bull****!!!!!.

* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.


A tech IS ALWAYS required to remove modules and arrange transport for
them.
But its double handling, and bloody inefficient.

Since Stein can service the modules so easily, then it should be easy
for anyone else to do the same thing according to
the information in the manuals.

But there are no manuals, and people have to go back to Stein for the
expensive fix.

Readers, please DO NOT BUY ME amplifiers.

ME does not allow anyone to be independant of the maker if the amp
fails.


* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.


Indeed you'd have seen this, and its all BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
MANUALS!!!!!

How can a tech be competent if there is no schematic of explanatory
notes are available?


* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's reputation.


THEN PROVIDE MANUALS, AND THE PROBLEM WON'T OCCUR.

WHAT YOU ARE DOING WILSON, IS TO PROVE WHAT AN OBSTINATE **** YOU ARE.

YOUR WHOLE ATTITUDE IS WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG.


Trevor Wilson

  #87   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



bassett wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
.

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the careful
matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the output stages
by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a 30
year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very last
'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's


An amp is an amp.

It matters not how old the design is if the N&D remains low, bandwidth
wide,
and Rout low.

ME as it is now, a one man coconut band, does not have the venture
capital
to do any major changes to the old design.


At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of transforming
something into what you consider expectable or comparable to a modern day
design. and at the very least on a par with what is available today.


Never at any point. If there are parts for a number of old design ME
amps to be made,
then they are to be made, not discarded in favour of the alternative,
which is the impossibility
of making something entirely new.

Peter Stein does not want to waste a garage full of left over parts from
former glory days.

This is quite OK.

But we want manuals.


Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the starting
handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have been an
advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we now have
modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.

In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply that,
nothing more nothing less, Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.


If Stein sold 50 amps next year, and lives another 10 years, and 10 amps
need $1,000 worth
of servicing within this time, then that's only $10,000 repair income
not including
the cost of replacement parts and other expenses.

This isn't much of an income worth making so many owners and techs very
angry
because there are no ****ing manuals.



Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to start
manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the production
costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price wise to Jo
Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and for that to
happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory of choice,
with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to protect the
Copyright's of such valuable documents


One could always shop for an amp at Bing Lee, where the costs for
an SS amp is 20dB cheaper than anything from ME, ie, 1/10 of the price.

Cheaper than repairing an ME amp.

But it should NOT be like this.

Manuals should be available.

Patrick Turner.





bassett

  #88   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"bassett" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
.

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the
careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the
output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a
real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a 30
year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very last
'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's


**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

* Amplifier topology (BJT) has not altered since 1965.
* MOSFETs and IGBJTs are the only new devices, necessitating new topologies
to enter the market place. MOSFETs suck (sound-wise) and IGBJTs have never
succeeded.
* Even so-called 'digital amplifiers' (aka: Class D) are not new. They were
around several decades ago.

There you go. No amplifier is significantly new, nor innovative. Peter Stein
released his innovative products in 1976. They were and still are, very
different to almost every other product on the market.


At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of
transforming something into what you consider expectable or comparable
to a modern day design. and at the very least on a par with what is
available today.


**I'll put a 1976 model ME up against any mass market product available
today.


Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the starting
handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have been an
advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we now have
modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.


**I'd LIKE to update my Commodore to one or more of the following:
* Direct injection Diesel.
* Direct injection petrol.
* Hybrid Diesel/electric engine.
* Side curtain air bags.
* Stability programme.
* Etc.

I can't because GMH don't make the technology able to be retro-fitted, nor,
if it was, economically viable. At least Peter Stein ensures that his
customers can keep their products up to date. Which is more than can be said
of Rotel, Yamaha, Marantz, Onkyo, Krell, etc.


In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply
that, nothing more nothing less,


**ALL amplifier designs are at least that old.

Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.


**I have news for you: Instead of throwing their amps away, ME owners can
simply update them.


Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to
start manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the
production costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price
wise to Jo Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and
for that to happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory
of choice, with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to
protect the Copyright's of such valuable documents


**That much is correct. The rest is just wrong.

Trevor Wilson


ME amps break down, just like everything else.

Many people DO NOT WANT AN EXPENSIVE MODIFICATION.

They just want it fixed, OK, no upgrades, right!

So where are the ****en manuals to allow any capable tech to fix it
quick and cheap??????

Stop avoiding the issue Wilson.

You are showing the world what an obstinate **** you are!!!!

Patrick Turner.
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Patrick Turner wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"bassett" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
.
**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the
careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the
output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a
real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a 30
year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very last
'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's

**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

* Amplifier topology (BJT) has not altered since 1965.
* MOSFETs and IGBJTs are the only new devices, necessitating new topologies
to enter the market place. MOSFETs suck (sound-wise) and IGBJTs have never
succeeded.
* Even so-called 'digital amplifiers' (aka: Class D) are not new. They were
around several decades ago.

There you go. No amplifier is significantly new, nor innovative. Peter Stein
released his innovative products in 1976. They were and still are, very
different to almost every other product on the market.

At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of
transforming something into what you consider expectable or comparable
to a modern day design. and at the very least on a par with what is
available today.

**I'll put a 1976 model ME up against any mass market product available
today.

Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the starting
handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have been an
advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we now have
modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.

**I'd LIKE to update my Commodore to one or more of the following:
* Direct injection Diesel.
* Direct injection petrol.
* Hybrid Diesel/electric engine.
* Side curtain air bags.
* Stability programme.
* Etc.

I can't because GMH don't make the technology able to be retro-fitted, nor,
if it was, economically viable. At least Peter Stein ensures that his
customers can keep their products up to date. Which is more than can be said
of Rotel, Yamaha, Marantz, Onkyo, Krell, etc.

In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply
that, nothing more nothing less,

**ALL amplifier designs are at least that old.

Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.

**I have news for you: Instead of throwing their amps away, ME owners can
simply update them.

Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to
start manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the
production costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price
wise to Jo Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and
for that to happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory
of choice, with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to
protect the Copyright's of such valuable documents

**That much is correct. The rest is just wrong.

Trevor Wilson


ME amps break down, just like everything else.

Many people DO NOT WANT AN EXPENSIVE MODIFICATION.

They just want it fixed, OK, no upgrades, right!

So where are the ****en manuals to allow any capable tech to fix it
quick and cheap??????

Stop avoiding the issue Wilson.

You are showing the world what an obstinate **** you are!!!!

Patrick Turner.

Seems to me what we currently see from twevy is being afraid of manual
dispersion due to all and sundrey being given the opportunity to
actually discover just how old and crap the me design has become in
relation to other more modern amps thus destroying the perpetration
( in his lunchbox) of thier "speshulness"
Wilson your a dick and if you tried this ****e in my trade you would
be finished in a week .Still no fear of that atm considering just how
thicke you have been proven
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain
Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer
alike. I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and
make more money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of
the box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them
themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak
and dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers
could be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for
new product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.


**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.


No argument there Trevor, BUT this requires the non-technical customer to
first find a local tech who is prepared to remove the faulty module, then
the thing has to be sent to FNQ for repair and then replaced by the local
tech.


**Correct.

Let's just for one moment assume not everything goes a planned. A module
suffers some miniscule phyiscal damage on return from PS and as a result
an electrical fault develops.


**What happens if you drive your car over a bumpy road, after taking it to
the local tech? There are a raft of questions, you could ask. OTOH, the ME
modules are well built and, IME (25 years of freighting to Peter, via
Aussie Post) none have ever developed a fault which can be identified as
being attributable to freight damage. Of course, I have an IQ above room
temperature and a good supply of bubble wrap. Pretty much any nong can pack
them correctly.

The local tech fails to visually inspect the
module carefully on re-installation, and at switch on the "smoke gets out"
or it creates another fault. Who accepts responsibility?


**Tell you what: IF that ever occurs, I'll worry about it then. It may
occur, but, in 25 years, it hasn't happened to me. I won't lose sleep
worrying about something which appears to be a very remote possibility.

Who pays for the
damage? This is a legal mindfield and you bloodly well know this. ME has
now been exposed for its lack of support documentation.


**On the contrary. The documentation which comes with the amplifiers is
comprehensive and very helpful. Did you note the flow charts?

No tech in his
right mind is going to swallow up the cost of hours on the phone to PS
when the information could easily be gleaned from a service manual,
thereby minimising any misunderstanding9s).


**I still fail to see what help a schematic would be to a tech. The modules
require carefully matched devices. This is well outside the capabilities of
all but the most well equipped workshops.


* There are others who service and support ME products.


I've asked yopu this question before and you've failed to reveal anyone
else other than PS and your good self.


**Wrong.


Due to the careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products,
servicing the output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed
successor/s) is a real bad idea.


Codswallop TW and you know it. If ME employees (and now PS on his own)
spent part of the production time sitting down with a transistor tester
hand grading semiconductors it deserves to have gone out of business. And
to what tolerances are you suggesting anyhow?


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for hFE
and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output devices.

This is just the same sort of
snake oil bull**** Perreaux used to peddle and it has turned out to be
bull****.


**I am unaware that Perreaux claimed such a thing. I'll take your word for
it. How would you suggest that I prove it to you that Peter does match his
devices?


* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.


Fully agree there TW, but if they don't know what they are doing and the
smoke geats out than surely they need to accept they ****ed up.


**Indeed they do.

I get this problem with idiots who think they know all about PCs, except
it's the OS that gets out of wack and the system crashes. No physical or
electrical damage but the loss of data can be just as, if not more costly.

* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.


As I wrote earlier in this post. 3rd party liability issues if something
goes wrong.


**When I see such an instance, I'll let you know. I won't hold my breath.

Who are the appointed successors?


**Myself and David on the mid NSW coast.


* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.


Same here, but not nessecarily limited to ME.


**Indeed. However, in one instance, the resulting mess cost the client
$1,200.00 in fried output devices. For some reason, the tech removed all the
outputs. It wasn't necessary, since they were undamaged. He did not secure
them to the heat sink properly. The whole lot went up. On examination, I
suggested that the customer approach the manager of the hi fi store he
purcahsed the amp from and request the $1,200.00 be refunded to him. He got
his money.



* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.


All the more reason to have full service documentation available to
eliminate the guesswork.:P
A competent tech would heed to the documentation oan follow the service
recommendation strategies.
If it says match Q25 to a certain gain range before replacing, this can
easily be done by any qualified service tech.


**To secure a full set of matched output devices for an ME850 would require
approximately 10,000 transistors, in order to obtain suitable numbers of
matched devices. Same deal with the preamps. In fact, I once met a guy who
claimed to have built an ME preamp, after Peter provided him with
schematics. I challenged him on the point, knowing that it was impossible.
Then, he dropped the bombshell. He spent $1,500.00 on transistors, to build
what was then a $1,000.00 preamp.


The products reputation can't be harmed except (maybe) if it is ME580
Hi-Cap as this the is ONLY ME product still in production.
ALL the other ME amplifiers haven't rolled of the production line in years
so in essence there is no reputation to protect.


**The reputation is still there. Peter cares about his customers and he
cares about the products which are in the market.

Trevor Wilson




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
"TT" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.

Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain
Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer
alike. I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and
make more money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of
the box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them
themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak
and dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers
could be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for
new product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.
**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.

No argument there Trevor, BUT this requires the non-technical customer to
first find a local tech who is prepared to remove the faulty module, then
the thing has to be sent to FNQ for repair and then replaced by the local
tech.


**Correct.

Let's just for one moment assume not everything goes a planned. A module
suffers some miniscule phyiscal damage on return from PS and as a result
an electrical fault develops.


**What happens if you drive your car over a bumpy road, after taking it to
the local tech? There are a raft of questions, you could ask. OTOH, the ME
modules are well built and, IME (25 years of freighting to Peter, via
Aussie Post) none have ever developed a fault which can be identified as
being attributable to freight damage. Of course, I have an IQ above room
temperature and a good supply of bubble wrap. Pretty much any nong can pack
them correctly.

The local tech fails to visually inspect the
module carefully on re-installation, and at switch on the "smoke gets out"
or it creates another fault. Who accepts responsibility?


**Tell you what: IF that ever occurs, I'll worry about it then. It may
occur, but, in 25 years, it hasn't happened to me. I won't lose sleep
worrying about something which appears to be a very remote possibility.

Who pays for the
damage? This is a legal mindfield and you bloodly well know this. ME has
now been exposed for its lack of support documentation.


**On the contrary. The documentation which comes with the amplifiers is
comprehensive and very helpful. Did you note the flow charts?

No tech in his
right mind is going to swallow up the cost of hours on the phone to PS
when the information could easily be gleaned from a service manual,
thereby minimising any misunderstanding9s).


**I still fail to see what help a schematic would be to a tech. The modules
require carefully matched devices. This is well outside the capabilities of
all but the most well equipped workshops.

* There are others who service and support ME products.

I've asked yopu this question before and you've failed to reveal anyone
else other than PS and your good self.


**Wrong.

Due to the careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products,
servicing the output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed
successor/s) is a real bad idea.

Codswallop TW and you know it. If ME employees (and now PS on his own)
spent part of the production time sitting down with a transistor tester
hand grading semiconductors it deserves to have gone out of business. And
to what tolerances are you suggesting anyhow?


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for hFE
and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output devices.

This is just the same sort of
snake oil bull**** Perreaux used to peddle and it has turned out to be
bull****.


**I am unaware that Perreaux claimed such a thing. I'll take your word for
it. How would you suggest that I prove it to you that Peter does match his
devices?

* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.

Fully agree there TW, but if they don't know what they are doing and the
smoke geats out than surely they need to accept they ****ed up.


**Indeed they do.

I get this problem with idiots who think they know all about PCs, except
it's the OS that gets out of wack and the system crashes. No physical or
electrical damage but the loss of data can be just as, if not more costly.

* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.

As I wrote earlier in this post. 3rd party liability issues if something
goes wrong.


**When I see such an instance, I'll let you know. I won't hold my breath.

Who are the appointed successors?


**Myself and David on the mid NSW coast.

* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.

Same here, but not nessecarily limited to ME.


**Indeed. However, in one instance, the resulting mess cost the client
$1,200.00 in fried output devices. For some reason, the tech removed all the
outputs. It wasn't necessary, since they were undamaged. He did not secure
them to the heat sink properly. The whole lot went up. On examination, I
suggested that the customer approach the manager of the hi fi store he
purcahsed the amp from and request the $1,200.00 be refunded to him. He got
his money.


* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

All the more reason to have full service documentation available to
eliminate the guesswork.:P
A competent tech would heed to the documentation oan follow the service
recommendation strategies.
If it says match Q25 to a certain gain range before replacing, this can
easily be done by any qualified service tech.


**To secure a full set of matched output devices for an ME850 would require
approximately 10,000 transistors, in order to obtain suitable numbers of
matched devices. Same deal with the preamps. In fact, I once met a guy who
claimed to have built an ME preamp, after Peter provided him with
schematics. I challenged him on the point, knowing that it was impossible.
Then, he dropped the bombshell. He spent $1,500.00 on transistors, to build
what was then a $1,000.00 preamp.

The products reputation can't be harmed except (maybe) if it is ME580
Hi-Cap as this the is ONLY ME product still in production.
ALL the other ME amplifiers haven't rolled of the production line in years
so in essence there is no reputation to protect.


**The reputation is still there.

For market manipulation and silly prices for non gerrymandered repairs
, agreed
Peter cares about his customers and he
cares about the products which are in the market.

bull****e , if he did then a manual would be made available at
affordable prices .

Trevor Wilson

twevy your a twonk


  #92   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain
Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer
alike. I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and
make more money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of
the box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them
themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak
and dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers
could be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for
new product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.


No argument there Trevor, BUT this requires the non-technical customer to
first find a local tech who is prepared to remove the faulty module, then
the thing has to be sent to FNQ for repair and then replaced by the local
tech.


**Correct.

Let's just for one moment assume not everything goes a planned. A module
suffers some miniscule phyiscal damage on return from PS and as a result
an electrical fault develops.


**What happens if you drive your car over a bumpy road, after taking it to
the local tech? There are a raft of questions, you could ask. OTOH, the ME
modules are well built and, IME (25 years of freighting to Peter, via
Aussie Post) none have ever developed a fault which can be identified as
being attributable to freight damage. Of course, I have an IQ above room
temperature and a good supply of bubble wrap. Pretty much any nong can
pack them correctly.

The local tech fails to visually inspect the
module carefully on re-installation, and at switch on the "smoke gets
out" or it creates another fault. Who accepts responsibility?


**Tell you what: IF that ever occurs, I'll worry about it then. It may
occur, but, in 25 years, it hasn't happened to me. I won't lose sleep
worrying about something which appears to be a very remote possibility.

Who pays for the
damage? This is a legal mindfield and you bloodly well know this. ME
has now been exposed for its lack of support documentation.


**On the contrary. The documentation which comes with the amplifiers is
comprehensive and very helpful. Did you note the flow charts?

No tech in his
right mind is going to swallow up the cost of hours on the phone to PS
when the information could easily be gleaned from a service manual,
thereby minimising any misunderstanding9s).


**I still fail to see what help a schematic would be to a tech. The
modules require carefully matched devices. This is well outside the
capabilities of all but the most well equipped workshops.


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics tech
and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor, it's got
bells on it.



* There are others who service and support ME products.


I've asked yopu this question before and you've failed to reveal anyone
else other than PS and your good self.


**Wrong.


Okay, just in case I missed that post, please repeat the information.




Due to the careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products,
servicing the output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed
successor/s) is a real bad idea.


Only for those who wish to maintain a monopoly on servicing ME products.



Codswallop TW and you know it. If ME employees (and now PS on his own)
spent part of the production time sitting down with a transistor tester
hand grading semiconductors it deserves to have gone out of business.
And to what tolerances are you suggesting anyhow?


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for hFE
and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output devices.


Oh forgive me Trevor. Just lifted the lid on my ME850 Hi-Cap. Lots of 5%
tolerance parts around the output devices.
Makes perfect sense now. Equip the device with 1% transistors and
surrounding circuitry has 5% components. What a ****ing laugh. Obviously
both you and PS haven't heard that saying - "A chain is only a good as its
weakest link." Also the WW resistors in the output stage have a PTC so the
resistance will change with temperature / power dissipation.

Without a circuit diagram it isn't hard to guess that there are low value
(0.51 ohm) resistors in each leg of the emitter circuits of the output
devices. Matching or no matching (within reason), the currents flowing in
the emitter circuits will be effectively shared between parallel output
devices in this type of circuit configuation. It's no rocket science
secret. The technique is commonly used by nearly every competent class A/B
SS output stage.
Read the Cherry and Hooper book on amplifier design. Published in the early
70's it's essential reading for anyone contemplating SS amplifier design.
My God it even mentions the V-FET and MOSFETS.

As for ME output device matching. By that I assume all the MJ15026 devices
in any one channel would have the same "batch test" number and likewise all
the MJ15024 devices would have their own?



This is just the same sort of
snake oil bull**** Perreaux used to peddle and it has turned out to be
bull****.


**I am unaware that Perreaux claimed such a thing. I'll take your word for
it. How would you suggest that I prove it to you that Peter does match his
devices?


I'm not saying PS doesn't attempt to match his devices within reason. Just
I think 1% matching is overkill and it is unnessecary if one selects an
output device with reasonably tight specifications to begin with.




* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the
case of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even
basic fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.


Fully agree there TW, but if they don't know what they are doing and the
smoke geats out than surely they need to accept they ****ed up.


**Indeed they do.

I get this problem with idiots who think they know all about PCs, except
it's the OS that gets out of wack and the system crashes. No physical or
electrical damage but the loss of data can be just as, if not more
costly.

* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in
format. This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise.
Peter Stein (and his appointed successors) can effect service to those
output modules and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and
easily. Freighting amplifiers around the nation is not required. All
that is required, is a competent tech.


As I wrote earlier in this post. 3rd party liability issues if something
goes wrong.


**When I see such an instance, I'll let you know. I won't hold my breath.


Unfortunately it is commonplace and not just in the electronics industy.
Perhaps TT can add some value to the problems one has with transmissions
which are re-built by and then installed by 3rd parties.
Let's say the re-build wasn't up to spec. The transmission tech instals the
re-built box under good faith the work on the innards is okay.
The customer drives the car for a day or two and returns it claiming the box
is faulty. The tech diagnoses the box is faulty, takes the transmission off
and returns it to the re-builder only to have the blame shifted back to the
tech with a claim of faulty installation. The installing tech says he did
nothing wrong, the re-builder claims likewise. See the problem? In the end
the only one getting shafted here is the customer.


Who are the appointed successors?


**Myself and David on the mid NSW coast.


David who? the David of David and Golliath fame? :P



* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by
incompetent techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.


Same here, but not nessecarily limited to ME.


**Indeed. However, in one instance, the resulting mess cost the client
$1,200.00 in fried output devices. For some reason, the tech removed all
the outputs. It wasn't necessary, since they were undamaged. He did not
secure them to the heat sink properly. The whole lot went up. On
examination, I suggested that the customer approach the manager of the hi
fi store he purcahsed the amp from and request the $1,200.00 be refunded
to him. He got his money.



* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.


All the more reason to have full service documentation available to
eliminate the guesswork.:P
A competent tech would heed to the documentation oan follow the service
recommendation strategies.
If it says match Q25 to a certain gain range before replacing, this can
easily be done by any qualified service tech.


**To secure a full set of matched output devices for an ME850 would
require approximately 10,000 transistors, in order to obtain suitable
numbers of matched devices. Same deal with the preamps. In fact, I once
met a guy who claimed to have built an ME preamp, after Peter provided him
with schematics. I challenged him on the point, knowing that it was
impossible. Then, he dropped the bombshell. He spent $1,500.00 on
transistors, to build what was then a $1,000.00 preamp.


The products reputation can't be harmed except (maybe) if it is ME580
Hi-Cap as this the is ONLY ME product still in production.
ALL the other ME amplifiers haven't rolled of the production line in
years so in essence there is no reputation to protect.


**The reputation is still there. Peter cares about his customers and he
cares about the products which are in the market.

Trevor Wilson



  #93   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



atec77 wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"bassett" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
.
**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the
careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the
output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a
real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case
of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a 30
year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very last
'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's
**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

* Amplifier topology (BJT) has not altered since 1965.
* MOSFETs and IGBJTs are the only new devices, necessitating new topologies
to enter the market place. MOSFETs suck (sound-wise) and IGBJTs have never
succeeded.
* Even so-called 'digital amplifiers' (aka: Class D) are not new. They were
around several decades ago.

There you go. No amplifier is significantly new, nor innovative. Peter Stein
released his innovative products in 1976. They were and still are, very
different to almost every other product on the market.

At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of
transforming something into what you consider expectable or comparable
to a modern day design. and at the very least on a par with what is
available today.
**I'll put a 1976 model ME up against any mass market product available
today.

Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the starting
handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have been an
advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we now have
modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.
**I'd LIKE to update my Commodore to one or more of the following:
* Direct injection Diesel.
* Direct injection petrol.
* Hybrid Diesel/electric engine.
* Side curtain air bags.
* Stability programme.
* Etc.

I can't because GMH don't make the technology able to be retro-fitted, nor,
if it was, economically viable. At least Peter Stein ensures that his
customers can keep their products up to date. Which is more than can be said
of Rotel, Yamaha, Marantz, Onkyo, Krell, etc.

In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply
that, nothing more nothing less,
**ALL amplifier designs are at least that old.

Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.
**I have news for you: Instead of throwing their amps away, ME owners can
simply update them.

Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to
start manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the
production costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price
wise to Jo Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and
for that to happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory
of choice, with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to
protect the Copyright's of such valuable documents
**That much is correct. The rest is just wrong.

Trevor Wilson


ME amps break down, just like everything else.

Many people DO NOT WANT AN EXPENSIVE MODIFICATION.

They just want it fixed, OK, no upgrades, right!

So where are the ****en manuals to allow any capable tech to fix it
quick and cheap??????

Stop avoiding the issue Wilson.

You are showing the world what an obstinate **** you are!!!!

Patrick Turner.

Seems to me what we currently see from twevy is being afraid of manual
dispersion due to all and sundrey being given the opportunity to
actually discover just how old and crap the me design has become in
relation to other more modern amps thus destroying the perpetration
( in his lunchbox) of thier "speshulness"
Wilson your a dick and if you tried this ****e in my trade you would
be finished in a week .Still no fear of that atm considering just how
thicke you have been proven


What Trevor is afraid of while he spews lies and bull**** far and wide
is the loss of income due to other service ppl being enabled to fix ME
amps
if they had a service manual.

ME service manuals = Trevor Wilson's financial decline.

Not once has TW ever stated Peter Stein should make manuals available to
all.

He's lose, that's why.

When these two guys are trundled off to the old folks home with
demetentia,
there will be nobody wanting to fix ME, because there are no manuals.

But an average ME amp has a nice case, nice capacitors, and power
tranny.

People can always strip out the whole audio board and protection boards
if they
can't understand them and start all over again with a new circuit.

Might sound better, depending on how it is done.

ME amps don't need to be dumped.

I have completely re-engineered Phase Linear 700, Quad 405 amps and
others
and replaced all innards with my own boards and circuits.

The results sounded as well as anything from ME.

But such an exercise ain't cheap.

But when repairs mean high expenses paid to the ME 'monopoly'
then other options don't seem too bad.

Not if there were manuals. Then we's all be able to fix a broken ME
when we came across one.

Wilson and Stein are in our way by means of their obstinacy.

DO NOT BUY ME AMPS BEFORE FULL SERVICE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Patrick Turner.
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Trevor Wilson wrote
another pile of utter bull****, which I delete.

Then finally he blurts...

**The reputation is still there. Peter cares about his customers and he
cares about the products which are in the market.


But Peter does not have a service manual,
so the care is entirely ficticious.

If Peter dies, or becomes incapacitated then all owners of new and old
ME amps
are up **** creek in a barbwire canoe wothout a paddle.

DO NOT EVER BUY AN ME PRODUCT UNTIL A SERVICE MANUAL BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Patrick Turner.
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
bassett[_2_] bassett[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"bassett" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
.

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the
careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the
output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is
a real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the
case of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even
basic fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in
format. This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise.
Peter Stein (and his appointed successors) can effect service to those
output modules and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and
easily. Freighting amplifiers around the nation is not required. All
that is required, is a competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by
incompetent techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

Trevor Wilson

One would have thought or at least hoped that electronics' would have
advanced, improved, or at the very least progressed to a point where a
30 year old design could be called dated, superseded or at the very
last 'outmoded' By modern technology, multi-layered chips, and modern
manufacturing technique's


**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

* Amplifier topology (BJT) has not altered since 1965.
* MOSFETs and IGBJTs are the only new devices, necessitating new
topologies to enter the market place. MOSFETs suck (sound-wise) and IGBJTs
have never succeeded.
* Even so-called 'digital amplifiers' (aka: Class D) are not new. They
were around several decades ago.

There you go. No amplifier is significantly new, nor innovative. Peter
Stein released his innovative products in 1976. They were and still are,
very different to almost every other product on the market.


At what point do you decide that up-dating, re-fitting, or simply
replacing old components for new ones, is beyond the scope of
transforming something into what you consider expectable or comparable
to a modern day design. and at the very least on a par with what is
available today.


**I'll put a 1976 model ME up against any mass market product available
today.


Or have you also updated your Holden commodore, by removing the
starting handle out the front of the radiator, and while it might have
been an advantage in the late fifties to have such a leg breaker, we
now have modern electronics' making your starting handle obsolete.


**I'd LIKE to update my Commodore to one or more of the following:
* Direct injection Diesel.
* Direct injection petrol.
* Hybrid Diesel/electric engine.
* Side curtain air bags.
* Stability programme.
* Etc.

I can't because GMH don't make the technology able to be retro-fitted,
nor, if it was, economically viable. At least Peter Stein ensures that his
customers can keep their products up to date. Which is more than can be
said of Rotel, Yamaha, Marantz, Onkyo, Krell, etc.


In short we get to the point where a 30 year old design, is simply
that, nothing more nothing less,


**ALL amplifier designs are at least that old.

Of cause supporting something of that age does
have considerable advantages, for one thing, nothing new needs to be
learned, Old relics constantly breakdown, so an income can be assured in
your retirement years.


**I have news for you: Instead of throwing their amps away, ME owners can
simply update them.


Of cause it could also be argued that a modern day design, would simply
not make it in this modern age, and there would simply be no need to
start manufacturing new models as the diminishing market and the
production costs would make anything new completely out of reach, price
wise to Jo Public, unless it was made in China, Korea or Taiwan, and
for that to happen schematic's would need to be supplied to the factory
of choice, with a undertaking that Chinese laws would need to change to
protect the Copyright's of such valuable documents


**That much is correct. The rest is just wrong.

Trevor Wilson


So at what point do we start to up-date the updated. According to you
it'd like a living
superannuation scheme, or scam depending on your perspective


bassett




  #96   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is
duly noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain
Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications,
upgrades, tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product
development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer
alike. I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and
make more money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of
the box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them
themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak
and dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers
could be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand
for new product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.

**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I
am servicing and supporting ME and other products.

No argument there Trevor, BUT this requires the non-technical customer
to first find a local tech who is prepared to remove the faulty module,
then the thing has to be sent to FNQ for repair and then replaced by the
local tech.


**Correct.

Let's just for one moment assume not everything goes a planned. A
module suffers some miniscule phyiscal damage on return from PS and as a
result an electrical fault develops.


**What happens if you drive your car over a bumpy road, after taking it
to the local tech? There are a raft of questions, you could ask. OTOH,
the ME modules are well built and, IME (25 years of freighting to Peter,
via Aussie Post) none have ever developed a fault which can be identified
as being attributable to freight damage. Of course, I have an IQ above
room temperature and a good supply of bubble wrap. Pretty much any nong
can pack them correctly.

The local tech fails to visually inspect the
module carefully on re-installation, and at switch on the "smoke gets
out" or it creates another fault. Who accepts responsibility?


**Tell you what: IF that ever occurs, I'll worry about it then. It may
occur, but, in 25 years, it hasn't happened to me. I won't lose sleep
worrying about something which appears to be a very remote possibility.

Who pays for the
damage? This is a legal mindfield and you bloodly well know this. ME
has now been exposed for its lack of support documentation.


**On the contrary. The documentation which comes with the amplifiers is
comprehensive and very helpful. Did you note the flow charts?

No tech in his
right mind is going to swallow up the cost of hours on the phone to PS
when the information could easily be gleaned from a service manual,
thereby minimising any misunderstanding9s).


**I still fail to see what help a schematic would be to a tech. The
modules require carefully matched devices. This is well outside the
capabilities of all but the most well equipped workshops.


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics tech
and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor, it's
got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that, but
Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother testing at
more than a few ma.




* There are others who service and support ME products.

I've asked yopu this question before and you've failed to reveal anyone
else other than PS and your good self.


**Wrong.


Okay, just in case I missed that post, please repeat the information.


**There's David on the mid-NSW coast. There's Winovate in Glen Iris, Vic.
There may be others. You'll need to check with Peter to verify.





Due to the careful matching of semiconductors in all ME products,
servicing the output stages by anyone other than PS (or his appointed
successor/s) is a real bad idea.


Only for those who wish to maintain a monopoly on servicing ME products.



Codswallop TW and you know it. If ME employees (and now PS on his own)
spent part of the production time sitting down with a transistor tester
hand grading semiconductors it deserves to have gone out of business.
And to what tolerances are you suggesting anyhow?


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.


Oh forgive me Trevor. Just lifted the lid on my ME850 Hi-Cap. Lots of 5%
tolerance parts around the output devices.


**You may care to note several things:
* There are lots of 1% and 2% (not 5%) resistors around the output devices.
* 2% resistors typically measure better than 0.5% off the shelf.
* The Emitter resistors are matched to within 1% tolerance. As are the other
WW resistors.
* The only other 5% resistors are in non-critical sections.


Makes perfect sense now. Equip the device with 1% transistors and
surrounding circuitry has 5% components.


**Wrong.

What a ****ing laugh. Obviously
both you and PS haven't heard that saying - "A chain is only a good as its
weakest link." Also the WW resistors in the output stage have a PTC so
the resistance will change with temperature / power dissipation.


**Points:
* The resistors are matched.
* The resistors all drift by the same amount.
* The amount of drift is around 300 parts per million/oC.
* The resistors are rated, at maximum power dissipation, to drift less than
1%.
* At 120 Watts (continuous) the dissipation of the resistors will be
approximately 0.12 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 3oC under these conditions.
* At the rated drift, that corresponds to less than 0.01%
* At 220 Watts (continuous - 4 Ohm load) the dissipation of the resistors
will be approximately 0.44 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 15oC under these conditions.
* That corresponds to less than 0.05% change in resistance.

Of course, under normal use, the fan will keep temperature change to less
than that. Additionally, The figures quoted are for continuous power levels,
not regular music.



Without a circuit diagram it isn't hard to guess that there are low value
(0.51 ohm) resistors in each leg of the emitter circuits of the output
devices. Matching or no matching (within reason), the currents flowing in
the emitter circuits will be effectively shared between parallel output
devices in this type of circuit configuation. It's no rocket science
secret. The technique is commonly used by nearly every competent class
A/B SS output stage.


**Not quite. ME connect Collectors to the load. This is a far less common
method. However, you are correct: It is not rocket science. Peter has never
claimed as much.

Read the Cherry and Hooper book on amplifier design. Published in the
early 70's it's essential reading for anyone contemplating SS amplifier
design. My God it even mentions the V-FET and MOSFETS.

As for ME output device matching. By that I assume all the MJ15026
devices in any one channel would have the same "batch test" number and
likewise all the MJ15024 devices would have their own?


**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer may
claim.




This is just the same sort of
snake oil bull**** Perreaux used to peddle and it has turned out to be
bull****.


**I am unaware that Perreaux claimed such a thing. I'll take your word
for it. How would you suggest that I prove it to you that Peter does
match his devices?


I'm not saying PS doesn't attempt to match his devices within reason.
Just I think 1% matching is overkill and it is unnessecary if one selects
an output device with reasonably tight specifications to begin with.


**Your assumption would hold water, IF ME amplifiers were conventional, high
Global NFB designs. They're not. To perform properly, the outputs, drivers
and pre-drivers MUST be carefully matched.

[Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, when I was service manager for Marantz, I
noted that several of their high end models, when serviced, had to be fitted
with carefully matched devices. The matching was around 20-25% of Hfe. MUCH
closer than regular transistor manufacturer matching. At one time, I ran
short of matched devices. I attempted to use a set of unmatched devices to
get my customer's amp going. I could not allow it out of the workshop.
Distortion went through the roof. From a typical figure of around 0.05%
(20Hz-20kHz) at full power, the figure rose to in excess of 0.5% at mid-band
frequencies. A clearly audible figure. And, I might add, that this was a
more or less conventional, high global NFB design.





* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the
case of ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform
even basic fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the
amplifier.

Fully agree there TW, but if they don't know what they are doing and the
smoke geats out than surely they need to accept they ****ed up.


**Indeed they do.

I get this problem with idiots who think they know all about PCs, except
it's the OS that gets out of wack and the system crashes. No physical
or electrical damage but the loss of data can be just as, if not more
costly.

* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in
format. This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise.
Peter Stein (and his appointed successors) can effect service to those
output modules and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and
easily. Freighting amplifiers around the nation is not required. All
that is required, is a competent tech.

As I wrote earlier in this post. 3rd party liability issues if
something goes wrong.


**When I see such an instance, I'll let you know. I won't hold my breath.


Unfortunately it is commonplace and not just in the electronics industy.


**IME, it has never occured with an ME output module.

Perhaps TT can add some value to the problems one has with transmissions
which are re-built by and then installed by 3rd parties.
Let's say the re-build wasn't up to spec. The transmission tech instals
the re-built box under good faith the work on the innards is okay.
The customer drives the car for a day or two and returns it claiming the
box is faulty. The tech diagnoses the box is faulty, takes the
transmission off and returns it to the re-builder only to have the blame
shifted back to the tech with a claim of faulty installation. The
installing tech says he did nothing wrong, the re-builder claims likewise.
See the problem? In the end the only one getting shafted here is the
customer.


**Sure. And, like I said: The day it happens with an ME output module, is
the day I will express some concern.



Who are the appointed successors?


**Myself and David on the mid NSW coast.


David who? the David of David and Golliath fame? :P


**Contact Peter. He will provide all David's details for you.




* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by
incompetent techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.

Same here, but not nessecarily limited to ME.


**Indeed. However, in one instance, the resulting mess cost the client
$1,200.00 in fried output devices. For some reason, the tech removed all
the outputs. It wasn't necessary, since they were undamaged. He did not
secure them to the heat sink properly. The whole lot went up. On
examination, I suggested that the customer approach the manager of the hi
fi store he purcahsed the amp from and request the $1,200.00 be refunded
to him. He got his money.



* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's
reputation.

All the more reason to have full service documentation available to
eliminate the guesswork.:P
A competent tech would heed to the documentation oan follow the service
recommendation strategies.
If it says match Q25 to a certain gain range before replacing, this can
easily be done by any qualified service tech.


**To secure a full set of matched output devices for an ME850 would
require approximately 10,000 transistors, in order to obtain suitable
numbers of matched devices. Same deal with the preamps. In fact, I once
met a guy who claimed to have built an ME preamp, after Peter provided
him with schematics. I challenged him on the point, knowing that it was
impossible. Then, he dropped the bombshell. He spent $1,500.00 on
transistors, to build what was then a $1,000.00 preamp.


The products reputation can't be harmed except (maybe) if it is ME580
Hi-Cap as this the is ONLY ME product still in production.
ALL the other ME amplifiers haven't rolled of the production line in
years so in essence there is no reputation to protect.


**The reputation is still there. Peter cares about his customers and he
cares about the products which are in the market.


Trevor Wilson


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics tech
and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor, it's
got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that, but
Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother testing
at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?) This is a complete smoke
screen Trevor -an attempt to make ME into something it clearly
is not. If you really want to enhance the reputation of this company,
then getting service data made available to users would be to their
advantage (but probably not to yours)

Iain



  #98   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics tech
and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor, it's
got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that, but
Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother testing
at more than a few ma.


So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there are no
matching spares?
I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced. So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the labour
cost associated with that? Show me the economics in that rationalisation.


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.


Oh forgive me Trevor. Just lifted the lid on my ME850 Hi-Cap. Lots of
5% tolerance parts around the output devices.


**You may care to note several things:
* There are lots of 1% and 2% (not 5%) resistors around the output
devices.
* 2% resistors typically measure better than 0.5% off the shelf.
* The Emitter resistors are matched to within 1% tolerance. As are the
other WW resistors.
* The only other 5% resistors are in non-critical sections.


Makes perfect sense now. Equip the device with 1% transistors and
surrounding circuitry has 5% components.


**Wrong.


In which case it makes even more sense that a service manual outlining these
critical components be made available.


What a ****ing laugh. Obviously
both you and PS haven't heard that saying - "A chain is only a good as
its weakest link." Also the WW resistors in the output stage have a PTC
so the resistance will change with temperature / power dissipation.


**Points:
* The resistors are matched.
* The resistors all drift by the same amount.
* The amount of drift is around 300 parts per million/oC.
* The resistors are rated, at maximum power dissipation, to drift less
than 1%.
* At 120 Watts (continuous) the dissipation of the resistors will be
approximately 0.12 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 3oC under these conditions.
* At the rated drift, that corresponds to less than 0.01%
* At 220 Watts (continuous - 4 Ohm load) the dissipation of the resistors
will be approximately 0.44 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 15oC under these conditions.
* That corresponds to less than 0.05% change in resistance.

Of course, under normal use, the fan will keep temperature change to less
than that. Additionally, The figures quoted are for continuous power
levels, not regular music.



Without a circuit diagram it isn't hard to guess that there are low value
(0.51 ohm) resistors in each leg of the emitter circuits of the output
devices. Matching or no matching (within reason), the currents flowing
in the emitter circuits will be effectively shared between parallel
output devices in this type of circuit configuation. It's no rocket
science secret. The technique is commonly used by nearly every competent
class A/B SS output stage.


**Not quite. ME connect Collectors to the load. This is a far less common
method. However, you are correct: It is not rocket science. Peter has
never claimed as much.

Read the Cherry and Hooper book on amplifier design. Published in the
early 70's it's essential reading for anyone contemplating SS amplifier
design. My God it even mentions the V-FET and MOSFETS.

As for ME output device matching. By that I assume all the MJ15026
devices in any one channel would have the same "batch test" number and
likewise all the MJ15024 devices would have their own?


**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer may
claim.


I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one of
his former employees).

I'm not saying PS doesn't attempt to match his devices within reason.
Just I think 1% matching is overkill and it is unnessecary if one selects
an output device with reasonably tight specifications to begin with.


**Your assumption would hold water, IF ME amplifiers were conventional,
high Global NFB designs. They're not. To perform properly, the outputs,
drivers and pre-drivers MUST be carefully matched.

[Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, when I was service manager for Marantz, I
noted that several of their high end models, when serviced, had to be
fitted with carefully matched devices. The matching was around 20-25% of
Hfe. MUCH closer than regular transistor manufacturer matching. At one
time, I ran short of matched devices. I attempted to use a set of
unmatched devices to get my customer's amp going. I could not allow it out
of the workshop. Distortion went through the roof. From a typical figure
of around 0.05% (20Hz-20kHz) at full power, the figure rose to in excess
of 0.5% at mid-band frequencies. A clearly audible figure. And, I might
add, that this was a more or less conventional, high global NFB design.


In that case, I'd say the basic design had some serious shortcomings.

Cheers,
Alan

BTW, thanks for answering the questions.



  #99   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Alan Rutlidge wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics tech
and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor, it's
got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that, but
Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother testing
at more than a few ma.


So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there are no
matching spares?
I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced. So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the labour
cost associated with that? Show me the economics in that rationalisation.

**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.

Oh forgive me Trevor. Just lifted the lid on my ME850 Hi-Cap. Lots of
5% tolerance parts around the output devices.


**You may care to note several things:
* There are lots of 1% and 2% (not 5%) resistors around the output
devices.
* 2% resistors typically measure better than 0.5% off the shelf.
* The Emitter resistors are matched to within 1% tolerance. As are the
other WW resistors.
* The only other 5% resistors are in non-critical sections.


Makes perfect sense now. Equip the device with 1% transistors and
surrounding circuitry has 5% components.


**Wrong.


In which case it makes even more sense that a service manual outlining these
critical components be made available.


What a ****ing laugh. Obviously
both you and PS haven't heard that saying - "A chain is only a good as
its weakest link." Also the WW resistors in the output stage have a PTC
so the resistance will change with temperature / power dissipation.


**Points:
* The resistors are matched.
* The resistors all drift by the same amount.
* The amount of drift is around 300 parts per million/oC.
* The resistors are rated, at maximum power dissipation, to drift less
than 1%.
* At 120 Watts (continuous) the dissipation of the resistors will be
approximately 0.12 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 3oC under these conditions.
* At the rated drift, that corresponds to less than 0.01%
* At 220 Watts (continuous - 4 Ohm load) the dissipation of the resistors
will be approximately 0.44 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 15oC under these conditions.
* That corresponds to less than 0.05% change in resistance.

Of course, under normal use, the fan will keep temperature change to less
than that. Additionally, The figures quoted are for continuous power
levels, not regular music.



Without a circuit diagram it isn't hard to guess that there are low value
(0.51 ohm) resistors in each leg of the emitter circuits of the output
devices. Matching or no matching (within reason), the currents flowing
in the emitter circuits will be effectively shared between parallel
output devices in this type of circuit configuation. It's no rocket
science secret. The technique is commonly used by nearly every competent
class A/B SS output stage.


**Not quite. ME connect Collectors to the load. This is a far less common
method. However, you are correct: It is not rocket science. Peter has
never claimed as much.

Read the Cherry and Hooper book on amplifier design. Published in the
early 70's it's essential reading for anyone contemplating SS amplifier
design. My God it even mentions the V-FET and MOSFETS.

As for ME output device matching. By that I assume all the MJ15026
devices in any one channel would have the same "batch test" number and
likewise all the MJ15024 devices would have their own?


**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer may
claim.


I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one of
his former employees).

I'm not saying PS doesn't attempt to match his devices within reason.
Just I think 1% matching is overkill and it is unnessecary if one selects
an output device with reasonably tight specifications to begin with.


**Your assumption would hold water, IF ME amplifiers were conventional,
high Global NFB designs. They're not. To perform properly, the outputs,
drivers and pre-drivers MUST be carefully matched.

[Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, when I was service manager for Marantz, I
noted that several of their high end models, when serviced, had to be
fitted with carefully matched devices. The matching was around 20-25% of
Hfe. MUCH closer than regular transistor manufacturer matching. At one
time, I ran short of matched devices. I attempted to use a set of
unmatched devices to get my customer's amp going. I could not allow it out
of the workshop. Distortion went through the roof. From a typical figure
of around 0.05% (20Hz-20kHz) at full power, the figure rose to in excess
of 0.5% at mid-band frequencies. A clearly audible figure. And, I might
add, that this was a more or less conventional, high global NFB design.


In that case, I'd say the basic design had some serious shortcomings.

Cheers,
Alan

BTW, thanks for answering the questions.


I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched
because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.
Being highly technical myself, what I never see is exactly what
procedures are used
with ME amp productions, and the more Trevor raves, the deeper he digs
the
hole he's in.

Trevor won't prepare a website of his own which creates any confidence
and complete with references to schematics shown.


Nothing Trevor says really explains anything to any kind of
satisfaction.
He's a repairman who has never designed or built an amp in his life.

I'd need to hear a few pages from Peter Stein with evidence to proove it
all.

But before that, workshop manuals are required.

DON'T BUY ME AMPS UNLESS FULL SERVICE MANUALS ARE AVAILABLE.

Patrick Turner.
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there are
no matching spares?


**That is a reasonable concern. That *may* happen one day. You may need to
consider your options at that time. However, right now, there are plenty of
spares available. At my best guess, those spares will likely be available
for the next 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced.


**Yep. That is one possibility.

So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the labour
cost associated with that?


**Yep.

Show me the economics in that rationalisation.


**It's a whole lot less expensive than if you own a Sony V-FET amp, or a
Yamaha FET power amp. Or an NRG power amp. Or any one of a slew of other
amps. Including a bunch of well regarded valve amps, I might add. Parts for
these amps have not been available for many years. People who own them have
had to resort to one of two options:

* Throw them away.
* Pay an absolute fortune to have them modified.

At least Peter Stein stands behind his products. When and if the output
devices for your amp become NLA, Peter will have an alternative option
available. You will be able to either fit a complete new set of devices (at
a consiberably lower cost than a whole new amp), or you may take advantage
of whatever upgrade is available at the time. I've attempted (rather badly,
it seems) to explain this upgrading policy to you many times. Please tell me
what you fail to understand. Perhaps I need to modify my language.



**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.

Oh forgive me Trevor. Just lifted the lid on my ME850 Hi-Cap. Lots of
5% tolerance parts around the output devices.


**You may care to note several things:
* There are lots of 1% and 2% (not 5%) resistors around the output
devices.
* 2% resistors typically measure better than 0.5% off the shelf.
* The Emitter resistors are matched to within 1% tolerance. As are the
other WW resistors.
* The only other 5% resistors are in non-critical sections.


Makes perfect sense now. Equip the device with 1% transistors and
surrounding circuitry has 5% components.


**Wrong.


In which case it makes even more sense that a service manual outlining
these critical components be made available.


What a ****ing laugh. Obviously
both you and PS haven't heard that saying - "A chain is only a good as
its weakest link." Also the WW resistors in the output stage have a PTC
so the resistance will change with temperature / power dissipation.


**Points:
* The resistors are matched.
* The resistors all drift by the same amount.
* The amount of drift is around 300 parts per million/oC.
* The resistors are rated, at maximum power dissipation, to drift less
than 1%.
* At 120 Watts (continuous) the dissipation of the resistors will be
approximately 0.12 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 3oC under these conditions.
* At the rated drift, that corresponds to less than 0.01%
* At 220 Watts (continuous - 4 Ohm load) the dissipation of the resistors
will be approximately 0.44 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 15oC under these conditions.
* That corresponds to less than 0.05% change in resistance.

Of course, under normal use, the fan will keep temperature change to less
than that. Additionally, The figures quoted are for continuous power
levels, not regular music.



Without a circuit diagram it isn't hard to guess that there are low
value (0.51 ohm) resistors in each leg of the emitter circuits of the
output devices. Matching or no matching (within reason), the currents
flowing in the emitter circuits will be effectively shared between
parallel output devices in this type of circuit configuation. It's no
rocket science secret. The technique is commonly used by nearly every
competent class A/B SS output stage.


**Not quite. ME connect Collectors to the load. This is a far less common
method. However, you are correct: It is not rocket science. Peter has
never claimed as much.

Read the Cherry and Hooper book on amplifier design. Published in the
early 70's it's essential reading for anyone contemplating SS amplifier
design. My God it even mentions the V-FET and MOSFETS.

As for ME output device matching. By that I assume all the MJ15026
devices in any one channel would have the same "batch test" number and
likewise all the MJ15024 devices would have their own?


**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer
may claim.


I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one of
his former employees).


**They're not batch numbers. They're numbers which indicate the hFE and Vbe
matching characteristics of the device. The term 'batch numbers' is always
understood by people in the business to mean the batch number from the
manufacturer. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


I'm not saying PS doesn't attempt to match his devices within reason.
Just I think 1% matching is overkill and it is unnessecary if one
selects an output device with reasonably tight specifications to begin
with.


**Your assumption would hold water, IF ME amplifiers were conventional,
high Global NFB designs. They're not. To perform properly, the outputs,
drivers and pre-drivers MUST be carefully matched.

[Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, when I was service manager for Marantz, I
noted that several of their high end models, when serviced, had to be
fitted with carefully matched devices. The matching was around 20-25% of
Hfe. MUCH closer than regular transistor manufacturer matching. At one
time, I ran short of matched devices. I attempted to use a set of
unmatched devices to get my customer's amp going. I could not allow it
out of the workshop. Distortion went through the roof. From a typical
figure of around 0.05% (20Hz-20kHz) at full power, the figure rose to in
excess of 0.5% at mid-band frequencies. A clearly audible figure. And, I
might add, that this was a more or less conventional, high global NFB
design.


In that case, I'd say the basic design had some serious shortcomings.


**You could say that. You'd be wrong. At the time, Marantz amps were well
regarded. Far more highly than their immediate competition.


Cheers,
Alan

BTW, thanks for answering the questions.


**I am always happy to converse logically and without rancour.

Trevor Wilson




  #101   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)


**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of techs.
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.

This is a complete smoke
screen Trevor -an attempt to make ME into something it clearly
is not. If you really want to enhance the reputation of this company,
then getting service data made available to users would be to their
advantage (but probably not to yours)


**Wrong.

Trevor Wilson



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...




************************************************** **
I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched
because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.

************************************************** **

**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than Peter
Stein does. They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices, even when
specifically instructed to do so. They will always take the easy (cheap) way
out. As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product will
suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by second rate
techs, who think they know it all.

All the schematics in the world will not help, as long as techs think they
know more than Peter does about his own product.

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products benefit
from the use of matched devices. In a product with no Global NFB, the
importance of matching becomes far more crucial.

Trevor Wilson


  #103   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...



************************************************** **
I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched
because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.

************************************************** **

**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.

as a red herring a most unsuccessful ploy
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than Peter
Stein does.

utter bull ****e and another red herring , where are the manuals ?
They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices,
unsuported bull****e
in never ending streams
even when
specifically instructed to do so.

more lies
They will always take the easy (cheap) way
out.

prove it apart from hearsay and personal conjecture , provide some cites
As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product will
suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by second rate
techs, who think they know it all.

what about all the great techs ?
or does mentioning them sink your dodgy arguement ?

All the schematics in the world will not help,

only one way to find out
as long as techs think they
know more than Peter does about his own product.

you still have not proven your very dodgy claim

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products benefit
from the use of matched devices.

still no proof apart from some personal claims
In a product with no Global NFB, the
importance of matching becomes far more crucial.

Trevor Wilson


  #104   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Apr 26, 5:58*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...







"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? *Pull the other one Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)


**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of techs..
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.


This is a very funny thing. I am a strictly amateur "tech" who can
derive simple problems from first principles without a manual -
visibly burnt component is an obvious place to start - but that leaves
the "why did it burn in the first place" to be addressed before the
job is done. For which a manual/schematic is helpful at the very
least.

Now, as to matching parts w/in 1% and the need of 10,000 devices of a
given nature to do so. Lemme see if I get this straight - please put
me back on track if I err...

A (rather simple) transistor checker coupled to a scope will pretty
much map a transistor's performance. So, it is not so much a matter of
finding X number of transistors at a given performance curve, but one
(1) transistor to match the curve of those already in place.

Modern transistors are rather more close-to-tolerance than they once
were. Recently, I purchased ten 2N3055 transistors from Mouser hoping
to get at least three matched pairs - I got all five pairs and a
matched six and a matched four. Within 1% anyway. This means that of
ten random transistors picked out of a bin with the only pre-imposed
parameter being that they were from a single maker and lot, there was
remarkably little variation. Yeah, this is a very simple NPN device -
but the point remains the same.

I smell something funny. I smell smoke and mirrors in an attempt to
imbue a pretty straightforward process with black magic. Further, I
smell raw fear that the designer so protective of his designs and
processes might be really just wearing the Emperor's clothes and knows
it.

Lastly, Mouser, for one, will match for you, for a relatively small
fee. The greater the fee, the closer/more they will match. *AND* that
fee is nothing like the cost of even 100 devices - unless that is the
actual number needed to be matched, of course.

Fear, Smoke, Mirrors, Cotswallop. You like the amp. That is enough. It
need not be magical, nor need it to be rolled on the thighs of virgins
on Walpurgis Night by the seventh son of a seventh son. It can be a
pretty straightforward bit of equipment made in a shop like millions
of other similar bits - let it be.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 5:58 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...







"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of
reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one
Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the
sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)


**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of
techs.
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.


This is a very funny thing. I am a strictly amateur "tech" who can
derive simple problems from first principles without a manual -
visibly burnt component is an obvious place to start - but that leaves
the "why did it burn in the first place" to be addressed before the
job is done. For which a manual/schematic is helpful at the very
least.

Now, as to matching parts w/in 1% and the need of 10,000 devices of a
given nature to do so. Lemme see if I get this straight - please put
me back on track if I err...


A (rather simple) transistor checker coupled to a scope will pretty
much map a transistor's performance. So, it is not so much a matter of
finding X number of transistors at a given performance curve, but one
(1) transistor to match the curve of those already in place.

**Except that I was specifically referring to replacing ALL the output
devices in an entire amplifier, yes.


Modern transistors are rather more close-to-tolerance than they once
were. Recently, I purchased ten 2N3055 transistors from Mouser hoping
to get at least three matched pairs - I got all five pairs and a
matched six and a matched four. Within 1% anyway. This means that of
ten random transistors picked out of a bin with the only pre-imposed
parameter being that they were from a single maker and lot, there was
remarkably little variation. Yeah, this is a very simple NPN device -
but the point remains the same.

**That has not been my experience. I've never seen devices chosen at random
as closely matched as you state. Not ever.


I smell something funny. I smell smoke and mirrors in an attempt to
imbue a pretty straightforward process with black magic. Further, I
smell raw fear that the designer so protective of his designs and
processes might be really just wearing the Emperor's clothes and knows
it.

**Smell what you like.


Lastly, Mouser, for one, will match for you, for a relatively small
fee. The greater the fee, the closer/more they will match. *AND* that
fee is nothing like the cost of even 100 devices - unless that is the
actual number needed to be matched, of course.

**As long as they match high power devices at 1 Amp and also provide Vbe
matching as well, then I see merit in your suggestion. How much would they
charge to provide 1% matching for Hfe (at 1 Amp) and Vbe?


Fear, Smoke, Mirrors, Cotswallop. You like the amp. That is enough. It
need not be magical, nor need it to be rolled on the thighs of virgins
on Walpurgis Night by the seventh son of a seventh son. It can be a
pretty straightforward bit of equipment made in a shop like millions
of other similar bits - let it be.


**Sure. I have never suggested that the amp is anything other than
straightforward. The design is like many others. Well, those many others
which don't use any Global NFB, anyway.

Trevor Wilson




  #106   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
roughplanet roughplanet is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.


**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than
Peter Stein does. They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices, even when
specifically instructed to do so. They will always take the easy (cheap)
way out. As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product
will suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by second
rate techs, who think they know it all.

All the schematics in the world will not help, as long as techs think they
know more than Peter does about his own product.

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products benefit
from the use of matched devices. In a product with no Global NFB, the
importance of matching becomes far more crucial.


Gawd TW, You have dug yourself a hole so deep that you will never get out of
it now, no matter what.

Why not go away & have a good think about the logic, or rather, the lack of
it in what you have said, and then come back & TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE
TRUTH & ONLY THE TRUTH to the other members of this group.

You will gain at least some respect; more than if you just keep banging away
at the same old gong, which is now badly dented & in need of replacing.

ruff


  #107   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)


"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.


**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than
Peter Stein does. They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices, even when
specifically instructed to do so. They will always take the easy (cheap)
way out. As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product
will suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by
second rate techs, who think they know it all.

All the schematics in the world will not help, as long as techs think
they know more than Peter does about his own product.

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products
benefit from the use of matched devices. In a product with no Global NFB,
the importance of matching becomes far more crucial.


Gawd TW, You have dug yourself a hole so deep that you will never get out
of it now, no matter what.

Why not go away & have a good think about the logic, or rather, the lack
of it in what you have said, and then come back & TELL THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH & ONLY THE TRUTH to the other members of this group.

You will gain at least some respect; more than if you just keep banging
away at the same old gong, which is now badly dented & in need of
replacing.


**Be specific and I will do my best to answer.

Trevor Wilson


  #108   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of
reading current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average
electronics tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the
other one Trevor, it's got bells on it.

**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the
sheer number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only
that, but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs
bother testing at more than a few ma.


So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there are
no matching spares?


**That is a reasonable concern. That *may* happen one day. You may need to
consider your options at that time. However, right now, there are plenty
of spares available. At my best guess, those spares will likely be
available for the next 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced.


**Yep. That is one possibility.

So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the labour
cost associated with that?


**Yep.

Show me the economics in that rationalisation.


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.

**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer
may claim.


I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one
of his former employees).


**They're not batch numbers. They're numbers which indicate the hFE and
Vbe matching characteristics of the device. The term 'batch numbers' is
always understood by people in the business to mean the batch number from
the manufacturer. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


No problems Trevor, no apology required. Perhaps I should have made myself
clearer in the first instance.

So, IOW, the numbers written on the tops of the MJ15024 devices in any one
amplifier module should read the same?
Likewise for the MJ15026 devices (except they could bear a different number
as they are a different device). Right?

Cheers,
Alan


  #109   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 5:58 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...







"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of
reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one
Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the
sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)


**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of
techs.
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.


This is a very funny thing. I am a strictly amateur "tech" who can
derive simple problems from first principles without a manual -
visibly burnt component is an obvious place to start - but that leaves
the "why did it burn in the first place" to be addressed before the
job is done. For which a manual/schematic is helpful at the very
least.

Now, as to matching parts w/in 1% and the need of 10,000 devices of a
given nature to do so. Lemme see if I get this straight - please put
me back on track if I err...

A (rather simple) transistor checker coupled to a scope will pretty
much map a transistor's performance. So, it is not so much a matter of
finding X number of transistors at a given performance curve, but one
(1) transistor to match the curve of those already in place.

Modern transistors are rather more close-to-tolerance than they once
were. Recently, I purchased ten 2N3055 transistors from Mouser hoping
to get at least three matched pairs - I got all five pairs and a
matched six and a matched four. Within 1% anyway. This means that of
ten random transistors picked out of a bin with the only pre-imposed
parameter being that they were from a single maker and lot, there was
remarkably little variation. Yeah, this is a very simple NPN device -
but the point remains the same.

I smell something funny. I smell smoke and mirrors in an attempt to
imbue a pretty straightforward process with black magic. Further, I
smell raw fear that the designer so protective of his designs and
processes might be really just wearing the Emperor's clothes and knows
it.

Lastly, Mouser, for one, will match for you, for a relatively small
fee. The greater the fee, the closer/more they will match. *AND* that
fee is nothing like the cost of even 100 devices - unless that is the
actual number needed to be matched, of course.

Fear, Smoke, Mirrors, Cotswallop. You like the amp. That is enough. It
need not be magical, nor need it to be rolled on the thighs of virgins
on Walpurgis Night by the seventh son of a seventh son. It can be a
pretty straightforward bit of equipment made in a shop like millions
of other similar bits - let it be.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Peter, I pretty much concur with your observations and comments.
I've seen a fair bit of gain variation between some small signal transistors
(especially those of high gain) where the manufacturer has released ungraded
versions. Not so much so in the power transistor devices. Most have been
fairly close (say 5%) if from the same batch for the common garden varieties
anyway. The only problems that have surfaced in recent years are fake
devices, i.e, a 2N3055 in the right clothing but doesn't have the right
device in the can. :-( Sad but true.

Now Peter Stein's ME850 uses MJ15024 and MJ15026 devices in the output
stage. I guess they have been around for donkey's years. God only knows
the tolerances in manufacturing for such old stock. Maybe they have to be
hand matched, but surely only someone with a very fat wallet and a lot of
spare time on their hands would go down the path of hand selecting devices
for current gain and Vbe from batches of 10,000 devices?

Cheers,
Alan




  #110   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of
reading current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average
electronics tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the
other one Trevor, it's got bells on it.

**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the
sheer number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only
that, but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs
bother testing at more than a few ma.

So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there
are no matching spares?


**That is a reasonable concern. That *may* happen one day. You may need
to consider your options at that time. However, right now, there are
plenty of spares available. At my best guess, those spares will likely be
available for the next 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced.


**Yep. That is one possibility.

So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the
labour cost associated with that?


**Yep.

Show me the economics in that rationalisation.


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1%
for hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the
output devices.

**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches
the devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the
manufacturer may claim.

I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one
of his former employees).


**They're not batch numbers. They're numbers which indicate the hFE and
Vbe matching characteristics of the device. The term 'batch numbers' is
always understood by people in the business to mean the batch number from
the manufacturer. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


No problems Trevor, no apology required. Perhaps I should have made
myself clearer in the first instance.

So, IOW, the numbers written on the tops of the MJ15024 devices in any one
amplifier module should read the same?


**If not the same, then very close. Within 1%.

Likewise for the MJ15026 devices (except they could bear a different
number as they are a different device). Right?


**MJ15025 and yes.

Trevor Wilson



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:58 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...







"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor,
it's got bells on it.
**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.
How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)

**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of techs.
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.


This is a very funny thing. I am a strictly amateur "tech" who can
derive simple problems from first principles without a manual -
visibly burnt component is an obvious place to start - but that leaves
the "why did it burn in the first place" to be addressed before the
job is done. For which a manual/schematic is helpful at the very
least.

Now, as to matching parts w/in 1% and the need of 10,000 devices of a
given nature to do so. Lemme see if I get this straight - please put
me back on track if I err...

A (rather simple) transistor checker coupled to a scope will pretty
much map a transistor's performance. So, it is not so much a matter of
finding X number of transistors at a given performance curve, but one
(1) transistor to match the curve of those already in place.

Modern transistors are rather more close-to-tolerance than they once
were. Recently, I purchased ten 2N3055 transistors from Mouser hoping
to get at least three matched pairs - I got all five pairs and a
matched six and a matched four. Within 1% anyway. This means that of
ten random transistors picked out of a bin with the only pre-imposed
parameter being that they were from a single maker and lot, there was
remarkably little variation. Yeah, this is a very simple NPN device -
but the point remains the same.

I smell something funny. I smell smoke and mirrors in an attempt to
imbue a pretty straightforward process with black magic. Further, I
smell raw fear that the designer so protective of his designs and
processes might be really just wearing the Emperor's clothes and knows
it.

Lastly, Mouser, for one, will match for you, for a relatively small
fee. The greater the fee, the closer/more they will match. *AND* that
fee is nothing like the cost of even 100 devices - unless that is the
actual number needed to be matched, of course.

Fear, Smoke, Mirrors, Cotswallop. You like the amp. That is enough. It
need not be magical, nor need it to be rolled on the thighs of virgins
on Walpurgis Night by the seventh son of a seventh son. It can be a
pretty straightforward bit of equipment made in a shop like millions
of other similar bits - let it be.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Hear hear Sir
Well played




now wait for the insidious misdirectional reply .
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor,
it's got bells on it.

**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there are
no matching spares?


**That is a reasonable concern. That *may* happen one day. You may need to
consider your options at that time. However, right now, there are plenty of
spares available. At my best guess, those spares will likely be available
for the next 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced.


**Yep. That is one possibility.

So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the labour
cost associated with that?


**Yep.

Show me the economics in that rationalisation.


**It's a whole lot less expensive than if you own a Sony V-FET amp, or a
Yamaha FET power amp. Or an NRG power amp. Or any one of a slew of other
amps. Including a bunch of well regarded valve amps, I might add. Parts for
these amps have not been available for many years. People who own them have
had to resort to one of two options:

* Throw them away.
* Pay an absolute fortune to have them modified.

At least Peter Stein stands behind his products. When and if the output
devices for your amp become NLA, Peter will have an alternative option
available. You will be able to either fit a complete new set of devices (at
a consiberably lower cost than a whole new amp), or you may take advantage
of whatever upgrade is available at the time. I've attempted (rather badly,
it seems) to explain this upgrading policy to you many times. Please tell me
what you fail to understand. Perhaps I need to modify my language.



**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.

Oh forgive me Trevor. Just lifted the lid on my ME850 Hi-Cap. Lots of
5% tolerance parts around the output devices.

**You may care to note several things:
* There are lots of 1% and 2% (not 5%) resistors around the output
devices.
* 2% resistors typically measure better than 0.5% off the shelf.
* The Emitter resistors are matched to within 1% tolerance. As are the
other WW resistors.
* The only other 5% resistors are in non-critical sections.


Makes perfect sense now. Equip the device with 1% transistors and
surrounding circuitry has 5% components.

**Wrong.


In which case it makes even more sense that a service manual outlining
these critical components be made available.


What a ****ing laugh. Obviously
both you and PS haven't heard that saying - "A chain is only a good as
its weakest link." Also the WW resistors in the output stage have a PTC
so the resistance will change with temperature / power dissipation.

**Points:
* The resistors are matched.
* The resistors all drift by the same amount.
* The amount of drift is around 300 parts per million/oC.
* The resistors are rated, at maximum power dissipation, to drift less
than 1%.
* At 120 Watts (continuous) the dissipation of the resistors will be
approximately 0.12 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 3oC under these conditions.
* At the rated drift, that corresponds to less than 0.01%
* At 220 Watts (continuous - 4 Ohm load) the dissipation of the resistors
will be approximately 0.44 Watts each.
* Temperature rise will be approximately 15oC under these conditions.
* That corresponds to less than 0.05% change in resistance.

Of course, under normal use, the fan will keep temperature change to less
than that. Additionally, The figures quoted are for continuous power
levels, not regular music.



Without a circuit diagram it isn't hard to guess that there are low
value (0.51 ohm) resistors in each leg of the emitter circuits of the
output devices. Matching or no matching (within reason), the currents
flowing in the emitter circuits will be effectively shared between
parallel output devices in this type of circuit configuation. It's no
rocket science secret. The technique is commonly used by nearly every
competent class A/B SS output stage.

**Not quite. ME connect Collectors to the load. This is a far less common
method. However, you are correct: It is not rocket science. Peter has
never claimed as much.

Read the Cherry and Hooper book on amplifier design. Published in the
early 70's it's essential reading for anyone contemplating SS amplifier
design. My God it even mentions the V-FET and MOSFETS.

As for ME output device matching. By that I assume all the MJ15026
devices in any one channel would have the same "batch test" number and
likewise all the MJ15024 devices would have their own?

**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer
may claim.


I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one of
his former employees).


**They're not batch numbers. They're numbers which indicate the hFE and Vbe
matching characteristics of the device. The term 'batch numbers' is always
understood by people in the business to mean the batch number from the
manufacturer. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


I'm not saying PS doesn't attempt to match his devices within reason.
Just I think 1% matching is overkill and it is unnessecary if one
selects an output device with reasonably tight specifications to begin
with.

**Your assumption would hold water, IF ME amplifiers were conventional,
high Global NFB designs. They're not. To perform properly, the outputs,
drivers and pre-drivers MUST be carefully matched.

[Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, when I was service manager for Marantz, I
noted that several of their high end models, when serviced, had to be
fitted with carefully matched devices. The matching was around 20-25% of
Hfe. MUCH closer than regular transistor manufacturer matching. At one
time, I ran short of matched devices. I attempted to use a set of
unmatched devices to get my customer's amp going. I could not allow it
out of the workshop. Distortion went through the roof. From a typical
figure of around 0.05% (20Hz-20kHz) at full power, the figure rose to in
excess of 0.5% at mid-band frequencies. A clearly audible figure. And, I
might add, that this was a more or less conventional, high global NFB
design.


In that case, I'd say the basic design had some serious shortcomings.


**You could say that. You'd be wrong. At the time, Marantz amps were well
regarded. Far more highly than their immediate competition.


Cheers,
Alan

BTW, thanks for answering the questions.


**I am always happy to converse logically and without rancour.


But you make us all sick with YOUR rancour, ie, your attitude that
ME manuals are not needed, which is totally illogical.

DON'T BUY ME AMPS UNLESS SERVICE MANUALS ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE YOU BUY
ONE.

The issues you raise above are all meaningless because there is no
technical rigour
or correctness or any back up provided to what you say.
The errors you make by ommission are so numerous, anyone who is
technical
cannot take a word you say seriously.

You need to proove every line you say Trev.

Its beyond my capability to point out your errors, they are so numerous.

You sure ain't worth the time.

You seem to get a high from being seen to be talking and discussing,
but the technical aspects are something you do not understand, and never
did.

You have never designed or built an amp in your life.

You like to be good with all the jargon, but its all hot air.

The more you say about ME, the less sense it makes to someone technical
like me who really
understands.

So you can't fool me.

You'd be better shutting up, saying nothing.

The reputation of ME amps is not enhanced with your BS.
Hardly anyone here except Phil Allison or myself have any technical
training or experience.
So you like to BS and pull the wool over the others.

What is needed right now are service manuals for ME amps and for you to
shut up.

With as much rancour as you imagine,

Patrick Turner.





a

Trevor Wilson

  #113   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...




************************************************** **
I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched
because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.

************************************************** **

**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than Peter
Stein does. They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices, even when
specifically instructed to do so. They will always take the easy (cheap) way
out. As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product will
suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by second rate
techs, who think they know it all.

All the schematics in the world will not help, as long as techs think they
know more than Peter does about his own product.

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products benefit
from the use of matched devices. In a product with no Global NFB, the
importance of matching becomes far more crucial.

Trevor Wilson


WHAT YOU SAY IS UTTER ****ING BS.

Most techs do not assume they know more than Peter Stein.

In desperation because service manuals are not available, they
may fit whatever transitors can be purchased which have as god as or
better ratings
than those chosen by PS.

The claims you make about the importance of accurate hfe matching
between both all
PNP and NPN output or other transistors is a complete load of ********.

Good transistor amps function perfectly well with wider tolerances than
you say because of the abundance of
local and other NFB.

But because there is no schematic, no website where what you are saying
is proven
everyone should regard you as a complete ****ing charlatan.

Get off the news group!!!!

ME AMPS ARE JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT.

ANY SECRETS ABOUT SERVICING SHOULD BE DISCLOSED IN COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE
MANUALS
WITH WHATEVER NOTES ARE REQUIRED TO MATCH TRANSISTORS.

Peter Stein probably has a large stock of transistors left over from
since his factory was shut down. He wants to sell them at a high as
possible price.
He and yourself wish to create the utter ****ing BS that ONLY stocks
held by Peter or yourself can
be fitted as replacements.

The market value of old transistors is very low.

Nobody would mind the truth Trevor, and they wouldn't mind
paying Peter for the replacement transistors IF they are priced OK.

And they'd really like a service ****ing manual.


DO NOT BUY ME AMPS UNLESS SERVICE MANUALS ARE MADE WIDELY AVAILABLE
BEFORE YOU BUY ONE.

Allow me a true story about matched devices.
I saw a website offering 2SK369 j-fets for $30 each which were
claimed to be matched within 1%, hence the price.

But I bought a number of these devices on TWO occasions
years apart from WES components at $1.10 each.

All were already within 1% of having the same transconductance of 40mA/V
at 5mA of drain current.

That's standard industry standards.

I used them at the input of phono amps for MC cartridges because they
are
about 20dB quieter than any 12AX7 etc, and ARE linear enough.

No loop FB is used in the amp stage.
There is some 8dB of local current NFB in the source circuit.

But there is MUCH LESS NFB of any kind compared to
anything made by ME.

See my website for full schematic and details.

The gain of the phono amps is within 0.3dB for either channel.

There was utterly no need whatsover for me to purchase
super matched j-fets for $30 each.

Trevor has not told us half the truth about the matched transistor
situation
regarding transistors for ME.

Until he tells the truth, ALWAYS assume he's a liar.

Patrick Turner.
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Peter Wieck wrote:

On Apr 26, 5:58 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...







"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)


**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of techs.
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.


This is a very funny thing. I am a strictly amateur "tech" who can
derive simple problems from first principles without a manual -
visibly burnt component is an obvious place to start - but that leaves
the "why did it burn in the first place" to be addressed before the
job is done. For which a manual/schematic is helpful at the very
least.

Now, as to matching parts w/in 1% and the need of 10,000 devices of a
given nature to do so. Lemme see if I get this straight - please put
me back on track if I err...

A (rather simple) transistor checker coupled to a scope will pretty
much map a transistor's performance. So, it is not so much a matter of
finding X number of transistors at a given performance curve, but one
(1) transistor to match the curve of those already in place.

Modern transistors are rather more close-to-tolerance than they once
were. Recently, I purchased ten 2N3055 transistors from Mouser hoping
to get at least three matched pairs - I got all five pairs and a
matched six and a matched four. Within 1% anyway. This means that of
ten random transistors picked out of a bin with the only pre-imposed
parameter being that they were from a single maker and lot, there was
remarkably little variation. Yeah, this is a very simple NPN device -
but the point remains the same.

I smell something funny. I smell smoke and mirrors in an attempt to
imbue a pretty straightforward process with black magic. Further, I
smell raw fear that the designer so protective of his designs and
processes might be really just wearing the Emperor's clothes and knows
it.

Lastly, Mouser, for one, will match for you, for a relatively small
fee. The greater the fee, the closer/more they will match. *AND* that
fee is nothing like the cost of even 100 devices - unless that is the
actual number needed to be matched, of course.

Fear, Smoke, Mirrors, Cotswallop. You like the amp. That is enough. It
need not be magical, nor need it to be rolled on the thighs of virgins
on Walpurgis Night by the seventh son of a seventh son. It can be a
pretty straightforward bit of equipment made in a shop like millions
of other similar bits - let it be.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA



Trevor Wilson doesn't mind me dragging him through his own ****
he says about ME amplifiers.

He likes being disproven at every turn.

It brings publicity to ME Amplifiers.

But to discerning audiophiles, the more Trevor squarks, the sillier ME
looks.

Trevor Wislson and Peter Stein are trying to make the public believe
that they and they only can service ME amps because of the
degree to which transistors must be matched.

I think their claims about matching is all bull****, just lies upon lies
to make people dependant on Wilson or Stein for parts.

People really hate such ****ing bull****.

It'd be so much easier if Stein produced manuals for sale, and
advertised the prices of spares at the ME website.

Its ****ing in the public's face not to do so.

Trevor has actually said not the slightest truth about exactly how
transistors are matched, which ones, and where they are in the circuit,
and
under what exact laboratory conditions matching was conducted. Trevor is
all bull****.

There is no website where all this is described.

There is no reference to a schematic for people to view.

DO NOT BUY ME AMPLIFIERS BEFORE A FULL SERVICE MANUAL IS MADE AVAILABLE.

Patrick Turner.
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.


**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than
Peter Stein does. They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices, even when
specifically instructed to do so. They will always take the easy (cheap)
way out. As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product
will suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by
second rate techs, who think they know it all.

All the schematics in the world will not help, as long as techs think
they know more than Peter does about his own product.

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products
benefit from the use of matched devices. In a product with no Global NFB,
the importance of matching becomes far more crucial.


Gawd TW, You have dug yourself a hole so deep that you will never get out
of it now, no matter what.

Why not go away & have a good think about the logic, or rather, the lack
of it in what you have said, and then come back & TELL THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH & ONLY THE TRUTH to the other members of this group.

You will gain at least some respect; more than if you just keep banging
away at the same old gong, which is now badly dented & in need of
replacing.


**Be specific and I will do my best to answer.

Trevor Wilson


DO NOT EVER BUY ME AMPS BEFORE FULL SERVICE MANUALS BECOME AVAILABLE.

Patrick Turner.


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Alan Rutlidge wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of
reading current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average
electronics tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the
other one Trevor, it's got bells on it.

**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the
sheer number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only
that, but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs
bother testing at more than a few ma.

So what's going to happen if one of my output devices fails and there are
no matching spares?


**That is a reasonable concern. That *may* happen one day. You may need to
consider your options at that time. However, right now, there are plenty
of spares available. At my best guess, those spares will likely be
available for the next 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

I guess the whole lot of the output devices would need to be replaced.


**Yep. That is one possibility.

So
the customer bears the cost of the other undamaged devices and the labour
cost associated with that?


**Yep.

Show me the economics in that rationalisation.


**All transistors in the amplifier stages are matched to within 1% for
hFE and Vbe. The resultant number is written on the top of the output
devices.

**Maybe, maybe not. Batch numbers don't tell you much. Peter matches the
devices, based on their MEASURED parameters, not what the manufacturer
may claim.

I wasn't refering to the transistor manufacturer's batch numbers but the
numbers hand written on the top of the devices (presumably by PS or one
of his former employees).


**They're not batch numbers. They're numbers which indicate the hFE and
Vbe matching characteristics of the device. The term 'batch numbers' is
always understood by people in the business to mean the batch number from
the manufacturer. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


No problems Trevor, no apology required. Perhaps I should have made myself
clearer in the first instance.

So, IOW, the numbers written on the tops of the MJ15024 devices in any one
amplifier module should read the same?
Likewise for the MJ15026 devices (except they could bear a different number
as they are a different device). Right?

Cheers,
Alan


Alan, Trevor is pulling wool right over your eyes; in broad daylight he
is trying to fool you.

He knows you ain't a technical man, and can be fooled.

Fooling ppl is Trevor's game.

There is no information about **EXACTLY** how transistors used in ME
amps are selected for use.

There is no website explaining it all, and no service manual where
matching info and procedures should be fully explained.

DO NOT BUY ME AMPS BEFORE FULL SERVICE MANUALS BECOME AVAILABLE.

Plenty of spurious claims have been and cointinue to be made about ME
amps.

Don't believe claims without proof.

Patrick Turner.
  #117   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Apr 26, 10:41*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
**Except that I was specifically referring to replacing ALL the output
devices in an entire amplifier, yes.


OK... and that would be much like matching tubes - you get a pair/quad
that matches within that pair/quad and is overall within tolerance and
Bob's your uncle. That pair/quad need not match any other pair/quad in
any other amp, just within itself.

So, (picking familiar equipment at random) if I need ten (10) matched
output devices for my Citation 16, I would perhaps have to slog
through maybe 30-40 to get them based on my several experiences with
this process. It is quite likely that of the 20-30 left over, I would
get another ten-set match as well. And any number of pairs/quads.
However, I will also state that I have _NEVER_ had such a catastrophic
failure in my own equipment -though I have seen it in other stuff. I
can only imagine what it would take to create one that did not give
otherwise-warning ahead of time. Yes, a great number of people do not
heed those otherwise-warnings, that is true.

**That has not been my experience. I've never seen devices chosen at random
as closely matched as you state. Not ever.


That is really too bad. Your suppliers must not specify well when they
bulk-purchase and you must not be willing to pay the going prices for
such care. Mouser is not the cheapest supplier on earth, but they
answer their phone with a human being - typically one who knows a bit
- and they stand behind what they sell. DigiKey and Newark are very
nearly as good. I could pay less than a US$ for a 2N3055. Typically I
pay around $2.50 or so inclusive of shipping - for that care.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #118   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Alan Rutlidge wrote:

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 5:58 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...







"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message


So what you are implying is that a transistor tester, capable of
reading
current gain and Vbe is beyond the budget or the average electronics
tech and beyond his / her competency to use? Pull the other one
Trevor,
it's got bells on it.


**No. That's not what I'm telling you. The problem is acquiring the
sheer
number of devices, in order to obtain suitable matches. Not only that,
but Peter matches his large signal devices at 1 Amp. Few techs bother
testing at more than a few ma.


How can you possible know what other techs do (except those
of your immediate aquaintance?)


**I've been in this business for more than 30 years. I know a lot of
techs.
I know what they do and I know how they do it. I know that very few would
bother with using matched devices, if they were instructed to use them. I
know that few have the wherewithall to purchase 10,000 output devices, in
order to match enough to service one amplifier.


This is a very funny thing. I am a strictly amateur "tech" who can
derive simple problems from first principles without a manual -
visibly burnt component is an obvious place to start - but that leaves
the "why did it burn in the first place" to be addressed before the
job is done. For which a manual/schematic is helpful at the very
least.

Now, as to matching parts w/in 1% and the need of 10,000 devices of a
given nature to do so. Lemme see if I get this straight - please put
me back on track if I err...

A (rather simple) transistor checker coupled to a scope will pretty
much map a transistor's performance. So, it is not so much a matter of
finding X number of transistors at a given performance curve, but one
(1) transistor to match the curve of those already in place.

Modern transistors are rather more close-to-tolerance than they once
were. Recently, I purchased ten 2N3055 transistors from Mouser hoping
to get at least three matched pairs - I got all five pairs and a
matched six and a matched four. Within 1% anyway. This means that of
ten random transistors picked out of a bin with the only pre-imposed
parameter being that they were from a single maker and lot, there was
remarkably little variation. Yeah, this is a very simple NPN device -
but the point remains the same.

I smell something funny. I smell smoke and mirrors in an attempt to
imbue a pretty straightforward process with black magic. Further, I
smell raw fear that the designer so protective of his designs and
processes might be really just wearing the Emperor's clothes and knows
it.

Lastly, Mouser, for one, will match for you, for a relatively small
fee. The greater the fee, the closer/more they will match. *AND* that
fee is nothing like the cost of even 100 devices - unless that is the
actual number needed to be matched, of course.

Fear, Smoke, Mirrors, Cotswallop. You like the amp. That is enough. It
need not be magical, nor need it to be rolled on the thighs of virgins
on Walpurgis Night by the seventh son of a seventh son. It can be a
pretty straightforward bit of equipment made in a shop like millions
of other similar bits - let it be.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Peter, I pretty much concur with your observations and comments.
I've seen a fair bit of gain variation between some small signal transistors
(especially those of high gain) where the manufacturer has released ungraded
versions. Not so much so in the power transistor devices. Most have been
fairly close (say 5%) if from the same batch for the common garden varieties
anyway. The only problems that have surfaced in recent years are fake
devices, i.e, a 2N3055 in the right clothing but doesn't have the right
device in the can. :-( Sad but true.

Now Peter Stein's ME850 uses MJ15024 and MJ15026 devices in the output
stage. I guess they have been around for donkey's years. God only knows
the tolerances in manufacturing for such old stock. Maybe they have to be
hand matched, but surely only someone with a very fat wallet and a lot of
spare time on their hands would go down the path of hand selecting devices
for current gain and Vbe from batches of 10,000 devices?

Cheers,
Alan


Alan, its child's play to match transistors. Like matching tubes.
In fact matched quads of tubes are available from New Sensor,
and it costs an average of one or two dollars per tube for matched
output tubes
So all the bull**** about how much effort has been done to match ME
transistors and how many were bought
is all bull****.

I've matched tubes myself, and its very easy.

The degree of matching found in any batch of transistors
is good enough in most cases, and matching to 1% of hfe is not required
for
good sound and low THD/IMD measurements.

ME amps use a ****e and trouser load of NFB in TWO loops around TWO
multi stage sections of the power amplifiers.
They DON'T use global NFB because it woulkd be impossible to
attain stability with SO DAMN MANY stages within the amp.

ME amps have slightly higher than typical idle currents to give a few
watts of class A PO.
Thefore really close matching of output transistors is NOT needed.

Nobody should ever take much notice of the spurious claims made about ME
amplifiers by Trevor Wilson.

People want full service manuals and if Wilson or Stein have a stock of
matched transistors
which may be used as spares, we just wanna know how much and how many we
can buy.

If they are excessively expensive, or unavailable from ME, then
you can't blame techs without manuals trying to fix stuffed ME amps
without help or info from ME.

One cannot blame them for thinking Trevor and Stein should shove all
their amps up their arses, sideways.

If Peter Stein was to build say 1,000 amplifiers with say an average of
eight output transistors in each, its 8,000 transistors right?

So when Trevor claims Peter Stein bought 10,000 transistors, it is just
stating a normal
business expense, nothing particularly special or suprising, OK!

And a batch of 10,000 transistors would cost a heck of a lot less per
transistor than if you
bought 10,000 from Dick Smith, Jaycar, or Radio Shack, OK.

Transistors in ME amps are not expensive.

Trevor doesn't even say if the NPN hfe characteristics are matched to
the PNP types.

Whatever Trevor says is bull**** about such serious technical matters.

ONLY a full detailed account which proves the truth is acceptable
in any way, and it'd take a long description made available at a
website.

But Wilson and Stein are shambolic.

There is no openly transparent information about ME amps and their
schematics online anywhere, and no service manuals.

DO NOT BUY ME AMPLIFIERS BEFORE FULL SERVICE MANUALS BECOME AVAILABLE.

Patrick Turner.
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
bassett[_2_] bassett[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

**There's David on the mid-NSW coast.


* Trevor Wilson


Well that narrows it down considerably.

or are we talking about "david" [leach] from newcastle nsw, he's to be
avoided , he a lot like you, a bloody head case,


bassett


  #120   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
bassett[_2_] bassett[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise (attention Alan and Iain)


"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I never read what Trevor says about ME amps or the way transistors are
matched because its all empty sales talk and utter BS.


**Read the above very carefully. THIS is exactly what I am talking about.
Every tech on the planet claims to know more about ME amplifiers than
Peter Stein does. They WILL NOT fit critically matched devices, even when
specifically instructed to do so. They will always take the easy (cheap)
way out. As a consequence, the performance and reliability of the product
will suffer. I know. I've seen the messes that have been created by
second rate techs, who think they know it all.

All the schematics in the world will not help, as long as techs think
they know more than Peter does about his own product.

I know, from my own experience, that some high Global NFB products
benefit from the use of matched devices. In a product with no Global NFB,
the importance of matching becomes far more crucial.


Gawd TW, You have dug yourself a hole so deep that you will never get out
of it now, no matter what.

Why not go away & have a good think about the logic, or rather, the lack
of it in what you have said, and then come back & TELL THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH & ONLY THE TRUTH to the other members of this group.

You will gain at least some respect; more than if you just keep banging
away at the same old gong, which is now badly dented & in need of
replacing.

ruff

No ****'in worries about the Gong Mr Ruff. His mate David will give it
an upgrade.


bassett


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tube/valve amp kit question Ian Liston-Smith Vacuum Tubes 19 August 2nd 05 08:30 PM
Tube (valve) bases? John Perry Vacuum Tubes 3 May 12th 05 07:54 AM
Calibrating an AVO tube/valve tester Johnny C Vacuum Tubes 5 November 18th 03 02:37 PM
Valve Art KT100?? Can I use this tube? Patrick Turner Vacuum Tubes 1 September 29th 03 12:55 AM
Valve/Tube Tester on U.K. Ebay Theo Vacuum Tubes 0 August 18th 03 09:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"