Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Rudy Rudy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Another proposal


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Peter Wieck" wrote in message
:
:
: Most Americans are listening to computer driven
: pacific-rim speakers with formerly impressive names on
: them -
:
: They don't all sound alike. Some are actually respectible. Some are
worse
: than trash.
:
: that or ear-buds.
:
: or IEMs or earphones, which can be audio professional's tools and
: head-and-shoulder above $1.99 ear buds.
:
: I am not so sure that the rest
: of the world is any different in that regard. But in any
: case, even that Auratone POS would leave suchlike in its
: dust.
:
: ????????
:
: The Auratone was a cheap 5" driver with no whizzer or tweeter, mounted
in
: a cubic box.
:
: There was also a wedge
:
: Ever actually hear one?
:
:
: Early in the 1970s they were the most comnonly used near field monitor
: (probably because there was no other competition) They were used to
: give a rough approximation of what the recording might sound like on
: a car cassette system. They were (and still are) *horrible*.
:
: Iain
:
heh, agreed :-)
i think for popular productions in the 80s and 90s, you should have
used gettoblasters for nearfields, hehe.

on RAO i suggested some time ago, nowadays, for that purpose,
you could be worse off than by using a pair of Pioneer TS series
carspeakers in a small enclosure ;-)

Rudy

  #242   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


I would be interested to hear of your musical experiences
as a listener.

**As well you might be. After you start treating me with a little
respect,
I may decide to tell you of my personal feeling about such things.


This was a gesture on my part to get the conversation
back to some sort of rational level.


**Rational is the discussion of accuracy, not musical experiences.



Don't you think the two are interrelated?


FWIW: The most intensely satisfying musical experiences I've had were all
live and (mostly) unamplified. As such, they bore no relation to SETs.
push pull, CD players or anything mechanical.


I am sure that is so for the majority of us. The state of
"actually being there" whether its a symphony concert,
an open air event, or a small jazz club date,
has much to do with the enjoyment.

The problem is that once passed, you cannot recreate that
performance. Hence the demand for recorded music.

Regards
Iain



  #243   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2
Ohms
and so on.



Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.


**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.


No one suggested they were not. They are the
common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.

When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and
said that he belived his father Peter had "received
a dispensation from the Pope"

That satisfied everyone:-)

Iain



  #244   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal


"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:



Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for totally
different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records because sometimes
it is difficult to get all the artists in the same studio at the same
time.

How can it be Jazz without all the artists being in the same studio at
the same time?



Indeed:-) But where does it say that a pre-reqisite of jazz is that
all players must be present? Sometimes, especially in the case of
international bands (I am thinking of for instance the Kenny Clarke
Francy Boland Big Band, with whom I have worked) the logistics
of getting everyone in the same studio in the same city on the same
day, are sometimes not feasible.


I guess it depends on which part of the wide ranging music form we label
jazz you are talking about. But given that a large part of much of jazz
performance involves improvisional playing, and for that to progress
beyond the "solo over a backing track" level, it requires at the least two
way communication between the soloist and the rhythm section, and
hopefully communication between the creator/maintainer of the harmonic
framework.

It depends on your use of the word "all". I expect a marktree could be
added later without any major problem :-)

--


'
Hello Nick. Nice to see you on RAT.

I agree with what you say, but jazz is rather more than
"We Free Kings"

A great deal of jazz is structured, played from written
scores of accurate tutti and section playing, with solos.
This is especially so in big band jazz.
I gave the Clarke/Boland orchestra to illustrate my point..

I agree that a recording of say a quintet would be all-but-
impossible without one member, but a 22 piece band is,
due to the way it works, not quite so restricted.

I agree, of coure, that in an ideal situation for the best
possible interaction/dynamic betweeen the players,
a full-house is desirable.

Iain



  #245   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Another proposal


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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2
Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.


**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.


No one suggested they were not. They are the
common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.

When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and
said that he belived his father Peter had "received
a dispensation from the Pope"

That satisfied everyone:-)


**Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with
what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction
system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me.

Trevor Wilson




  #246   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Another proposal

"John Byrns" wrote in message


My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an
equivalent PP amplifier in terms of frequency response
errors?


Mostly the lack of NFB, but probably something about the odd OPT
configurations that are used.

I ask because you and others here seem to single
out SET amplifiers for this particular criticism, some
even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
from these frequency response errors.


It would be appropriate to say PP amps with NFB.

I am not
attempting to contradict your characterization of SET
amplifiers, I am simply asking why you single out SET
amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
equivalent PP amplifiers?


Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's
Handbook Ed. 4" as some sort of tube bible, it is
enlightening to read the text printed directly above Fig.
13.14 which reads as follows.

"A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load
impedance. This is a standard condition of test for a
loudspeaker, and some models of loudspeakers are designed
to operate under these conditions (see Chapters 20 and
21). A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a
loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of
view, with or without feedback."


This harkens back to the triode/pentode controversy that raged back in the
1950s, perhaps earlier. These were the days of the Brook p-p triode amp was
being compared to various amps with p-p pentodes etc. The early Brook amps
had loop feedback and both interstage and output transformers. Later on the
interstage transformer was replaced with inductive loading of the driver
stage.

The trade-off then became the comparative effectiveness of a triode amp with
inherently lower output impedance, but also lower voltage gain and therefore
less potential for loop feedback, all other things being equal.

http://www.ampslab.com/vintage1.htm


  #247   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2
Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.


No one suggested they were not. They are the
common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.

When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and
said that he belived his father Peter had "received
a dispensation from the Pope"

That satisfied everyone:-)


**Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with
what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music
reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me.


I recall a post from Patrick just a couple of days ago,
in which he states that a good SET amp has no difficulty
in driving an ELS. I would presume he says that from
first-hand experience.

Iain



  #248   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



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


Consider a recording put together, layer by layer: Bass
and drums plus 1 gtr. Next day perhaps piano, and
congas. Then a couple of weeks later two more nylon
acoustic guitars, and a flat-back mandolin. Later some
brass and maybe saxes. Now let's add a vocal group, and
when she gets back from Australia we can add the vocal. None of the
players on this recordings, except thos
playing is specific sections (rhythm., brass or saxes)
have even met each other or been in the studio at the
same time. So please explain to me how there is a *live* performance.


Here's a news flash Iain, not all popular recordings are made that way.


Do you see anything in my statement above where
I claim that *ALL* popular recordings are made
like that? Of course not. But what I describe is
indeed the way the majority of studio recordings
are put together.

Arny please don't even *pretend* you know how
high-quality commercial recordings are made, and
in return I will never claim I know how to repair
second-hand PCs. We can then both remain
in our areas of experience.

Chorus overdub is somethimes done for opera, but for
totally different reasons. Tracking is done on jazz records
because sometimes it is difficult to get all the artists in the same
studio
at the same time.


Yet another one of Iains little conceits.
He knows how every recording was
made, going back to the turn of the last century.


Oh Arny, you *are* a warm and wonderful person:-)

I have certainly studied hard at recording arts,
including acoustic recording, using techniques
from the late 1920s. I wager there are not too
many people of your acqaintance who have
recorded a line up identical to the Duke Ellington
Orchestra of 1930 using both an acoustic recording
phonograph and a Studer digital multitrack.

I was fascinated by the ideas of Phil Spector,
Jo Meek and Les Paul, and later the UK "glitter"
sound (do you know about that Arny?). Like
many students, I wanted to investigate
Paul McCartney's Hoffner Bass sound,
and know how Ringo's Starr's snare
was recorded.

When I started to work with jazz, I spent
a great deal of time listening to and identifying
the various styles and timbres of the great
saxophone players from 1930 to the present
time. When someone asks you to help
with an "Earl Bostic", "Coltrane" or
"Long Island sound" you have to know
what he/she is talking about.

Don't tell me Arny.
You have "been there, done that" too....
LOL:-)


Iain










  #249   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



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

The expectations of a pop audience (who probably listen
mainly in their cars, or with iPod, are very
different to those who enjoy classical music..

So then Iain it is your claim that all car systems and
iPod systems sound so much alike that one can pre-color
recordings so they sound best on them.


What an absurd statement:-) Of course I did not say that,
but repeat the findings of newpaper surveys (The
Independent in the UK for example) which show that most
people listen to pop music on car systems or on iPods, noit on dedicated
stereo systems in their
living or listening rooms.

To make this believable Iain, please document the
equalization curve that is used to accomplish this.


Arny. Arny. Please try to get yourself involved in some
commercial (non-Baptist) CD mastering, and find out
what is really going on in this big bad world:-)


Obviouisly Iain would prefer to insult and posture than discuss.

End of discussion.


It is your inability to respond, your snipping the rest of
my post, in which I described *exactly* what often goes
on in mastering sessions, plus your feeble enactment
of "the injured party" that brings this discussion to a
close.


Iain










  #250   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
Perhaps you or Iain can show us a requisition from a
well-known music production organization, Decca for
example, for a large number of highly-colored SET
amplifiers driving say Lowther horn-loaded speakers,
intended to be used universally in-house for producing
records.


Good try. Arny. No cigar:-)


The prerequisite posturing, followed by the concession speech.


I see neither.

Record companies choose amplifiers and speakers for their
generic performance. This is because a studio may be
used to record a classical work on one day, and a
punk-rock band on the next. Most studios can offer a range of
loudspeakers.


Due to the fact that they cannot be regarded as
"all-rounders" neither ESL or Lowther are commonly seen.


See, Iain concedes the point. He was wrong and now he admits it.


Not at all. You trimmed my post, (presumably because
you had no sensible response to the points made in it)
and snipped the paragraph where I assured you that
any studio of good repute would provide the speakers
and amp of your choice when requested.

We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters and a
fine Radford STA100 for which there is considerable
demand. But neither of these would be part of a
generic control room setup.

Iain









  #251   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



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



Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone
chest that you would probably sell your soul to the devil
for:-)


Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves don't make the
recording.


The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt,
the most important link in the recording chain, be it
analogue or digital, and the most important tool of
any in the recording engineer's kit as any good
teacher will tell you.

Your mic chest is something that will probably exist
a very long time, from one generation to another,
while amplifiers speakers and even recording formats
change and are all but forgotten. We have people
working within our team who were not born when
some of our Neumann 87s (still in pristine condition)
were manufactured.

You can lease or rent a good large-format digital
console, and buy a Crown amp for a fairly small outlay.
A studio or engineer with a good reputation can usually
get speakers on permanent loan at no cost. But your mic
chest is the heart and soul of your whole system.
Make no mistake about that Arny.

Once you get to a certain level of performance, quality is far more
dependent on how the mic is used.


However you may use a toyshop mic, it will still produce
a toyshop sound, as you have so clearly illustrated.

Iain






  #252   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Another proposal



Iain Churches wrote:

We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters


Oxymoron.

Graham

  #253   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Another proposal

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



Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone
chest that you would probably sell your soul to the
devil for:-)


Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves
don't make the recording.


The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt,
the most important link in the recording chain, be it
analogue or digital, and the most important tool of
any in the recording engineer's kit as any good
teacher will tell you.


That's where you are tragically wrong, Iain.

The most important links in the production of a recording a

(1) the musican

(2) the room

(3) the skill and resourcefulness of the the recordist

etc.


  #254   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Another proposal



Trevor Wilson wrote:

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2
Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.


No one suggested they were not. They are the
common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.

When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and
said that he belived his father Peter had "received
a dispensation from the Pope"

That satisfied everyone:-)


**Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping with
what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music reproduction
system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me.


More BS from TW.

If the SE Triode amp, or SE Transistor amp, or SE Mosfet amp or SE Beam
Tetrode/Pentode
amp has been designed to cope with a given ESL, it will cope just as
well as any other amplifier!!!!

Trevor omits to inform us of the full truth.

Now most full range ESL such as the Quad ESL63 and some older models by
Martin Logan
present to an amplifier a supposedly horrid sort of load varying
from high Z at LF, ie, very easy to drive at LF, to a low Z of maybe 1
ohm at 20kHz, or even less,
and perhaps rather like a C + small value R in series.

Not only is the load vary variable in Z, the ESL tends to be
insensitive, requiring
a large voltage ability at LF and a large current ability at HF.
But overall, most ESL require more power ability than dynamic speakers
merely
because there has to be both high voltage at LF and ENOUGH current
ability at HF.

But fortunately, most of the audio energy in music is between 100Hz and
1KhZ,
and anyone who has listened solely to the audio being fed to a tweeter
with Xover point at 3kHz
will be surprised to find how little music energy exists between 3kHz
and 20kHz.

What we do not want is the amplitude of this small amount of power
signal modulated
by LF wave production, whose amplitude is usually many times the HF
voltage amplitude.

So speakers like ESL57 are comfortably driven by the amplifiers such as
the Quad-II,
a humble amp if ever there was one, compared to today's behemoths with
10 times the power ability.
But Quad-II struggle with ESL63 and later Quad ESL.

Quad-II produce 20 watts into 16 ohms class AB, and
the reducing ESL load down to 1.8 ohms at 18kHz will stifle any attempt
the amp makes to produce 20 watts at 18kHz.
But the amp will never ever be needed to make such a huge amount of
power at HF,
unless the owner is mentally unbalanced and likes ear crushing
recordings
of ppl bashing cymbols turned up to absurdly loud levels.
The set of house keys jingled in front of a microphone does produce lots
of HF,
but we do not ever require the replayed recording of keys jingled to be
louder than if we slip a set of keys
out of a pocket and jingle them loudly as possible in front of us.

So the Quad-II does manage to make sufficient power to give what was
considered to be superlative sound in 1960
when used with ESL57.

One lone 300B, with 1/3 of the power of the Quad-II would not give
enough drive to ESL57
unless you like sitting very close to the speakers, then it becomes a
headphone experience.
So you'd have to use a quad of 300B in parallel SE to keep up with a the
Quad-II,
because the Quad-II does have a slight ability to make more
instantaneous AB power than the class A power
when tested with a sine wave, and at lower loads than the 16 ohms.

Quad-II has its Rout = 1 ohm, and hence the output voltage sags badly at
HF, about 3dB even at low levels when
driving 2 ohms at 15 kHz.
Peter Walker, who knew a shirtload more than I do, and a trouserload
more than Trever does
took this into consideration, and you will find the ESL57 will give a
near flat response driven with a 1 ohm source Z.
Many but not all SE amps with ZERO GLOBAL NFB are rarely ever going to
measure with Rout 1ohm,
so you get considerable sag in treble voltages with poorly made SET.
Some ppl quite like this, because if Rout = 3 ohms, the roll off at
10kHz with ESL57 still wouldn't
be too bad; many older people don't mind if all information above 10kHz
went AWOL.
But I still prefer a flat response.

But it definately is possible to make SE amps which achieve Rout = 1ohm
or less easily, something
TW would not know how to achieve, even if his life depended upon it,
because if he did,
he'd recommend how to get sufficiently low Rout correctly.

GNFB is one way to lower Rout, and you also lower THD/IMD,
and if the circuit is linear enough to begin with the added low level
harmonics created by
applied GNFB won't be audible.
Another way is to raise the anode loads with a higher than normal OPT
turns ratio.
But this reduces the power mabybe by 1/2 to 4 watts per 300B, and
although it sounds blameless, its expensive....

Unfortunately, we live in a marketing world driven mainly by greed and
BS.
So SE amp makers try to cut costs and boost profits by lying about the
capabilities of their Crud Production models being sold online to
gullible ppl.
Often the Rout is 3 ohms, way too high for any speakers.

A 300B is often loaded with a load for maximum power and symetrical
clipping,
and this load = (Ea / Ia) - (2 x Ra).
So for a given Pda of 32 watts for the 300B, one can select an Ea, find
out the Ia, and then the Ra,
and work out your load. Most makers choose 400V and 80mA and Ra =
800ohms,
so the anode load is 3,400 ohms.

An OPT is then made with a 3.4k : 8 ohm match.

This gives a 425 : 1 Z ratio.

And it means that where the triode Ra = 800 ohms, it appears as 800 /
425 at the OPT sec, ie 1.88 ohms.
Added to this is the OPT winding resistance, often 10% of the secondary
load value,
so total Rout = 2.88 ohms with no global NFB.
Adding just 10dB of GNFB will transform the Rout down to about 0.8 ohms
and the SET 300B will
be OK to drve ESL57, except for the volume ceiling.

So use another few 300Bs so you have 4 all in parallel, and reduce the
OPT Z ratio so each tube sees 3.4k,
then we'd have an OPT with 850ohms:8, or Z ratio 106:1, and the Ra of
all 4 tubes becomes 200 / 106 at the sec, ie, 1.88 ohms,
and with the same 10dB GNFB the Rout becomes 0.8 ohms approx or lower if
we use an OPT with
5% or lower losses, something few commercial makers ever try to do
because they hate
spending money on production costs, and the freight costs due to weight
mount up.

The amp with a quad of 300B will make a max PO = 32 watts, and it will
surely drive ESL57.

If the sec windings on the OPT can be re-arranged to offer a match to 4
ohms, the power will reduce
when 8 ohms is connected to about 20 watts, about equal to Quad-II,
but Rout will be 0.4 ohms.
Distortions of any kind at the 2 watt level won't be meaningfully worse
than the Quad-II.
We must remember that with two MATCHED KT66, and MATCHED EF86, and with
accurate R values in the Quad-II,
the distortion is well below 0.1% at 2 watts/8 ohms, although it is
mainly 3H.
But seldome are Quad-II amps seen with brand new matched tubes fitted
and I have often
seen such amps with very serviceable tubes one wouldn't bother replacing
for a few more years
that have 2H THD some 5 times above where it is supposed to be, ie,
below the
predominately 3H THD of all PP amps.

So if you had a 32 watt SE amp made with class A triodes, the THD
difference to
the real world operation of PP amps becomes purely academic, and of no
concern.
The bit of 2H and 3H in either types of amps doesn't ruin music because
its produced while the tubes concerned are all remaining well within
their class A linear region of operation,
and nothing is switching on and off.

I've just built the first of a pair of SE amps using 2 x 845, equivalent
to using 7 x 300B in parallel.
The sound is truly wonderful. It measures well.

THD in SET amps can be dramatically minimised by careful arrangement of
the driver tube
so that considerable natural 2H cancelation occurs; instead of 2H
CURRENT cancelation you get
in a PP amp, you can have 2H VOLTAGE cancelations in cascaded triode
stages.
The small amount of GNFB does the rest.

If TW wants to place ALL SE amps into the same category as being awfully
problematical,
let the world judge him as being plain wrong.

If one does own the most horridly awkward to drive Martin Logan ever
made,
then one has to think very carefully about what sort of
amp one uses. Ditto AR9 dynamics, which have low Z at LF, where you'd
want the Z to be highish.

One MUST do one's calculations about what maximum power is needed, what
max current,
and simply work out what class A current is needed through the output SE
devices
so that the amp doesn't clip when trying to make twice the max speaker
current.
My guess is that the Worst To Drive MartLogan probably needs 3 x 845 in
parallel,
which gives 75 watts of SET PO.
Frankly, 4 x 6550 well set up for a lot of class A and about 90 watts
max in PP
would also work and sound well, see my 8585 amp at my website.
I've also considered 2 x 845 in PP with the first 30 watts in class A;
should be awesome!
The 845 has Ra = 2k2, and a class A load is about 12k ideally,
so without GNFB there is a better ration of Ra to load than with a 300B.

Just rabbiting on about saying SET is a problem without
mentioning the conditions of use is just rabbit chatter, and it dirties
up the Internet.

Meanwhile, I had to repair an ME850 for the second time in two months
because
a thermistor went west on one channel giving a false indiaction of the
amp becoming too hot.

The ME is a powerful Oz made SS 200W amp with huge current ability, and
it does put up with horrid loads.
To my ears after repeated tests with it now working well, it sounds
better than
all generic budget Marantz, Nads, Denons, Yamahas etc etc.
But certainly no better than the 845 amps. Or better than an 8585,
or the ARC VT100 I recently re-engineered to my own circuit topology.

I suspect the amp played up because of a lightning strike. Lightning
does funny things to conplex
SS circuits for sure. Vacuum tubes giggle in their sockets during
lightning strikes.
Atomic bombs going off nearby don't affect them either.

But when the owner comes around to collect his repaired amp today
he tells me he pulled the covers off the bass drivers on his AR9s,
( bloody ancient old speakers!! ) he finds all the speaker surrounds are
broken and barely
holding the cones aligned.
So I could assume the voice coils will jam on their magnet poles with
any high level,
and when they do that they become a low Z, and this can well wreck a not
so good amplifier.
I told him not to use his speakers until he gets the surrounds fixed.

An SET amp with a lone 300B would certainly get lemon of the week award
if used
with an AR9 in good condition let alone in the poor condition I've
mentioned.

I then had a great laugh at the response curves printed out on the AR9
owner manual sheets the guy brought me for a look.
Two years ago I re-engineered a very damaged pair of AR9 and tested one
when i
got it back to original working condition.
The manual sheets show a very nice almost ruler flat response with
slight bass boost,
but what I measured with the AR9 I fixed was as flat as the US Rocky
Mountains,
with peaks and troughs up to +/- 8 dB along the band.
This is the typical result when I measure lots of nice brand speakers.

Anyway, looks like another re-engineering job for me in late autumn.
During the exercize I may include replacing ALL drivers, and completely
re-enginering a new Xover; the original AR9 is a horror story designed
by US bean counters.
Instead of appallingly low impedance at bass F of the original AR9
the reformed speakers will have a civilised and near constant Z and be
more able to be driven
by ANY amp, and one without having to have absurdly high voltage OR
current abilities,
And even an SET amp will cope quite well, if built properly.

Trouble is that whatever i do is limited by funds available....

Last time I did up a pair of AR9, I replaced the surrounds on the 4
woofers,
and used Peerless replacement minor drivers.
The final response was MUCH flatter, and the owner was rapt.
Drivers for speakers have improved vastly since the days when AR9 were
regarded well,
and I could say almost anything made by the North Europeans would be
better than anything made in the US in 1980.

Now George, down boy, no need to send those B52s out to stop me saying
what i think about
ancient old manufacturers in foreign powerful countries.

Patrick Turner.











Trevor Wilson

  #255   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



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



Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone
chest that you would probably sell your soul to the
devil for:-)

Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves
don't make the recording.


The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt,
the most important link in the recording chain, be it
analogue or digital, and the most important tool of
any in the recording engineer's kit as any good
teacher will tell you.


That's where you are tragically wrong, Iain.


Arny, m'dear old fellow, you are a master of
misinterpretation. The engineer can do little
about the musicians, and the room is the choice
of the client.

I was referring specifically to the "tools" which the
recording engineer has at his disposal to make his
recording.


Regards
Iain






  #256   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Another proposal



Arny Krueger wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message


My question was why would a SET amplifier differ from an
equivalent PP amplifier in terms of frequency response
errors?


Mostly the lack of NFB, but probably something about the odd OPT
configurations that are used.

I ask because you and others here seem to single
out SET amplifiers for this particular criticism, some
even explicitly stating that PP amplifiers don't suffer
from these frequency response errors.


It would be appropriate to say PP amps with NFB.

I am not
attempting to contradict your characterization of SET
amplifiers, I am simply asking why you single out SET
amplifiers for this criticism when it applies equally to
equivalent PP amplifiers?


Since you seem to treat the "Radiotron Designer's
Handbook Ed. 4" as some sort of tube bible, it is
enlightening to read the text printed directly above Fig.
13.14 which reads as follows.

"A triode applies nearly constant voltage across the load
impedance. This is a standard condition of test for a
loudspeaker, and some models of loudspeakers are designed
to operate under these conditions (see Chapters 20 and
21). A triode is almost the ideal output stage for a
loudspeaker load when looked at from the load point of
view, with or without feedback."


This harkens back to the triode/pentode controversy that raged back in the
1950s, perhaps earlier. These were the days of the Brook p-p triode amp was
being compared to various amps with p-p pentodes etc. The early Brook amps
had loop feedback and both interstage and output transformers. Later on the
interstage transformer was replaced with inductive loading of the driver
stage.

The trade-off then became the comparative effectiveness of a triode amp with
inherently lower output impedance, but also lower voltage gain and therefore
less potential for loop feedback, all other things being equal.

http://www.ampslab.com/vintage1.htm


The Brook reminds me of the Lincoln-Walsh which had IST and tetrode
output tubes
with CFB like Quad-II.

Both the Brook and L-W would be quite unstable with a 0.22uF load.

Quad-II measure lots better with KT90, and Rout becomes 1/2
the KT66 figure because effective Ra of the KT90 is much lower than the
KT66.

Just what amount of NFB you can apply depends upon the OPT and IST if
there is one,
and open loop gain reduction with GNFB, and gain shelving and FB
compensation.

Tube amps with many stages and IST and GNFB can have big response
problems with ESL
at HF because the ESL C causes extra phase shift. Well designed ESL have
enough series R
due to step up tranny winding resistances so that a pure C is never seen
by the amplifier.
A typical poor amp with GNFB might give a peak in sinewave response at
20kHz of +6dB with 2uF
( at low levels to avoid clipping ).
Placing 2 ohms in series may avoid the peaks well, and many makers will
have some added R
in addition to the winding resistances of the step up tranny.

Triodes are good for output stages, to be sure; but the ratio of Ra to
RL
is still not low enough to be able to get a DF 10 with most triodes
without loop NFB.

A 300B has Ra = 800 ohms, and typical RL in class A is 3.4k, so Ra:RL =
approx 1/4 only.

If you have two 300B in PP, Ra-a = 1k6, so RLa-a would be 6k8 for max PO
but DF about 4.

Raising RL to 16k a-a gives DF = 10 without NFB and much lower THD/IMD
but much lower PO ability.
So use 4 x 300B, and RL 8k.

VAC amplifiers have 4 x 300B per channel in AB1.

They screw about 50+ watts per channel, and its because they
know the triodes produce a fine first 5 watts in pure class A even when
loaded with
a much lower load than I've mentioned above.

I am repairing one of these amps now. I've been to have a good listen.
They sound well, and the one I am repairing ( failed tube and cathode
bias bypass parts )
has switchable GNFB from 0dB to 9dB.
I hear ZERO sound quality change with/without NFB.
Its hard to make a comparison as you switch the FB away because the
sensitivity
increases.

BUT, the owner has Ambience Ribbon speakers, with fairly constant Z.
AND he has ZeroImpedance matching transformers to make the speaker load
look like a higher
load at the amp terminals.

The impedance raising transformers will effectively reduce the PO
available
but he has plenty with the 4 x 300B per channel.

4 x KT90 in triode per channel is also awesome, but using beam tetrodes
with local CFB a la Quad-II
gives triode like performance but with far more AB1 PO than pure A or
AB1 triode.



Patrick Turner.
  #257   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters


Oxymoron.


Many discerning producers like them. As
I say they do not form a part of what one
might consider a generic setup these days.

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly when we work in
Prague, he is not consulted about the
coffee.


Iain



  #258   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters


Oxymoron.


Many discerning producers like them. As
I say they do not form a part of what one
might consider a generic setup these days.

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.


Iain




  #259   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Another proposal

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi


Arny. The team of which I am a member has a microphone
chest that you would probably sell your soul to the
devil for:-)

Highly unlikely, because microphones all by themselves
don't make the recording.

The microphone is “without the shadow of a doubt,
the most important link in the recording chain, be it
analogue or digital, and the most important tool of
any in the recording engineer's kit as any good
teacher will tell you.


That's where you are tragically wrong, Iain.


Arny, m'dear old fellow, you are a master of
misinterpretation. The engineer can do little
about the musicians, and the room is the choice
of the client.

I was referring specifically to the "tools" which the
recording engineer has at his disposal to make his
recording.


That would be his brain.

Once you get down to the list of components that are absolutely required to
make a recording, they are all equally important since removing or
compromising any of them results in a poor recording.

Getting down to microphone quality - the real question at hand is whether
its possible for a skilled recordist to get as good results with $400
microphones as opposed to $2000 microphones. In times past, $400
microphones were far more compromised then they are today. Most of the
interesting discussion today is whether $400 or $200 microphones make sense,
or whether $40 microphones can suffice in the hands of someone who knows
what they are doing.


  #260   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Another proposal


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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2
Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.

No one suggested they were not. They are the
common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.

When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and
said that he belived his father Peter had "received
a dispensation from the Pope"

That satisfied everyone:-)


**Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping
with
what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music
reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me.


I recall a post from Patrick just a couple of days ago,
in which he states that a good SET amp has no difficulty
in driving an ELS. I would presume he says that from
first-hand experience.


**AFTER Patrick submits a frequency response, I'll get interested. I do not,
nor have I ever, suggested that a SET cannot make an ESL produce sound. What
I do dispute, is the ability of a SET amp to drive most ESLs such that they
provide a linear frequency response. IOW: Drive an ESL with a SET amp and
you will probably get sound. With the SETs Patrick mentioned, you may even
get quite acceptable sound (at huge cost). If that SET is compared with
another amplifier, which possesses a suitably low output impedance and high
current ability, then the sound from the ESLs will mostly likely be far more
accurate. Back in the days when I used SE amplifiers, I thought they sounded
pretty good. Great, in fact. Then I built a push pull amp and my world
changed. Simply no comparison. The push pull amp was more powerful, able to
cope with a wide range of load impedances, lower distortion, etc, etc. For
the record: Both SE amp push pull amps used 6V6 output valves. I was 16
years old. I have not bothered with SE designs since. Well, once. I mucked
about with some SE transistor designs (2N301) briefly. I dumped them pretty
quick and went back to valves. Then I discovered KT88s (they cost AUS$25.00
each way back then). Mmmmm. Nice valves. FWIW: One of my instructors at
college was part of the design team at GE-MOV for the KT88.

Trevor Wilson




  #261   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Another proposal



Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

We have a beautiful pair of Tannoy Lancasters


Oxymoron.


Many discerning producers like them.


Would these be OLD producers by any chance ? I suppose there is some
merit in mixing on what you're used to.

Graham

  #262   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Another proposal



Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.


Criminal !

Graham

  #263   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.


Criminal !


You don't seem to understand the psychology
of music recording, Graham:-)

One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing
him/her to state a preference of speaker from
two good alternatives which you have carefully
selected. He/she will probably be pleased with
the opportunity to make a contributive decision,
and less likely to have too strong an opinion on
more critical matters, like orchestral layout and
mic placing etc.

Czech coffee is some of the finest in the world.
You don't want some health-freak producer
insisting on de-caf:-)

Iain




  #264   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Another proposal



Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.


Criminal !



You don't seem to understand the psychology
of music recording, Graham:-)

One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing
him/her to state a preference of speaker from
two good alternatives which you have carefully
selected.


I was referring to the COFFEE !

Graham

  #265   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.

Criminal !



You don't seem to understand the psychology
of music recording, Graham:-)

One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing
him/her to state a preference of speaker from
two good alternatives which you have carefully
selected.


I was referring to the COFFEE !


Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe"
instant coffee in the UK?

Iain





  #266   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Another proposal



Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.

Criminal !


You don't seem to understand the psychology
of music recording, Graham:-)

One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing
him/her to state a preference of speaker from
two good alternatives which you have carefully
selected.


I was referring to the COFFEE !


Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe"
instant coffee in the UK?


There are many blends of Nescafe these days.

Graham

  #267   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Another proposal

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe"
instant coffee in the UK?


Two words: French Press


  #268   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Another proposal



Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


A SET amplifier rated at (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver a
maximum of 5 Watts, when the impedance falls to 4 Ohms, 2.5 Watts @ 2
Ohms
and so on.


Trevor, you are going round in circles. Please study
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 to which most
competent loudspeakers confirm.
The exception being ESL.

**ESLs ARE competent loudspeakers.

No one suggested they were not. They are the
common exception to IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.

When asked about this, Russ Walker smiled and
said that he belived his father Peter had "received
a dispensation from the Pope"

That satisfied everyone:-)

**Except SET owners, of course. SET amps will have problems in coping
with
what is widely acknowledged as the most accurate form of music
reproduction system. Seems like a bad trade-off to me.


I recall a post from Patrick just a couple of days ago,
in which he states that a good SET amp has no difficulty
in driving an ELS. I would presume he says that from
first-hand experience.


**AFTER Patrick submits a frequency response, I'll get interested.


In a recent other post most people have ignored because it probably is
too hard to refute,
I mentioned Quad-II and ESL57. There isn't any need for ME to posr a
response curve
when if you wanted one you could find one done by Walker & Co.
get it from the horses mouth, not me.

SE amps that I make have Rout of less than Walker's amps, so whatever
Walker got when he measured the response
would be flatter if my amps were used, except I suspect ESL57 sounds a
little treble rich if driven by
an amp with a say Rout = 0.1 ohm.

I do not,
nor have I ever, suggested that a SET cannot make an ESL produce sound. What
I do dispute, is the ability of a SET amp to drive most ESLs such that they
provide a linear frequency response.


Depends what SET amp you are talking about. They vary considerably in
their Rout
depending on the whims of the designers.

Some SET amps will not give a linear F response because Rout exceeds the
ESL maker's specifaction
of source R in order to get a flat voltage response of say +/- 1.0dB.

Some SET amps will easily produce a response within the +/- 1.0dB 20Hz
to 20kHz,
simply because their Rout is say 0.3 ohms, and the lowest Z of the ESL
along the band at some HF
has a minimum of say 2 ohms.


IOW: Drive an ESL with a SET amp and
you will probably get sound. With the SETs Patrick mentioned, you may even
get quite acceptable sound (at huge cost).


Yes, finally you have got the message that not all SET amps are the
same,
and ppl find the sound they hear worth the expense.


If that SET is compared with
another amplifier, which possesses a suitably low output impedance and high
current ability, then the sound from the ESLs will mostly likely be far more
accurate.


Not necessarily so. Its not hard to make an SE amp with sufficient
voltage and current ability
so much so that it acts like a Rolls Royce, and you never have to worry
about having enough
power; there is always enough. And the Rout of the amp need only be
sufficiently low
to meet the speaker maker's recomendations. Very little is to be gained
sonically
by exceeding the maker's requirements which are usually based on basic
LCR theory.

Put it this way, all my amps have Rout less than 1 ohm, often only 0.3
ohms,
including all SE and PP tube and SS PP amps.

Forcing any of my designs to have lower Rout by using more gainy tubes
and more GNFB
will not improove the sonics. The Law of diminishing returns sets in.


Back in the days when I used SE amplifiers, I thought they sounded
pretty good. Great, in fact.


1958 was it? maybe a lone 6V6? Yeah, i went through all that too at
about that time.

The first serious SE amps I did in 1993 used 1 x EL84/6BQ5 in pentode
with local cathode FB from the
OPT and as I added GNFB the sound became clearer and better up to a
point where
any further increase was useless. The stereo amps are still in my shed
on a Kriesler
radio chassis.
I ran a pair of sensitive "ceiling speakers" with "full range" ability,
ie
about 50Hz to 18kHz in ported boxes and because of good sensitivity the
little SE amps did a fine job for some radio music. I used a walkman to
provide
the FM radio feed.

With any class A pentode/beam tet amp, a total of 20dB of series voltage
NFB is all you need
to make what is virtually a current source into virtually a voltage
source.
Triode SET amps have local NFB within the output tube, so Ra is usually
10 times lower compared to pentodes/beams.
So you simply do not need to apply much GNFB.

The 845 SET amps have only 8 dB GNFB.

Then I built a push pull amp and my world
changed. Simply no comparison. The push pull amp was more powerful, able to
cope with a wide range of load impedances, lower distortion, etc, etc. For
the record: Both SE amp push pull amps used 6V6 output valves. I was 16
years old.


So I guessed right about what you and countless others have done.



I have not bothered with SE designs since.


Nobody is forcing you towards anything. But because YOU
have not bothered with SE, it does not make it wrong that anyone else
might
persevere with SE designs.

The amp with four 6V6 in SE parallel beam tetrode with local NFB from
the OPT
and some GNFB will give you 20 watts of PURE CLASS A,
and the pair you used in PP was maybe barely capable of the 20 watts,
more like only 12 watts, and very class AB, and lots more odd order THD
than the SE.
The first few watts of the SE amp will easily sound just as good or
better than the
PP amp.

Tonight I demonstrated one of the 50 watt 845 amps to my customer.
He brought in the reformed and re-engineered CR Audio 5050 amp I did up
about 5 months ago
which now has my far better circuit within, and over two hours with
several CDs
and swaps too and fro from PP KT88
to SE 845, we compared the performances. The SE had slightly more bass,
but
better space around instruments, air, and detail, and you felt more
drawn in to
where the musicians were. Both PP and SE were fine drinkable wines
indeed,
and the guy is looking forward to me completing the second mono.

He spent $5,500 for the CR Audio "Woodham" amp which was an absolute
pile of ****e
before I completely re-built it.

Not all PP amps are better than SE amps just because they happen to be
PP, and not SE.
The Woodham CR Audio amplifier is a tragic case of the designers being
right out of their depth.
The list of design no-nos were long as my arm.
I think CR which is supposedly a UK based company has their product made
to order in China
somewhere judging by the very poor skills used. They do look pretty, and
looks fool ppl.
What's the use of a good looking wife if she can't/won't cook?

My 845 were not much more expensive.


Well, once. I mucked
about with some SE transistor designs (2N301) briefly. I dumped them pretty
quick and went back to valves. Then I discovered KT88s (they cost AUS$25.00
each way back then). Mmmmm. Nice valves. FWIW: One of my instructors at
college was part of the design team at GE-MOV for the KT88.


The KT88 at $25 each were EXPENSIVE; 1960 was it? that makes the KT88 as
expensive than as
one KR Audio 845 is today maybe, ie, about $400.
Nowdays chinese KT88 or 845 are dirt cheap in real terms, and so what if
one has to use
twice the tube count in SE amps to get the same PO as a PP amp.

If you DO use enough tubes which ain't expensive ( Sovtek basic KT88 can
be had for
$35 each including freight if you buy 10 pcs from the US ) then SE isn't
any worse than PP,
and although 4 tubes in SE can only have about the same PO as an AB PP
amp with two,
The power is nicer power in the super critical region of less than 5
watts,
but you have to know what your'e doing.

But even 6V6 made in Oz in 1960 were expensive, and everyone was crying
poor back in those days,
and there wasn't much anything else you could use. Most ppl though
serious hi-fi was a pretentious
and frivolous waste of money. Hardly anyone could afford the luxury of
it.
807 were a favourite, bought from army disposal stores which continued
to sell
ex armed forces junk left over from excess production during WW2 until
after 1965. But they priced the NOS 807 about the same as any comparable
other new made tube like
6L6. In other words, they'd paid peanuts for the NOS 807 at army
auctions, and charged what the market would bear.
Some makers did fit single 807s in radios. I have repaired a couple, and
they sound equal to
a pair of 6V6 in PP, simply because with 8 watts from a lone 807, and
needing only
1/2 a watt to fill a room with sound with the type of sensitive speaker
used, the sound was blameless....

Everyone mostly made do with single 6V6s in countless radio and radio
grams, and only the rich
could afford the "deluxe" sets with PP amps. Of course these PP amps
were better generally.
The SE 6V6 amps in the radios and cheap grams rarely had much NFB.
Adding GNFB meant an extra tube for gain
so NFB could be applied to reduce this gain and get low Rout and
THD/IMD.
Makers hated spending on the extra tube. Beene Kounter & Associates had
their guys working
in most electronics manufacturing plants to ensure quality remained low.
Deluxe sets had twice the tube count, and instead of 4 watts you had 12
watts max,
and of course speakers all were about 95dB SPL 1M @ 1M.
Now speakers are maybe 88dB, and you NEED 3 times the power at least.
But 1960 speakers were very non-flat mostly, attrocious is the word.
Cones were thinly papered and being true flat cones not curvilinear,
they
tended to flap irregularly in the breeze. Some were quite good, the
Delauxe Rolas
fitted to Deluxe Radiolas sure were, and I have one in my kitchen radio
with EL34 SE triode amp with GNFB and its
a beautiful sounding AM radio, far better than any commercial set I have
EVER worked on,
simply because I designed it with a few more tubes and with linear
techniques used
in the IF amp and detector and audio stages.
But in 1960, we all grooved and bopped to the rock and roll anyway.
Johnny O'Keefe screamed his lungs out and overloaded all the gear used
to record him
and most of the source material we listened to was well and truly
pre-distorted before
our amps added another 0.5%, considered SFA in 1960.

KT88 PP could sure do 30 watts in pure class A and and much more in AB.

But for 35watts PURE class A, you only need 4 x 6L6, or KT66, or
EL34/6CA7, see
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/se35cfbmonobloc.html

3 KT88 may be used in the same amps, or 4 which is overkill.
Fine sound quality good measurements are the result of the ideas
employed to make these amps.

There isn't much extra work to make them in comparison to any other PP
monoblock amp
with 4 octal socket output tubes.

During today, I road tested a Luxman Receiver I'd repaired with a Dual
505 TT and the Lux
has an LED PO power readout for each channel.
The 3 watt level was only ever reached on bass rich music by Taj Mahal,
a 'Giant Step', from an LP
I got in about 1977. Thunderous bass in the music.

And tonight while I compared the PP amps with KT88 to SET with 2 x 845,
I doubt
I used any more power than 3 watts. The PP amp never moved out of class
A.
The SET had an easy time of it making 3 watts max. Its 50 watt ability
couldn't be reached because my speakers this time are average about 9
ohms,
and the amp only makes 50 watts if the load is 4 ohms.
The two 6 ohm SEAS Da'polito mids are series connected, 12" bass is 8
ohms, and tweeter is 6 ohms.
Never did we ever get close to clipping, or any audible distortion.
Yesterday I auditioned an ME850 which ran perfectly after repairs, and
it didn't sound any better than the SE or PP tube amp.

The SE seems to have more "foundational bass" and sweeter midrange.

Patrick Turner.


,

Trevor Wilson

  #269   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Another proposal

"Iain Churches" wrote in news:kuYlj.285599$A41.140043
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:

some of our Neumann 87s (still in pristine condition)
were manufactured.







I hated my u87s until Stephen Paul audio did their magic on them. Now I
wouldnt trade them for anything. A diamond in the rough to be sure. Had
some that Klaus Heine worked on too, but sold them within a week of having
them..seems as if everything he "makes better" has this horrible bright,
etched HF sound. Stephen Paul(tony merill actually, as Stephen has long
passed away *rip*(now he was a prime example of an audio genius..google his
name on rec.audio.pro and youll see) and Peter Drefahl get all of my
business now.






  #270   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Another proposal



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.

Criminal !


You don't seem to understand the psychology
of music recording, Graham:-)

One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing
him/her to state a preference of speaker from
two good alternatives which you have carefully
selected.

I was referring to the COFFEE !


Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe"
instant coffee in the UK?


There are many blends of Nescafe these days.


Do any of them taste remotely like the real thing?

Good quality ground coffee
(Paulig President) is Euro 4 per kilo.
I see that Nescafe Gold retails at about
Euro 42/kilo.

So, if it tastes disgusting at ten times the price,
why do people drink it?


Iain







  #271   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Another proposal

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

Good quality ground coffee
(Paulig President) is Euro 4 per kilo.
I see that Nescafe Gold retails at about
Euro 42/kilo.


So, if it tastes disgusting at ten times the price,
why do people drink it?


Obviously Iain, you know nothing about making real coffee versus instant.

The instant coffee powder required to make a cup of coffee weighs next to
nothing. Compare that to the weight of grounds required to brew a good cup
of cofffee.

For the record, I share your distaste for instant. When we camp, we bring
ground coffee. At home, we grind right before brewing.


  #272   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
West West is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Another proposal


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 3:04 am, "West" wrote:
I expect Wiecked to now leave this group forever because he is a man of

his
word. I promise to place no impediment along his journey and wish him a

fond
farewell as he sails off into the sunset. Goodbye Peter.

Cordially,
west


Pillock:

Lemme see if I get this straight - You made the promise that if I
found you under other identities, you would leave forever. I found
three within as many weeks. I will not count your desperate attempt at
humor with Dufis (sic) Arse - that is a freebie.

You have proven yourself a liar, now you have engaged in an
interesting fantasy that has me leaving? Those anti-cancer drugs must
be _really_ strong.

But, you did never answer the most important question - does your
mother still clean up after you?

I'm afraid the answer is yes. :-(

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


  #273   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Another proposal

"Iain Churches" wrote in news:Hdrnj.288390
:



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:

The client is generally allowed to state his
preference on two major issues. The
monitor loudspeaker, and brand of coffee.
Sometimes, particularly in Prague, he/she
is not consulted about the coffee.

Criminal !


You don't seem to understand the psychology
of music recording, Graham:-)

One extends a courtesy to the client by allowing
him/her to state a preference of speaker from
two good alternatives which you have carefully
selected.

I was referring to the COFFEE !

Do you still drink that disguisting "Nescafe"
instant coffee in the UK?


There are many blends of Nescafe these days.


Do any of them taste remotely like the real thing?

Good quality ground coffee
(Paulig President) is Euro 4 per kilo.
I see that Nescafe Gold retails at about
Euro 42/kilo.

So, if it tastes disgusting at ten times the price,
why do people drink it?


Iain






I was a big dallmayr/jakobs/gevalia/8 o clock bean) drinker until I went
to Greece..I went back to Germany with 5 lbs of Greek coffee and 3 Brikis
and wont drink anything but. Thank goodness there is a big Greek importer
right down the road(well, about 45 minutes)
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
Proposal for D.M. Bruce J. Richman Audio Opinions 143 January 13th 05 06:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 PM.

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"