[Phil Allison[_3_]]

** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a couple
of years and look like essentially the same design. See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...ages%20etc.jpg

I cannot find any pics on the web.

Did it look much like the Quad II except for the larger EL36 valves ?

Did it use the same transformers ?

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just about
the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say the
least.

The famous LEAK " Point One " amp had been around for a while.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

Just sit and admire them ?



..... Phil

[mick]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:43:24 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a
couple of years and look like essentially the same design. See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

I cannot find any pics on the web.

Did it look much like the Quad II except for the larger EL36 valves ?

Did it use the same transformers ?

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to
say the least.

The famous LEAK " Point One " amp had been around for a while.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

Just sit and admire them ?




Thanks Phil. It's the first time that I've ever seen anything at all
about the Quad I. It's remarkably similar, allowing for the octal first-
stage valves isn't it? Nicely detailed schematic too.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

** Hi tubeheads,


In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say
the least.

The famous LEAK " Point One " amp had been around for a while.


Back in those mono days, my father, who was a professional
musician, had a Leak TL12 and a Tannoy speaker.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951, 12" LPs
followed in 1952, and extended play (EP) records arrived in about
1953. Stereo LPs were on sale in the UK by 1958. 78rpm shellac
was discontunued by 1960.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

Just sit and admire them ?

In our house, we listened to music almost every evening.
The recordings of Leon Goossens inspired my brother to
take up the oboe, which he layer played professionally.

Iain

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Iain Churchus"
"Phil Allison"
In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say
the least.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951,


** So did the chicken or the egg come first ?

In any case, the performance of the early LEAK and QUAD hi-fi amps were
orders of magnitude ahead of the signal sources available to non
professionals in the early 1950s and for much longer.

In fact, the same amps are not out of place in a modern domestic system -
if fully restored to their past glory.

THD figures of 0.05% and s/n ratios of - 97 dB are still excellent and
better than most sources.

Did Harold and Peter fully realise how far ahead of the game they were ??



..... Phil

[mick]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:43:24 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a
couple of years and look like essentially the same design. See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

I cannot find any pics on the web.


Found one for you Phil!
http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20front%20and%20rear.jpg

or a bit shorter: http://tinyurl.com/65athcf

And the associated QC-1 preamp:
http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...qc1%20control%
20unit.jpg

or a bit shorter: http://tinyurl.com/4389edb

Even earlier was the QA12P, combined pre/power amp:
http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...p%20-%20front%
20and%20rear%20-%20inside%20the%20pre-amp%27%20stage.jpg

or a bit shorter: http://tinyurl.com/3qwktuz

All links are from he
http://www.saturn-sound.com/history/...%20section.htm


--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 11, 7:13*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message

...



** Hi tubeheads,

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say
the least.

The famous *LEAK *" Point One " *amp had been around for a while.

Back in those mono days, my father, who was a professional
musician, had a Leak TL12 and a Tannoy speaker.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951, 12" LPs
followed in 1952, and extended play (EP) records arrived in about
1953. *Stereo LPs were on sale in the UK by 1958. *78rpm shellac
was discontunued by 1960.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

Just sit and admire them ?

In our house, we listened to music almost every evening.
The recordings of Leon Goossens inspired my brother to
take up the oboe, which he layer played professionally.

Iain

Thanks to Phil for providing a schematic of the Quad-1.

The tube circuit appears to be almost exactly the same as the Quad-II
circuit. The common cathode Rk to input pentode cathodes is 1k5
instead of 680r in Q2, and FBR is 1k5 instead of 470r in Q2, although
the Q1 circuit has GNFB taken from the whole of the secondary of the
OPT, presumably a match to 16 ohms.So the amount of NFB in Q1 is about
the same as in Quad-II.

What the circuit didn't say..........

The OPT appears to have tube voltages = 230Vrms a-a including
105-0-105 anode and 10-0-10 cathode Vrms. Sec has 13.5V at whole sec
Pt U and 9V at Pt T. If Pt U = 16 ohms, then Pt T is therefore a tap
for 7.11 ohms.

The OPT TR = 230 : 13.5 = 17:1 all primary to maximum sec turns, ( not
including winding losses because it seems measurements were taken with
no load ).

OPT ZR with 16r on total sec winding = 4.644k : 16, and if winding
losses were 10%, then load on tubes is 5k1 a-a with 16 ohm load. If Ea
= 320vdc then Ea minimum = 60V so max swing = 260Vpk, or 367Vrms a-a
giving max PO into 5k1 = 26.5W and at sec with 10% losses you get
23.8W - in theory, but Ea will sag under the class AB loading so hence
maybe 21W is available with a sine wave at clip.

The operating signal voltages shown for Q1 show that for 115Vrms Va-k
on each KT66, you need 27vrms of grid drive, or 17vrms Vgk, so OLG of
OP tubes ( presuming without a load = 115/17 = 6.76 which seems a bit
low to me, but is similar to the µ of a KT66 in triode.

The OPT clearly shows a 7P + 6S winding pattern which is excellent
interleaving procedure, and as I might have wound it. However we don't
get details of the core shape and core stack sizes and anyone should
know Quad-II OPT saturates at full boot at about 40Hz, which is to be
expected with such a toy sized OPT for a pair of KT66. I like to have
Fsat at 14Hz for 40W into 5k or whatever the load is. Quad-II OPT
seems to perform with much poorer HF than anyone would expect with 6 S
sections so methinks Q2 has only 2 Sec sections, each with 2N turns so
that 16 ohms is 4N turns and 9 ohms is 3N turns by way of the Q2
strapping arrangement. But I'll never get a chance to strip down a Q1
or Q2 OPT or amp so I'll never really know what's inside either.

But Q1 appears to have two identical parallel secs each consisting of
3 sub-section windings all with same turns, perhaps one layer per
section across the bobbin. So when one selects the 7.11 ohm tap, you
are using 0.67 of the available turns but you still have a fair amount
of interleaving so the LL and winding losses don't much increase. A
step in the right direction.

The Quad-II OPT has its sec windings shown with Pt P = 0V, then Pt Q
for tap at 2N turns on a 3N turn winding, with Pt S at 3N turns and Pt
R and T are a winding of N turns. So you may have 3N turns or 4N
turns, ie, 9 ohms or 16 ohms, with the "unintended" load match to 4
ohms at Pt Q, when winding losses are about 25%. YUK. What Quad should
have done is have PtQ at 2N turns as shown, then another extra
connection for the bottom of the rest of the winding with N turns, so
that all turns could be strapped for a low loss 4 ohm connection. All
Quad needed was a penny's worth more labour abd FA material cost to
make its OPT much better. We may only guess if te Q1 OPT may have been
a better item than Q2 OPT. I might add that the early Leak OPTs
followed what Williamson described, but as demand picked up for audio
gear the interleaving was much reduced and OPTs for things like the
Leak 20 was crap. First thing to be sacrificed in good tube amps by
bean counters or by engineers who think like bean counters is the
quality factor of OPTs. Less iron, less copper, less turns, less
interleaving, and higher profits.

And what did ppl listen to in 1950? Well AM radio was not too bad if
you have a decent AM tuner. I have such a thing to listen to Radio
National AM station 2CY, 845kHz. There is 9kHz of transmitted AF
bandwidth, enough to convey quite good sound. It used to be 10kHz, but
someone decided stations could be 9kHz apart, not 10kHz, and then
there'd be 10% more stations to be had at the stroke of a pen. In
Japan stations are 4.5kHz apart, and located close together so audio
BW is ****house on AM. Before FM began in Oz about 20 years after WW2,
the Sydney Symphony Orchestra was broadcast live from Sydney Town Hall
on AM radio. I clearly recall my mum tuning in to fill the house while
she did the housework. It was a once a week treat although rock and
roll and hit-parades arrived on AM. There was jazz, and all sorts of
stuff, but to get played on air you had to be good. Plenty to listen
to. Now there's too much to listen to and most of it CRAP!!! The
Kreisler radio gram my cash strapped mum bought in1963 was much worse
than a Quad system which nobody we knew could afford.

I knew a wonderful old man of 86 called Merv when I met him in about
1998. He used to be a Lutheran Minister and he went around the outback
of Oz in the 1940s with an amp and speakers mounted up in the back of
a pickup truck and with a record player and a pile of Bach and Handel
on 78s. He'd play this stuff to the aboriginies at the missions and
preach the Word of Jesus to them from the truck. Well, the WoJ when
backed up with Bach was a convincing message which to many sounded
like a far better deal than the harsh realities of tribal laws and
customs which in the 1940s were being unravelled by missionaries and
grog sellers, and all the arsoles who treated abos worse than animals.
We might think native abo music sounded like growling dogs and backed
with broken washing machines, ( didgeridoos ). Just how the abos
reacted to Bach up loud is a mystery - definately a bit of a
surprise.
There were still tribal abos living in the desert, never seen any
white man up to about 1965.
Merv came around to visit me often to help him fix his hi-fi. His
preamp was Leak, power amp was DIY Mullard 510 with 2 x 10W channels
with UL EL84 with best quality 10W OPTs in diecast cases from A&R.
They gave a stable 100kHz of BW and had far lower winding losses than
Quad-II. These he'd made "quite recently" in 1965, when he was a
"young bloke" of only 53. I tested some tweeters he had which he
wanted to use in new boxes he'd made. He'd bought these "just the
other day" in 1969. he could easily hear the 12kHz tones during the
test so we concluded both speakers and his hearing went to 12Khz. His
wife had gone nearly completely deaf. They were still in love. Anyway,
he finished up using the disused brick chimney for the back chamber
for a 15" sub woofer mounted in ply and screwed across the fire place
opening. He liked de bass man. I also helped him have two TTs, one for
LP and the other for 78, and with the correct Eq the 78 sounded
remarkably good. I visted sometimes and there he would be, happy as a
young club DJ, two TTs, playin' all this stuff he'd collected over a
long life.

Old Merv died at 96, and we all miss him. I never for one moment
thought his belief in God was silly, and nor did he worry about my
disbeliefs. We both thought we needed to be useful and good to the
people around us while we were both alive. Two of Merv's sons also got
systems from me and music was part of their salvation, as it should be
yours, IMHO.

Patrick Turner.

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"mick"
Phil Allison wrote:

** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a
couple of years and look like essentially the same design. See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

I cannot find any pics on the web.


Found one for you Phil!
http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20front%20and%20rear.jpg

or a bit shorter: http://tinyurl.com/65athcf


** Wow ..........

That is what I call a " collectors item " from hell !!

The filter choke must be hidden under that chassis.

Bet the Turneriod public menace is having kittens, right now.

Thanks very muchly !!





..... Phil

[It's that Guy again...]

On 11 Jun 2011 11:06:32 GMT, mick wrote:


All links are from he
http://www.saturn-sound.com/history/...%20section.htm

GREAT LINK !

Thanks for sharing...



JJTj




You know those Kix just keep getting harder to find..
....and Frosted Flakes ain't giving you peace of mind..
You better chow down more Bran cakes, now..
...and get yer ass straight...

[mick]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:42:05 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"mick"
Phil Allison wrote:

** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a
couple of years and look like essentially the same design. See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

I cannot find any pics on the web.


Found one for you Phil!
http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...d%201%20power%
20amplifier%20-%20front%20and%20rear.jpg

or a bit shorter: http://tinyurl.com/65athcf


** Wow ..........

That is what I call a " collectors item " from hell !!

The filter choke must be hidden under that chassis.

Bet the Turneriod public menace is having kittens, right now.

Thanks very muchly !!




I've emailed the site owner asking if there is any chance of a picture of
the inside. I'd love to see it. :-)

There's a lot of nice stuff on that site.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jun 11, 8:43*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a couple
of years and look like essentially the same design. *See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...%201%20power%2...

I cannot find any pics on the web.

Did it look much like the Quad II except for the larger EL36 valves ?

Did it use the same transformers ?

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just about
the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say the
least.

The famous *LEAK *" Point One " *amp had been around for a while.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

Just sit and admire them ?

.... *Phil

To paraphrase the late, great Sam Goldwyn, I can tell you in three
words, Phil:

Bee. Bee. Cee.

The BBC long financed Peter Walker's researches. Being a public
corporation, they couldn't do it directly, but they would with a nudge
and a wink assure him that if he produced such and such equipment,
they would buy (later lease) it from him. There was thus a certain
base number of units sold, probably over a number of projects evening
out to cover research and development cost, so that it was likely that
sales to the public was jam. On my side table stands the Quad 66 I'm
currently using; it is an ex-BBC unit returned at the end of a lease,
looked over at the factory, nothing done to it, then given to me by
Ross Walker as a reference unit, now probably a quarter century old.
(I also have a 67, which, contrary to the street corner chatter of the
crapologists who've never heard either, sounds no different.)

We should also remember that back in the day a QUAD II cost the price
of a car at retail. It was a very rich man's toy. I have the
correspondence of a successful master craftsman, definitely not poor,
with Peter Walker, and from his family I understood that he saved for
years to afford a QUAD II and an electrostat -- one only of each, of
course, as there was then no stereo. After his death his family at his
request gave me both units, because he liked reading my music reviews.
A few years after this old chappie bought his, I bought a stereo set
of QUAD II/ESL off the importer's stand at the Rand Show, this must
have been 1964, and I paid more than my Porsche cost, admittedly
second-hand, but still, for the price of a pre-loved Porsche you could
buy a couple of Chevrolets or Fords new.

I have the booklet of the first series QUAD amplifier,retroactively
the QUAD I, and its control unit, in my hand, and will photograph it
later tonight or tomorrow and post the photographs.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jun 11, 10:13*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message

...



** Hi tubeheads,

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say
the least.

The famous *LEAK *" Point One " *amp had been around for a while.

Back in those mono days, my father, who was a professional
musician, had a Leak TL12 and a Tannoy speaker.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951, 12" LPs
followed in 1952, and extended play (EP) records arrived in about
1953. *Stereo LPs were on sale in the UK by 1958. *78rpm shellac
was discontunued by 1960.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

Just sit and admire them ?

In our house, we listened to music almost every evening.
The recordings of Leon Goossens inspired my brother to
take up the oboe, which he layer played professionally.

Iain

The spread of stereo recordings in particular was quite sudden. I
remember that in 1961 or 1962, while I was in high school, a
successful poet who was an old boy lugged in his stereo cabinet and
gave a demonstration of stereo, left-right sorta thing. People bought
their LPs from the jeweler's, and by the time I left school I had
perhaps a dozen. My favourite was Theme from A Summer Place. Cultured
people in my family certainly by 1960 had a stack of LPs, for some
reason always including several Christmas discs of particularly
sacharine nastiness. Only a few years later, when my ad agency owned
Manley van Niekerk studios, and I was (theoretically -- I was never
there because I operated out of NY and London and Cologne) in charge
of it, recording had developed tremendously and I authorized the
installation of umpteen-track mixing consoles, which was then better
than the SABC owned, for about a week until their engineers threatened
to go on strike because they couldn't bear to be second to anyone and
Dave Manley was bragging louder than his yellow socks.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books
http://coolmainpress.com/andrejute.html

[It's that Guy again...]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:43:45 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

The BBC long financed Peter Walker's researches. Being a public
corporation, they couldn't do it directly, but they would with a nudge
and a wink assure him that if he produced such and such equipment,
they would buy (later lease) it from him.

I heard a very similar story about 'Orange' brand guitar amps,
where the BBC leased so many of them, they funded R&D for a
year, then the rock show in Germany did the same, not to
be shown 'not to be as cool as the BBC'. EVERY band used
those amps, and being colored 'orange' they stood out on TV.

I can't complain about the 'Beeb Beeb Seeb' too much, as otherwise
I never would of heard those awesome Goon shows, or ISIRTA,
Around the Horn, etc. Never mind MPFC, or Steptoe & Son.

JJTj




www.univaz.com

('technology, with honor')

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

Thanks to Phil for providing a schematic of the Quad-1.

The tube circuit appears to be almost exactly the same as the Quad-II
circuit. The common cathode Rk to input pentode cathodes is 1k5
instead of 680r in Q2, and FBR is 1k5 instead of 470r in Q2, although
the Q1 circuit has GNFB taken from the whole of the secondary of the
OPT, presumably a match to 16 ohms.So the amount of NFB in Q1 is about
the same as in Quad-II.

What the circuit didn't say..........

The OPT appears to have tube voltages = 230Vrms a-a including
105-0-105 anode and 10-0-10 cathode Vrms. Sec has 13.5V at whole sec
Pt U and 9V at Pt T. If Pt U = 16 ohms, then Pt T is therefore a tap
for 7.11 ohms.

The OPT TR = 230 : 13.5 = 17:1 all primary to maximum sec turns, ( not
including winding losses because it seems measurements were taken with
no load ).

OPT ZR with 16r on total sec winding = 4.644k : 16, and if winding
losses were 10%, then load on tubes is 5k1 a-a with 16 ohm load. If Ea
= 320vdc then Ea minimum = 60V so max swing = 260Vpk, or 367Vrms a-a
giving max PO into 5k1 = 26.5W and at sec with 10% losses you get
23.8W - in theory, but Ea will sag under the class AB loading so hence
maybe 21W is available with a sine wave at clip.

The operating signal voltages shown for Q1 show that for 115Vrms Va-k
on each KT66, you need 27vrms of grid drive, or 17vrms Vgk, so OLG of
OP tubes ( presuming without a load = 115/17 = 6.76 which seems a bit
low to me, but is similar to the µ of a KT66 in triode.

The OPT clearly shows a 7P + 6S winding pattern which is excellent
interleaving procedure, and as I might have wound it. However we don't
get details of the core shape and core stack sizes and anyone should
know Quad-II OPT saturates at full boot at about 40Hz, which is to be
expected with such a toy sized OPT for a pair of KT66. I like to have
Fsat at 14Hz for 40W into 5k or whatever the load is. Quad-II OPT
seems to perform with much poorer HF than anyone would expect with 6 S
sections so methinks Q2 has only 2 Sec sections, each with 2N turns so
that 16 ohms is 4N turns and 9 ohms is 3N turns by way of the Q2
strapping arrangement. But I'll never get a chance to strip down a Q1
or Q2 OPT or amp so I'll never really know what's inside either.

You can find a snap of the QUAD II Output Transformer core, along with some
winding data here.

http://www.keith-snook.info/QUAD-II-power-amp.html

Notice the interesting connection of "L2", I wonder if the QUAD I OPT shared
this feature?

But Q1 appears to have two identical parallel secs each consisting of
3 sub-section windings all with same turns, perhaps one layer per
section across the bobbin. So when one selects the 7.11 ohm tap, you
are using 0.67 of the available turns but you still have a fair amount
of interleaving so the LL and winding losses don't much increase. A
step in the right direction.

The Quad-II OPT has its sec windings shown with Pt P = 0V, then Pt Q
for tap at 2N turns on a 3N turn winding, with Pt S at 3N turns and Pt
R and T are a winding of N turns. So you may have 3N turns or 4N
turns, ie, 9 ohms or 16 ohms, with the "unintended" load match to 4
ohms at Pt Q, when winding losses are about 25%. YUK. What Quad should
have done is have PtQ at 2N turns as shown, then another extra
connection for the bottom of the rest of the winding with N turns, so
that all turns could be strapped for a low loss 4 ohm connection. All
Quad needed was a penny's worth more labour abd FA material cost to
make its OPT much better. We may only guess if te Q1 OPT may have been
a better item than Q2 OPT. I might add that the early Leak OPTs
followed what Williamson described, but as demand picked up for audio
gear the interleaving was much reduced and OPTs for things like the
Leak 20 was crap. First thing to be sacrificed in good tube amps by
bean counters or by engineers who think like bean counters is the
quality factor of OPTs. Less iron, less copper, less turns, less
interleaving, and higher profits.

And what did ppl listen to in 1950? Well AM radio was not too bad if
you have a decent AM tuner. I have such a thing to listen to Radio
National AM station 2CY, 845kHz. There is 9kHz of transmitted AF
bandwidth, enough to convey quite good sound. It used to be 10kHz, but
someone decided stations could be 9kHz apart, not 10kHz, and then
there'd be 10% more stations to be had at the stroke of a pen. In
Japan stations are 4.5kHz apart, and located close together so audio
BW is ****house on AM. Before FM began in Oz about 20 years after WW2,
the Sydney Symphony Orchestra was broadcast live from Sydney Town Hall
on AM radio. I clearly recall my mum tuning in to fill the house while
she did the housework. It was a once a week treat although rock and
roll and hit-parades arrived on AM. There was jazz, and all sorts of
stuff, but to get played on air you had to be good. Plenty to listen
to. Now there's too much to listen to and most of it CRAP!!! The
Kreisler radio gram my cash strapped mum bought in1963 was much worse
than a Quad system which nobody we knew could afford.

There is some technical information on the early Acoustical/QUAD AM Tuners here.

http://fmamradios.com/QUADR.html

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

** Hi tubeheads,

The Quad I amplifier ( released in 1951 ) pre dates the Quad II by a couple
of years and look like essentially the same design. See schem:

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...wer%20amplifie
r%20-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

I cannot find any pics on the web.

Did it look much like the Quad II except for the larger EL36 valves ?

Did it use the same transformers ?

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just about
the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say the
least.

Hadn't the LP come to the UK yet, by 1951?

The famous LEAK " Point One " amp had been around for a while.

But what the heck did folk actually do with these amps ??

They could listen to the BBC on their QUAD-R tuner, or a little later on the
Acoustical AM tuner. See here for technical details. I have an Acoustical AM
tuner, wish I had a QUAD-R.

http://fmamradios.com/QUADR.html

Just sit and admire them ?

Probably did that too.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[lememynap]

Hi nice thread you have going there!

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"lememynap"

Hi nice thread you have going there!


** A Basil Faulty famously said of a rare satisfied customer:


" We should have it stuffed ... "





..... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

snip 4 brevity,

You can find a snap of the QUAD II Output Transformer core, along with some
winding data here.

http://www.keith-snook.info/QUAD-II-power-amp.html

Notice the interesting connection of "L2", I wonder if the QUAD I OPT shared
this feature?

Thanks for the link which works. I have tried to draw a simplified
picture of the bobbin windings and core etc based on what he says
exists, which should of course tally with calculations. The kieth-
snook author leaves many questions unanswered but I'll check out
dimensions tonight to get a more accurate picture to tell everyone
about.

But Q1 appears to have two identical parallel secs each consisting of
3 sub-section windings all with same turns, perhaps one layer per
section across the bobbin. So when one selects the 7.11 ohm tap, you
are using 0.67 of the available turns but you still have a fair amount
of interleaving so the LL and winding losses don't much increase. A
step in the right direction.

The Quad-II OPT has its sec windings shown with Pt P = 0V, then Pt Q
for tap at 2N turns on a 3N turn winding, with Pt S at 3N turns and Pt
R and T are a winding of N turns. So you may have 3N turns or 4N
turns, ie, 9 ohms or 16 ohms, with the "unintended" load match to 4
ohms at Pt Q, when winding losses are about 25%. YUK. What Quad should
have done is have PtQ at 2N turns as shown, then another extra
connection for the bottom of the rest of the winding with N turns, so
that all turns could be strapped for a low loss 4 ohm connection. All
Quad needed was a penny's worth more labour and FA material cost to
make its OPT much better. We may only guess if te Q1 OPT may have been
a better item than Q2 OPT. I might add that the early Leak OPTs
followed what Williamson described, but as demand picked up for audio
gear the interleaving was much reduced and OPTs for things like the
Leak 20 was crap. *First thing to be sacrificed in good tube amps by
bean counters or by engineers who think like bean counters is the
quality factor of OPTs. Less iron, less copper, less turns, less
interleaving, and higher profits.

What I said here tallys with what is shown at keith-snook site, except
that Quad-II has variable winding links to change load match, 4N = 16
ohms, 3N = 8 ohms where N is the number of turns in a single layer
section.
But what I didn't know was that between point Q and P which is 0V,
there is 2N turns formed with TWO parallel windings of 2N turns,
except that there is that damned 0.36 ohm resistance in there. Why? I
can't see the slightest reason why. It only helps add to output
resistance. I will examine further tonight with some careful
measurements and findoutabout more and let you all know.

But if 4 ohms is used from point Q to P at 0V, there are two entirely
wasted unused windings because Quad didn't bother to put in the extra
required terminal on the board for OPT connections. It seems like a
good idea to melt out the potting mix, alter OPT connections, put in
the missing terminal, remove the 0.36 ohm R, re-pot the OPT, and THEN
you have a useful match of 3,887 ohms : 4 ohms with no wasted
windings, ie 3 // 2N,
and Sec Rw will be much lower. For 9 ohms, you have 2 // 3N, and lower
Rw without the 0.36 ohms. No need for use of 16 ohms which is still
available if one insists. The Rw P is about 280 ohms which give P
winding losses of 6.5% if 3,887 ohms is the P RLa-a load. The Sec
losses are higher. But 3,887 ohms is a ****house class AB load for
KT66, and RLa-a should be higher, so when you strap for 4 ohms the use
of 8 ohm speaker will halve the winding losses and be a more tolerable
result.

So, we'll all be able to get more better performance from Quad-II if
you tune in for more from this station.

The original Quad-II does not have any Zobel networks anywhere to make
the amps unconditionally stable.
They ARE stable at LF because there is only effectively two amp stages
with only one lot of CR coupling between stages. But at HF the 9 ohm
strapping is unstable if a pure C load is used. There are no Zobel
networks to reduce square wave ring anywhere. Quad musta thought such
refinements unecessary. It costs, so it was left out.

I still think the use of SET input tube, perhaps with EF86 in triode
mode plus LTP with CCS cathode tail using
6CG7 is much better than existing crap. I have a pair of Quad-II Forty
here for repair because of mysterious fuse blowings and and I might
try using 6SN7 LTP with one of the 6SH7 inputs used as triode SET
input. It can only be better.


There is some technical information on the early Acoustical/QUAD AM Tuners here.

http://fmamradios.com/QUADR.html

I've found Quad AM tuners good. Better than piles of other crap giving
2.5kHz of AF BW if you are lucky.

But noise could be a problem from modern ****ty devices like
fluorescent lamp globes and piles of other crap which disobey all the
laws about radiating un-wanted RF crap. The lamps have miniature SMPS,
and I find they seem to modulate the incoming RF signals and re-
transmit it with additional raspy hum, so when you tune to a favourite
strong local station there's a lotta hum that's so bad you can't
listen. But a shielded ferrite rod and possible shielded LOOP antenna
should work OK to receive the original AM without the added modulation
from the bloody lights and other crap.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 12, 1:03*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Andre Jute"

We should also remember that back in the day a QUAD II cost the price
of a car at retail. It was a very rich man's toy.

** Really ?

What sort of car could be bought in the UK in 1953 for under 30 pounds ?

For example, the Morris Minor sold for about 400 pounds at that time.

Here is an advert for the Quad I and its control unit from Wireless World
published in February 1953 - *just prior to the appearance of the Quad II.

http://www.meridian-audio.info/publi...%5b3605%5d.pdf

.... *Phil

Quad-1 at 35 british pounds in UK.

What were average weekly earnings in Oz? 4 pounds a week? what was
Quad-1 price in Oz? 50 aust pounds? Therefore Q1 was 12.5 weeks pay,
or 12.5 x $846 = $10,576 in today's money av weekly pay of $846 now.
No wonder 95% of ppl could not afford Quad, and if keen they headed
down to the army disposal stores for a few 807 and and some 6SN7 and
to A&R for Oz made OPTs and they made Williamsons. **** Quad. All
bull****, along with a whole pile of other imported junk at huge
prices.

And look at Quad prices now. Bloody expensive mate! Chinese owned, and
Chinese wages are average 64c per hour. I just don't see the value.

But I raise my hat to the pricing situation because I can compete. So
could anyone else if they really try hard.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

I have sent an email to Keith at his website about Quad-II OPTs.
If I am wrong, someome will say exactly why, and I won't mind, but if
I'm right, then we'll all benefit IMHO. The .GIF attachment cannot be
shown here but I backed up what I said with a diagram which took 5
hours to get right. Let's wait for a response.

I quote......

"Hi Keith,
You have a nice website there. A few of us at rec.audio.tubes were
discussing Quad-II amps and the merits and shortcomings of the Quad-II
amp design in general.

We were referred to your page on Quad-II at http://www.keith-snook.info/QUAD-II-power-amp.html
There is a schematic of the OPT windings shown on this page and
methinks you have a couple of errors.
I have copied and pasted your OPT schematic and converted to B&W
in .GIF and it appears on the LHS of the attatched .GIF with 3
schematics. The middle schematic is of the secondary with what I think
is the correct way the windings are connected, and the RHS shows a
modified way of altering the winding leads and terminals which would
mean melting out potting mix, removing OPT from pot, shunting the 0.36
ohms, and opening a join and bringing out a winding end to a new
terminal labled Qa, and then re-potting the OPT with what was drained
out plus a bit to top up. The one extra terminal allows for the same
connections of 16 ohms or 9 ohms, and also for a wasteless method of
connection to suit 4 ohms which means a whole lot more people would be
gladened by the better load match available.

If you consider that RLa-a = 3,887 ohms for class AB1 operation, with
total P turns = 3,180 turns,
then Sec of 204t is for 16 ohms, 153t is for 9 ohms, and NOT 7.1 ohms
as you mention, 102 turns is for 4 ohms.

Quad-II are damn hopeless performers when used with a 4 ohm
insensitive speaker connected to the 9 ohm strapped outlet as in the
original circuit. RLa-a becomes 1,727 ohms only, and 4 ohm speakers
may dip to 2.5 ohms so 4 ohms are deadly to the tubes, OK.
So, the 4 ohm connection as I have indicated allows for MUCH better
load matching, and if a modern 8 ohm speaker is used when strapped for
4 ohms the power will have more class A portion because RLa-a becomes
7,774 ohms, much better for KT66 or any other OP tubes.

Now the primary winding resistance is approximately 280 ohms. Probably
P wire is thinner than you say, and so is insulation and probably sec
wire or else how could all the layers of everything you say is in
there fit into the core window height? Maybe you should check your
figures. OR perhaps tell us the core details; is the window height
more than 14mm which I think it is if the core is wasteless? I suspect
tounge T dimension could be 28mm or less perhaps. Stack probably =
28mm (1.125 inches).

Now with RLa-a of 3,887 ohms, and RwP = 280 ohms, P winding losses are
6.7%. Sec losses are generally higher in the original amp than 6.5% so
total winding losses can exceed 14%, rather bloody hopeless, but if
TWICE the load value is used for the load match strapping nominal Z
then the winding losses halve to be acceptable. Of course with higher
RLa-a there is less max PO but them its OK to increase Ea by chucking
out the darn tube rectifier. Ia may be reduced in KT66 or other OP
tubes so that you get a wider Va-a for more PO. 32 watts is available
easily. But the Fsat of the core is a bit high, but that's not a huge
problem because most ppl use low levels well away from core saturation
or clipping, but the extra headroom allows better transients at higher
F.

I've done a lot of farnarkling with Quad-II amps, and have a pair
which are ready for a do-over including OPT replacement with cores of
twice the weight. There will be a new driver amp based on what I have
in the 5050 amp at my website. When I use the old Q2 OPTs to replace
quite awful types in another amp I have I'll try un-potting it to do
the mods, and replace the trioded 6CM5 with KT88. You are welcome to
see my site at http://www.turneraudio.com.au and feel free to email
me.
I will discuss matters further with the lads at rec.audio.tubes where
I for one will be kind to thee, but I cannot garantee some who lurk
there would be kind to me or you. Don't worry, despite the rotten
cabages that are often hurled at me I have survived and get 100MB
downloaded from my site each day. I have no clue why. I do prefer the
real truth about Quad be outed though.
My best regards,
Patrick Turner. "

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 13, 6:35*am, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:04:53 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:







"Iain Churchus"
"Phil Allison"
In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to say
the least.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951,

** So did the chicken or the egg come first ?

I doubt it was a chicken and egg kind of thing. I mean, RHD4 (1951)
has a section on 'Hi-Fi' and I would imagine that professionals 'in
the business' could not only see the writing on the wall but were
aware that just about everyone was working in that direction.

In any case, the performance of the early LEAK and QUAD hi-fi amps were
orders of magnitude ahead of the signal sources available to non
professionals in the early 1950s and for much longer.

RDH4 makes the same point about 'Hi-Fi'. No problem for the amplifier
but everything else falls far behind, which raises the 'Patrick crap'
issue of why increase the cost for 'more performance' when what you've
got is already an order of magnitude better than the rest of the 1951
signal chain? It's just a waste.

Sort of like putting 200MPH rated tires on a tricycle. It make look
good spec wise but it's wasted effort because junior just isn't going
to be pedaling that fast no matter how much spinach you feed him.



In fact, the same amps are not out of place in a modern domestic system *-
if fully restored to their past glory.

THD figures of 0.05% and s/n ratios of - 97 dB are still excellent and
better than most sources.

Did Harold and Peter fully realise how far ahead of the game they were ??

.... *Phil- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper"
"Phil Allison"
"Iain Churchus"
"Phil Allison"

In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to
say
the least.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were
crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951,


** So did the chicken or the egg come first ?

I doubt it was a chicken and egg kind of thing.


** I was only asking ( tongue in cheek) if the 10 inch LP or the Quad I came
first.

I do NOT believe that one actually caused the other to appear.


I mean, RHD4 (1951) has a section on 'Hi-Fi'


** Hi-fi amplifiers had existed since the mid 1940s (eg Leak ) but maybe
not by that name. They had their place in broadcasting, recording and disc
cutting where live signals ( from condenser and ribbon mics) were available
that needed to be monitored and the quality assessed.

Another fact is that the cost of manufacturing a " low-fi " amplifier ( say
2% THD and damping factor of 3 ) is barely any different from that of
amplifier like the Quad 1 or Leak point one. The difference is mainly in the
design detail and the amount of NFB that is used.

So, making an amplifier with 0.1% THD could be done and it didn't cost that
much more to do it - so it WAS done and sold initially to the professional
audio market.

However, "QUAD" is a re-arranged acronym for "Quality Unit Amplifier
Domestic" - so from 1951 onwards sales were aimed squarely at consumers.

By mid 1955, folk living in the south of England has access to the BBC via
FM radio - which must have been a complete revelation in terms of
distortion and noise whenever the program was live. This would be a major
incentive to own the best amplifiers and speakers available and I believe
WAS a major incentive for Quad to produce the ESL57.



.... Phil

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches"
"Phil Allison"
In 1951 in the UK, there were no FM broadcasts, no stereo and the just
about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude to
say
the least.

just about the only records available were 78rpm and pickups were crude
to say the least.

Not quite, Phil

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951,


** So did the chicken or the egg come first ?

Smart businessmen like Harold Leak and Peter Waker were
clearly looking ahead. It was probably clear to anyone that
major leaps forward were imminent.


In any case, the performance of the early LEAK and QUAD hi-fi amps were
orders of magnitude ahead of the signal sources available to non
professionals in the early 1950s and for much longer.

The DIY element was also strong. The school I went to
in the UK, had a "radio" club on Thursday evevenings,
where we built simple AM receivers and Williamson
amps, with Huntley and Palmer biscuit tins as chassis.

In fact, the same amps are not out of place in a modern domestic system -
if fully restored to their past glory.

THD figures of 0.05% and s/n ratios of - 97 dB are still excellent and
better than most sources.

Did Harold and Peter fully realise how far ahead of the game they were ??

Both were fine engineers, and also very good business men -
quite a rare combination. Harold Leak was also a very good PR man.
He travelled the world demonstrating his products, and setting up sales
networks.

A picture of his visit to Oz:
http://www.44bx.com/leak/leak_photo.html


By the time the Leak Stereo 30, their first transistor amp
came out, Harold Leak was driving a Rolls:-)

Leak too had a close association with the BBC. In 1959
I bought an ex-BBC portable disc-cutting lathe (mono)
the cutter head of which was driven by a Leak TL12.

Shortly after the Rank Organisation took over Leak, it
disappeared. I was told some years ago that the name was
for sale, but judying by the fact that no new product has
appeared with the Leak logo, I would assume there were
no takers.

Iain

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Iain Churchus"

10" LPs had been available in the UK since 1951,


** So did the chicken or the egg come first ?

Smart businessmen like Harold Leak and Peter Waker were
clearly looking ahead. It was probably clear to anyone that
major leaps forward were imminent.


** I was only asking ( tongue in cheek) if the 10 inch LP or the Quad I came
first - far as consumers in the UK were concerned. I do NOT believe that
one actually caused the other to appear - nor that Harold Leak or Peter
Walker were prescient.

Bet anything, Peter never dreamt that when he designed the Quad II:

1. His little factory would end up making about 96,000 of them over the next
17 years.

2. The Chinese would be making the same design in 2011 and using the name "
Quad II Classic " on it.



.... Phil

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper"

** Note - total change of topic.


Yeah. I think there was another development that was at least a major
influence, and that's the German derived post WWII tape recorder. That
had an astonishing impact on much more than simply being the best
fidelity device available.


** Nothing was better than no recorder - ie a live broadcast.

Transcription discs had better fidelity than early tape machines.


As but one example, Bing Crosby hated doing his radio show live, which
was required by NBC for everyone because no recoding medium could come
close to a live broadcast (audiences had complained when it was
tried). Tape recorder changed all that, which is both a testimony to
it's comparative fidelity and an example of how broadcasting was
revolutionized.


** What planet are you on now ??

Hi-Fi was never possible in the USA with AM radio.


Consumer grade tape recorders became available around 1948.

** Only useful for recording live broadcasts heard on FM.

Long as you did not mind the noise floor coming up by 20 dB.


..... Phil

[JJTj[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:34:27 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

Hi-Fi was never possible in the USA with AM radio.

Oh they tried:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM_stereo

I don't remember the company name, but they did make 'stereo' AM
receivers, and antennas. The world never caught on. Later, they made
'decoders' that faked 'stereo'. IMMSMW, the company name started with
'D'. How 'Hi-Fi' it was is moot, due to bandwidth and freq response
of
the final data. It really was a lost cause. Some car companies made
stereo AM decks, but again, the final product never became reality.

Hold a sec. I'm in TD Gardens, doing this off my cell phone, and the
Bruins just won. Sorry, got to go..and party.. Damn, getting out
of here is going to be a big time bitch. Great game overall.

JJTj

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper the ****head "
"Phil Allison"

** Note - total change of topic.

Note - no it isn't.


** Fraid you are wrong again - pal.

YOU changed the subject so you could take over the thread.

****head.


Yeah. I think there was another development that was at least a major
influence, and that's the German derived post WWII tape recorder. That
had an astonishing impact on much more than simply being the best
fidelity device available.


** Nothing was better than no recorder - ie a live broadcast.

True at the microphone but the listener isn't in the studio.

** Wot irrelevant ****.

My god you are a ****wit.


Transcription discs had better fidelity than early tape machines.

I don't think so.

** You don't have a ****ing clue.

( snip more irrelevant ****)


As but one example, Bing Crosby hated doing his radio show live, which
was required by NBC for everyone because no recoding medium could come
close to a live broadcast (audiences had complained when it was
tried). Tape recorder changed all that, which is both a testimony to
it's comparative fidelity and an example of how broadcasting was
revolutionized.


** What planet are you on now ??

Hi-Fi was never possible in the USA with AM radio.

I didn't say it was ...


** Then you are way off topic.


Consumer grade tape recorders became available around 1948.

** Only useful for recording live broadcasts heard on FM.

Oh piffle.

** **** you - ****head.

( snip even more irrelevant ****)


Tape recordings were also sold but couldn't compete with LP prices.

** High speed dubs on 1/4 inch tape sold in the 50s were lo-fi.


Long as you did not mind the noise floor coming up by 20 dB.

With the other choice being the silence..

** Of another live broadcast on FM.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper the ****head "


** Note - total change of topic.

Note - no it isn't.


** Fraid you are wrong again - pal.

YOU changed the subject so you could take over the thread.

Wrong. The topic was YOUR comment about chicken and egg.


** ROTFLMAO !!!

A thousand head shrinkers could not put this loonatic back together.



..... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 14, 12:34*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"flipper"

** Note *- *total change of topic.



Yeah. I think there was another development that was at least a major
influence, and that's the German derived post WWII tape recorder. That
had an astonishing impact on much more than simply being the best
fidelity device available.

** Nothing was better than no recorder - *ie a live broadcast.

* *Transcription discs had better fidelity than early tape machines.

As but one example, Bing Crosby hated doing his radio show live, which
was required by NBC for everyone because no recoding medium could come
close to a live broadcast (audiences had complained when it was
tried). Tape recorder changed all that, which is both a testimony to
it's comparative fidelity and an example of how broadcasting was
revolutionized.

** What planet are you on now ??

* Hi-Fi was never possible in the USA with AM radio.

But I recall rolling around on the floor laughing at the recorded Goon
Show in 1958 in Oz coming through our family HMV radio gram with
woeful electronics and on AM. While laughing, I missed a few jokes
because my two sisters were hysterical. Seemed like N&D was definately
low enough, and our young hearing was so good. Nobody really gave a
**** about the sound; it was the programme content than mattered.

You only needed 4kHz of BW and SNR about 50dB on AM if the content
converted you into a laughing machine.

Try listening to politicians talking now about global warming. Ya
wanna put a ****in' axe through the radio and a brick through the TV
screen. All that fidelity for nothin'.

Patrick Turner.

* Consumer grade tape recorders became available around 1948.

** Only useful for recording live broadcasts heard on FM.

*Long as you did not mind the noise floor coming up by 20 dB.

.... *Phil

[It's that Guy again...]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:26:02 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But I recall rolling around on the floor laughing at the recorded Goon
Show in 1958 in Oz coming through our family HMV radio gram with
woeful electronics and on AM. While laughing, I missed a few jokes
because my two sisters were hysterical. Seemed like N&D was definately
low enough, and our young hearing was so good. Nobody really gave a
**** about the sound; it was the programme content than mattered.

Here, in the Boston area, WCRB every Sat night, around 11:32 PM,
played BBC transcription discs. I waited till the announcer was
quiet, and I heard the disc noise, then hit 'record' on my Pioneer
BOOM BOX to save them. Goon shows, ISIRTA, Around the Horn,
you name it. The Pioneer had great reception, a above ave tuner,
and had 'auto-bias' to set the bias levels for what tape you used.

I never remembered laughing so much. Still got those tapes,
although I later got ALL the Goon shows on .mp3. No change
in 'hi-fi' quality (maybe even less), but who gives a sheit.

Later, at a book store, for $1 USD I found a BOOK with SCRIPTS
from the shows. Not all of them, but written by Spike. Seems
the local Library gave it away, as it's marked and bound that way.

Pix of the announcers and everyone on the show, even
a pix of JOHN SNAG ! who the Goons tore apart L & Right.

Online I found videos (real poor quality) from those Goon shows,
and the dreaded Goon Puppets, that woke me up of how the
characters were to look. I got them all, they were 'ok' quality,
but 'HD' would of been wrong for those videos.

Quality only works when the source demands it. I'd rather
listen to a badly recorded bootleg of my fav band, then not
hear it at all. I just produced a CD of a local band from the
late 70's recorded on a Sony 'EL-Cassette' remember them
that was NOT 'hi-fi', it was more then enough to produce a
historic moment in time. See it at: www.univaz.com

The next CD, which is far rarer then that one was all from cassettes
that have traveled with me over the decades 1,000s of miles,
till I converted them to digital to save them. Sound is a strong 9.

Find it elsewhere. Even the band had no clue they were saved.

okokokok, time to go to work, got me a few old UK amps to
fix. One sees too few 'Burman' and 'Simms Watts' guitar
amps in the US. Beats what is coming out of China these days.

Try listening to politicians talking now about global warming. Ya
wanna put a ****in' axe through the radio and a brick through the TV
screen. All that fidelity for nothin'.

"..NURSE.....THE SCREENS...THE SCREENS...!!!!!!!"

JJTj



My Name is Angus Prune,
and I always listen to,
I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again.

(hey wot?)

My name is Angus Prune,
and I never miss,
I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again.

I sit in my bath,
and I have a good laugh,
'cos the sig-tune is known after me.

(TELL US YOUR NAME !!!)

My name is Angus Prune,
and this is my tune, - it goes;

(EVERYBODY !!!)

I - S - I - R - T - A

I'm Sorry I'll Read That A - gain.

[Lord Valve]

Andre Jute wrote:

My favourite was Theme from A Summer Place.

Andre, my friend, you are a ****in' square. Ell-seven, as they said back in the
day.

No offense. ;-)


Lord Valve
Jazz Musician

[Patrick Turner]

What? Is your tuner 'stuck' on a news channel?

NO.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jun 14, 3:13*pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
*My favourite was Theme from A Summer Place.

Andre, my friend, you are a ****in' square. Ell-seven, as they said back in the
day.

No offense. *;-)

Lord Valve
Jazz Musician

Not only square, but proud of it!
See "Why I keep a hedgehog as my pet"
http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/archives/1140

Andre "The Thighmaster" Jute

[Patrick Turner]

Then why are you bitching about throwing a brick through the screen?

Private reasons.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 16, 10:55*am, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Then why are you bitching about throwing a brick through the screen?

Private reasons.

Then keep it private.

Not if I see fit to go public.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 17, 1:09*am, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:28:22 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:55 am, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Then why are you bitching about throwing a brick through the screen?

Private reasons.

Then keep it private.

Not if I see fit to go public.

Patrick Turner.

Then the reasons are no longer private.

You just don't get to control me, OK.

Patrick Turner.