Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:36:15 +0300, "Iain Churches" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message Hmm. Interesting use of a 6U8. I'd not seen a half pentode half triode LPT/grounded grid phase inverter before. Arthur Radford and Dr Bailey, wrote an interesting article about this topology in Wireless World. It's a very good series of amps, despite what Phil might say:-). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radford_Electronics It's cool they mention it but I want the article! I have it somewhere, with a million other articles. It's just a matter of finding it. I will do my best. Regards Iain |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... I'm not sure what MC75 cost in 1967. What did Quad and other brands cost? Here are some UK retail prices in UKP from 1968: Dynaco ST-35 £40.19s Dynaco ST-70 £59.17s Kerr McCosh CWA2/12Wpc £48. Kerr McCosh CWA40 (40W Monobloc) £45 Leak Stereo 30 (transistorised) £58.10s Leak Stereo 70 (ditto) £69.10 Leak Point One (valve) 30Wpc £45 Lowther L18S £47 Radford STA15 £42.10s Radford STA25 £52.10s Radford STA100 £112 Quad II (12Wpc) £25 Shirley Laboratories 25W stereo £52 Vortexion 100W (silicon) £70 With people earning £20 per week, you can draw your own conclusions. It is not surprising that as available power increases, the cost per watt decreases. With the exception of the Dynaco, all theamplifiers loisted above were made in the UK. The Quad II was the cheapest, by far. At the rate of 10 shillings/Watt, my small rented apartment in London at that time cost me 6W. Ah, so you had to supply 6W to power the apartment? :-) But here it cost $12, about similar, give or take 50%. You cannot hear economics and the THD meter can't measure economics. Agreed. I have no doubt that major customers took some units for listening evaluation by some of the best ears in the business. Next the units would be handed over to the technical boffins for technical evaluation, performanc, build quality and reliability. Then all of these parameters including of course the price would be compared with other available products, and a choice would be made. However, there was NOTHING to stop anyone buying a couple of STA 100 amps for home Why a couple? It's a stereo amplfier. The THD at 100W was 0.1% which, at typical domestic listening levels, was probably reduced by an order of magnitude. The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than normal amounts of NFB. It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published by the manufacturer. Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967? Well broadcasters and professional studios had them in quantity. Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers. They went primarily for a high power high performance reliable amp. I still maintain the recipe of the STA 100 is inappropriate for home hi- fi and that a quad or six pack of OP tubes will perform better. Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed for home hi-fi. The STA15 and STA25 were designed for domestic use. Iain |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: Patrick Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967? Iain Well broadcasters and professional studios had them in quantity. Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers. Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say X units a month over 2 years. I bet that even you would pull out all the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-))) I can remember visitng the Leak factory in Acton, London W3, with my Dad circa 1955 when we took his TL12 for service (which they did while we waited and drank tea in the reception area) The place was pretty small. I can remember about 12-15 women wearing bright aprons and floral headscarves on the assembly bench, There was a storeage area, a listening room and two or three "lab type" rooms with people in white coats. It was quite a nice art deco building on an industrial state, probably long demolished. I was expecting something much bigger. Radford has about 120 people working at Ashton Vale Bristol when I went there mid 60s. They did everything in house, including transformer windings. There were three machines. We were even shown "Radford's Book" where all the winding info had been entered. There were several buildings, metal fabrication, paint shop, amp assembly, tuner assembly, test, R+D, and offices. The firm closed after Arthur Radford died, but Wayne Kerr took over the manufacture of Radford's lab equipment, the LDO (low distortion oscillator) the Psophometer, and waveform analyser. I forgot to mention that Radford also made a "reference standard" power amplfier, the ISTA which was not available to the public. It was used by universities, research labs, and speaker manufacturers. In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve amps again using the same Radford logo. There were legal complications, and nothing came of it. Iain |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
On Jun 17, 5:35*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... I'm not sure what MC75 cost in 1967. What did Quad and other brands cost? Here are some UK retail prices in UKP from 1968: Dynaco ST-35 40.19s Dynaco ST-70 59.17s Kerr McCosh CWA2/12Wpc 48. Kerr McCosh CWA40 (40W Monobloc) 45 Leak Stereo 30 (transistorised) 58.10s Leak Stereo 70 (ditto) 69.10 Leak Point One (valve) 30Wpc 45 Lowther L18S 47 Radford STA15 * 42.10s Radford STA25 * 52.10s Radford STA100 112 Quad II (12Wpc) 25 Shirley Laboratories 25W stereo 52 Vortexion 100W (silicon) * 70 Quad-II does more than 12W/channel, more like 22W, so comparable to the STA25, but 1/2 the price. You said Radford did everything in house to get costs lower, but they charged more. Still, who cares now? Try to buy a Quad Eighty now. Boyo boy, chinese made with Chinese costs at 64c/Hr for labour, and maybe IAG who own the QUad name are related to the Chinese Commutits Party. I guess Quad or whoever they really are, are making up for lost time. With people earning 20 per week, you can draw your own conclusions. It is not surprising that as available power increases, the cost per watt decreases. *With the exception of the Dynaco, all theamplifiers loisted above were made in the UK. The Quad II was the cheapest, by far. At the rate of 10 shillings/Watt, my small rented apartment in London at that time cost me 6W. Ah, so you had to supply 6W to power the apartment? :-) But here it cost $12, about similar, give or take 50%. You cannot hear economics and the THD meter can't measure economics. Agreed. I have no doubt that major customers took some units for listening evaluation by some of the best ears in the business. Next the units would be handed over to the technical boffins for technical evaluation, performanc, build quality and reliability. Then all of these parameters including of course the price would be compared with other available products, and a choice would be made. Yeah, blah blah blah but still I find lots of things in STA100 and other radfords I would definately have done differently, and better, but trying to assert that in 1967 against egotesticalated company leaders could get you sacked. However, there was NOTHING to stop anyone buying a couple of STA 100 amps for home Why a couple? It's a stereo amplfier. The THD at 100W was 0.1% which, at typical domestic listening levels, was probably reduced by an order of magnitude. The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than normal amounts of NFB. It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published by the manufacturer. Must be huge ampunt of NFB. It wasn't unusual for a number of companies to have 30dB GNFB in tube amps so when the dick swinging comparisons began someone could say "well my amp has less THD than yours" etc..... So claims for THD lowness mean SFA to me, unless the amount of NFB in comparisons is the SAME. If there was only 20dB GNFB instead of 30dB, expect 0.3% THD. Not so hot but quite OK because at 2 watts it would have been about 0.04% like so many other UL tube amps with similar levels of GNFB. Using Ea = 600Vdc and with Eg2 at the same level because g2 connect to the anode UL tap then methinks one might not want to use 6550, and you'd have to use KT88, and I worry about those made now with EA = Eg2 = 600V. Nothing you have said will change my view that a quad of 6L6GC would be superior in every way to a pair of KT88. Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967? Well broadcasters and professional studios had them in quantity. Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers. They went primarily for a high power high performance reliable amp. I still maintain the recipe of the STA 100 is inappropriate for home hi- fi and that a quad or six pack of OP tubes will perform better. Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed for home hi-fi. *The STA15 and STA25 were designed for domestic use. Sure, but read my lips... STA100 *could -have - been - used - for - domestic - audio.* These days a 15W or 25W amp is a bit low on power for modern speakers requiring 4 times the power needed for more sensitive speakers made in 1960s. Patrick Turner. *Iain |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Quad-II does more than 12W/channel, more like 22W, so comparable to the STA25, but 1/2 the price. And Phil thought the Radford was cheap !!! LOL:-) According to the spec I have before me (Hi Fi Year Book) Quad II is quoted at 15W. Distortion 3rd harmonic and higher is given as 0.1% at 12W So if we are to compare apples with apples and use 0.1% as a standard as Radford did, then the Quad II is a 12W amp. Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed for home hi-fi. The STA15 and STA25 were designed for domestic use. Sure, but read my lips... STA100 *could -have - been - used - for - domestic - audio.* Just as an Aston Martin could be used for pizza delivery Cheers Iain |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
On Jun 17, 5:36*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: Patrick Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967? Iain Well broadcasters and professional studios had them in quantity. Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers. Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say X units a month over 2 years. *I bet that even you would pull out all the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-))) To win a contract like that you'd need to know the right ppl in the right places plus show you had already established a factory which could increase production numbers. To repeat anything like what happened in 1960s is utterly impossible. I'm 50 years too late. I'd have needed venture capital and a team and so on. Not now, ppl just go to China. I can remember visitng the Leak factory in Acton, London W3, with my Dad circa 1955 when we took his TL12 for service (which they did while we waited and drank tea in the reception area) * The place was pretty small. *I can remember about 12-15 women *wearing bright aprons and floral headscarves on the assembly bench, There was a storeage area, a listening room and two or three "lab type" rooms with people *in white coats. It was quite a nice art deco building on an industrial state, probably long demolished. I was expecting something much bigger. Radford has about 120 people working at Ashton Vale Bristol when I went there mid 60s. *They did everything in house, including transformer windings. *There were three machines. *We were even shown "Radford's Book" where all the winding info had been entered. There were several buildings, metal fabrication, paint shop, amp assembly, tuner assembly, test, *R+D, and offices. All very impressive nostalgia. The firm closed after Arthur Radford died, but Wayne Kerr took over the manufacture of Radford's lab equipment, the LDO (low distortion oscillator) the Psophometer, and waveform analyser. I forgot to mention that Radford also made a "reference standard" power amplfier, the ISTA which was not available to the public. It was used by universities, research labs, and speaker manufacturers. In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve amps again using the same Radford logo. *There were legal complications, and nothing came of it. Not much in Google about Radford RFTD amp models, (Raised from The Dead) Manufacturing tube amps in western countries is a big risk because Mr China gives a better price to Joe Public who has loyalty to low prices, and not to any brand name. Mr Western Middleman still takes the lion's share of the retail price. Tube amps all have essentially very simple and similar circuits with similar amounts of THD if the loadings for the class of operation and amount of GNFB plus any local NFB is the same. Hence a Chinese made tube amp can measure equally well to anything made in the UK, and now sometimes the quality of some supposedly UK made amps may be far worse than something made made in China. So, when I inevitably have to examine other makers amps turning up here for de-smoking and singing lessons I find very little to get excited about, and a lot which would cause depression in other techs. It seems to me there are plenty of tube amps made by companies in which not a single man has read RDH4. Patrick Turner. Iain |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... On Jun 17, 5:36 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say X units a month over 2 years. I bet that even you would pull out all the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-))) To win a contract like that you'd need to know the right ppl in the right places plus show you had already established a factory which could increase production numbers. These days many firms are kick-started on venture capital. If you can convince a major potential client regarding the product you are proposing to build. I can think of many examples, most of which started out a shirtcuff sketches. The British are pretty good at that sort of thing but somehow they don't seem to be able to sustain the momentum to follow through. In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve amps again using the same Radford logo. There were legal complications, and nothing came of it. Not much in Google about Radford RFTD amp models, (Raised from The Dead) No. They contacted me a an early stage. There were lots of news bulletins sent to potential investors and other interested parties. But product demonstration deadlines came and went with nothing to show. Then silence. I am pretty sure I know what the reason was...... Iain |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
On Jun 17, 8:03*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... On Jun 17, 5:36 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message .... On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say X units a month over 2 years. I bet that even you would pull out all the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-))) To win a contract like that you'd need to know the right ppl in the right places plus show you had already established a factory which could increase production numbers. These days many firms are kick-started on venture capital. If *you can convince a major potential client regarding the product you are proposing to build. I can think of many examples, most of which started out a shirtcuff sketches. * The British are pretty good at that sort of thing but somehow they don't seem to be able to sustain the momentum to follow through. The high Oz dollar and shipping costs would kill profits I could make manufacturing tube amps in large numbers here in Oz while I paid high Oz costs for every damn thing. Tube amps are niche products, not mainstream. And I'm too ****in' old to want to **** up a nice life by working 80 hours a week to make it all happen, even if I could get venture capital. Usually such venturists would want to take out a mortgage on my house so they don't really venture or take much of a risk, they just charge a yet another big cost on business. The commercial historty of tube amp makers in Oz is littered with ppl who have gone broke. If I was 25, and had no money, then fine, going broke just loses someone else's money, and they can't get blood from a stone. I've met young blokes who have had **** happen despite huge hard work and finance backing and a good product. One made snow boards. After that failed he lived in a VW kombi for 2 years and moved around to stop the creditors getting his beat up kombi and the shirt from his back. I could smell him coming because he never had anywhere to wash his clothes or himself. But finally he recovered a bit and went to the UK to work where he's started a new life and although he works for the man he has autonomy, and is doing real well. Ben was heavily into alternative music, and would need advice about crazy electronics he dabbled with. He was a born dreamer, alas, not always practical. In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve amps again using the same Radford logo. There were legal complications, and nothing came of it. Not much in Google about Radford RFTD amp models, (Raised from The Dead) No. *They contacted me a an early stage. *There were lots of news bulletins sent to potential investors and other interested parties. But product demonstration deadlines came and went with nothing to show. Then silence. I am pretty sure I know what the reason was...... No demand? Price way too high? Trouble with unions? Conducting Business is one damn thing after another. Patrick Turner. Iain |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Radford STA100
I said....
The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than normal amounts of NFB. You repeated.... It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published by the manufacturer. A quick look at the STA-100 shows that probably 40Vrms is needed to drive each KT88 grid for 100W at 8 ohms where there would be 28Vrms. The LTP with EF184 probably has a gain of 100, so only 0.8Vrms is needed to produce Va-a = 80Vrms. The cascode 6DJ8 has gain around 27 for the top tube and maybe 2 for bottom tube. There is some local current FB for the bottom tube which has very low Cin. I've estimated that without NFB only 0.04Vrms of input is needed for 100W output and that the NFB network delivers 20dB of NFB and input then needed is 0.4Vrms. Tally with your spec sheets? So if there is indeed 0.1% at 100W with what must be 8 ohms, then that's not bad, but perhaps all is not quite clear, and that although 100W is available the 0.1% occurs with a 16 ohm load. There is no mention of 4 ohm loads, or any other load matches apart from the 100V so the schematic I have is rather deficient, so what did Radford conceal rather than explain fully in his schematic? In all my tests of amps only those with 12% to 20% CFB in the OP stage and lots of class A working ever give less than 1% THD without global NFB, so that with 20dB GNFB you get D 0.1%. Typcal UL amps with low class A and high B portion typically give 4% with no CFB and no GNFB. Its possible the 3H created in the EF184 LTP has opposite phase to the 3H in output stage and some cancelling of 3H goes on. Unlikely though, as most amps 3H is the effect of the flattening of the peaks on waves where the voltage never quite makes it to where its supposed to get to before it changes in direction at sine wave peaks. I'd have preferred to use the EF184 in triode mode and taken one grid to 0V and a common cathode R down to say -200V which would have been easy; Radford had already dumped tube rectifiers from their circuits. The triode LTP would still have had good gain if RL was high enough because the EL184 triode µ = 60, and Ra = 12k, much lower/better than running the darn things in pentode with all those extra biasing networks as shown. There is no real need for a cascode input stage at all. A paralleled 6DJ8 would have been fine. No need for a gain pot at input; the gain should be controlled in a preamp. I prefer the drive amp I use in my 8585. See Fig 1 on the page at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/8585-a...ober-2006.html EL84 in triode are unsurpassable drivers IMHO. BTW, I recently re-engineered a pair of 100W Ming Da monoblocs and the input tube was SRPP 6SN7 which I changed to simpler paralleled input triodes. I used a very similar LF shelving network to Radford's shown after his cascode to prevent LF instability. So of course Radford and I share some ideas, except that I used the network he has to direct couple a following LTP with 6SN7, with longer tail R and usual 1M from grid to grid and 2uF to 0V to ground the dead grid. The Ming Da have a balanced amp with a pair of 300B following 6SN7 LTP to get enough drive for up to 140Vrms at each 845 grid. The 300Bs are "over the top" but were used to make the amp look spectacular. But it works OK, even with only 7mA in each 300B. It was only 4mA when I first looked at it. More could be done, but it sounds excelent, and not a single darn pentoad to be seen anywhere. There are simpler and better ways to to design an input & driver stage than what Radford uses. Patrick Turner. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But the 6U8 pentode screen does not return to the cathode. It is AC bypassed to the common rail. The extra time constant probably complicates things. Will have to try it sometime. Cheers, John |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur Radford a Penny Pincher?
Phil Allison wrote:
Was Arthur Radford a " penny pincher " ??? **Maybe. IME, however, Radford built crossovers for his speakers that far eclipsed the KEF crossover, that were used for the same drivers (B139, B110, T27). In 1974 I built a pair of Bailey designed transmission lines, based on the above KEF drivers. Bailey suggested the use of Radford crossovers for a modest sonic improvment. The improvement was far from modest. Radford used hefty air core inductors (rather than the crappy ferrite cored KEF ones and, most interestingly, a parallel LC network to cure a resonance problem with the B110 (that KEF never bothered to sort out 'till much later). The Radford crossovers were impressive beasts, compared to the KEF ones, both visually and sonically. Was Radford a penny-pincher? Not with crossovers. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
QUAD [1] Original booklet reproduced at Jute on Amps
"John L Stewart" John. the STA25 is he http://www.freeinfosociety.com/elect...ew.php?id=2362 ** Look, look, lookie - there is a filter choke in the PSU that feeds the OP tranny. So noooooo amplitude modulation !!! And no stupid, damn zener diode in the bias supply. BTW: One of these came across my bench back in 1980 for a full overhaul. ..... Phil |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Preventative maintenance
I am always amazed at how you arrogantly imagine to know what "the
vast majority of ppl" think or do; especially since, by your own chest thumping, you and 'the vast majority of ppl" have nothing in common. You are out of touch with the vast majority. I have no dents on chest and never thump it. I am aware of what my customers tell me. Most of my customers represent the vast marority, representiatives of the average person. I'd never buy what most of them bring to me for a repair. Sure, I don't have much in common with the vast majority of average ppl earning an average $44,000 wage and buying all of whatever they buy. But it does not mean I don't understand them fairly well. I try to treat everyone like a king or queen, but its not always doable or justified. who buy bread and butter budget models of consumer goods do not spend time seraching the internet for reviews on such things and in forums. They do not get the chance to talk to 10 ppl who have owned what they consider buying for several years. They just go to a store, and end up taking a risk on something that fits their wallet. Maybe their dad bought a Yamaha, so son buys Yamaha. Dad had Cerwin Vega speakers, and sone wants Cerwin Vega, and now Cerwin Vega offer far bigger speakers than Dad could have bought in 1978. Speak for yourself, paleface. Recently I thought about getting a dirt cheap 'decent' SW portable receiver and the first thing I did was look for reviews and 'comparison shootout' articles. Now, we could imagine I'm a one off genius but if that were the case there'd be nothing for me to find, but there's a whole world of things to find. You'd be a minority. And genius you ain't !!!!!!!! If everyone had the same mind, only one variety of goods or service would ever sell. But most ppl just go to a store for a CD player and take the advice of a sales person. I don't know a single person who ever listens to SW. And don't forget that reviews can be a pack of lies. I knew one man who'd spend days in agony checking out 59 different brands of sleeping bag before going on a camping trip. Everything he chooses to buy is a result of an epic search. It took several weeks to find what he thought was a good deal for a mountain bike. But he's fat, un-healthy, a bloody great bore, and he's getting worse with age. When he went to a restaurant, he'd want to chat with the staff for 30 minutes and change te menu. I breathed a sigh of relief when he moved town because this one wasn't good enough for him. But the quality of his services fixing computers was so bad that a couple of guys tried to sue his arse off, and a couple just refused to pay him. The PC he assembled for me went phut after a few months. He charged me $1,800. Later I found the parts he'd used were all old, and I could have bought a working PC just as good in a clearence shop for $200. The guy is an inconsistent fraud. I'm just wondering how you'd compare to this guy. Fortunately, most ppl only take 2 minutes to order a meal at a restaurant, 20 minutes to buy a CD player. The fact that there are thousands of resources on everything imaginable disproves your 'theory'. Nobody who brings me Yamaha or Cerwin Vega speakers to to me for repair ever tell me about their searches for reviews or peer group forums; they consider most info to be BS anyway. Maybe they don't care to waste their time talking to a brick wall but, whatever their reason, the handful of select people bringing you broken equipment hardly represents "the vast majority of ppl." I've had hundreds cross my threshold. None have told me about their long search for the best amp or CD player. Except one, the guy I mentioned above. He phoned me twice a week for 2 months during two consecutive years about the purchase of a pair of tube amps worth $3,000. He bought chinese amps amps for $200 cheaper. The **** wasted days of my time. He's the exception. But are you like that? You claming to know what "the vast majority of ppl" do based on the few who bring you broken things is like a heart surgeon claiming "the vast majority of ppl" need bypass surgery because the ones who come to him do. And I dare say he has a larger sample size. The vast majority of ppl have hearts, right, but we all know a minority will need a bypass. Doctors don't hear stories about where ppl bought their hearts, although some patients have ended up with a cold lump of stone after shopping for a heart all those years ago. You analogy is absurd. People's mums bought Hover washing machines made in Oz in the 1970s. My departing feckless ex-wife took the Hoover when she vanished one day while I was at work. Next day I bought another Hoover. ****in good stuff, not too many fixes needed which I could not do myself. Goes like a trooper, 33 years old, no major parts replacements. Is that supposed to be a 'review' that "the vast majority of ppl" will not bother with? Weel, a lotta customers buy what their parents have owned. My mum has now been through about 4 washing machines in the last 20 years. She takes the advice of anyone she considers honest. I don't decide things like that for her. But my washer is still running fine after 33 years. I'm on my 4th motor vehicle since 1975, not including motorcycles. But I know ppl who go have to replace gear far more often than I do. I'm not aware they make a better choice than I do. Probably there was no need of the Internet in 1978. People made do with the resources at hand. Now there are more. This is called "progress." To where? oblvion? Don't worry, genetic engineering research is underway and ppl will soon to be able to eat their own poop so bean counters can't stress out over the costs of food. Diet recommendations by Bean Counters can work wonders for some. Ppl need to be able to breathe in CO2 and exhale O2. Rubbish piles up and up, and should be re-cycled, so open your mouths everyone, and run it through again. And sure there is progress, I agree with you on that, but to be smug and content about its quality is to have the mind of a moron. I just pass on most opportunities to buy stuff which won't last despite reviews, I won't buy stuff to make me feel better, usually it don't, and I have nobody I need to impress for stupid vain reasons. I am a marketeer's disaster zone. Basically nobody can sell me anything much at all. I'm very successful at avoiding expenses and silly habits. I could say I have benfitted from is the evolution of medical knowhow and the democratic process in Australia. But If I still needed a horse and buggy and the bicycle hadn't been invented, life would still be OK, as the Mormons have shown. Maybe I'd be a specialist in cart wheel repairs. I cannot just say how wonderful everything is about modern life without wearing out the air pointing out so many things that are a PITA. Patrick Turner. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Jute on Amps welcomes you to new home | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Jute on Amps is Back | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS:PASS ALEPH 3, PR QUAD 2S ORIGINAL, PR ASL AQ 1006s | Marketplace | |||
FS:PR QUAD 2s ORIGINAL, PR ASL AQ 1006s SE 845s, ALEPH 3 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS:PASS ALEPH 3, PR QUAD 2S ORIGINAL, PR ASL AQ 1006s | Marketplace |