"Powell" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote
There are areas where vacuum tubes are still at
the top. High power radio/tv transmitters, CRTs
and microwave ovens come to mind. Audio amps
isn't one of them.

Really, how so? Please site empirical examples
of pre/power tube amps which fail to meet consumer
needs?

I never once used the word fail.

So why say, "Audio amps isn't one of them"?

Because audio amps are not devices where tubes are the pinnacle
of technology.

I could dig a swimming pool with a tea spoon.
Although there are better tools for the task I can't
really say the spoon "failed".

Maybe you need Arny's help with a bigger shovel.

Whatever...

Consumer needs are vast and tube amps will likely
always have a home. Obviously some people like the
way a tube amp colors the music.

If so why say, "Audio amps isn't one of them"?

Because audio amps are not devices where tubes are the pinnacle
of technology.

The rest of us...

You don't speak for anyone here except Arny and
yourself... two narrow minded peas in a pod.

I only speak for myself. Although, if tube amps were in the
mainstream we'd see them at retailers other than the odd high-end
shop.

One thing I liked about Stereophile was the "approximate number
of dealers" figure. It was always fun to see a product with a
single digit distribution chain.

I'll admit a glowing tube is one of the sexiest pieces
of electronics.

You're either unsophisticated, just easily amused or
financially challenged, which is it?

I guess just easily amused.

For me however, the audible shortcomings are too
much to bear.

How would you know, mr. No Experience?

Because tube amps are deficient in every technical parameter.

How about you stepping up to Arny's Behringer
challenge?

Maybe you need Arny's help with a bigger shovel.

Maybe you need to put your money where your mouth is.

Please list makes and models of tube pre/power amps
you have personally measured/auditioned in your home
setup... last 10 years (manufactured date)? Short
of that, in the last 20 years?

Why would you believe my experiences when you
obviously have your own agenda?

Hehehe.. Broke-Ass®.

Why does my net worth interest you so much? Stick to the
discussion at hand.

You are the one making the outlandish and
unsupportable claims about tube amps.

So why say, "Audio amps isn't one of them"?

Because audio amps are not devices where tubes are the pinnacle
of technology.

It is up to YOU to prove the rest of the
professional world wrong. Good luck with that.

Hehehe... WHO has sited YOU as a "professional?"
I don't see any attributes of professionalism or
empirical experiences in your bandwidth, just
like Arny.

Did I say I was an audio professional? Although, I may be I
wasn't using that as a basis for my logic.

One can simply make the following observations about the
professional audio world.

No mainstream amplifier company uses tubes
No mainstream electronics company makes tubes
No tube discussion in design related electronic magazines
No tube discussion in IEEE journals or conferences
No tube amp discussion in peer reviewed audio journals
No tube amp meets or exceeds a generic SS amp in any technical
measure.

Further, search the archives of the US Patent and Trade Office.
No new patents issued for audio tube amplifier technology.

However, there are dozens of new patents for reproducing "tube
sound" with solid state devices. These patents have exquisite
detail about the deficiencies, colorations and distortions of
tube devices. Properly designed solid state amplifiers do not
add anything audible except gain and must be degraded to sound
like tube amps.

Tube distortion obviously can be used to artistic merit such as
overdriven guitar amplifiers. For final amplification I prefer
not to color the artists work further by using tubes.

How about YOU giving a tube amp example that
technically meets or surpasses any reasonably
modern SS amp. I'll even throw out power output
and cost (within reason) to give you a head start.

What would you know about "modern SS amp" that
didn't come from a Musician's Friend catalog?

I've designed 6 or 7 amplifiers for embedded applications with
total unit sales slightly under 3 million.

That's probably more than all the "high-end" tube amps sold since
tube went out of vogue. In fact, over 3x the number of
Stereophile magazines sold in the last 10 years (to harp on
another thread).

I've never seen a Musician's Friend catalog...

Please list makes and models of SS power amps
you have personally measured/auditioned in your
home setup and test methodology used... last 10
years (manufactured date)... , if any ?

First, you want to know which tube amps I own. Then, you want to
know which SS amps I own. Why does my collection matter to you?

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp outperforming a SS
amp? No, you can't. That's why you keep misdirecting the
thread.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 07:46:37 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:46:41 -0500, "Powell"
wrote:

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

There are areas where vacuum tubes are still at
the top. High power radio/tv transmitters, CRTs
and microwave ovens come to mind. Audio amps
isn't one of them.

Really, how so? Please site empirical examples
of pre/power tube amps which fail to meet consumer
needs?

I never once used the word fail.

So why say, "Audio amps isn't one of them"?

Because audio amps is *not* one of the areas where tubes are still at
the top. That seems simple enough.

I could dig a swimming pool with a tea spoon.
Although there are better tools for the task I can't
really say the spoon "failed".

Maybe you need Arny's help with a bigger shovel.

You seem to be digging a remarkably deep hole with your
keyboard.........

Consumer needs are vast and tube amps will likely
always have a home. Obviously some people like the
way a tube amp colors the music.

If so why say, "Audio amps isn't one of them"?

Because audio amps is *not* one of the areas where tubes are still at
the top. That seems simple enough.

The rest of us...

You don't speak for anyone here except Arny and
yourself... two narrow minded peas in a pod.

Actuually, he speaks for the vast majority of audiophiles, as the
sales figures indicate.

How about you stepping up to Arny's Behringer
challenge?

Maybe you need Arny's help with a bigger shovel.

Maybe you need to stop ducking and diving, and answer the question.

You are the one making the outlandish and
unsupportable claims about tube amps.

So why say, "Audio amps isn't one of them"?

Because audio amps is *not* one of the areas where tubes are still at
the top. That seems simple enough.

It is up to YOU to prove the rest of the
professional world wrong. Good luck with that.

Hehehe... WHO has sited YOU as a "professional?"
I don't see any attributes of professionalism or
empirical experiences in your bandwidth, just
like Arny.

Maybe you need to stop ducking and diving, and answer the question.

How about YOU giving a tube amp example that
technically meets or surpasses any reasonably
modern SS amp. I'll even throw out power output
and cost (within reason) to give you a head start.

What would you know about “modern SS amp” that
didn’t come from a Musician’s Friend catalog?
Please list makes and models of SS power amps
you have personally measured/auditioned in your
home setup and test methodology used... last 10
years (manufactured date)... , if any ?

Maybe you need to stop ducking and diving, and answer the question.

Thank you Arnold.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny’s picks “Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown.”

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Sterwart:
Maybe you need to stop ducking and diving, and answer the question.

Thank you Arnold.

I thought Rusty had done an accidental double-posting.

Stephen

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:34:24 -0500, "Powell"
wrote:


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier

Somehow, one just knew that an ARC Reference amp would pop out of the
woodwork at this point! :-)

And do you know the most distinctive thing about them? They sound just
like a good SS amp......................

POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

That's nothing like an adequate specification list, while the
inclusion of power supply storage capacity, output taps and negative
feedback figures are utter irrelevancies.

Where are the *distortion* figures, Powell?

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny’s picks “Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown.”

We could certainly look at the Bryston 4B SST, the Rotel RB-991, and
the Adcom GFA 5802. One should of course immediately note that the
admittedly reasonably powerful (for a tube amp) ARC still puts out the
same 280 watts into a 2 ohm load, unlike the SS amps.............

In fact, the old '60 watt' Audiolab 8000S integrated amp puts out as
much power into a 2 ohm load! And note that while the SS amps quoted
above easily match or exceed the specs of the ARC, they are *vastly*
cheaper to buy and to maintain.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in news:3ff7018e.89473916
@news.btinternet.com:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:34:24 -0500, "Powell"
wrote:


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier

Somehow, one just knew that an ARC Reference amp would pop out of the
woodwork at this point! :-)

And do you know the most distinctive thing about them? They sound just
like a good SS amp......................

POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

That's nothing like an adequate specification list, while the
inclusion of power supply storage capacity, output taps and negative
feedback figures are utter irrelevancies.

Where are the *distortion* figures, Powell?

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny’s picks “Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown.”

We could certainly look at the Bryston 4B SST, the Rotel RB-991, and
the Adcom GFA 5802. One should of course immediately note that the
admittedly reasonably powerful (for a tube amp) ARC still puts out the
same 280 watts into a 2 ohm load, unlike the SS amps.............

In fact, the old '60 watt' Audiolab 8000S integrated amp puts out as
much power into a 2 ohm load! And note that while the SS amps quoted
above easily match or exceed the specs of the ARC, they are *vastly*
cheaper to buy and to maintain.

McIntosh MC202

RMS Power Output
Minimum sine wave continuous average
power output from 20Hz to 20kHz with
all channels operating -
Stereo: 200W per channel (8/4/2 ohms)
Mono bridged: 400W (16/8/4 ohms)
Output Load Impedance
Stereo: 2, 4, or 8 ohms
Mono bridged: 4, 8, or 16 ohms
Rated Power Band
20Hz to 20kHz
Peak Output Current
50 amperes
Total Harmonic Distortion
0.005% maximum at any level from
250 milliwatts to rated power output
per channel from 20Hz to 20kHz with
all channels operating
Intermodulation Distortion
0.005% maximum if instantaneous peak
power output does not exceed twice the
output power rating
Dynamic Headroom
1.9dB
Frequency Response
20Hz to 20kHz, +0 / -0.25dB
10Hz to 100kHz, +0 / -3.0dB
Input Sensitivity
Unbalanced: 1.7V
Balanced: 3.4V
S/N Ratio (A-Weighted)
115dB below rated output
Damping Factor 40
Input Impedance
Unbalanced: 10k ohms
Balanced: 22k ohms
Power Guard®
Clipping is prevented and THD
does not exceed 2% with up to
14dB overdrive at 1kHz
Power Requirements
120V 50/60Hz, 5A
Dimensions (h x w x d)
inch: 5.44 x 17.5 x 17.5
cm: 13.8 x 44.5 x 44.5
knob clearance: 1.125" (2.9 cm)
Weight
65 lbs. (29.5kg) net
83 lbs. (37.7kg) shipping

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

There are areas where vacuum tubes are still at
the top. High power radio/tv transmitters, CRTs
and microwave ovens come to mind. Audio amps
isn't one of them.

Really, how so? Please site empirical examples
of pre/power tube amps which fail to meet consumer
needs?

My listening room.

Please list makes and models of tube pre/power amps
you have personally measured/auditioned in your home
setup... last 10 years (manufactured date)? Short
of that, in the last 20 years?

Red herring. The solid state revolution in audio was over, 20 years ago.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.

It's a bogus spec sheet.

Since very few solid state amps don't have output taps, output taps are an
irrelevant standard.

Ditto for power supply energy storage, and negative feedback.

The high frequency limits specified are sonically irrelevant.

Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Here's what matters, audibly:

(1) power output
(2) response in the range of 10 Hz to 20 KHz.
(3) noise at levels that can actually be heard*
(4) nonlinear distortion at levels that can actually be heard, say 0.1% or
more.

* really low output noise voltage only matters with highly sensitive
speakers, and highly sensitive speakers don't need a lot of power.

"Powell" wrote in message
...
Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

You neglected to add some pertinent specs for that amp. Just to
remind everyone:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier (TUBE)
Distortion
1% over 20Hz to 20kHz. 0.05% at 1W
DF ~ 11
And just for fun efficiency: 31%


Since you suggested QSC, Hafler and Crown:

QSC SRA 1222 (class AB)
1200W bridge mono 4 ohms
20Hz-20kHz ±0.2dB
8Hz to 50kHz +0/-3dB
0.01% THD typ, 0.03% 20-20kHz
DF 500

QSC DCA2422 (Class H switching just for fun)
1200W bridge mono 4 ohms
10Hz-10kHz ±0.1dB
8Hz to 50kHz +0/-3dB
0.01% THD typ, 0.03% 20-20kHz
DF 500
efficiency 79%

Hafler 9505
750W bridge mono
0.15Hz to 300kHz +0/-3dB
0.2% THD 20-20kHz
DF 1000
efficiency 89%

Crown SRII
1115W bridge mono 4 ohms
20Hz to 20kHz ±0.1dB
4Hz to 75kHz +0/-3dB
0.005% THD typ, 0.1% 20-20kHz
DF 20,000
efficiency 74%

Over the audio band all handly toast this reference tube amp
while consuming 2-3 times less power.

Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

So let's try a comparison with a cheap multichannel solid state
amp.
_______________________________________
Left Column:
Outlaw Audio 770 (solid state)
7 channels
Right Column:
Audio Research REF300MKII (tube)
Reference Monoblock
________________________________________

Output power, continous, all channels
7x300W 1x280W

Power Bandwidth (+0dB, -3dB)
5Hz to 100kHz 12Hz to 100kHz

Total Harmonic Distortion
typical 0.005% 0.05%
20-20k 0.050% 1.00%

Signal to Noise
119dB 110dB

Damping Factor
850 ~11

Power efficiency at rated output
78% 31%

Weight (per channel)
13 lbs 132 lbs

Size efficiency (cubic inches per channel)
340 4700

Cost per channel
$260 $15,000
________________________________________

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most parameters.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

So let's try a comparison with a cheap multichannel solid state
amp.
_______________________________________
Left Column:
Outlaw Audio 770 (solid state)
7 channels
Right Column:
Audio Research REF300MKII (tube)
Reference Monoblock
________________________________________

Output power, continous, all channels
7x300W 1x280W

Power Bandwidth (+0dB, -3dB)
5Hz to 100kHz 12Hz to 100kHz

Total Harmonic Distortion
typical 0.005% 0.05%
20-20k 0.050% 1.00%

Signal to Noise
119dB 110dB

Damping Factor
850 ~11

Power efficiency at rated output
78% 31%

Weight (per channel)
13 lbs 132 lbs

Size efficiency (cubic inches per channel)
340 4700

Cost per channel
$260 $15,000
________________________________________

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most parameters.


Did you check out the Behringer I posted a URL for a few days ago?

Maybe twice the power per channel for about 2/3 the price per channel, as I
recall.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Since you suggested QSC, Hafler and Crown:

QSC SRA 1222 (class AB)

Won't drive 1 ohm loads... ARC will.


QSC DCA2422 (Class H switching just for fun)
1200W bridge mono 4 ohms

Arny wrote "There's at least a loose relationship
between RMS power ratings and ability to drive
speakers to useful volume levels."
Wrong watts rating comparison (425 watts)... thanks
for proving my point.


Hafler 9505
750W bridge mono

Sorry, won't drive 1 or 2 ohm loads... ARC will.


Crown SRII
1115W bridge mono 4 ohms

Arny wrote "There's at least a loose relationship
between RMS power ratings and ability to drive
speakers to useful volume levels."
Wrong watts rating comparison (360 watts)... thanks
for proving my point.


Over the audio band all handly toast this reference
tube amp while consuming 2-3 times less power.

Not relevant to your supposition... "There are areas
where vacuum tubes are still at the top. High power
radio/tv transmitters, CRTs and microwave ovens
come to mind. Audio amps isn't one of them."

You were unable to show by an apple to apple
comparison (watts) to support your thesis. But like
Arny you attempted to twisted your findings in an
attempt to coverup the embarrassment, mr.
Egg-on-Face.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.

It's a bogus spec sheet.

Please do your homework.

Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Here's what matters, audibly:

How would you know?

Please note that the Stereophile’s Buyers Guide
lists 119 powers amps manufactures. Your three
best buys are not named among them. The same
can be said for the Home Theater Guide which lists
93 power amp manufactures.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier

Somehow, one just knew that an ARC Reference
amp would pop out of the woodwork at this point! :-)

When tube quality counts except no substitutes .

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.

It's a bogus spec sheet.

Please do your homework.

Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Here's what matters, audibly:

How would you know?

Empirical knowledge. Or, for people with a more of a day-to-day attitude,
practical experience.

Please note that the Stereophile's Buyers Guide
lists 119 powers amps manufactures. Your three
best buys are not named among them. The same
can be said for the Home Theater Guide which lists
93 power amp manufactures.

Yup, the sun rises and sets on Stereophile's recommendations. If some
Stereophile publication doesn't list it, it can't possibly sound any good. I
thought you want us to believe you're well-read, Powell.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Since you suggested QSC, Hafler and Crown:

QSC SRA 1222 (class AB)

Won't drive 1 ohm loads... ARC will.

If it's a typical QSC it will drive 1 ohm loads, just not as efficiently and
coolly as it will drive 2 ohm loads. QSC uses almost pure current limiting,
which means that they clip pretty cleanly into very low impedance loads,
much like a lower-powered amp.

I have a QSC amp on my bench that I use from time-to-time to drive modest
lengths of heavy speaker cable with the other end shorted, for testing
purposes. It doesn't put its full rated 4 ohm power into the near-short,
but it remains clean and happy when used within reason, and even quite a
ways outside of reason.

That said, this beefy QSC will probably put out at least 300 wpc into a 1
ohm load, noising out the ARC.

QSC DCA2422 (Class H switching just for fun)
1200W bridge mono 4 ohms

Arny wrote "There's at least a loose relationship
between RMS power ratings and ability to drive
speakers to useful volume levels."
Wrong watts rating comparison (425 watts)... thanks
for proving my point.

Powell must be free-associating again. The amp is disqualified because it
puts out too much power????

Hafler 9505
750W bridge mono

Sorry, won't drive 1 or 2 ohm loads... ARC will.

Since its been a while since I last checked out a Hafler, I can't speak as
directly. However Haflers are well-known for tolerating low-impedance and
ridiculous loads, like you-know-who's Acoustats. Powell is believing
everything he reads on the spec sheets and nothing else. No relevant
empirical experience with them, I guess.

Crown SRII
1115W bridge mono 4 ohms

Arny wrote "There's at least a loose relationship
between RMS power ratings and ability to drive
speakers to useful volume levels."
Wrong watts rating comparison (360 watts)... thanks
for proving my point.

Powell must be free-associating again. The amp is disqualified because it
puts out too much power????

Over the audio band all handily toast this reference
tube amp while consuming 2-3 times less power.

Not relevant to your supposition... "There are areas
where vacuum tubes are still at the top. High power
radio/tv transmitters, CRTs and microwave ovens
come to mind. Audio amps isn't one of them."

Powell's complaints are one, more ludicrous than the next.

You were unable to show by an apple to apple
comparison (watts) to support your thesis.

Sue us because solid state power is clean, plentiful, and has excellent
price/performance.

But like
Arny you attempted to twisted your findings in an
attempt to coverup the embarrassment, mr.
Egg-on-Face.

Notice how Powell dismisses what he doesn't understand and/or has no
empirical experience with!

"Arny Krueger" wrote

snip quacking

Big yawn.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.

It's a bogus spec sheet.

Please do your homework.

Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Here's what matters, audibly:

How would you know?

Empirical knowledge. Or, for people with a more
of a day-to-day attitude, practical experience.

I guess that counts you out then .


Please note that the Stereophile's Buyers Guide
lists 119 powers amps manufactures. Your three
best buys are not named among them. The same
can be said for the Home Theater Guide which lists
93 power amp manufactures.

Yup, the sun rises and sets on Stereophile's
recommendations. If some Stereophile publication
doesn't list it, it can't possibly sound any good. I
thought you want us to believe you're well-read, Powell.

Hehehe... it’s not a list of recommended products, it's a
index of product manufactures.

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

So let's try a comparison with a cheap multichannel solid state
amp.
_______________________________________
Left Column:
Outlaw Audio 770 (solid state)
7 channels
Right Column:
Audio Research REF300MKII (tube)
Reference Monoblock
________________________________________

Output power, continous, all channels
7x300W 1x280W

Power Bandwidth (+0dB, -3dB)
5Hz to 100kHz 12Hz to 100kHz

Total Harmonic Distortion
typical 0.005% 0.05%
20-20k 0.050% 1.00%

Signal to Noise
119dB 110dB

Damping Factor
850 ~11

Power efficiency at rated output
78% 31%

Weight (per channel)
13 lbs 132 lbs

Size efficiency (cubic inches per channel)
340 4700

Cost per channel
$260 $15,000
________________________________________

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most parameters.

Harry Lavo Shelleyed:

Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?

Rusty is a 'borg. He can't help himself.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:ijgKb.64680$I07.280505@attbi_s53

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or
efficiency or superior technical specs; they buy them because they
feel they sound better, e.g.. more realistic.

There's no accounting for taste or the lack of it, eh?

So what's the point of all this?

Please read message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:37:21 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Harry Lavo Shelleyed:

Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?

Rusty is a 'borg. He can't help himself.

Maybe a little WD-40 would help.

There's no accounting for taste or the lack of it, eh?

You prove that every time you talk about audio or music. Why Arny, with such
unsophisticted taste, would want to argue taste would be hard to understand if
we didn't already know what a rude idiotic looser he is.

Harry Lavo wrote:


Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

So let's try a comparison with a cheap multichannel solid state
amp.
_______________________________________
Left Column:
Outlaw Audio 770 (solid state)
7 channels
Right Column:
Audio Research REF300MKII (tube)
Reference Monoblock
________________________________________

Output power, continous, all channels
7x300W 1x280W

Power Bandwidth (+0dB, -3dB)
5Hz to 100kHz 12Hz to 100kHz

Total Harmonic Distortion
typical 0.005% 0.05%
20-20k 0.050% 1.00%

Signal to Noise
119dB 110dB

Damping Factor
850 ~11

Power efficiency at rated output
78% 31%

Weight (per channel)
13 lbs 132 lbs

Size efficiency (cubic inches per channel)
340 4700

Cost per channel
$260 $15,000
________________________________________

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most parameters.











Well stated. For those whose buying decisions are going to be based solely on
price, largest affordable output power, or specifications, per se, then
comparing the 2 types of amplifiers is a wasted intellectual exercise. Those
folks can use thier criteria and satisfy themselves. For those that, as you
say, find a given tube amplifier, FOR WHATEVER REASON, to be more personallly
satisfying within the context of their particular set of components, to
increase their listening pleasure, that is all that is relevant and/or
necessary.



Bruce J. Richman

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:37:21 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Harry Lavo Shelleyed:


Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?

Rusty is a 'borg. He can't help himself.


Maybe a little WD-40 would help.

LOL !
WD-40 isn't George prefered lubricant... :-)

"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most parameters.

Yeah, but it has a thicker front panel! So there!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:20:32 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:37:21 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Harry Lavo Shelleyed:


Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?

Rusty is a 'borg. He can't help himself.


Maybe a little WD-40 would help.

LOL !
WD-40 isn't George prefered lubricant... :-)

Yep, definitely threatened by homosexuality.

dave weil a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:20:32 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:37:21 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Harry Lavo Shelleyed:



Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they sound better,
e.g.. more realistic. So what's the point of all this?

Rusty is a 'borg. He can't help himself.


Maybe a little WD-40 would help.

LOL !
WD-40 isn't George prefered lubricant... :-)


Yep, definitely threatened by homosexuality.

When I see you so *serious* this remember me McKelvy sentence :
"Weil is a nitpicking anal retentive waiter" ;-)

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:20:01 -0500, "Powell"
wrote:


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier
POWER OUTPUT: 280 watts
POWER BANDWIDTH: (-3dB points) 12Hz to 100kHz.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: (-3dB points at 1 watt)
0.5Hz to 160 kHz.
OUTPUT TAPS: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ohms.
OVERALL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: 10dB.
HUM & NOISE: Less than 0.2mV RMS
110dB below rated output.
POWER SUPPLY ENERGY STORAGE: Approximately
448 joules.

Please site three SS manufactures and specific model
numbers as examples with comparable specifications.
Perhaps you can start with Arny's picks "Good brands to
look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown."

Since you suggested QSC, Hafler and Crown:

QSC SRA 1222 (class AB)

Won't drive 1 ohm loads... ARC will.

So what? Do you have 1 ohm speakers? If you did (Apogee Scintillas,
for instance), you wouldn't use the ARC, since it's putting out the
equivalent voltage of a 35 watt SS amp! On the 1 ohm tap, the ARC will
put out a 'mighty' 280 watts, just the same as it does into 8 ohms. My
'50 watt' Krell KSA-50 mkII will put out 400 watts into 1 ohm.

If you're dumb enough to get into this kind of debate, it helps if you
actually understand how amps work.....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:22:13 -0500, "Powell"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote

snip quacking

Can't you cite just ONE example of a tube amp
outperforming a SS amp? No, you can't.

SPECIFICATIONS:
ARC REFERENCE 300MKII Power Amplifier

Somehow, one just knew that an ARC Reference
amp would pop out of the woodwork at this point! :-)

When tube quality counts except no substitutes .

When quality counts, accept no tubes...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

Nothing but silence since listing four "better than tube"
solid-state amplifiers from the suggested three "lousy"
companies.

So let's try a comparison with a cheap multichannel solid state
amp.
_______________________________________
Left Column:
Outlaw Audio 770 (solid state)
7 channels
Right Column:
Audio Research REF300MKII (tube)
Reference Monoblock
________________________________________

Output power, continous, all channels
7x300W 1x280W

Power Bandwidth (+0dB, -3dB)
5Hz to 100kHz 12Hz to 100kHz

Total Harmonic Distortion
typical 0.005% 0.05%
20-20k 0.050% 1.00%

Signal to Noise
119dB 110dB

Damping Factor
850 ~11

Power efficiency at rated output
78% 31%

Weight (per channel)
13 lbs 132 lbs

Size efficiency (cubic inches per channel)
340 4700

Cost per channel
$260 $15,000
________________________________________

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most parameters.


Did you check out the Behringer I posted a URL for a few days ago?

Maybe twice the power per channel for about 2/3 the price per
channel, as I
recall.

In article ,
"Rusty Boudreaux" scribbles:
I only speak for myself. Although, if tube amps were in the
mainstream we'd see them at retailers other than the odd high-end
shop.

If good amplifiers, period, were in the mainstream, we'd see more
solid state amps like Crowns and McIntoshes, as well as some nice tube
amps, sold by more retailers. Unfortunately, cheap junk is what
popular with the so-called mainstream.

BTW, how do you explain there being enough demand for the reproduction
MC2000, 50th anniversary, amp for McIntosh to have designed and
introduced the MC2102? Yes, consumer demand resulted in this.

No mainstream amplifier company uses tubes

McIntosh uses tubes.

No tube discussion in design related electronic magazines

That depends upon which magazines one reads.

No tube discussion in IEEE journals or conferences

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

IEEE Spectrum Cover story: "The Cool Sound of Tubes: One of the last
remaining tube domains is in music applications, but there the devices
flourish and even innovate", by Eric Barbour, August, 1998

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

My '50 watt' Krell KSA-50 mkII...

Somehow, one just knew that a Krell KSA-50 mkII
would pop out of the woodwork at this point!
Arny wrote: "There's no accounting for taste or the lack
of it, eh?"

If you're dumb enough to get into this kind of debate,
it helps if you actually understand how amps work.....................

Quack, quack, quack...

"Powell" wrote in message
...



Quack, quack, quack...




If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims
like a duck, it's Powell!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Powell" wrote in message
...
Won't drive 1 ohm loads... ARC will.

Wrong.

All of the listed SS amps are guaranteed stable into near short
circuit (around 100 milliohms). Efficiency and power output will
decrease when driving 1 ohm loads but they will still put out
more power at lower distortion than the ARC.

Wrong watts rating comparison (425 watts)... thanks
for proving my point.
Wrong watts rating comparison (360 watts)... thanks
for proving my point.

You were unable to show by an apple to apple
comparison (watts) to support your thesis.

Gee, is that the best argument you've got? Comparing a $30,000
tube amp to a $500 solid state amp is invalid because the tube
amp is too wimpy? Ridiculous!

My thesis was tube amps are not the pinnacle of technology in
audio amplification. I think that stands up pretty well.

360W is about 0.8dB higher gain and 425W is about 1.5dB higher
gain than 300W. Most people would consider this an irrelevant
difference in power anyway.

However, if you really want to dig a deeper hole we could list
less powerful amplifiers from the same companies and still toast
the ARC in performance.

But I guess you're right it's not a valid comparison since the SS
has more power, better frequency response, better power
bandwidth, lower distortion, higher DF, higher efficiency,
smaller size, less weight and costs 60 times less.

But like
Arny you attempted to twisted your findings in an
attempt to coverup the embarrassment, mr.

Um, I'm not embarrassed.

Shouldn't you be? Your suggested $30,000 "reference" tube amp
was toasted by several cheap SS amps in every parameter. We
didn't even stack the deck (like you did) with high-end SS amps.
Geesh, even a "lowly" PWM switching amplifier spanked that lousy
tube amp.

Just to reiterate: "There are areas where vacuum tubes are still
at the top. High power radio/tv transmitters, CRTs and
microwave ovens come to mind. Audio amps isn't one of them."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Did you check out the Behringer I posted a URL for a few days
ago?

Maybe twice the power per channel for about 2/3 the price per
channel, as I
recall.

Although it seems promising I didn't take time to check out the
Behringer.

Since Powell challenged with QSC, Hafler, and Crown I thought
those would be good places to start.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:ijgKb.64680$I07.280505@attbi_s53...
Nobody buys high fidelity tube amplifiers for their economy or
efficiency or
superior technical specs; they buy them because they feel they
sound better,
e.g.. more realistic.

I never said people couldn't design, buy or enjoy tube amps.

So what's the point of all this?

Powell started this thread to ridicule me. He didn't like it
when I said (and have now shown) tube amps are not the technical
leaders in the field of audio amplifiers.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

There you have it. The reference tube amp fails to equal the
SS
amp on any given parameter. Further, the reference tube amp
is
trounced by the cheap SS amp by a wide margin on most
parameters.

Yeah, but it has a thicker front panel! So there!

Hey, if you're a chubby-panel-chaser go for it!

"R. D. Davis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rusty Boudreaux" scribbles:
I only speak for myself. Although, if tube amps were in the
mainstream we'd see them at retailers other than the odd
high-end
shop.

If good amplifiers, period, were in the mainstream, we'd see
more
solid state amps like Crowns and McIntoshes, as well as some
nice tube
amps, sold by more retailers. Unfortunately, cheap junk is
what
popular with the so-called mainstream.

I agree there's a lot of junk out there. I doubt amplifier
seperates will ever be in the true mainstream. The performance
and value of amplified receivers is too compelling for most
consumers.

BTW, how do you explain there being enough demand for the
reproduction
MC2000, 50th anniversary, amp for McIntosh to have designed and
introduced the MC2102? Yes, consumer demand resulted in this.

I have no insight into McIntosh's product plans. Do you know
what the demand actually was for this amp? Product development
teams have to work on something.

No mainstream amplifier company uses tubes

McIntosh uses tubes.

According to Gartner/Dataquest McIntosh's share of the audio
amplifier market is less than 1%. I wouldn't call them
mainstream.

No tube discussion in design related electronic magazines

That depends upon which magazines one reads.

Design releated electronic magazines.

No tube discussion in IEEE journals or conferences

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

IEEE Spectrum Cover story: "The Cool Sound of Tubes: One of the
last
remaining tube domains is in music applications, but there the
devices
flourish and even innovate", by Eric Barbour, August, 1998

Spectrum is a technology information magazine, not a journal or
conference. The article is a writers' essay not a scientific
paper. The article does not claim tubes are technically superior
to solid state...just that some people enjoy the colorations of
tubes (like guitar amps). Note the title's emphasis on music,
not audio.

R. D. Davis wrote:


In article ,
"Rusty Boudreaux" scribbles:
I only speak for myself. Although, if tube amps were in the
mainstream we'd see them at retailers other than the odd high-end
shop.

If good amplifiers, period, were in the mainstream, we'd see more
solid state amps like Crowns and McIntoshes, as well as some nice tube
amps, sold by more retailers. Unfortunately, cheap junk is what
popular with the so-called mainstream.

BTW, how do you explain there being enough demand for the reproduction
MC2000, 50th anniversary, amp for McIntosh to have designed and
introduced the MC2102? Yes, consumer demand resulted in this.

No mainstream amplifier company uses tubes

McIntosh uses tubes.

As does Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, VTL, Cary, Jolida and some other
companies whose products have been purchased by audio hobbyists for a number of
years. All ot these companies are quite well established and have been in
business for qutie some time.


No tube discussion in design related electronic magazines

That depends upon which magazines one reads.

No tube discussion in IEEE journals or conferences

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

IEEE Spectrum Cover story: "The Cool Sound of Tubes: One of the last
remaining tube domains is in music applications, but there the devices
flourish and even innovate", by Eric Barbour, August, 1998

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:

All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.









Bruce J. Richman