"Fred Collins" wrote in message
om...
Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in
domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to
limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of
amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted
all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more affluent
American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use then (and
now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the quietest
portions clearly audible over an average residential noise floor-you
need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier. Alternatively, a
pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in order, anathema though
this may be, most people didn't really want to hear those cannon shots
all that loud anyway...

Since the music has already been through a compressor and limiter before it
got onto disk, neither a limiter or 10kW amplifier is necessary in the home.
Nor can you obtain 90+ dB dynamic range in any normal house, regardless of
amplifier size, without certain damage to your hearing.
Nor will many (any?) speakers handle 10kW, no matter how short the duration,
but most especially with those cannon shots!

TonyP.

Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely.

I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing
style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks,
backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the
opinions you hold!

I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared
up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand
some of the subjectivism in this hobby.

If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is
a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be
bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the
same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's
assertions.

I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube
amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please?

My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my
hand at a couple of his designs.

Regards,

Adam Drake.


Fred Collins wrote:
A large poor book written around a small fair one

High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone

As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this
book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space
to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and
denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these
worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade
forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility.

His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment
on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should
get any statements they make in writing!

If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate
heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or
Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is
somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible
than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of
solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which
many project-oriented hobbyists will lack.

However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of
solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually
design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state
versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O.
Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a
Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge
this document anywhere in this book, or in any other.

It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs
hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published
designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad
and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube
amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders
each year. I have built both and had success with both, and
surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube
obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book,
ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers
are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic
flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state
amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By
denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more
confrontational position, which does no one any good.


Was this review helpful to you?

I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this
thread.
I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I
wish to
toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the
audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be
reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible
speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two
factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this
accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most
recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress.



Jeff

Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely.

I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing
style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks,
backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the
opinions you hold!

I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared
up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand
some of the subjectivism in this hobby.

If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is
a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be
bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the
same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's
assertions.

I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube
amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please?

My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my
hand at a couple of his designs.

Regards,

Adam Drake.


Fred Collins wrote:
A large poor book written around a small fair one

High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone

As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this
book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space
to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and
denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these
worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade
forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility.

His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment
on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should
get any statements they make in writing!

If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate
heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or
Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is
somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible
than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of
solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which
many project-oriented hobbyists will lack.

However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of
solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually
design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state
versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O.
Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a
Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge
this document anywhere in this book, or in any other.

It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs
hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published
designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad
and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube
amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders
each year. I have built both and had success with both, and
surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube
obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book,
ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers
are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic
flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state
amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By
denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more
confrontational position, which does no one any good.


Was this review helpful to you?

I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this
thread.
I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I
wish to
toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the
audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be
reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible
speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two
factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this
accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most
recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress.



Jeff

Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely.

I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing
style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks,
backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the
opinions you hold!

I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared
up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand
some of the subjectivism in this hobby.

If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is
a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be
bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the
same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's
assertions.

I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube
amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please?

My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my
hand at a couple of his designs.

Regards,

Adam Drake.


Fred Collins wrote:
A large poor book written around a small fair one

High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone

As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this
book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space
to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and
denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these
worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade
forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility.

His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment
on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should
get any statements they make in writing!

If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate
heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or
Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is
somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible
than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of
solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which
many project-oriented hobbyists will lack.

However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of
solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually
design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state
versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O.
Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a
Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge
this document anywhere in this book, or in any other.

It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs
hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published
designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad
and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube
amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders
each year. I have built both and had success with both, and
surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube
obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book,
ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers
are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic
flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state
amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By
denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more
confrontational position, which does no one any good.


Was this review helpful to you?

I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this
thread.
I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I
wish to
toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the
audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be
reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible
speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two
factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this
accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most
recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress.



Jeff

Adam Drake wrote in message ...
Disagree entirely.

I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - I found Randy's writing
style very enjoyable; he pulls no punches and says what he thinks,
backed up, I felt, with justified opinions. Obviously, these are not the
opinions you hold!

I found his explanations of "tube" electronics very helpful - he cleared
up a number of misunderstandings in my mind and helped me to understand
some of the subjectivism in this hobby.

If you're interested in learning how to build solid-state amps, this is
a great book. I am a little confused with your comment that amps can be
bought for cheaper than the kits described in Slone's book (assuming the
same sonic quality) - this is in direct contradiction to Slone's
assertions.

I'd love to know where you get your facts regarding the number of tube
amps versus solid-state amps built in the US - source please?

My bottom line - a great book, well worth the read. I plan to try my
hand at a couple of his designs.

Regards,

Adam Drake.


Fred Collins wrote:
A large poor book written around a small fair one

High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction Manual; G.Randy Slone

As a DIY guide for building class-B solid state audio power amps, this
book has some merit. However, the author takes a great deal of space
to attack the high-end audio business, denigrate vacuum tubes, and
denounce "audio subjectivism". There are those who will consider these
worthy goals, but even they wil be disappointed in his eighth-grade
forensics as he sets up strawmen with little facility.

His foreword clearly brings to mind William Burroughs' famous comment
on which people, should one elect to do business with them, you should
get any statements they make in writing!

If for some reason you want to etch circuit boards and fabricate
heatsink assemblies to build a type of amp you can buy from Crown or
Peavey for less than the parts would cost a hobbyist, Slone's book is
somewhat useful. His presentation of the theory is less comprehensible
than that of Douglas Self, and assumes a reasonable amount of
solid-state theory and the basics of feedback and stability, which
many project-oriented hobbyists will lack.

However, there are numerous better works on the theory and practice of
solid-state amplification,should one wish to repair them or actually
design one, and any discussion of the respective merits of solid-state
versus tube amplifiers in audio service still starts with Russell O.
Hamm's definitive JAES paper, "Tubes versus Transistors: Is There a
Difference?". It's interesting that Slone does not cite or acknowledge
this document anywhere in this book, or in any other.

It's worth noting that although there are many solid state amp designs
hobby builders have constructed with excellent sonic reviews-published
designs by Nelson Pass and Norman Thagard as well as clones of Quad
and Krell commercial amps-probably twenty times as many tube
amplifiers as solid-state are constructed by American hobby builders
each year. I have built both and had success with both, and
surprisingly, having started in hobby construction as a hard-core tube
obsessive, I now think solid state has the edge. Slone's book,
ultimately, does the case of solid state little good. Tube amplifiers
are easier to build for most hobbyists, easier to fix, and their sonic
flaws are invariably more euphonic than those of solid state
amplifiers: solid state takes a lot more discipline to get right. By
denying these obvious facts, Slone puts tube buffs in an even more
confrontational position, which does no one any good.


Was this review helpful to you?

I must say I certainly am impressed with the debate included in this
thread.
I enjoyed reading it. I have Mr Sloans book and here is one point I
wish to
toss up for debate pg 33 #7 " Speaker cables seem to be in the
audiophile limelight these days. A good speaker cable should be
reasonbly rugged and capable of conducting the highest possible
speaker current with negligible resistive loss. Other than these two
factors, I find little else to discuss about speake cables ". Is this
accurate , I have seen some pretty impressive data on cables,the most
recent in the latest issue of Audioxpress.



Jeff

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message
om...

snip

Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in
domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to
limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of
amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted
all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more
affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use
then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the
quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise
floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier.
Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in
order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want
to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway...

I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a
test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume
is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier
anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would
be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier
couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material.

Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little
that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control
settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power
amplifier output terminals.

That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope,
Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test
CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my
CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at
12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD
player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain
setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together
guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C.

*A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering,
but I'm not going to split hairs.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message
om...

snip

Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in
domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to
limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of
amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted
all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more
affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use
then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the
quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise
floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier.
Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in
order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want
to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway...

I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a
test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume
is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier
anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would
be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier
couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material.

Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little
that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control
settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power
amplifier output terminals.

That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope,
Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test
CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my
CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at
12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD
player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain
setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together
guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C.

*A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering,
but I'm not going to split hairs.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message
om...

snip

Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in
domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to
limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of
amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted
all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more
affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use
then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the
quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise
floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier.
Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in
order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want
to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway...

I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a
test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume
is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier
anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would
be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier
couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material.

Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little
that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control
settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power
amplifier output terminals.

That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope,
Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test
CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my
CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at
12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD
player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain
setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together
guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C.

*A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering,
but I'm not going to split hairs.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Fred Collins" wrote in message
om...

snip

Mr. Krueger's statement that he does not abuse his amplifers in
domestic listening may mean that he listens exclusively to
limited-dynamic-range music or that he does in fact have 10 kW of
amplifier power in his living room. As McIntosh literature trumpeted
all through the eighties, given reasonable room sizes in more
affluent American's homes, the inefficient speakers in popular use
then (and now), and a desire to listen to orchestral music with the
quietest portions clearly audible over an average residential noise
floor-you need about 10 kW so as to never clip an amplifier.
Alternatively, a pair of Teletronix limiters will keep things in
order, anathema though this may be, most people didn't really want
to hear those cannon shots all that loud anyway...

I'd have to disagree with you here. Playing a full-scale tone from a
test CD, my 100 watt/channel stereo amplifier clips when the volume
is set to the 12:00 position (1/2 way up). I *never* run my amplifier
anywhere near that high with any normal program material -- it would
be far too loud. With the volume set to less than 1/2, my amplifier
couldn't possibly be clipping with any kind of program material.

Unfortunately this argument has problems of its own. There is very little
that can be reliably determined from casual observation of volume control
settings. The right thing to do is to measure the waveforms at the power
amplifier output terminals.

That's exactly what I did. I have all of the usual test gear: Oscilloscope,
Noise/Distortion Analyzer, Low Distortion Sine Wave Generator, various test
CDs. I happen to know that a full scale 1000 Hz digital test signal from my
CD player clips at the output, under load, with the gain set precisely at
12:00. Digital full scale is the highest output ever attainable from the CD
player under any normal circumstances*, and 12:00 is a *much* higher gain
setting than I *ever* use, even for loud SPL. Those two taken together
guarantee the amplifier never clips. If A B and B C then A C.

*A full scale square wave might have a little overshoot due to filtering,
but I'm not going to split hairs.

Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid
state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra
Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier.

Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid
state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra
Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier.

Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid
state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra
Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier.

Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

If Mac coupled their autoformers and Power Guard to modern solid
state mechanical and device design and got rid of the meters-"Viagra
Goggles"-they'd have a pretty good amplifier.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

TonyP.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

TonyP.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

TonyP.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

TonyP.

"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high
dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar
OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to
wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid
Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other
expensive tube amps used.

"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high
dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar
OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to
wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid
Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other
expensive tube amps used.

"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high
dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar
OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to
wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid
Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other
expensive tube amps used.

"TonyP" wrote in message u...
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Tube amps are a lot easier to build and they usually are cheaper to
fix when they blow up. Solid state ones if designed correctly are more
reliable, but when they go they go catastrophically as do your
drivers. No SS speaker-protection technology is as reliable as a god
output transformer-why McIntosh still uses them.

Since the cost of a set of output transistors is usually less than one valve
these days, and don't slowly degrade over time, it's hardly something to
worry about.
Now lets consider the cost of that "god" output transformer!!!!!
That's why Mac valve amps are bloody expensive. :-)

Matched N and P channel semi's aren't cheap, and Mac amps are high
dollar because of the perception of the buyer. The bifilar or trifilar
OPT, and later the autoformers, are substantially less expensive to
wind than the old UTC Linear Standards and Peerlesses-and the Sid
Smith reverse-engineered Fairchilds used in the Marantzes-that other
expensive tube amps used.