Been there done that. http://home.kimo.com.tw/ax_hifi/5842_300b.htm


Adam

Anonymous wrote in
:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute


Can anyone tell me why posts from this clown don't have word wrap? Seems to
be only this one....

"Geoff C" wrote in message
...
Can anyone tell me why posts from this clown don't show up? Seems to
be all of them....

(To paraphrase your quote)

It's called a killfile...

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Tim Williams" wrote in news:10p5seogdnl0de1
@corp.supernews.com:

"Geoff C" wrote in message
...
Can anyone tell me why posts from this clown don't show up? Seems to
be all of them....

(To paraphrase your quote)

It's called a killfile...

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms




plonked, done.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:21:04 +0000, Geoff C wrote:

Anonymous wrote in
:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute


Can anyone tell me why posts from this clown don't have word wrap? Seems
to be only this one....

Hmmm... perhaps its a windows/OE thing? It wraps fine on Thunderbird
running on this linux box. Have you got word wrap switched on?

Not much point in me following Andre with prices like that! :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:52:42 +0100, Anonymous wrote:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Yo, Mick!

Great to discover the Curmudgeons of Negativity have not driven you off
yet.


Hi Andre!
Nope, they haven't got rid of me yet!
(block your delicate ears for this: currently listening to MP3s via
single-ended 6L6s... grin)


I look forward to hearing from you, Mick. And from Iain and Carroll and
everyone else who wants to contribute positively.


I'll certainly be watching with interest. I just hope that the project
doesn't get sunk in negative argument...

I'll forgive you for the lack of apostrophies!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Anonymous wrote:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Yo, Mick!

Great to discover the Curmudgeons of Negativity have not driven you off yet.

You're much too generous. Just call 'em assholes (like I do) and get on with things.We are designing a 417A-300B amp to be superior to all known designsfor my preferred speakers, in my room (when inhabited by my cat and me)

The Lord is confident that the esteemed Mr. Jute will have taken the
sonic absorptive/reflective properties of his (may I say) fuzzy familiar
into account when tweaking the design; the Devil is, after all, in the
details. Perhaps an alternative tweak will be offered for afficionados
who are not cat fanciers? (Redbone Coonhounds, X2, 57 and 88
pounds respectively. They, er...hate cats. Sorry. ;-)

Lord Valve
Houndsman

Geoff C wrote in
:

Anonymous wrote in
:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute


Can anyone tell me why posts from this clown don't have word wrap?
Seems to be only this one....


Tis the great Irish carriage return famine to be sure
M

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:52:42 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
wrote:

I was most amused by those who think that because a 5842-300B
stands somewhere else on the net,
here is no need for another. If they already have the T-shirt (1),
they can use the time they save by not reading me to write something
useful, clever and informative to send us. When it is over, well send them
our T-shirt. It will carry the legend, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
Among the interesting details will be several in the power supply that
will give the amp I am designing here a completely different sonic signature,
in fact a choice of multiple different signatures, when compared to the one
on the net they try to put forward as the final word, carved in stone. One of
these details is a major money and space saver for those who want to do
ultra-fi without paying big bucks for a bridge of rectifier tubes and
custom power supplies.

Anyone possessed of more than two brain cells will of course realise
that if this amp really were 'ultra-fi', then IT WOULD NOT HAVE A
SONIC SIGNATURE!!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Anyone possessed of more than two brain cells will of course realise
that if this amp really were 'ultra-fi', then IT WOULD NOT HAVE A
SONIC SIGNATURE!!

Troll. At least mr. Jute builds his own valve amps.
You buy overpriced solid state stuff.
I suggest you return to uk.rec.audio, where they are sensible.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

mick wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:21:04 +0000, Geoff C wrote:

Anonymous wrote in
:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute


Can anyone tell me why posts from this clown don't have word wrap? Seems
to be only this one....

Hmmm... perhaps its a windows/OE thing? It wraps fine on Thunderbird
running on this linux box. Have you got word wrap switched on?

Not much point in me following Andre with prices like that! :-)

I have Netscape 4.7, and I have no problem with
Andre's posts.
I tried Thunderbird, but went straight back to the ancient nutscrape.
( Firefox is a beaut website browser though )
His posts appear to occupy the width of my 17" monitor,
and I don't have to scroll sideways.

If you want the best sound from a 300B, some expense is required.

Why would anyone spend only half what he says,
and end up with something that one might always know could have been
so much better made.

Basically, do it right, or not at all.

I have seen and heard too many cheap kits that ppl have put together,
only for the owner to discover that the sound is no better than
their existing cheap Sony or Pineer POS.

BTW, I know a guy of 22 who started with a solid state amp set
which cost a pretty penny from a maker here in Oz.
He wasn't quite happy with the sound, especially on female vocals,
so after trialing his SS preamp with a tube power amp here
he soon found that a tube pre was better than the SS.
Then a week or two later he trialed a ValveMark 300B amp set,
and he tried my pre in place of the SS pre, and he concluded the 8 watt SET
tube power amps
were definately better than the SS 100 watt amps he'd just bought.
He was reluctant to make the change to tubes, since he was going to loose on
the deal because
anything bought brand new deprciates about 50% on the way out of the shop.
He'd also bought VAF I-66 speakers, a 3 way dynamic model of some reputed
excellence; certainly they were good enough to discern amp differences.

2 years later a customer of mine wanted to upgrade his VAF DC-X speakers to
the I-66,
and I suggested he vist the guy with a pair, and this he did the next evening.

Guess what? this guy had dumped his SS and switched to a 300B amp.
Not Valve Mark, something supposedly better.
And the Valve Mark only had standard el-cheapo chinese 300B tubes.

I had the opportunity to repair a ValveMark after a fellow
bought one here and he had some travel damage since it was sent
by truck from Perth, a long way from here.

The OPT used was *very* good, and there were plenty of chokes for filtering.
I can't say anything else praisworthy about the amp because it seems it was
an early model, maybe a prototype, being sold off cheap,
since ValveMark are now closed down.
The wiring inside, and general construction was so bad thet wires had come
unsoldered and
two chokes had come adrift in the case, and I had to re-wire the whole darn
amp
to get it to stay together, and stop humming.
The parts quality was standard Radio Shack, Dick Smith, Jaycar garbage.
The gain pot was a $3 asian ****e quality, so poorly matched for level between
the channels
that the owner insisted I replace it with an Alps Black, standard fare in ARC,
etc,
and worth the aud $70 I pay here.
The later models which I heard used with the I-66 above were much better
quality,
but still had the chinese tubes.

So who said you couldn't use a 300B to drive 90 dB/W/M speakers?

Maybe someone who is deaf.

If you were going to build a harpsicord, you wouldn't use cheap wood would
you?

Patrick Turner.



--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:13 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Anyone possessed of more than two brain cells will of course realise
that if this amp really were 'ultra-fi', then IT WOULD NOT HAVE A
SONIC SIGNATURE!!

Troll. At least mr. Jute builds his own valve amps.
As have I - but now I am a man, I put away childish things.... :-)
Besides, I wasn't talking to Andre, but to this anonymous clown.

You buy overpriced solid state stuff.
I also build it, and I'm interested to see Andre's design process at
work.

I suggest you return to uk.rec.audio, where they are sensible.
So, they're not sensible on RAT? :-)
I suggest you keep it zipped until you can say something sensible.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:18:55 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
wrote:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Anyone possessed of more than two brain cells will of course realise
that if this amp really were ultra-fi, then IT WOULD NOT HAVE A
SONIC SIGNATURE!!

Troll. At least mr. Jute builds his own valve amps.
You buy overpriced solid state stuff.
I suggest you return to uk.rec.audio, where they are sensible.

I dunno why Pinkerton feels he has to shout. Does he think we are stupid?

Oh, not all of you, to be sure, to be sure..................

But he has half a point.

The only amp that has no sonic signature, that faithfully follows the input, would
not be high-fidelity or ultra-fidelity, it would be fidelity, no qualification.

The term 'high fidelity' has been adequate for many years, no need to
make up new terms.

It follows logically that in our striving for the grail of fidelity, while we do not achieve it,
we shall have to arrange the shortfall in the most pleasing manner. That is a cultural choice.

We could alternatively choose to go what you call the 'fidelity'
route, and use SS, but that's a matter for another forum.

My understanding is that culture is an alien concept to many whose sole distinction is
that they are able to pay for very expensive solid state heatsinks.

Much cheaper than a 300B, dear boy! :-)
And I thought you were trying to keep this thread polite, so why the
snide reference to culture being exclusive to valvies?

I further understand that if in addition they are hangers-on of engineering, their love
affair with measuring instruments can take on obsessive proportions.

Ah, so you propose to design this amplifier without the use of load
lines and other useful engineering measurements? Interesting.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:18:55 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
wrote:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Anyone possessed of more than two brain cells will of course realise
that if this amp really were ultra-fi, then IT WOULD NOT HAVE A
SONIC SIGNATURE!!

Troll. At least mr. Jute builds his own valve amps.
You buy overpriced solid state stuff.
I suggest you return to uk.rec.audio, where they are sensible.

I dunno why Pinkerton feels he has to shout. Does he think we are stupid?

Oh, not all of you, to be sure, to be sure..................

I dare not ask who you do think is stupid, but it was impolite to insinuate
that at least one of us present here may not have had more than 3 brain cells.


But he has half a point.

The only amp that has no sonic signature, that faithfully follows the input, would
not be high-fidelity or ultra-fidelity, it would be fidelity, no qualification.

The term 'high fidelity' has been adequate for many years, no need to
make up new terms.

"fidelity" is just that, is it not?
Where is the newness in the term?

People have used added adjectives, like hyper, super, high, medium, low, bleedin' awful,
etc, all before the word "fidelity".
What they meant could only have had meaning in a context.

There were companies here who once made high, medium, and low fidelity
output transformers. Hardly anyone bought the more expensive poofy
high fidelity ones, there were six hungry kids to feed at home....

Does a Halcro amp with 0.0001% thd at 200 watts define your idea of fidelity?
If you build an SS amp with 0.01%, does the Halco amp
make what you built 100 times lower fidelity?
a 300B amp would be 1,000 times worse, or be graced with a -60 dB fidelity rating.

Are not such arguments a lotta bull****?

The folks I deal with know fidelity when they hear it.


It follows logically that in our striving for the grail of fidelity, while we do not achieve it,
we shall have to arrange the shortfall in the most pleasing manner. That is a cultural choice.

We could alternatively choose to go what you call the 'fidelity'
route, and use SS, but that's a matter for another forum.

No reason why you couldn't take us all on a guided tour through the design
process for a solid state amp.

Perhaps you'd like to start a new public news group
called rec.audio.solid state

I am entirely re-building a Phase Linear 700B at this moment,
and if I can get it to sound at least as good as a Musical Fidelity
amp I have heard, I will be reasonably happy.
Its even got LC input filtering, regulated driver amp rails,
soon to be fitted with shunt regged output rails,
to save the use of the bleeder resistors.
I'm using 10 power transistors per channel, late model
types, and with 40 watts of idle dissipation.
I just tested a channel today, and so far so good,
as Douglas Self says, its blameless....
Not quite as elaborate as the Self driver amp circuitry, which I think is a bit
excessively complex, but it appears to work well in terms of engineering.

I doubt it will have the sonic appeal that a tube amp offers.
I doubt its possible to design into SS whatever it is that tubes offer, and that isn't
due purely to boring old measurements.
I think you have to build a few amps of both types to know.

I recently sold tube amps to the guy with the MF amp.
The MF amp will become his sub-woofer amp.




My understanding is that culture is an alien concept to many whose sole distinction is
that they are able to pay for very expensive solid state heatsinks.

Much cheaper than a 300B, dear boy! :-)

Huh?

Last time I bought decent heatsinks, they were damned expensive.

I make some of my own though, cost is mainly my time, and a few bolts.


And I thought you were trying to keep this thread polite, so why the
snide reference to culture being exclusive to valvies?

Gees, I thought the die hard SS blokes reckoned thay were the only ones with culture,
being the keepers of the state of the art devices for the use of listening to music....



I further understand that if in addition they are hangers-on of engineering, their love
affair with measuring instruments can take on obsessive proportions.

Ah, so you propose to design this amplifier without the use of load
lines and other useful engineering measurements? Interesting.

Stay tuned, I am sure when the wheel has fully turned on its journey,
it will have visited load lines, and other entirely adequate engineering ideas.

Patrick Turner.


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

AFAIK the problem with a 300B is that it has a very low gain and a
relatively high input capacitance, therefore it requires a driver providing
a high voltage swing and a fairly low output impedance. The 417 used with
an RC coupling will surely perform adequately, but (I'd say) only if full
power is not a goal. From the plate curves, max. power should be obtained
at about 5k anode load, with 450V anode voltage and 80-85 mA, corresponding
to appr. -95V bias, - 190V p-p at least should be needed to get 10W. It
seems a bit too much for a single triode in RC coupling. Surely, with
efficient speakers 5-6W would be enough and the driving voltage will reduce
quite a bit. I thought of other tubes, but after all the 300B is easy to
find and not too expensive (plain Sovteks or JJ do their job without costing
mega-$); when used conservatively it will last for years.
I don't know how it will sound, but it is a SENSIBLE project: there's so few
that can go wrong in it.
As per the 417 (which is rare here): on this side of the Ocean it is
probably easier to get an EC86, which is not the same tube but not very
different. The Russian 6S45P could be another low-cost solution.




"Anonymous" ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..
KISS 101 by Andre Jute
This text is copyright Andre Jute 2004 and may not be reproduced except in
the thread KISS xxx on rec.audio.tubes
THE VOLTAGES IN THIS AMP WILL KILL YOU. GET EXPERIENCED SUPERVISION IF IT
IS YOUR FIRST TUBE AMP.

INTRODUCTION

This is a project to design an ultra-fi tube amp on the net. The project
is aimed at the rawest newcomers to amps. Anyone can pitch in but keep it
simple, keep it on topic, and leave the personalities off so the threads
do not degenerate into another flame war.

The amp will be a two-stage resistance capacitance (RC) coupled 300B. The
intention is not to build a cheap amp. I shall be designing and building
my copy with parts I have to hand, which were selected for sonic glee
rather than by price. Those who read audiophile newsgroups may consider my
mix of outrageously expensive and good value parts bizarre. Ive written
about classical music since I was a teenager, Im a constant concert goer,
the rest of my audio chain is best quality gear, I have good test and
measuring gear when I want to supplement my ears, I have access to
world-class professional musicians to play live for me as a test against
their disks, and I have designed and built quite a few amps, so when I say
a component is chosen for sonic reasons, I dont mean because it is cheap
or sounds like a boombox.

The amp will be simple enough to be adapted to parts you have on hand or
can afford to order. The idea for those who are absolutely new to the
hobby is to swap in parts until you are happy with the sound and then to
start changing the design of the amp until youre happier still. It is not
my amp, it is yours. Do what you please as long as you take the usual
safety precautions.

GENERAL TOPOLOGY

The official name of this amp is the Real McCoy Type 39 Mk VI Amplifier
The Tradition because it is the 39th hi-fi design I drew and the sixth
major topological iteration or significantly variant design group based on
the original in the ten or twelve years since. Its short name, The
Tradition is obvious as it will be a very traditional design. I have
built this amp many times in different versions, so I know where the
design process will arrive. But we shall take it stepwise all the same, so
that you can design something else with the calculated steps. Im going to
shorthand both the product we design and the process The KISS Amp. KISS
stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Where we shall arrive is at a 417A driver resistance capacitance (CR)
coupled to a 300B power tube which is output transformer (OPT TRX) coupled
to the loudspeaker. The signal section will be sensitive enough to
constitute a linestage taking its signal directly from most CDs without a
preamp. The output will be enough to drive sensitive speakers.

The power supply will be tube rectified, choke input.

Whether such an amp is high-level hi-fi or ultra-fi depends on the quality
of the components selected, and on the layout and construction. It will
have zero negative feedback and will operate strictly in class A1, never
drawing grid current or approaching cutoff under any condition of
operation. It will, if you build it with my recommended components and
values, be utterly silent, with a pleasing harmonic distribution.

GETTING STARTED: WHY WE START DESIGNING AN AMP AT THE SPEAKER

The problem with designing a good audio component is that it requires
thought about matters we are inclined to take for granted. Ask yourself,
What is an audiophile, and what is his relationship to his amplifier?

An audiophile is a man who listens to music. The music comes on some sort
of a disk and is played on some sort of a speaker.

The source is usually the most easily changed component. It is often the
one on which the audiophile has the least choice and over which he
exercises the least control. In the case of the CD, it is also the one on
which for almost any amount of money over a not very high minimum the
return will be disappointing. For the purposes of The KISS Amp we shall
assume the music arrives at the amplifier from either a pre-amp or a CD
player capable of putting out 2Vrms. Most CD players can, and most preamps
put out much more voltage.

The most important element of an entire audio chain is the loudspeakers.
It is the loudspeaker which interacts directly with the listener. If the
loudspeakers are poor, the finest source and amp in the world will not
make the music sound good. We are about to design an expensive amp. My
best advice is that your speakers should cost at least as much as your amp
and possibly more. With the exception of some novelties, every single pair
of my speakers cost at least twice what my most expensive amp cost to
build. Even my commercial amps are all cheaper than my speakers. The
purpose of DIY audio is to let you build hi-fi of caviar quality on a
hamburger budget. The amp we will be designing and building in a shop will
cost you between twelve and fifty thousand American dollars you can easily
build a version of it that will come very near for under a thousand
dollars.

The thoughtful audiophile therefore chooses his speakers first, then his
sources and only then does he build the link, his amp. That is the answer
to my question, a real audiophile has no relationship to his amp unless he
is the sort of person who tells people what his Rolex cost or has a
nodding dog in his car to distinguish it from all the other family sedans.
He relates to his speakers. Practically, you need to know how many watts
your speakers require to drive them before you can decide anything
whatsoever about the amp.

It is generally accepted that the best loudspeakers use point-source,
full-range drivers rather than multiple drivers. Coaxial cones are
point-sources and the Quad electrostatics mimic a point source extremely
effectively.

The speakers we shall design for are horns with 8in drivers of about
100dB. Specifically, we are designing for Lowther PM6A fitted to Fidelio
type bicor cabinets. You can buy drivers and cabinet-wood and build them
yourself for a huge saving off the ten grand plus dollar price of a pair
delivered at your door. I built mine. The amp will also drive horns with
similar Fostex and other drivers, and of course smaller horns and Voigt
pipes. I shall also publish a high-sensitivity loudspeaker design called
The Impresario (because I created it for a music promoter to use in his
office) which uses a universally available guitar fullrange coaxial driver
and so can be very inexpensively built. (Yeah, youre absolutely right.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. It will turn out to be a big
speaker even if economical and easy to build.)

Finally, by simply selecting a different output transformer (OPT TRX) or
wiring up the one I recommend differently, the amplifier will be suitable
to drive speakers of a sensitivity of 93-96dB.

Single 300B are not suitable to driving speakers under 90db sensitivity
though I have used a pair in parallel single-ended (PSE) to drive Quad
ESL-63 which are around 85dB sensitive with surprising results.

NEXT PART:
How much power will our amp require?

/5

Fabio Berutti wrote:

AFAIK the problem with a 300B is that it has a very low gain and a
relatively high input capacitance, therefore it requires a driver providing
a high voltage swing and a fairly low output impedance. The 417 used with
an RC coupling will surely perform adequately, but (I'd say) only if full
power is not a goal. From the plate curves, max. power should be obtained
at about 5k anode load, with 450V anode voltage and 80-85 mA, corresponding
to appr. -95V bias, - 190V p-p at least should be needed to get 10W. It
seems a bit too much for a single triode in RC coupling. Surely, with
efficient speakers 5-6W would be enough and the driving voltage will reduce
quite a bit. I thought of other tubes, but after all the 300B is easy to
find and not too expensive (plain Sovteks or JJ do their job without costing
mega-$); when used conservatively it will last for years.
I don't know how it will sound, but it is a SENSIBLE project: there's so few
that can go wrong in it.
As per the 417 (which is rare here): on this side of the Ocean it is
probably easier to get an EC86, which is not the same tube but not very
different. The Russian 6S45P could be another low-cost solution.

The bias situation you outline is a bit high for most 300B, unless you get
Vaic types, which have higher rated Pd.
450v x 80 mA is 36 watts, and I would be happier with 32 watts,
so 400v x 80mA to me may be better.
The load for maximum power is lower than 5k,
but as we all know, speakers can have a drop in their impedance below the
nominal, so the amp should be able to cope with a lower than ideal load value
without having a perilous increase in distortion.
With 5k, one gets about 176vrms at the anode, to make 6.2watts.
The reaction of the amp to load swings way above nominal, especially
as bass frequencies is also an issue, but the low Ro of the triode amp
copes best.
Stories abound that 300B amps have great midrange, and shy bass and treble.
I wouldn't agree that is generally true, because the samples I have heard
must have have had decent OPTs, with wide BW, because they seemed to have
a good balance between bass, mid and treble, and the measurements indicate
they were fine.

If I was going to use horns, as Andre suggests we should, then
the power needed will be so low that any discussion of distortion spoiling the
sound is irrelevant.

If the gain was as low as about 4, only 44 vrms is needed to power the tube.

Contrary to what you said above about capacitance, the 300B isn't too difficult
to drive,
since its miller C is quite low, because gain is low.

Almost all driver triodes will be able to make 50 vrms without too much bother.

I have used a paralleled 6CG7 to drive 300B, just normal RC coupling,
but its gain is only 17, so the input voltage needed is 2.6 volts, and most
folks
start thinking of another stage, so it ain't simple any more.

Something with a U of over 30 *and* with an Ra less than 2k,
ie, with a Gm of more than 15 mA/V would be ideal.

I have not used anything more exotic than a 6CG7 for a driver for
300b, but I am sure others will weigh in with what they think sounds the best.

The 5k seen by the triode is an arbitary figure, and all we ever wanted was 2
watts
because we have horns, then having a 5k to 5ohms OPT ratio might be OK,
and since the transformed Ra of the triode appears as 0.8 ohms at the secondary.

If the OPT winding resistance totals 0.8 ohms, the total Ro = 1.6 ohms,
and that may give you a good enough damping factor if there were no huge dips
in speaker Z below 5 ohms.
With horns, even a 10k to 5 ohm tranny is OK,
and then the main component of the output R is the winding resistance
which is difficult to get below 10% of the nominal load value, especially
for an SE designe with a lot of DC in the primary winding.

Andre has far more experience with horns, so let's see what he says about power
needs.

Most people have no horn speakers, and may not want the added complexity
of building a pair; that would disobey the KISS principle for them.

But as I said in another post, I know a dude who has a pair of VAF speakers,
model I-66, seen at

http://www.vaf.com.au/new_home.htm?c...sig_series.htm

These are rated at 89 dB/W/M, and I know someone who uses a 300B amp to drive
them.
I wouldn't expect what has been said about the sonic marvels of horn speakers
and 300B amps
would also apply to using far less sensitive speakers.

I have stood beside a grand piano on stage when a series of players tested this
new model
made in Oz which the local School of Music just purchased, and I have heard some
particulary
difficult music played with gusto, and I have asked myself what sort of sound
system reproduces *this*?

But if you sit 40 feet away, as one does at a a concert hall, the SPL is a lot
lower, and the 300B could do it.

Someone else uses Tannoys made in 1969, 95 dB efficient, and another
has Altec Lansings, also sensitive.

Patrick Turner.









"Anonymous" ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..
KISS 101 by Andre Jute
This text is copyright Andre Jute 2004 and may not be reproduced except in
the thread KISS xxx on rec.audio.tubes
THE VOLTAGES IN THIS AMP WILL KILL YOU. GET EXPERIENCED SUPERVISION IF IT
IS YOUR FIRST TUBE AMP.

INTRODUCTION

This is a project to design an ultra-fi tube amp on the net. The project
is aimed at the rawest newcomers to amps. Anyone can pitch in but keep it
simple, keep it on topic, and leave the personalities off so the threads
do not degenerate into another flame war.

The amp will be a two-stage resistance capacitance (RC) coupled 300B. The
intention is not to build a cheap amp. I shall be designing and building
my copy with parts I have to hand, which were selected for sonic glee
rather than by price. Those who read audiophile newsgroups may consider my
mix of outrageously expensive and good value parts bizarre. Ive written
about classical music since I was a teenager, Im a constant concert goer,
the rest of my audio chain is best quality gear, I have good test and
measuring gear when I want to supplement my ears, I have access to
world-class professional musicians to play live for me as a test against
their disks, and I have designed and built quite a few amps, so when I say
a component is chosen for sonic reasons, I dont mean because it is cheap
or sounds like a boombox.

The amp will be simple enough to be adapted to parts you have on hand or
can afford to order. The idea for those who are absolutely new to the
hobby is to swap in parts until you are happy with the sound and then to
start changing the design of the amp until youre happier still. It is not
my amp, it is yours. Do what you please as long as you take the usual
safety precautions.

GENERAL TOPOLOGY

The official name of this amp is the Real McCoy Type 39 Mk VI Amplifier
The Tradition because it is the 39th hi-fi design I drew and the sixth
major topological iteration or significantly variant design group based on
the original in the ten or twelve years since. Its short name, The
Tradition is obvious as it will be a very traditional design. I have
built this amp many times in different versions, so I know where the
design process will arrive. But we shall take it stepwise all the same, so
that you can design something else with the calculated steps. Im going to
shorthand both the product we design and the process The KISS Amp. KISS
stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Where we shall arrive is at a 417A driver resistance capacitance (CR)
coupled to a 300B power tube which is output transformer (OPT TRX) coupled
to the loudspeaker. The signal section will be sensitive enough to
constitute a linestage taking its signal directly from most CDs without a
preamp. The output will be enough to drive sensitive speakers.

The power supply will be tube rectified, choke input.

Whether such an amp is high-level hi-fi or ultra-fi depends on the quality
of the components selected, and on the layout and construction. It will
have zero negative feedback and will operate strictly in class A1, never
drawing grid current or approaching cutoff under any condition of
operation. It will, if you build it with my recommended components and
values, be utterly silent, with a pleasing harmonic distribution.

GETTING STARTED: WHY WE START DESIGNING AN AMP AT THE SPEAKER

The problem with designing a good audio component is that it requires
thought about matters we are inclined to take for granted. Ask yourself,
What is an audiophile, and what is his relationship to his amplifier?

An audiophile is a man who listens to music. The music comes on some sort
of a disk and is played on some sort of a speaker.

The source is usually the most easily changed component. It is often the
one on which the audiophile has the least choice and over which he
exercises the least control. In the case of the CD, it is also the one on
which for almost any amount of money over a not very high minimum the
return will be disappointing. For the purposes of The KISS Amp we shall
assume the music arrives at the amplifier from either a pre-amp or a CD
player capable of putting out 2Vrms. Most CD players can, and most preamps
put out much more voltage.

The most important element of an entire audio chain is the loudspeakers.
It is the loudspeaker which interacts directly with the listener. If the
loudspeakers are poor, the finest source and amp in the world will not
make the music sound good. We are about to design an expensive amp. My
best advice is that your speakers should cost at least as much as your amp
and possibly more. With the exception of some novelties, every single pair
of my speakers cost at least twice what my most expensive amp cost to
build. Even my commercial amps are all cheaper than my speakers. The
purpose of DIY audio is to let you build hi-fi of caviar quality on a
hamburger budget. The amp we will be designing and building in a shop will
cost you between twelve and fifty thousand American dollars you can easily
build a version of it that will come very near for under a thousand
dollars.

The thoughtful audiophile therefore chooses his speakers first, then his
sources and only then does he build the link, his amp. That is the answer
to my question, a real audiophile has no relationship to his amp unless he
is the sort of person who tells people what his Rolex cost or has a
nodding dog in his car to distinguish it from all the other family sedans.
He relates to his speakers. Practically, you need to know how many watts
your speakers require to drive them before you can decide anything
whatsoever about the amp.

It is generally accepted that the best loudspeakers use point-source,
full-range drivers rather than multiple drivers. Coaxial cones are
point-sources and the Quad electrostatics mimic a point source extremely
effectively.

The speakers we shall design for are horns with 8in drivers of about
100dB. Specifically, we are designing for Lowther PM6A fitted to Fidelio
type bicor cabinets. You can buy drivers and cabinet-wood and build them
yourself for a huge saving off the ten grand plus dollar price of a pair
delivered at your door. I built mine. The amp will also drive horns with
similar Fostex and other drivers, and of course smaller horns and Voigt
pipes. I shall also publish a high-sensitivity loudspeaker design called
The Impresario (because I created it for a music promoter to use in his
office) which uses a universally available guitar fullrange coaxial driver
and so can be very inexpensively built. (Yeah, youre absolutely right.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. It will turn out to be a big
speaker even if economical and easy to build.)

Finally, by simply selecting a different output transformer (OPT TRX) or
wiring up the one I recommend differently, the amplifier will be suitable
to drive speakers of a sensitivity of 93-96dB.

Single 300B are not suitable to driving speakers under 90db sensitivity
though I have used a pair in parallel single-ended (PSE) to drive Quad
ESL-63 which are around 85dB sensitive with surprising results.

NEXT PART:
How much power will our amp require?

/5

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:30:49 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:18:55 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
wrote:

KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Anyone possessed of more than two brain cells will of course realise
that if this amp really were ultra-fi, then IT WOULD NOT HAVE A
SONIC SIGNATURE!!

Troll. At least mr. Jute builds his own valve amps.
You buy overpriced solid state stuff.
I suggest you return to uk.rec.audio, where they are sensible.

I dunno why Pinkerton feels he has to shout. Does he think we are stupid?

Oh, not all of you, to be sure, to be sure..................

I dare not ask who you do think is stupid, but it was impolite to insinuate
that at least one of us present here may not have had more than 3 brain cells.

OK, I'll grant Sander de Waall maybe a couple of dozen, OK?

But he has half a point.

The only amp that has no sonic signature, that faithfully follows the input, would
not be high-fidelity or ultra-fidelity, it would be fidelity, no qualification.

The term 'high fidelity' has been adequate for many years, no need to
make up new terms.

"fidelity" is just that, is it not?
Where is the newness in the term?

In this context, it is not used in isolation, but always with the
'high' qualifier

People have used added adjectives, like hyper, super, high, medium, low, bleedin' awful,
etc, all before the word "fidelity".
What they meant could only have had meaning in a context.

There were companies here who once made high, medium, and low fidelity
output transformers. Hardly anyone bought the more expensive poofy
high fidelity ones, there were six hungry kids to feed at home....

Does a Halcro amp with 0.0001% thd at 200 watts define your idea of fidelity?

It does, if overkill is your thing! :-)

If you build an SS amp with 0.01%, does the Halco amp
make what you built 100 times lower fidelity?
a 300B amp would be 1,000 times worse, or be graced with a -60 dB fidelity rating.

Nope, if sonically transparent, i.e. the output sounds exactly like a
bigger version of the input, then all three would qualify as 'high
fidelity' ampliffiers. Ultra-fi is a conceit of the so-called 'high
end' whose amplifiers are often not even properly high fidelity......

Are not such arguments a lotta bull****?

More than likely.

The folks I deal with know fidelity when they hear it.

How do they know?

It follows logically that in our striving for the grail of fidelity, while we do not achieve it,
we shall have to arrange the shortfall in the most pleasing manner. That is a cultural choice.

We could alternatively choose to go what you call the 'fidelity'
route, and use SS, but that's a matter for another forum.

No reason why you couldn't take us all on a guided tour through the design
process for a solid state amp.

Indeed, but why bother? ASfdter all, this is thee wrong forum, and I
can buy a good SS amp for less than I'd pay for a one-off set of
parts!

Perhaps you'd like to start a new public news group
called rec.audio.solid state

No need, as it's the default option in all the other audio newsgroups.

I am entirely re-building a Phase Linear 700B at this moment,
and if I can get it to sound at least as good as a Musical Fidelity
amp I have heard, I will be reasonably happy.
Its even got LC input filtering, regulated driver amp rails,
soon to be fitted with shunt regged output rails,
to save the use of the bleeder resistors.

Shunt regged? Wow, I hope you can afford hefty power bills! :-)

I'm using 10 power transistors per channel, late model
types, and with 40 watts of idle dissipation.
I just tested a channel today, and so far so good,
as Douglas Self says, its blameless....
Not quite as elaborate as the Self driver amp circuitry, which I think is a bit
excessively complex, but it appears to work well in terms of engineering.

I do like Doug's 'blameless' term, but it's perhaps a little twee!

I doubt it will have the sonic appeal that a tube amp offers.
I doubt its possible to design into SS whatever it is that tubes offer, and that isn't
due purely to boring old measurements.
I think you have to build a few amps of both types to know.

I agree that it's virtually impossible to get 'valve sound' from a SS
amp, despite many people having tried. If you *really* like valve
sound, accept no substitute!

I recently sold tube amps to the guy with the MF amp.
The MF amp will become his sub-woofer amp.

Hmmm, that seems a bit of a waste, but if he already has the amp, I
guess it's the cheap option!

My understanding is that culture is an alien concept to many whose sole distinction is
that they are able to pay for very expensive solid state heatsinks.

Much cheaper than a 300B, dear boy! :-)

Huh?

Last time I bought decent heatsinks, they were damned expensive.

So is a NOS Western Electric 300B!

I make some of my own though, cost is mainly my time, and a few bolts.

And I thought you were trying to keep this thread polite, so why the
snide reference to culture being exclusive to valvies?

Gees, I thought the die hard SS blokes reckoned thay were the only ones with culture,
being the keepers of the state of the art devices for the use of listening to music....

Culture has *nothing* to do with audio! One of the best systems I've
heard is owned by a guy who likes Queen, and Dido.............

I further understand that if in addition they are hangers-on of engineering, their love
affair with measuring instruments can take on obsessive proportions.

Ah, so you propose to design this amplifier without the use of load
lines and other useful engineering measurements? Interesting.

Stay tuned, I am sure when the wheel has fully turned on its journey,
it will have visited load lines, and other entirely adequate engineering ideas.

One may certainly hope so! Due to the simplicity of the topology, the
use of coupling transformers, and gain restrictions, I'd venture to
suggest that good calculations are even more critical to the SET
designer than to that of a good 60-watt SS amp.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:55:22 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Stories abound that 300B amps have great midrange, and shy bass and treble.
I wouldn't agree that is generally true, because the samples I have heard
must have have had decent OPTs, with wide BW, because they seemed to have
a good balance between bass, mid and treble, and the measurements indicate
they were fine.

If I was going to use horns, as Andre suggests we should, then
the power needed will be so low that any discussion of distortion spoiling the
sound is irrelevant.

This may be the key point, since Andre's target speaker is the
Lowther, which doesn't *have* deep bass or extreme treble. Hence, the
amp won't be stressed at the frequency extremes, and if he's using one
of the better Lowther drivers, he'll be able to raise 110dB SPL
in-room with only 5 or 6 watts per channel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Besides, I wasn't talking to Andre, but to this anonymous clown.

The anonymous poster *is* Andre Jute.

I also build it, and I'm interested to see Andre's design process at
work.

Then read his posts and learn.

I suggest you return to uk.rec.audio, where they are sensible.

So, they're not sensible on RAT? :-)

You got the joke?

I suggest you keep it zipped until you can say something sensible.

I'm well known for *not* being sensible.
OTOH, I don't drink.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Stewart Pinkerton said:

OK, I'll grant Sander de Waall maybe a couple of dozen, OK?

Remove one "l" from my name and I'll grant you that you're not always
drunk.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:27:36 +1100, Patrick Turner wrote:

snip

If you want the best sound from a 300B, some expense is required.

Why would anyone spend only half what he says, and end up with something
that one might always know could have been so much better made.

Basically, do it right, or not at all.


I agree. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to start any major projects
at present - that doesn't stop me following them though! I may pick up
pointers that will let me improve what I already have, or at least give me
ideas of what to look for.

interesting stuff snipped

If you were going to build a harpsicord, you wouldn't use cheap wood would
you?


Certainly not!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Hi Patrick,

I have stood beside a grand piano on stage when a series
of players tested this new model made in Oz which the local
School of Music just purchased, and I have heard some
particulary difficult music played with gusto, and I have
asked myself what sort of sound system reproduces *this*?

That's the difference between live music and reproduced live
music.

This differenc still is there, after a century, or 3-4 human
generations, of trying to get it right.

Tom

--
Okay, maybe i am paranoid. But that doesn't mean
they are not out to get me. - unknown

Lord Valve,
I have a Walker coon hound that is a disgrace to the breed. She is
scared of any loud noise (so she could never hunt) and she actually
likes cats. She is still an awesome dog though.

By the way, where is my catalog? I sent you a "spam me" email several
weeks ago and I haven't received anything from you yet.

Mark

Lord Valve wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Yo, Mick!

Great to discover the Curmudgeons of Negativity have not driven you off yet.


You're much too generous. Just call 'em assholes (like I do) and get on with things.We are designing a 417A-300B amp to be superior to all known designsfor my preferred speakers, in my room (when inhabited by my cat and me)

The Lord is confident that the esteemed Mr. Jute will have taken the
sonic absorptive/reflective properties of his (may I say) fuzzy familiar
into account when tweaking the design; the Devil is, after all, in the
details. Perhaps an alternative tweak will be offered for afficionados
who are not cat fanciers? (Redbone Coonhounds, X2, 57 and 88
pounds respectively. They, er...hate cats. Sorry. ;-)

Lord Valve
Houndsman

Mark wrote:

Lord Valve,
I have a Walker coon hound that is a disgrace to the breed. She is
scared of any loud noise (so she could never hunt) and she actually
likes cats. She is still an awesome dog though.

Coonhounds are *very* wise animals, and highly affectionate.

Yours may be pretending to like cats while she's deciding which of
them might be the tastiest. ;-) Not all hounds - even from the hunting
breeds - make good hunting dogs. (Besides - you have no idea what
she'd do if part of a pack. You need an alpha male and an alpha
female to lead; yours is probably not an alpha.) Of my two, one is
nervous about loud sounds, but only if prolonged (as on July 4th).
You could probably throw hand grenades at the larger of the two
and she'd wag her tail at you - she just doesn't care about gunfire.
She's an alpha, and utterly fearless.

I've never met a Treeing Walker but I hear they're great pooches.
I don't hunt, BTW, although I would if necessary.



By the way, where is my catalog? I sent you a "spam me" email several
weeks ago and I haven't received anything from you yet.

Yeah, I know...

I'm working on new catalogs. Every time I think I've got one done,
I get something new to put in it. If you're hot to trot, use the phone. ;-)

Lord Valve
303-778-1156





Mark

Lord Valve wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


KISS 101 by Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes

Yo, Mick!

Great to discover the Curmudgeons of Negativity have not driven you off yet.


You're much too generous. Just call 'em assholes (like I do) and get on with things.We are designing a 417A-300B amp to be superior to all known designsfor my preferred speakers, in my room (when inhabited by my cat and me)

The Lord is confident that the esteemed Mr. Jute will have taken the
sonic absorptive/reflective properties of his (may I say) fuzzy familiar
into account when tweaking the design; the Devil is, after all, in the
details. Perhaps an alternative tweak will be offered for afficionados
who are not cat fanciers? (Redbone Coonhounds, X2, 57 and 88
pounds respectively. They, er...hate cats. Sorry. ;-)

Lord Valve
Houndsman

I am entirely re-building a Phase Linear 700B at this moment,
and if I can get it to sound at least as good as a Musical Fidelity
amp I have heard, I will be reasonably happy.
Its even got LC input filtering, regulated driver amp rails,
soon to be fitted with shunt regged output rails,
to save the use of the bleeder resistors.

Shunt regged? Wow, I hope you can afford hefty power bills! :-)

The main rail supplies are by way of an LC input filter system
to avoid the use of the +/- 85 rails that I would have got
if had I had a cap input filter.
This I get about 57v rails from the approx 63vrms transformer voltages.

The use of a 250 ohm bleeder resistanmce is all that's needed to
keep the rail of the output stage at the 57v instead of soaring to up to 85
volts when the idle current is low.
So I am only wasting about 25 watts.

But I think a better way is to use a single power transistor
and a 56 volt zener diode with a 10 ohm current limiting resistor between the collector
and rail, and this will automatically keep the rail at about 57v,
and only draw the same current as the bleed resistances, ie, 230 mA.
But when the class AB amplifier draws more current, and the rail drops by a volt or two,
the shunt reg stops conducting, and I don't waste the 25 watts.
There is a slight extra rail variations due to a choke input filter resonance, in this case
between 3 Hz and 5 Hz, and the *active* equivalent resistance offered by
the shunt reg should help iron them out.

This afternoon I tried plotting the response of the signal voltage on the output rails
a 2Hz to 300 Hz signal, and the effect of LC resonance wasn't much to worry about
since the signals at the rails at 5 Hz were not much greater than what one would have with a
cap input filter, using the same 10,000 uF, whivh BTW is a rather small amount
of C to use with such an amp.
The amp response is -3 dB at 10 Hz, and about -10 db at 3Hz,
and so the only thing that can stimulate the resonance is the
stopping and starting of bursts of music, but there is so much NFB
present that one hears absolutely no rail movement effects.

I really shouldn't mention all this in a thread about
class A SE 300B amps, but I feel I really
have to address your over assuming comment
rea power use/waste due to shunt regulating SS power amp rails.

BTW, the driver amp rails are cap input filtering,
with CRCRC, and with shunt regs to stop the rail drift caused by mains variations.
So the driver has +/- 70v to work from, and the
available V swing better utilises the output stage to fully swing better,
rather than have the sloppy method of lower driver amp rails with
no reg and fed from the output stage rails.

There would be those who are bored witless by such discussions
of regulation in SS amps, but it makes what NFB is used more effective.
And of course in a 300B amp we may not decide to *any* loop FB,
so the rails have to be clean, and so some ideal passive regulation of the rails
is to me at least quite desirable.

There would be those who hate the sound of electrolytics in any amp,
especially a tube amp, but I have not found them to be objectionable,
and I tend to use huge values of C, to reduce the required values of
choke or R in the filters for the rails.
To me the closer the PS acts like a battery, the better.
And an electro is like a kind of battery, so why they cop such bad press
is beyond me, but nobody ever tells me the sound of things I make is bad because
of electros. They come to realise its the value of capacitance
and the way its used which is important than the fact that it isn't a Black Gate.

But since it looks like many ideas will be tended, no doubt we'll get inputs that
only BG or Cerafine etc are *the only* kind that are audiologically correct.
Those of you building anything need to be happy with what *you*
think is best, and please don't be swayed by anything I may mention.



Stay tuned, I am sure when the wheel has fully turned on its journey,
it will have visited load lines, and other entirely adequate engineering ideas.

One may certainly hope so! Due to the simplicity of the topology, the
use of coupling transformers, and gain restrictions, I'd venture to
suggest that good calculations are even more critical to the SET
designer than to that of a good 60-watt SS amp.

If you build entirely by measurements, and calculation, then building
a tube amp is not as critical as you would expect and the design could cope with wide B+
variations, and the finished amp has to cope with wide rangeing speaker impedances.

So once you have optimised the output stage for one load value
it is not optimal at other load values. But why worry?
Regardless of what we do, there is still the measured imperfections of distortions
to aknowledge, but surprisingly, such amps can sound well, and
measure well enough, since the thd falls towards zero as the power reduces,
and we don't want much power.

In the SS amp I took longer to set up the driver amp and trim the bias currents to
get the diff pair working just right with the VAS stage.
Its all direct coupled, so its easy to breed distortion by being sloppy
with R values, and unless you are careful, its easy to instantly
demolish $50 worth of power / driver transistors because one wasn't careful enough
with set up, idle currents, neatness on the boards, soldering, and dirt
and junk laying around, or some mishap short circuit, caused by
shorting something even when probing it to thoroughly
check the voltages of all electrodes and writing them down on the nice big clearly drawn schematic
that is set out in one's work book on the bench.

Tube amps have CR couplings, and can be isolated stage by stage,
and the occasional error in wiring is soon noticed, and usually
won't take out a tube unless one is stupid enough to build something
with knowing how it works.

Andre might be making out its dead easy to build a 300B amp,
but I suggest that its diving right into the deep end for a person
not familiar with voltages than can kill or who hasn't first built a one triode
line stage preamp, to get themselves a little aquainted with the
art, technique, science, time and tools required, and the phenomenas involved.
How the hell does a novice learn to wind his OPT?

Its seductive to say one can place a pair of decent 300B amps on the
bench for a grand, but I have witnessed a couple of guys here who
really struggled with kits, and real understanding was as impossible for them
as brain surgery would be to me.


Patrick Turner.

Hey RATs:

Actually, Stradavarius was reputed to use some very cheap wood...but he knew
HOW to use it.

dre


mick wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:27:36 +1100, Patrick Turner wrote:

snip

If you want the best sound from a 300B, some expense is required.

Why would anyone spend only half what he says, and end up with something
that one might always know could have been so much better made.

Basically, do it right, or not at all.


I agree. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to start any major projects
at present - that doesn't stop me following them though! I may pick up
pointers that will let me improve what I already have, or at least give me
ideas of what to look for.

interesting stuff snipped

If you were going to build a harpsicord, you wouldn't use cheap wood
would
you?


Certainly not!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

dre7 wrote:

Hey RATs:

Actually, Stradavarius was reputed to use some very cheap wood...but he knew
HOW to use it.

It ain't whatcha got, its how you use it...

( said the actress to the bishop )

But then around 300 years ago there still seemed to be an unlimited supply
of fabulous timber in the relatively untouched forests of the world.
Wouldn't all the wood have been cheap wood, would it not?

Patrick Turner.




dre

mick wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:27:36 +1100, Patrick Turner wrote:

snip

If you want the best sound from a 300B, some expense is required.

Why would anyone spend only half what he says, and end up with something
that one might always know could have been so much better made.

Basically, do it right, or not at all.


I agree. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to start any major projects
at present - that doesn't stop me following them though! I may pick up
pointers that will let me improve what I already have, or at least give me
ideas of what to look for.

interesting stuff snipped

If you were going to build a harpsicord, you wouldn't use cheap wood
would
you?


Certainly not!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


dre7 wrote:

Hey RATs:

Actually, Stradavarius was reputed to use some very cheap wood...but he
knew
HOW to use it.

It ain't whatcha got, its how you use it...

( said the actress to the bishop )

But then around 300 years ago there still seemed to be an unlimited supply
of fabulous timber in the relatively untouched forests of the world.
Wouldn't all the wood have been cheap wood, would it not?

Patrick Turner.




dre

mick wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:27:36 +1100, Patrick Turner wrote:

snip

If you want the best sound from a 300B, some expense is required.

Why would anyone spend only half what he says, and end up with
something
that one might always know could have been so much better made.

Basically, do it right, or not at all.


I agree. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to start any major
projects
at present - that doesn't stop me following them though! I may pick up
pointers that will let me improve what I already have, or at least give
me
ideas of what to look for.

interesting stuff snipped

If you were going to build a harpsicord, you wouldn't use cheap wood
would
you?


Certainly not!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info




I read a story about how they think Stradivarious got that great sound.
There is reason to believe that he used very old timber from some old
buildings that were in ruin near where he lived.
the supposition is that the wood was dried for hundreds if not thousands of
years and so was completely stable.

Just a side thought, please return to your political postings.

Doug

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here.
this is really the first decent project post that I have read in RAT.
I couldnt possibly afford to build something like this right now.
I am stuck with using the stock of Russian 6L6's as triodes for now. And
whatever I can find in my Junk box.

just wanted to say thank you Andre for the completely on topic post.

Doug

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:25:26 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


dre7 wrote:

Hey RATs:

Actually, Stradavarius was reputed to use some very cheap wood...but he
knew
HOW to use it.

It ain't whatcha got, its how you use it...

( said the actress to the bishop )

But then around 300 years ago there still seemed to be an unlimited supply
of fabulous timber in the relatively untouched forests of the world.
Wouldn't all the wood have been cheap wood, would it not?

No, wood such as mahogany and ebony was rare and exotic, because it
had to be shipped in from tropical rain forests. This was *very*
expensive in the days of sailing ships, which is why the great cabinet
makers like Chippendale used such tropical hardwoods - they could
better justify the end cost of the furniture if the raw materials were
very expensive.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:23 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here.

Because some of his statements are inaccurate and/or internally
inconsistent. You want your designer to be working from correct
premises, do you not?

this is really the first decent project post that I have read in RAT.

Indeed, and I'm sure that we're looking forward to the meat of it.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:25:26 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


dre7 wrote:

Hey RATs:

Actually, Stradavarius was reputed to use some very cheap wood...but he
knew
HOW to use it.

It ain't whatcha got, its how you use it...

( said the actress to the bishop )

But then around 300 years ago there still seemed to be an unlimited supply
of fabulous timber in the relatively untouched forests of the world.
Wouldn't all the wood have been cheap wood, would it not?

No, wood such as mahogany and ebony was rare and exotic, because it
had to be shipped in from tropical rain forests. This was *very*
expensive in the days of sailing ships, which is why the great cabinet
makers like Chippendale used such tropical hardwoods - they could
better justify the end cost of the furniture if the raw materials were
very expensive.

But sailors had low wages.

The rich who could afford furniture (and cellos) paid each other small contract
sums
when they were not spending large amounts to each other for estates, carriages,
large elaborate buildings to show off in, and other things that really mattered.

The poor worked their guts out and died early to cater for the needs of the rich,

and a few men died in Brazil seeking a wooden fortune, while many a muso
keeled over at a private concert or caught some disease like TB
whilst earning his pittance at the damn cello.
But at least he could sit and play; the table servants had to stand to attention
for hours
during the 6 course dinner parties.

The wood was brought to Europe for the Rich and their follies,
and a little was always left over for the occasional musical instrument.
Some wood used in old instruments, such as spruce wasn't from Exoticania, but
from the
loca abundant forests, mostly now all cut down for Moderniacal Tendencies.

Mr Stradi Varus probably had no bloomin idea that his efforts would be praised
300 years later, but probably he had good ears, and knew a bit of good wood when
he found it, even without distortion measuring test equipment.

It was guesswork, art, science, experience, and patience that led to such fine
instruments that have never yet been surpassed.

Let me rub and scrape thee with my bow, thy wooden voice deliteth and exiteth me
so,
and doth transport me musilly to a heavenly realm balmed in raptures of sweet
tones,
beyond all sense of toil and worrie of our shorte lyfes...

Patrick Turner.








--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:23 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here.

Because some of his statements are inaccurate and/or internally
inconsistent. You want your designer to be working from correct
premises, do you not?

What would you have said to Leonardo DaVinci?
What of Newton?
Or Henry VIII?

You are so lucky to criticize, without being bundled out of the villa by
Leo's burly
man servants, ridiculed by Newton's mates, or sent to a stoney cold
dungeon
by Henry.

People have been burned at stakes alive to cleanse them of
incorrect thoughticals, or inconsistentatiousisms.

Patrick Turner.





this is really the first decent project post that I have read in RAT.

Indeed, and I'm sure that we're looking forward to the meat of it.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:23 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here.

Because some of his statements are inaccurate and/or internally
inconsistent. You want your designer to be working from correct
premises, do you not?

this is really the first decent project post that I have read in RAT.

Indeed, and I'm sure that we're looking forward to the meat of it.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Exactly,
I am waiting till we get to the end of it to make any kind of decision as to
whether the premises are sound or not. Lets just wait and see. Regardless of
whether his opinions on amplifier building are the same as yours it is an
excellent read and I am impressed with the amount of effort he has put into
this writing.
I will take what I can from his experience and his opinions and discard the
things that I dont agree with. I think you can learn something from everyone
if you want to. Or you can dismiss all who disagree with you without giving
their views a chance.

I think engineering is art as well.

Doug.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:37:25 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:23 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here.

Because some of his statements are inaccurate and/or internally
inconsistent. You want your designer to be working from correct
premises, do you not?

What would you have said to Leonardo DaVinci?

Honoured to meet you - I'm so glad that you base your many designs on
good Science, and your art on accurately observed anatomy.

What of Newton?

Honoured to meet you, your sound scientific principles have been a
boon to many generations.

Or Henry VIII?

You're an arse (from a safe distance of course, he wasn't a forgiving
sort of chap, and he was the King.........)

You are so lucky to criticize, without being bundled out of the villa by
Leo's burly
man servants,

Never happen, as I wouldn't be crticising him. He was a great guy in
so many ways, and we can still learn from him.

ridiculed by Newton's mates,

Actually, Newton was ridiculed quite a lot during his own lifetime.
Probably by the forefathers of the valvies..... :-)

or sent to a stoney cold
dungeon
by Henry.

That would be if you were lucky! :-)

People have been burned at stakes alive to cleanse them of
incorrect thoughticals, or inconsistentatiousisms.

Actually, they were mostly burned at the stake because they were
thinking *correct* thoughts, as nearly happened to Galileo.

BTW, Andre Jute is unlikely to be remembered by *anyone* other than
his immediate family, so comparisons with greats like da Vinci and
Newton are ingenuous, to say the least. Especially since both would
have got their sums right, unlike Andre!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

BTW, Andre Jute is unlikely to be remembered by *anyone* other than
his immediate family, so comparisons with greats like da Vinci and
Newton are ingenuous, to say the least. Especially since both would
have got their sums right, unlike Andre!

Actually, if you happened to know a bit more about Andre Jute, you'd
know he has written some books that are most likely wider known than
your combined usenet utterings.
He also left his traces throughout many parts of the world.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:02:58 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

BTW, Andre Jute is unlikely to be remembered by *anyone* other than
his immediate family, so comparisons with greats like da Vinci and
Newton are ingenuous, to say the least. Especially since both would
have got their sums right, unlike Andre!

Actually, if you happened to know a bit more about Andre Jute, you'd
know he has written some books that are most likely wider known than
your combined usenet utterings.
He also left his traces throughout many parts of the world.

I'm aware of this, and it affects my statement, exactly how?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:37:25 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:23 GMT, "Doug Schultz"
wrote:

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here.

Because some of his statements are inaccurate and/or internally
inconsistent. You want your designer to be working from correct
premises, do you not?

What would you have said to Leonardo DaVinci?

Honoured to meet you - I'm so glad that you base your many designs on
good Science, and your art on accurately observed anatomy.

What of Newton?

Honoured to meet you, your sound scientific principles have been a
boon to many generations.

Or Henry VIII?

You're an arse (from a safe distance of course, he wasn't a forgiving
sort of chap, and he was the King.........)

You are so lucky to criticize, without being bundled out of the villa by
Leo's burly
man servants,

Never happen, as I wouldn't be crticising him. He was a great guy in
so many ways, and we can still learn from him.

ridiculed by Newton's mates,

Actually, Newton was ridiculed quite a lot during his own lifetime.
Probably by the forefathers of the valvies..... :-)

or sent to a stoney cold
dungeon
by Henry.

That would be if you were lucky! :-)

People have been burned at stakes alive to cleanse them of
incorrect thoughticals, or inconsistentatiousisms.

Actually, they were mostly burned at the stake because they were
thinking *correct* thoughts, as nearly happened to Galileo.

BTW, Andre Jute is unlikely to be remembered by *anyone* other than
his immediate family, so comparisons with greats like da Vinci and
Newton are ingenuous, to say the least. Especially since both would
have got their sums right, unlike Andre!

Was I making comparisons between AJ and LdV, IN, H8?

I don't believe I was, methinks with hypotheticals I progressed.....

Perhaps they summed correctly,
and looked carefully intropectively
and at wonder in the heavens and on earth,
and thus gave intelligence considerable new worth.

Patrick Turner.


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

BTW, Andre Jute is unlikely to be remembered by *anyone* other than
his immediate family, so comparisons with greats like da Vinci and
Newton are ingenuous, to say the least. Especially since both would
have got their sums right, unlike Andre!

Actually, if you happened to know a bit more about Andre Jute, you'd
know he has written some books that are most likely wider known than
your combined usenet utterings.
He also left his traces throughout many parts of the world.

And a few scratches and lettuce leaf stains.

Patrick Turner.



--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:23 +0000, Doug Schultz wrote:

I dont see why anyone is giving Andre a hard time here. this is really the
first decent project post that I have read in RAT. I couldnt possibly
afford to build something like this right now. I am stuck with using the
stock of Russian 6L6's as triodes for now. And whatever I can find in my
Junk box.


I'll second all that - especially about the stock of russian 6L6s as
triodes! That's just what I'm listening to, and pondering about whether to
get a couple of 2A3s - they are about 22 quid each instead of 80 quid
each for 300Bs! Both of them make the stock 6L6s (I've got 4 left) look
good when my wallet is this thin...

Actually, as this amp uses the russian 6L6s marked 6L6C (that are
really 6P3S and more like 6L6B) I might just build a new 300v PSU,
parallel 2 pairs and get some new OPTs for it. Now, should I SE them or
p-p them in triode mode? At the moment I'm leaning toward SE with fixed
bias for about 3W from a pair. Don't you love power? ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk