[Andre Jute]

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Based on extensive listening to SETs at HE2005, I would recommend that
SETs be used with music that is extremely simple to avoid the inevitable
audible intermodulation grit from more complex sounds.

Arny. I am delighted, but rather perplexed to find myself in agreement with
you:-)

I have spent several pleasant evenings at the home of a professional cellist
(a Russian) listening to the Shostakovich Quartets on his Reznekov SET
amp. This has been a most wonderfully lifelike musical experience, and
these recordings sounded the better than on any system I have encountered
so far.

Just out of interest, I took with me some big band jazz (Ellington at
Newport) and just a few minutes listening made it clear that SET
could not do justice to this kind of music.

My dear fellow, you have fallen into the same trap as the mindless
Arnie Krueger, of accepting what is offered without wondering if there
is not something beyond the lowest common denominator filling the view.

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.

None of that determines the kind of music a SET will play well. What
determines the music a SET will play well is the loudspeakers and the
amount of power the amplfier produces in relation to the sensitivity of
the loudspeaker. There are refinements, which everyone will now shout
about, but the short answer is that if you build your SET big enough to
deliver the current it will have the power to drive anything, play any
music, do whatever any other amp does -- with an added edge of
refinement and pleasure.

A combination of a 300B SET and a Tannoy Westminster Royal horn will
put the full orchestra in the room with you. If you insist on using
ESL63 with SET -- I often use the combination -- then you want to
lookat 20W, so you need SE 845. If you want to play the full orchestra
at automatic rivetter volumes (which is what Krueger and your pal
Pinkerton want us to listen to) than you must spend the money for
something like my Millennium's End, 80 Watts of glorious SE sound from
SV572-3 (actually I normally use mine in the 25W version, which more
than adequately -- huge reserves! -- drives stacked ESL63 at the sort
of easy listening -- hee! hee! -- volumes I and my family and
neighbours like).

Krueger heard a bunch of small SETs, probably not all of them with
suitable speakers, and mistook a characteristic of small amps
overmatched by speakers and demands for volume (usually unaccustomed
volume at shows!) for a fundamental characteristic of the genus SET.
You followed him into the pit of the lowest common denominator offered
on a tray.

I recognize that Krueger's error is in part caused, but not excused, by
the current fashion in SET design, which is for low energy storage:
despite all the cheap caps presently around, SET power supplies are
commonly only capped up between twice -- the guys who want speed above
anything else -- and 6 times -- my own choice somewhere in the middle
because I like a lot of current to be constantly available among other
reasons to avoid the sort of problem you and Krueger heard -- as much
as in vintage times. Guys like Patrick who just throws capacitance at
the power supply are in a minority; those who do it with glass
rectification are laughed out of court as ignorant wreckers. The
low-cap syndrome is part of the trend in which SET are mostly used by
people with several more than one amp to listen to vocals and small
ensembles. But that is not a necessary condition.

I repeat, you can design and build the SET as big and powerful and
instantly responsive as is required or desired. It is the error of a
small mind like Krueger's to see the opaque bath water and take it for
the baby. You should by now know better than to agree with Arnie on
anything!

My experiences with SET have been positive enough to make me
want to build one at some time in the future.

If you want to listen to orchestral sounds or intricate jazz, a SET is
wasteful unless you are very rich. Trioded pentodes in Class A1, PP
300B ditto, preferably with very little or zero NFB, will come very
close indeed for quite a bit less money, for less consumption, for less
heat to be dissipated, than a SET big enough to do big music. For big
music the only alternative to a big SET is a BIG horn. I don't know
what your wife and cat will say about either a big, hot SET or a horn
built into the floor... There is a reason why reasonable 2A3 and 300B
SETs used with reasonable Fidelio-sized horns are so popular, and we've
just reviewed it -- twice.

On the other hand, since music is your business, you are one of the few
people I know who can justify a SET big enough to play big music.
Furthermore, you are one of the minority with ears so well-trained that
you will hear the extra dedonistic edge of big-SET over the close Class
A1 PP alternatives.

SET is the ultimate example of what Sander calls "my-fi". You can make
it do anything you wish, except be graceless. That is why clowns like
Krueger, with their instant, wrongfully generalizing presumption,
should stay clear.

Regards to all
Iain

Playing QUAD solid state! Robert Cohen's Bach Cello Suites. The opening
of the first one is one of two pieces of music, currently on my side
table but chosen almost at random, that send a shiver down my spine;
the other one is where a countertenor comes in halfway through Schutz's
Christmas Story.

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

[[email protected]]

Andrew Jute McCoy wrote:

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.

Keerist...

The moment the term "metaphysically" comes into an argument, that
argument descends into the realm of Revealed Religion. Then add the
terms "usually", "refined" and "euphonious", and the supporter of said
argument is on the outer edge of the limb sawing briskly on the
treeward side.

For the record, there is *not one damned thing wrong* with Revealed
Religion as long as it is owned and presented as such. Nor is there
anything necessarily wrong with sawing on one's supporting limb as long
as one understands the inevitable results.

Mr. McCoy, if you are stating _your_ preferences and _your_ tastes,
then you are welcome (please) to express them. But if you are intending
to prosyletize for a Revealed Religion, please give it a rest.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[robert casey]

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.


Unless I've missed something, a push pull topology would tend to cancel
out the 2nd harmonic (said to be musical in small amounts like 40dB
down) while not canceling out the 3rd harmonic (which sounds awful).
And cancel out the other even harmonics and not the odd ones). While
single ended doesn't do this. So PP is different from SE... ?

[Jon Yaeger]

Jutey-Fruity babbled:


The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce.



Based upon the pics of your abortion amps it's clear that you have NO IDEA
of the importance of layout and topology on sound signatures and output.

Stick with something you know about, like macaroni and cheese.

Your friend,

jon

[robert casey]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

robert casey wrote:

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.


Unless I've missed something, a push pull topology would tend to cancel
out the 2nd harmonic (said to be musical in small amounts like 40dB
down) while not canceling out the 3rd harmonic (which sounds awful).
And cancel out the other even harmonics and not the odd ones). While
single ended doesn't do this. So PP is different from SE... ?


We art talking about DISTORTION PRODUCTS and not what is there to
begin with. So we want none of eother. It's worth noting that the third
harmonic distortion alone is 10 to 20 dB worse on most SETs than any
push pull amp in common use.

Of course we are talking distortion products inside the amp. It would
be interesting to understand why the 3rd harmonic is, as you mentioned
above, would be worse in SETs than PP. DC in the output transformer
core? Assume for discussion that the PP amp is just a pair of SET tubes
(fed with a non-inverted and an inverted input signal respectively)
feeding a centertapped output transformer. The 3rd harmonic would not
cancel out. Now if the PP amp and SET amp have many more
differences, than all bets are off..... And no sub-atomic metaphysics
should be involved :-)

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Based on extensive listening to SETs at HE2005, I would recommend that
SETs be used with music that is extremely simple to avoid the
inevitable
audible intermodulation grit from more complex sounds.

Arny. I am delighted, but rather perplexed to find myself in agreement
with
you:-)

I have spent several pleasant evenings at the home of a professional
cellist
(a Russian) listening to the Shostakovich Quartets on his Reznekov SET
amp. This has been a most wonderfully lifelike musical experience, and
these recordings sounded the better than on any system I have encountered
so far.

Just out of interest, I took with me some big band jazz (Ellington at
Newport) and just a few minutes listening made it clear that SET
could not do justice to this kind of music.

My dear fellow, you have fallen into the same trap as the mindless
Arnie Krueger, of accepting what is offered without wondering if there
is not something beyond the lowest common denominator filling the view.

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback

**Nonsense. ALL amplifiers use NFB. Every single one. Why do you continue to
perpetrate this lie of yours?

and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.

**You can include BJTs, MOSFETs and other amplification devices in that
category as well. BTW: They all use NFB too. Every single one.


None of that determines the kind of music a SET will play well. What
determines the music a SET will play well is the loudspeakers and the
amount of power the amplfier produces in relation to the sensitivity of
the loudspeaker.

**Funnily enough, I agree with you. SETs are VERY restricted in what
speakers can be connected to them. Such speakers MUST have high efficiency
levels and relatively resistive impedance curves.

There are refinements, which everyone will now shout
about, but the short answer is that if you build your SET big enough to
deliver the current it will have the power to drive anything, play any
music, do whatever any other amp does

**Again, I agree.

-- with an added edge of
refinement and pleasure.

**THAT is a personal and highly subjective comment. One which I and many
others dispute. SET amps, IME, ADD their own forms of distortion, which
colour music to an unnacceptable degree. ANY colouration is undesirable for
most listeners.


A combination of a 300B SET and a Tannoy Westminster Royal horn will
put the full orchestra in the room with you.

**A combination of a 20 Wastt Rotel and the same speakers will do the job
better, cheaper and more reliably. What's your point?

If you insist on using
ESL63 with SET -- I often use the combination -- then you want to
lookat 20W, so you need SE 845. If you want to play the full orchestra
at automatic rivetter volumes (which is what Krueger and your pal
Pinkerton want us to listen to) than you must spend the money for
something like my Millennium's End, 80 Watts of glorious SE sound from
SV572-3 (actually I normally use mine in the 25W version, which more
than adequately -- huge reserves! -- drives stacked ESL63 at the sort
of easy listening -- hee! hee! -- volumes I and my family and
neighbours like).

**Dream on. The impedance curve of the 63s is such that the result will be
seriously damaged, compared to a decent, low output impedance, push pull
amp. SETs are spectacularly unsuited to partenering with ESLs.


Krueger heard a bunch of small SETs, probably not all of them with
suitable speakers, and mistook a characteristic of small amps
overmatched by speakers and demands for volume (usually unaccustomed
volume at shows!) for a fundamental characteristic of the genus SET.
You followed him into the pit of the lowest common denominator offered
on a tray.

**That would be projection. You may be correct, but without full knowledge
of the circumstances, you don't have a clue.


I recognize that Krueger's error is in part caused, but not excused, by
the current fashion in SET design, which is for low energy storage:
despite all the cheap caps presently around, SET power supplies are
commonly only capped up between twice -- the guys who want speed above
anything else -- and 6 times -- my own choice somewhere in the middle
because I like a lot of current to be constantly available among other
reasons to avoid the sort of problem you and Krueger heard -- as much
as in vintage times. Guys like Patrick who just throws capacitance at
the power supply are in a minority; those who do it with glass
rectification are laughed out of court as ignorant wreckers. The
low-cap syndrome is part of the trend in which SET are mostly used by
people with several more than one amp to listen to vocals and small
ensembles. But that is not a necessary condition.

I repeat, you can design and build the SET as big and powerful and
instantly responsive as is required or desired.

**YOu can, indeed. You can also build a better, more powerful, low
distorting and less expensive amp, which can drive a much wider range of
loudspeakers by choosing a push pull design.

It is the error of a
small mind like Krueger's to see the opaque bath water and take it for
the baby. You should by now know better than to agree with Arnie on
anything!

My experiences with SET have been positive enough to make me
want to build one at some time in the future.

If you want to listen to orchestral sounds or intricate jazz, a SET is
wasteful unless you are very rich. Trioded pentodes in Class A1, PP
300B ditto, preferably with very little or zero NFB, will come very
close indeed for quite a bit less money, for less consumption, for less
heat to be dissipated, than a SET big enough to do big music. For big
music the only alternative to a big SET is a BIG horn. I don't know
what your wife and cat will say about either a big, hot SET or a horn
built into the floor... There is a reason why reasonable 2A3 and 300B
SETs used with reasonable Fidelio-sized horns are so popular, and we've
just reviewed it -- twice.

On the other hand, since music is your business, you are one of the few
people I know who can justify a SET big enough to play big music.
Furthermore, you are one of the minority with ears so well-trained that
you will hear the extra dedonistic edge of big-SET over the close Class
A1 PP alternatives.

SET is the ultimate example of what Sander calls "my-fi". You can make
it do anything you wish, except be graceless.

**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull amps.




--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Based on extensive listening to SETs at HE2005, I would recommend that
SETs be used with music that is extremely simple to avoid the inevitable
audible intermodulation grit from more complex sounds.

Arny. I am delighted, but rather perplexed to find myself in agreement with
you:-)

I have spent several pleasant evenings at the home of a professional cellist
(a Russian) listening to the Shostakovich Quartets on his Reznekov SET
amp. This has been a most wonderfully lifelike musical experience, and
these recordings sounded the better than on any system I have encountered
so far.

Just out of interest, I took with me some big band jazz (Ellington at
Newport) and just a few minutes listening made it clear that SET
could not do justice to this kind of music.

My dear fellow, you have fallen into the same trap as the mindless
Arnie Krueger, of accepting what is offered without wondering if there
is not something beyond the lowest common denominator filling the view.

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.

None of that determines the kind of music a SET will play well. What
determines the music a SET will play well is the loudspeakers and the
amount of power the amplfier produces in relation to the sensitivity of
the loudspeaker. There are refinements, which everyone will now shout
about, but the short answer is that if you build your SET big enough to
deliver the current it will have the power to drive anything, play any
music, do whatever any other amp does -- with an added edge of
refinement and pleasure.

A combination of a 300B SET and a Tannoy Westminster Royal horn will
put the full orchestra in the room with you. If you insist on using
ESL63 with SET -- I often use the combination -- then you want to
lookat 20W, so you need SE 845. If you want to play the full orchestra
at automatic rivetter volumes (which is what Krueger and your pal
Pinkerton want us to listen to) than you must spend the money for
something like my Millennium's End, 80 Watts of glorious SE sound from
SV572-3 (actually I normally use mine in the 25W version, which more
than adequately -- huge reserves! -- drives stacked ESL63 at the sort
of easy listening -- hee! hee! -- volumes I and my family and
neighbours like).

Krueger heard a bunch of small SETs, probably not all of them with
suitable speakers, and mistook a characteristic of small amps
overmatched by speakers and demands for volume (usually unaccustomed
volume at shows!) for a fundamental characteristic of the genus SET.
You followed him into the pit of the lowest common denominator offered
on a tray.

I recognize that Krueger's error is in part caused, but not excused, by
the current fashion in SET design, which is for low energy storage:
despite all the cheap caps presently around, SET power supplies are
commonly only capped up between twice -- the guys who want speed above
anything else -- and 6 times -- my own choice somewhere in the middle
because I like a lot of current to be constantly available among other
reasons to avoid the sort of problem you and Krueger heard -- as much
as in vintage times. Guys like Patrick who just throws capacitance at
the power supply are in a minority; those who do it with glass
rectification are laughed out of court as ignorant wreckers. The
low-cap syndrome is part of the trend in which SET are mostly used by
people with several more than one amp to listen to vocals and small
ensembles. But that is not a necessary condition.

I repeat, you can design and build the SET as big and powerful and
instantly responsive as is required or desired. It is the error of a
small mind like Krueger's to see the opaque bath water and take it for
the baby. You should by now know better than to agree with Arnie on
anything!

My experiences with SET have been positive enough to make me
want to build one at some time in the future.

If you want to listen to orchestral sounds or intricate jazz, a SET is
wasteful unless you are very rich. Trioded pentodes in Class A1, PP
300B ditto, preferably with very little or zero NFB, will come very
close indeed for quite a bit less money, for less consumption, for less
heat to be dissipated, than a SET big enough to do big music. For big
music the only alternative to a big SET is a BIG horn. I don't know
what your wife and cat will say about either a big, hot SET or a horn
built into the floor... There is a reason why reasonable 2A3 and 300B
SETs used with reasonable Fidelio-sized horns are so popular, and we've
just reviewed it -- twice.

On the other hand, since music is your business, you are one of the few
people I know who can justify a SET big enough to play big music.
Furthermore, you are one of the minority with ears so well-trained that
you will hear the extra dedonistic edge of big-SET over the close Class
A1 PP alternatives.

SET is the ultimate example of what Sander calls "my-fi". You can make
it do anything you wish, except be graceless. That is why clowns like
Krueger, with their instant, wrongfully generalizing presumption,
should stay clear.

Regards to all
Iain

Playing QUAD solid state! Robert Cohen's Bach Cello Suites. The opening
of the first one is one of two pieces of music, currently on my side
table but chosen almost at random, that send a shiver down my spine;
the other one is where a countertenor comes in halfway through Schutz's
Christmas Story.

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

SET amps without global NFB are selected with levels and speakers
in mind that will suit the amps, and with only 8 watts, speakers with
sensivity of over 93dB/W/M would be ideal. Andre about sums it all up above;
he mentions he uses 300B amps to drive ESL63 but the undistorted levels but this
may not
suit many others.
A guy here used 300B amps to power VAF I-66 speakers quite OK and
he and I thought they sounded better than 100 watt SS amps.
Levels were a civilised average 1/3 watts to each speaker.

Loud party levels are not possible from 8 watt amps regardless of what type of
amps they are.

Comparison methods used with SET amps and SS amps
should be fair and only ever compare an 8 watt tube amp to an 8 watt solid stater.

All comparisons of a 100 watt SS amp and 8 watt SET amp lead to eroneous
conclusions
in favour of the SS amp once the volume is turned well up on insensitive speakers.

The original poster is welcome to wade through the many schematics and ideas at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

" wrote:

Andrew Jute McCoy wrote:

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.

Keerist...

The moment the term "metaphysically" comes into an argument, that
argument descends into the realm of Revealed Religion. Then add the
terms "usually", "refined" and "euphonious", and the supporter of said
argument is on the outer edge of the limb sawing briskly on the
treeward side.

For the record, there is *not one damned thing wrong* with Revealed
Religion as long as it is owned and presented as such. Nor is there
anything necessarily wrong with sawing on one's supporting limb as long
as one understands the inevitable results.

Mr. McCoy, if you are stating _your_ preferences and _your_ tastes,
then you are welcome (please) to express them. But if you are intending
to prosyletize for a Revealed Religion, please give it a rest.

Those preaching to us to take a rest are indeed in need of a good lie down
and a real long sleep......

The use of SET amps isn't part of Revealed Religion.

Religious tolerance is not being practised here; we get a sermon from those
wanting us tubies to stop what they think is preaching. Its like being told
to
build stainless steel cookware on a news group about
pottery, or being told on a sail boat group we should all buy a motor launch.

I don't find much euphony or artifacts in any SET amps used properly.
Clearer and more natural sound yes, and in fact sound that is just better.
I have been at many AB tests with SE amps compared to SS amps
and i remain unaffected by the BS artists telling everyone never to buy any
SET amps.

One does need to respect the limited power output of the 300B.

If you want more power than 8 watts, use more tubes, or bigger tubes.

Slightly more power can be had with PP arrangements of same tubes,
so that a magnificent 20 watts from a pair of 300B in PP triode is
available.....

Patrick Turner.





Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Patrick Turner]

**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull amps.

You never quit making yourself look silly with such flamer statements.

You have no idea what may or may not be the best SET amps.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

robert casey wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

robert casey wrote:

The output topology of an amplifier has nothing electrically or
metaphysically to do with what kind of music it will reproduce. The
audible differences in SET, with any kind of music, are merely those of
Class A1 amplifiers, of which SET is by definition a subclass. It is
true that more SETs than any other kind of amplifier do without
negative feedback and that, in the absence of the odd and higher order
artifacts of NFB, SETs usually sound more refined and euphonious than
other amps, but that is not a SET characteristic per se: any ZNFB Class
A1 amp can be made to sound like that, cf trioded PP EL34.


Unless I've missed something, a push pull topology would tend to cancel
out the 2nd harmonic (said to be musical in small amounts like 40dB
down) while not canceling out the 3rd harmonic (which sounds awful).
And cancel out the other even harmonics and not the odd ones). While
single ended doesn't do this. So PP is different from SE... ?


We art talking about DISTORTION PRODUCTS and not what is there to
begin with. So we want none of eother. It's worth noting that the third
harmonic distortion alone is 10 to 20 dB worse on most SETs than any
push pull amp in common use.

Of course we are talking distortion products inside the amp. It would
be interesting to understand why the 3rd harmonic is, as you mentioned
above, would be worse in SETs than PP. DC in the output transformer
core? Assume for discussion that the PP amp is just a pair of SET tubes
(fed with a non-inverted and an inverted input signal respectively)
feeding a centertapped output transformer. The 3rd harmonic would not
cancel out. Now if the PP amp and SET amp have many more
differences, than all bets are off..... And no sub-atomic metaphysics
should be involved :-)

3H is very much lower in most SE Triode amps than 2H and at ordinary levels
is often -20dB below the 2H.
If a pair of the same triodes are used in PP then usually the 3H remains at
the same levels
but the 2H, 4H etc are mainly cancelled.

Whoever said this :- "" It's worth noting that the third
harmonic distortion alone is 10 to 20 dB worse on most SETs than any
push pull amp in common use."" .........seems to be technically incorrect.

A 300B may produce 8 watts with 5% thd, mainly 2H.
A pair under the same loading and class A working conditions in PP
will make 16 watts but with usually less than 0.1% 2H due to
imperfect tube matching and thus imperfect 2H cancelation, but nevertheless
the
PP connection does vastly reduce THD.
The 3H will be about 1% at 16 watts.
KT66, KT88, KT90, EL34, 6V6 all wil give about 1% 3H at full power with PP in
pure class A.

At 1/2 a watt of normal average listening levels the PP triode amp
will have about 1/5 of the output voltage of clipping and about 1/6 of the
THD,
so expect 0.16% thd, mainly all 3H, and inaudible.
The above figures are with no global NFB.

if 12 db of global NFB is added, thd reduces 12 dB to about 0.04%.

Williamson's famous PP design of 1947 with 20 dB of global NFB gave 16 watts
at 0.1% thd, mainly 3H.
At 1/2 a watt thd 0.03%, and thd in vinyl / radio / tape source signals and
speakers were
always much worse.

The slight amount of 2H in well designed SET amps without global NFB
and when used sensibly with average power levels chosen to allow
unclipped output voltage on transients and crescendos does not
create blinding IMD artifact levels that render music into mud.
Those who say so create a falacy based on listening tests and measurements
based on unfair testing procedures.

One can always drive a Rolls Royce too fast and with a boot full of bricks
and 5 passengers and then say it uses too much petrol and it won't accelerate
or stop real well.

A little baby Fiat tested the same way won't fare very well either.

Patrick Turner.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull amps.

You never quit making yourself look silly with such flamer statements.

**Really? What does the RDH4 say about the advantages of SE vs. PP amps?


You have no idea what may or may not be the best SET amps.

**Non-sequitur. I said that (all things being approximately equal) a push
pull amp will:

* Offer lower levels of distortion.
* Deliver a lower output impedance.
* Provide MUCH better load tolerance.
* Be less expensive.
* Be substantially more efficient.
* Sound better (more accurate)

Than an approximately equivalent SE amp. Regardless of the technology used
as amplifying devices. I did not say that a SET amp could not sound good
(i.e.: Be accurate). I simply stated that a PP is better.

At no time has any SE (or SET) proponent EVER offered an objection to any of
the above truths. All they can manage are personal insults, instead of
arguments. Will you now do likewise?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Patrick Turner]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull amps.

You never quit making yourself look silly with such flamer statements.

**Really? What does the RDH4 say about the advantages of SE vs. PP amps?

Lots actually. Single tube amplifiers were used in many amplifier applications.
Between 1925 and 1960 millions of single power triodes and tetrodes such as 6V6
were the main single amplifiers in countless radios and TV sets.

PP wasn't necessarily better sounding, and meant more power was available
compared to what was ever used. The extra costs of PP made sure it was rarely
used.
Cast you mind back to about 1958 and the deluxe TV sets made in Oz available at
the deluxe price.
Sure they had PP amps with a lousy pair of 6BM8 for 8 watts class AB1.
The 8 watts from a lone 300B or KT88 in triode or from a single EL34 in pentode
or SEUL
is better sounding to many folks.
Some radio makers put an 807 into their sets in triode to give a far better
sound than a pair
of 6AR5 PP ****ants.

Sometimes i think you display you ignorance about such matters just to give me
the opportunity
to tell the truth about tube use in the past.

Nowdays the DIYers and middle class consumers wishing fr diversity amoung their
possessions
will maybe try tube amps for a taste of the past and sometimes they find the
sound is more enjoyable than the
latest SS POS el cheapo.


You have no idea what may or may not be the best SET amps.

**Non-sequitur. I said that (all things being approximately equal) a push
pull amp will:

* Offer lower levels of distortion.

Not necessariloy so.
See my web pages on my SE35 amps with 4 x 6CA7 in parallel.



* Deliver a lower output impedance.

Not necessarily so at all!!!!


* Provide MUCH better load tolerance.

More TW ignorance !!!!!!


* Be less expensive.

Hundreds of radio and TV makers of the 1950s would not have agreed with you.

Some folks couldn't give a **** about expense.

Try telling ppl who buy a BMW that they should buy a Holden.

They'll tell you to **** off.



* Be substantially more efficient.

Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class A.


* Sound better (more accurate)

Not necessarily. Didn't you know that class AB pentode amps have a rotten
reputation
for lots of 3H from crossover distortions?



Than an approximately equivalent SE amp. Regardless of the technology used
as amplifying devices. I did not say that a SET amp could not sound good
(i.e.: Be accurate). I simply stated that a PP is better.

PP is not necessarily better. What your opinion of better is is just your
opinion, formed
after 30 years of having never designed or built anything saleable,
and spending all that time repairing SS.

Unfortunately for you , the happy owners of SET amps are LAUGHING at you ideas
about "better".



At no time has any SE (or SET) proponent EVER offered an objection to any of
the above truths.

Then you have been blind and blinkered for so long.....

All they can manage are personal insults, instead of
arguments. Will you now do likewise?

They offer you the facts about which you think you have a monopoly.
When you are cornered in technical arguments where you begin paroting
BS due to your attrocious in-experience with tubecraft and then you try to say
we are insulting you.

We wouldn't dream of wasting time to insult you because there are such large
holes in arguments
that you present that i could easily drive an Isreali tank right on through
without a scratch.

So kindly do not equate our actions in busting up the BS you tender against SE
amps
as insults.

There is good and bad about SE AND PP amps depending on the tubes, topology,
useage
and system implementation.

What I have to say is that you are a trifle out of your depth when it comes to
tubes
and amplifiers, and I don't want ppl reading the Internet cackles to get the
wrong idea
without also reading an alternative presentation.

Perhaps you have not realized that engineering or preferences for engineering
practices
cannot be a series of repetitious one liners.

Otherwise there would be just one type of car which could be purchased.
East germany tried to make the Trabant the wonder of the land, but one eyed
simplicities
were rejected by the people who junked all the BS for the wondrous compexities
of the West.

Patrick Turner.









--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull amps.

You never quit making yourself look silly with such flamer statements.

**Really? What does the RDH4 say about the advantages of SE vs. PP amps?

Lots actually. Single tube amplifiers were used in many amplifier
applications.
Between 1925 and 1960 millions of single power triodes and tetrodes such
as 6V6
were the main single amplifiers in countless radios and TV sets.

**Sure. They were used because they were cheap and adequate. They were never
used to satisfy the requirements of those who wanted high quality sound.
When push pull was developed, SE was dumped pretty quickly for all high
quality applications. And here is some snippents of what the RDH4 says:

Chapter 13.1
"With push-pull Class A1 triodes the even harmonics are cancelled and only
small third and higher odd harmonics remain. Push-pull class A1 triode
operation is regarded as providing the best fidelity obtainable without the
use of feedback."

Chapter 13.5
"Push-pull operation tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the
grid bias or plate supply Voltage."

Chapter 13.5 (8)
"Owing to the good linearity of the composite characteristics for Class A1
operation, and the freedom from limitations in the vertical direstion,
elliptical loadlines may be accomodated with less distortion than with any
other method. Negative Voltage feedback makes such an amplifier practically
distotionless for any type of load, resistive or reactive, of any value of
impedance; the only limitation is regarding grid current."

Of course, there's other stuff, but that is the crux of it. RDH4 is clear
and unequivocal in it's statements about the superiority of PP over SE
operation. I concur with their assessment. I find it quite surprising that
you dispute what is writtne in that august journal.


PP wasn't necessarily better sounding, and meant more power was available
compared to what was ever used. The extra costs of PP made sure it was
rarely
used.

**In the old days, this was certainly the case. However, it is not the case
today.

Cast you mind back to about 1958 and the deluxe TV sets made in Oz
available at
the deluxe price.
Sure they had PP amps with a lousy pair of 6BM8 for 8 watts class AB1.
The 8 watts from a lone 300B or KT88 in triode or from a single EL34 in
pentode
or SEUL
is better sounding to many folks.
Some radio makers put an 807 into their sets in triode to give a far
better
sound than a pair
of 6AR5 PP ****ants.

**Let's discuss apples and apples. Use a piar of 807s in PP anc compare the
same tube in SET mode.


Sometimes i think you display you ignorance about such matters just to
give me
the opportunity
to tell the truth about tube use in the past.

**Your avoidance of discussing facts and preference for personal attacks, is
duly noted.


Nowdays the DIYers and middle class consumers wishing fr diversity amoung
their
possessions
will maybe try tube amps for a taste of the past and sometimes they find
the
sound is more enjoyable than the
latest SS POS el cheapo.

**Non-sequitur.



You have no idea what may or may not be the best SET amps.

**Non-sequitur. I said that (all things being approximately equal) a push
pull amp will:

* Offer lower levels of distortion.

Not necessariloy so.

**Yes, necessarily so. Of course, if you wish to dispute what is written in
the RDH4, then be my guest.

See my web pages on my SE35 amps with 4 x 6CA7 in parallel.



* Deliver a lower output impedance.

Not necessarily so at all!!!!

**Prove it.



* Provide MUCH better load tolerance.

More TW ignorance !!!!!!

**Really? Let's discuss facts then.

An SE amp which delivers 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver 5 Watts @ 4
Ohms. OTOH, a PP amp of 10 Watts MAY be able to deliver as much as 20 watts
@ 4 Ohms. Given the fact that speakers are designed to be driven from
Voltage sources, a PP amp is a much better choice.



* Be less expensive.

Hundreds of radio and TV makers of the 1950s would not have agreed with
you.

**Ancient history.


Some folks couldn't give a **** about expense.

**Sure.


Try telling ppl who buy a BMW that they should buy a Holden.

They'll tell you to **** off.



* Be substantially more efficient.

Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class A.

**I suggest you hit the books again. A SE amp can only be a maximum of 25%
efficient (under ideal conditions), whilst a PP (Class A) amp can be 50%
efficient. Therefore, PP can be more efficient than SE.



* Sound better (more accurate)

Not necessarily. Didn't you know that class AB pentode amps have a rotten
reputation
for lots of 3H from crossover distortions?

**Goalpost shift duly noted. We are discussing SET amps. Therefore, it is
reasonable to compare SET amps with PP Triode amps, operating in Class A. In
that case, the PP will provide lower levels of distortion. Clealry you don't
beleive me, so I suggest you refer to the RDH4 for further information.




Than an approximately equivalent SE amp. Regardless of the technology
used
as amplifying devices. I did not say that a SET amp could not sound good
(i.e.: Be accurate). I simply stated that a PP is better.

PP is not necessarily better.

**ALl things being approximately equal, it will always be better.

What your opinion of better is is just your
opinion, formed
after 30 years of having never designed or built anything saleable,
and spending all that time repairing SS.

**That would be projection and yet another personal attack. Try to stick to
facts.


Unfortunately for you , the happy owners of SET amps are LAUGHING at you
ideas
about "better".

**I will say one thing to SET proponents:

The Emperor has no clothes.




At no time has any SE (or SET) proponent EVER offered an objection to any
of
the above truths.

Then you have been blind and blinkered for so long.....

**Then feel free to argue your case.


All they can manage are personal insults, instead of
arguments. Will you now do likewise?

They offer you the facts about which you think you have a monopoly.

**What facts? So far, all I see are opinions, such as:

"But I like the sound of SETs."
OR
"A pair of tiny Pentodes sound inferior to a single large Triode."
Etc

When you are cornered in technical arguments where you begin paroting
BS due to your attrocious in-experience with tubecraft and then you try to
say
we are insulting you.

**I'm quoting the RDH4. You dispute the words in the RDH4?


We wouldn't dream of wasting time to insult you because there are such
large
holes in arguments
that you present that i could easily drive an Isreali tank right on
through
without a scratch.

**Then do so.


So kindly do not equate our actions in busting up the BS you tender
against SE
amps
as insults.

There is good and bad about SE AND PP amps depending on the tubes,
topology,
useage
and system implementation.

**I never suggested otherwise.


What I have to say is that you are a trifle out of your depth when it
comes to
tubes
and amplifiers, and I don't want ppl reading the Internet cackles to get
the
wrong idea
without also reading an alternative presentation.

**Then provide that alternate presentation. See if you can manage it without
resorting to insults and personal attacks. Quote the RDH4 if you wish.


Perhaps you have not realized that engineering or preferences for
engineering
practices
cannot be a series of repetitious one liners.

**I deal in facts. If you want to argue those facts, feel free.


Otherwise there would be just one type of car which could be purchased.

**No quite the same thing. I am merely stating that if all things are
approximately equal, a PP amp will provide the advantages previously listed.

East germany tried to make the Trabant the wonder of the land, but one
eyed
simplicities
were rejected by the people who junked all the BS for the wondrous
compexities
of the West.

**And again.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Patrick Turner]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull amps.

You never quit making yourself look silly with such flamer statements.

**Really? What does the RDH4 say about the advantages of SE vs. PP amps?

Lots actually. Single tube amplifiers were used in many amplifier
applications.
Between 1925 and 1960 millions of single power triodes and tetrodes such
as 6V6
were the main single amplifiers in countless radios and TV sets.

**Sure. They were used because they were cheap and adequate. They were never
used to satisfy the requirements of those who wanted high quality sound.
When push pull was developed, SE was dumped pretty quickly for all high
quality applications. And here is some snippents of what the RDH4 says:

Chapter 13.1
"With push-pull Class A1 triodes the even harmonics are cancelled and only
small third and higher odd harmonics remain. Push-pull class A1 triode
operation is regarded as providing the best fidelity obtainable without the
use of feedback."

But by 1955 hardly anyone used triodes for output tubes.
Beam tetrodes and pentodes were king and remain for nearly all tubed amplifiers
whether SE or PP.
Loop NFB was routinely used in the better samples and very large numbers of
receivers and hi-fi amps with a single 6BQ5 were produced, all of which gave
better sound than radios with very little NFB.



Chapter 13.5
"Push-pull operation tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the
grid bias or plate supply Voltage."

That's because of the common mode rejection. But many radios with attrocious
power supplies
and SE outputs were hum free. SE circuits such as all those I build have
extremely low hum levels since I use adequate amounts of capacitance which is
very cheap.



Chapter 13.5 (8)
"Owing to the good linearity of the composite characteristics for Class A1
operation, and the freedom from limitations in the vertical direstion,
elliptical loadlines may be accomodated with less distortion than with any
other method. Negative Voltage feedback makes such an amplifier practically
distotionless for any type of load, resistive or reactive, of any value of
impedance; the only limitation is regarding grid current."

This does not mean that you will not get true measured hi-fi performance from
single ended designs.
Everyone who has read RDH4 knows about what it says, but
splendid amps can be made with a single output triode, or many paralleled
triodes.



Of course, there's other stuff, but that is the crux of it. RDH4 is clear
and unequivocal in it's statements about the superiority of PP over SE
operation. I concur with their assessment. I find it quite surprising that
you dispute what is writtne in that august journal.

I have no dispute with the technical reasoning in RDH4.
So don't tell me I dispute what is in the Book.

Little did its authors reflect for one second that ppl in 2006 would be building

amps with SE triodes for the output stage.
Some folks like building biplanes. Some build wooden boats.
Monoplanes and fibreglass are "better" but not to those who
are into bi-planes and timber.

Such issues were not discussed in RDH4, a book which is very notable for
what it does not say, and didn't need to say.




PP wasn't necessarily better sounding, and meant more power was available
compared to what was ever used. The extra costs of PP made sure it was
rarely
used.

**In the old days, this was certainly the case. However, it is not the case
today.

Not necessarily.
And just what experience have you had yourself to come to this conclusion?

To build a PP triode amp with KT90 outputs and making 25 watts of pure class A
costs about the same as using a 13E1 amp with one output tube for 25 watts.

Try it some time, and then you'll know.





Cast you mind back to about 1958 and the deluxe TV sets made in Oz
available at
the deluxe price.
Sure they had PP amps with a lousy pair of 6BM8 for 8 watts class AB1.
The 8 watts from a lone 300B or KT88 in triode or from a single EL34 in
pentode
or SEUL
is better sounding to many folks.
Some radio makers put an 807 into their sets in triode to give a far
better
sound than a pair
of 6AR5 PP ****ants.

**Let's discuss apples and apples. Use a piar of 807s in PP anc compare the
same tube in SET mode.

But to be fair the comparison must be where the power output is equal.
Very few folks would hear any difference between PP 807 in pure class A
and SET 807 with a pair paralleled.




Sometimes i think you display you ignorance about such matters just to
give me
the opportunity
to tell the truth about tube use in the past.

**Your avoidance of discussing facts and preference for personal attacks, is
duly noted.

You are not happy with my challenging you on your pet theories.
Nobody else really is either. I'd rather persist with sharing my knowledge
based on experience of designing and building many amps over the last 12 years
than
try to be always popular with those who disagree, have no expereience,
and wrongly accuse me of making some personal attack where none has been made.

Nowdays the DIYers and middle class consumers wishing fr diversity amoung
their
possessions
will maybe try tube amps for a taste of the past and sometimes they find
the
sound is more enjoyable than the
latest SS POS el cheapo.

**Non-sequitur.



You have no idea what may or may not be the best SET amps.

**Non-sequitur. I said that (all things being approximately equal) a push
pull amp will:

* Offer lower levels of distortion.

Not necessariloy so.

**Yes, necessarily so. Of course, if you wish to dispute what is written in
the RDH4, then be my guest.

See my web pages on my SE35 amps with 4 x 6CA7 in parallel.



* Deliver a lower output impedance.

Not necessarily so at all!!!!

**Prove it.



* Provide MUCH better load tolerance.

More TW ignorance !!!!!!

**Really? Let's discuss facts then.

An SE amp which delivers 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver 5 Watts @ 4
Ohms.

My SEUL makes 25 watts into 8 ohms and 30 watts into 4 ohms.

The OPT ratio chosen ensures good load tolerance, or whatever load tolerance is
desired.

Only someone hopelessly ignorant would make your above statement.

All amplifiers have a power curve that is power output vs load.
To ensure load tolerance one places the nominal load to be driven
on the part of the curve where low thd occurs and less than maximum power.
This allows the halving of the rated load value to get an increase in power.


OTOH, a PP amp of 10 Watts MAY be able to deliver as much as 20 watts
@ 4 Ohms. Given the fact that speakers are designed to be driven from
Voltage sources, a PP amp is a much better choice.

Dear readers, load tolerance is not to be confused with output resistance.

The pure class A SE amp remains coupled to the load at all times, and Rout
is the same at 1 watt as it is at 5 watts.

The Class AB amp where one tube cuts off during the wave cycle has one of the
two tubes becoming
disconnected from the load, leaving just one to cope with load V and I changes.
The Rout is lowest when in pure class A for the few first watts then becomes
lower when
moving to class AB, thus causing generation of much higher 3H and other odd
numbered harmonics.

Class AB triode operation is usually quite OK despite the problems because
90% of the prgramme is handled by the first few watts in pure class A
which has low thd. The B part of the working is for transients so short such as
drum beats
that the extra thd isn't noticed.
In an AB amp capable of 20 watts, such as with a pair of EL34 90%
of owners use perhaps 1 watt average. PP operation or SE operation
is quite adequate in either case and the advantages and disadvantages of PP or
SE are
of academic relevance only.


* Be less expensive.

Hundreds of radio and TV makers of the 1950s would not have agreed with
you.

**Ancient history.


Some folks couldn't give a **** about expense.

**Sure.


Try telling ppl who buy a BMW that they should buy a Holden.

They'll tell you to **** off.



* Be substantially more efficient.

Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class A.

**I suggest you hit the books again. A SE amp can only be a maximum of 25%
efficient (under ideal conditions), whilst a PP (Class A) amp can be 50%
efficient. Therefore, PP can be more efficient than SE.

SE amps are not limited to 25% efficiency.
The SE35 I made is about maximum efficiency.

SE Triodes in A1 are about limited to 30% efficiency, but in A2 can reach 45%.

45% efficiency is about the maxima in PP or SE pure class A amps.

Audiophiles are not concerned with efficiency, just the music.

Otherwise they'd only buy class D amps.




* Sound better (more accurate)

Not necessarily. Didn't you know that class AB pentode amps have a rotten
reputation
for lots of 3H from crossover distortions?

**Goalpost shift duly noted.

No goal posts have been shifted.

We are discussing SET amps. Therefore, it is
reasonable to compare SET amps with PP Triode amps, operating in Class A. In
that case, the PP will provide lower levels of distortion. Clealry you don't
beleive me, so I suggest you refer to the RDH4 for further information.

The extra THD of SE amps may be minimized to entirely insignificant levels.
If you want to know how, read my web pages.








Than an approximately equivalent SE amp. Regardless of the technology
used
as amplifying devices. I did not say that a SET amp could not sound good
(i.e.: Be accurate). I simply stated that a PP is better.

PP is not necessarily better.

**ALl things being approximately equal, it will always be better.

What your opinion of better is is just your
opinion, formed
after 30 years of having never designed or built anything saleable,
and spending all that time repairing SS.

**That would be projection and yet another personal attack. Try to stick to
facts.

Not my projection at all. It is not a personal attack for me to say to the world

that you have not designed or built an amp that you have sold during the last 30
years.
I respect your many illustrious talents, but you yourself have admitted on many
occasions that you are
inexperienced when it comes to what is possible with a few tubes and
some decently wound OPTs.





Unfortunately for you , the happy owners of SET amps are LAUGHING at you
ideas
about "better".

**I will say one thing to SET proponents:

The Emperor has no clothes.

Whatever you say about SET amps won't make them dissapear.






At no time has any SE (or SET) proponent EVER offered an objection to any
of
the above truths.

Then you have been blind and blinkered for so long.....

**Then feel free to argue your case.


All they can manage are personal insults, instead of
arguments. Will you now do likewise?

They offer you the facts about which you think you have a monopoly.

**What facts? So far, all I see are opinions, such as:

"But I like the sound of SETs."

So what is wrong with this?



OR
"A pair of tiny Pentodes sound inferior to a single large Triode."
Etc

Some would say that about PP pentodes and an SET.

Some may say anything.

The first 3 watts from a lone 300B is usually better sounding than
the first 3 watts from a pair of 6BM8 biased for class AB.

I suggest you aquaint yourself to how ppl hear things.



When you are cornered in technical arguments where you begin paroting
BS due to your attrocious in-experience with tubecraft and then you try to
say
we are insulting you.

**I'm quoting the RDH4. You dispute the words in the RDH4?

I use many topologies in my amps. I have no quarrels with RDH4.



We wouldn't dream of wasting time to insult you because there are such
large
holes in arguments
that you present that i could easily drive an Isreali tank right on
through
without a scratch.

**Then do so.

See above. Holes driven through with tanks a plenty.




So kindly do not equate our actions in busting up the BS you tender
against SE
amps
as insults.

There is good and bad about SE AND PP amps depending on the tubes,
topology,
useage
and system implementation.

**I never suggested otherwise.

Apart from catergorising all SE amps in the same awful terminology and BS.




What I have to say is that you are a trifle out of your depth when it
comes to
tubes
and amplifiers, and I don't want ppl reading the Internet cackles to get
the
wrong idea
without also reading an alternative presentation.

**Then provide that alternate presentation. See if you can manage it without
resorting to insults and personal attacks. Quote the RDH4 if you wish.

I have done all that above.
No need for me to quote from RDH4; its all there for folks to read.

I hope my website has expanded on what RDH4 has said 50 years ago.

Now Trev, since you think you know so damn much, what is stopping you
constructing a website to give the public something good to read about
audio design??
Feel free to choose any devices you wish, tubes, bjts, mosfets, etc.

I'll give you a tip, try to keep the spirit of wonderment about
what you might propose would be your designs.


Patrick Turner.




Perhaps you have not realized that engineering or preferences for
engineering
practices
cannot be a series of repetitious one liners.

**I deal in facts. If you want to argue those facts, feel free.


Otherwise there would be just one type of car which could be purchased.

**No quite the same thing. I am merely stating that if all things are
approximately equal, a PP amp will provide the advantages previously listed.

East germany tried to make the Trabant the wonder of the land, but one
eyed
simplicities
were rejected by the people who junked all the BS for the wondrous
compexities
of the West.

**And again.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ruud Broens]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
some snippents
And here is some snippents of what the RDH4 says:
:
: Chapter 13.1
: "With push-pull Class A1 triodes the even harmonics are cancelled and only
: small third and higher odd harmonics remain. Push-pull class A1 triode
: operation is regarded as providing the best fidelity obtainable without the
: use of feedback."
:
: Chapter 13.5
: "Push-pull operation tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the
: grid bias or plate supply Voltage."
:
: Chapter 13.5 (8)
: "Owing to the good linearity of the composite characteristics for Class A1
: operation, and the freedom from limitations in the vertical direstion,
: elliptical loadlines may be accomodated with less distortion than with any
: other method. Negative Voltage feedback makes such an amplifier practically
: distotionless for any type of load, resistive or reactive, of any value of
: impedance; the only limitation is regarding grid current."
:
: Of course, there's other stuff, but that is the crux of it. RDH4 is clear
: and unequivocal in it's statements about the superiority of PP over SE
: operation. I concur with their assessment. I find it quite surprising that
: you dispute what is writtne in that august journal.
:
.................................................. ................................
...................
you have fallen into the steady state thinking trap. sure, one can measure
thd, imd, phase & frequency response, at certain voltage levels, and to some
extent, that characterizes the amplifier.

speakers, however, are mean loads, not just complex impedances, but
time delayed voltage sources as well (the mechanical system stores energy,
then gives it back). the proof of the pudding would be measuring the speaker
output, in an anechoic room, driven by the amplifier - that's what comes out, eh
?

i once suggested something along those lines to Stewart Pinkerton, where
quasi musical digital files could be compared with measured output in
digitised form, then listening panels with those amp-speaker combinations
in a listening room stating preferences - could lead to interesting correlations.

for most listeners, it is hard to detect less than 0.1% distortion in a 400 Hz
sinewave under ideal conditions played on headphones. taking into account
that in musical signals, various masking effects in perception operate, those
0.1% are thorougly unproblematic. So, depending on speaker sensitivity,
listener preference, and for most - acoustical isolation to neighbours :-),
0.5 to 10 W at or below 0.1% distortion for average listening level is fine.

peaks in the musical signal will for a few ms run up the power required
and make the amp create more distortion (not to mention what the
speaker does), but of course, we don't perceive it as 'now it's 1%, now
5, now 10', our perceptive analyses is just too slow for that, we get a
compounded impression of the distortion profile

a trumpet, when blown very soft, creates nearly a sinewave output.
as it is blown with increasing force, the amplitude increases, but an
ever increasing number of upper partials, overtones, are created also
at full force, up to some 50 kHz components

with many natural sounds, louder is often also 'having increased
noise content',
heh

so that for loudness perception, that is somewhat exchangeable:
you can simulate loudness by increasing overtones level
i'd suggest that an amplifier with a steadily increasing level of
distortion, but with higher order harmonics staying below
lower order distortion can suggest with good approximation
a far larger power amp, that _then_ will create far larger speaker
distortion levels,
so, why the better absoluteS ?


: **Really? Let's discuss facts then.
:
: An SE amp which delivers 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver 5 Watts @ 4
: Ohms. OTOH, a PP amp of 10 Watts MAY be able to deliver as much as 20 watts
: @ 4 Ohms. Given the fact that speakers are designed to be driven from
: Voltage sources, a PP amp is a much better choice.
:
hmm, you're doing ss thinking, Trevor, with an SE transformer using a
different tap you can still do those 10W in 4 Ohms. if you mean dynamic
load indifference, that's a function of the flatness of the loadline and the
tubes' dynamic output resistance, subject to further nfb if present.

with a theoretical perfect voltage source, a 0 ohm dynamic output impedance
triode, the 'transfer curves' would be vertical lines, so the same voltage
swing would be possible with about _any_ load, as tilting the loadline would
give the same intersection voltages (for the graphically minded
- speakers are not pure resistor loads, the resulting real world elliptical
loadlines would pose no problem, though.

back in the real world, it is a matter of making choices, compromises, to
come close to the perfect voltage source output

some snippents
: Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class A.
:
: **I suggest you hit the books again. A SE amp can only be a maximum of 25%
: efficient (under ideal conditions), whilst a PP (Class A) amp can be 50%
: efficient. Therefore, PP can be more efficient than SE.

nope, that would be the case for an ss output stage with a current sink to
bias it halfway. a tube amp using a transformer would under ideal conditions
reach 50 percent.

take that 0 ohm dynamic output impedance triode as an example,
biased at V volts, I amps for V*I idle power
0 grid voltage would be along the y axis, at 0 Vak, so a swing of 2V
and 2I, give 4V*I/8 or 50 % of idle power as output power, so 50%
efficient. the closest approximation in the real world is high power
transmitter tubes running at high voltage, with a high reflected load
impedance

*didn't i give the 4cx350 as a 40% efficiency possible example?*
(that wasn't an april 1st joke, you know :-)
(of course, this is neglecting fil power and assuming constant load)

Rudy
balancin' facts & perception

: * Sound better (more accurate)
:
: Not necessarily. Didn't you know that class AB pentode amps have a rotten
: reputation
: for lots of 3H from crossover distortions?
some snippents
: --
: Trevor Wilson
: www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
some snippents
And here is some snippents of what the RDH4 says:
:
: Chapter 13.1
: "With push-pull Class A1 triodes the even harmonics are cancelled and
only
: small third and higher odd harmonics remain. Push-pull class A1 triode
: operation is regarded as providing the best fidelity obtainable without
the
: use of feedback."
:
: Chapter 13.5
: "Push-pull operation tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either
the
: grid bias or plate supply Voltage."
:
: Chapter 13.5 (8)
: "Owing to the good linearity of the composite characteristics for Class
A1
: operation, and the freedom from limitations in the vertical direstion,
: elliptical loadlines may be accomodated with less distortion than with
any
: other method. Negative Voltage feedback makes such an amplifier
practically
: distotionless for any type of load, resistive or reactive, of any value
of
: impedance; the only limitation is regarding grid current."
:
: Of course, there's other stuff, but that is the crux of it. RDH4 is
clear
: and unequivocal in it's statements about the superiority of PP over SE
: operation. I concur with their assessment. I find it quite surprising
that
: you dispute what is writtne in that august journal.
:
.................................................. ...............................
..................
you have fallen into the steady state thinking trap. sure, one can measure
thd, imd, phase & frequency response, at certain voltage levels, and to
some
extent, that characterizes the amplifier.

**Indeed. In fact, if an amplifier delivers inaudible levels of faults, then
it can be considered as possibly faultless. If an amplifier exhibits an
audible flaw (as characterised by any one measurement) then that amplifier
can be assumed to be insinuating it's own distortions into the signal chain.
IOW: Listeners are listnening to AMPLIFIERS and not the music.


speakers, however, are mean loads, not just complex impedances, but
time delayed voltage sources as well (the mechanical system stores energy,
then gives it back). the proof of the pudding would be measuring the
speaker
output, in an anechoic room, driven by the amplifier - that's what comes
out, eh
?

**No argument from me. It is a classic mistake to assume that speakers
represent a simple resistive load. As you say, not only speakers exhibit
resistive, capacitive and inductive characteristics to the amplifier, but
they act as an an energy generator as well. That enegery MUST be damped
effectively by the amplifier.


i once suggested something along those lines to Stewart Pinkerton, where
quasi musical digital files could be compared with measured output in
digitised form, then listening panels with those amp-speaker combinations
in a listening room stating preferences - could lead to interesting
correlations.

**Possibly.


for most listeners, it is hard to detect less than 0.1% distortion in a
400 Hz
sinewave under ideal conditions played on headphones. taking into account
that in musical signals, various masking effects in perception operate,
those
0.1% are thorougly unproblematic. So, depending on speaker sensitivity,
listener preference, and for most - acoustical isolation to neighbours
:-),
0.5 to 10 W at or below 0.1% distortion for average listening level is
fine.

**Agreed. Except for the power level. You cannot say what power level is
appropriate for all listeners. Some may require considerably more than 10
Watts. One of my own amplifiers is equipped with a peak power meter and many
people who listen to my 89dB/2.83V/M speakers listen at levels where the
music peak at 100+ Watts. The room is around 5 Metres X 4 Metres. In larger
rooms, considerbaly more power will be required for realistic listening.


peaks in the musical signal will for a few ms run up the power required
and make the amp create more distortion (not to mention what the
speaker does), but of course, we don't perceive it as 'now it's 1%, now
5, now 10', our perceptive analyses is just too slow for that, we get a
compounded impression of the distortion profile

a trumpet, when blown very soft, creates nearly a sinewave output.
as it is blown with increasing force, the amplitude increases, but an
ever increasing number of upper partials, overtones, are created also
at full force, up to some 50 kHz components

with many natural sounds, louder is often also 'having increased
noise content',
heh

so that for loudness perception, that is somewhat exchangeable:
you can simulate loudness by increasing overtones level
i'd suggest that an amplifier with a steadily increasing level of
distortion, but with higher order harmonics staying below
lower order distortion can suggest with good approximation
a far larger power amp, that _then_ will create far larger speaker
distortion levels,
so, why the better absoluteS ?

**No. It doesn't work that way. The distortion needs to remain below audible
limits, to be, well, inaudible. Once distortion levels become audible, the
amplifier is then insinuating it's own character on the music. I will
readily acknowledge, however, that when _I_ look at amplifier specs, _I_
tend to prefer one which exhibits a gradually rising level of distortion,
with increasing power output. At all intended listening levels, that
distortion needs to remain below the human threshold, however.



: **Really? Let's discuss facts then.
:
: An SE amp which delivers 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver 5 Watts @ 4
: Ohms. OTOH, a PP amp of 10 Watts MAY be able to deliver as much as 20
watts
: @ 4 Ohms. Given the fact that speakers are designed to be driven from
: Voltage sources, a PP amp is a much better choice.
:
hmm, you're doing ss thinking, Trevor, with an SE transformer using a
different tap you can still do those 10W in 4 Ohms. if you mean dynamic
load indifference, that's a function of the flatness of the loadline and
the
tubes' dynamic output resistance, subject to further nfb if present.

**No, that is not what I am saying. The maximum output of a SE amplifier is
dictated by the bias current. The maximum output of a PP amp is not so
constrained. Halving the load impedance connected to a SE amp results in
less power output, whilst halving the load impedance connected to a PP amp
results in more power output. IOW: A PP more closely approaches that of an
ideal pure Voltage source, whilst the SE amp is reverse.


with a theoretical perfect voltage source, a 0 ohm dynamic output
impedance
triode, the 'transfer curves' would be vertical lines,

**Nope. Those curves will be straight lines, but not vertical. Otherwise
amplification cannot occur.

so the same voltage
swing would be possible with about _any_ load, as tilting the loadline
would
give the same intersection voltages (for the graphically minded
- speakers are not pure resistor loads, the resulting real world
elliptical
loadlines would pose no problem, though.

**For an ideal source that is correct.


back in the real world, it is a matter of making choices, compromises, to
come close to the perfect voltage source output

**Certainly.


some snippents
: Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class
A.
:
: **I suggest you hit the books again. A SE amp can only be a maximum of
25%
: efficient (under ideal conditions), whilst a PP (Class A) amp can be 50%
: efficient. Therefore, PP can be more efficient than SE.

nope, that would be the case for an ss output stage with a current sink to
bias it halfway. a tube amp using a transformer would under ideal
conditions
reach 50 percent.

**Nope. According to RDH4 13.2 (iii) it is 25%. PP Class A amps can, of
course reach (theoretically) 50% efficiency. SE cannot.


take that 0 ohm dynamic output impedance triode as an example,
biased at V volts, I amps for V*I idle power
0 grid voltage would be along the y axis, at 0 Vak, so a swing of 2V
and 2I, give 4V*I/8 or 50 % of idle power as output power, so 50%
efficient. the closest approximation in the real world is high power
transmitter tubes running at high voltage, with a high reflected load
impedance

*didn't i give the 4cx350 as a 40% efficiency possible example?*
(that wasn't an april 1st joke, you know :-)
(of course, this is neglecting fil power and assuming constant load)

Rudy
balancin' facts & perception

**I further cite RDH4 13.2 (v) where the figure of 25% efficiency is quoted
again. If you have a cite from RDH4 where the 50% figure (for SE output) is
quoted, I will look it up.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Sander deWaal]

"Trevor Wilson" said:


**Agreed. Except for the power level. You cannot say what power level is
appropriate for all listeners. Some may require considerably more than 10
Watts. One of my own amplifiers is equipped with a peak power meter and many
people who listen to my 89dB/2.83V/M speakers listen at levels where the
music peak at 100+ Watts. The room is around 5 Metres X 4 Metres. In larger
rooms, considerbaly more power will be required for realistic listening.


You gotta be kidding.

Turn back those meter pots immediately.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sander DeWaal" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" said:


**Agreed. Except for the power level. You cannot say what power level is
appropriate for all listeners. Some may require considerably more than 10
Watts. One of my own amplifiers is equipped with a peak power meter and
many
people who listen to my 89dB/2.83V/M speakers listen at levels where the
music peak at 100+ Watts. The room is around 5 Metres X 4 Metres. In
larger
rooms, considerbaly more power will be required for realistic listening.


You gotta be kidding.

**Nope.


Turn back those meter pots immediately.

**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Sander deWaal]

"Trevor Wilson" said:


**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.


My listening levels hover about 80 dB at the listening position.
With paralleled Maggies, I get about 87 dB/w/m (2.83V/8) per channel.
Average power is thus below 1 watt, 100 watts allows for 20 dB peaks,
which is sufficient for my listening habits.
My hybrid amps can handle that easily.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sander DeWaal" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" said:


**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.


My listening levels hover about 80 dB at the listening position.

**Mine and most other listeners, IME, peak at around 100dB.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Patrick Turner]

Sander DeWaal wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.

My listening levels hover about 80 dB at the listening position.
With paralleled Maggies, I get about 87 dB/w/m (2.83V/8) per channel.
Average power is thus below 1 watt, 100 watts allows for 20 dB peaks,
which is sufficient for my listening habits.
My hybrid amps can handle that easily.

Most people I know cannot stay in the room if the average level rises above
85dB SPL,
or about 1/2 watt with speakers capable of 88dB/W/M, which is common these
days.
To reproduce peak levels of 105dB with the average at 85dB, one needs 100
times the average
power of 0.5watts, ie, 50 watts capability.
Rarely does the peak rise more than 10dB SPL above the average so one can get
way with far less than
50 watts. 100w or 300w is quite nice to have but it makes little difference.
But one finds that seldom is such dynamic range really required since it
rarely exists, and
if 81dB average at 1/4 watts is OK for many, then 25 watts total is fine.

Having two channels eases the need for so much power by about 3dB.

I kinow ppl perfectly happy with 8 watts from a 300B with VAF I-66.
They sit close and are not deaf.

Head bangers and teenagers confuse the idea of hi-fi with
ear blistering levels of sound, often they like the most banal type of
sound as produced by rock bands, and such music is just vaguely controlled
noise.
Vacuum tubes are entirely wasted on such people, and they
need many transistors.
They sometimes go deaf prematurely or suffer appalling tinitus at
the old age of 26 and then they are stuffed as well as anti social
since hearing problems are so maddening.

Patrick Turner.






--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Trevor Wilson]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Sander DeWaal wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate
the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.

My listening levels hover about 80 dB at the listening position.
With paralleled Maggies, I get about 87 dB/w/m (2.83V/8) per channel.
Average power is thus below 1 watt, 100 watts allows for 20 dB peaks,
which is sufficient for my listening habits.
My hybrid amps can handle that easily.

Most people I know cannot stay in the room if the average level rises
above
85dB SPL,
or about 1/2 watt with speakers capable of 88dB/W/M, which is common these
days.

**Then you/they need to listen to some live music some time. The SSO
regularly exceeds 100+dB on peaks. Let's not even get into jazz or
(amplified) rock music.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Patrick Turner]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Sander DeWaal wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate
the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.

My listening levels hover about 80 dB at the listening position.
With paralleled Maggies, I get about 87 dB/w/m (2.83V/8) per channel.
Average power is thus below 1 watt, 100 watts allows for 20 dB peaks,
which is sufficient for my listening habits.
My hybrid amps can handle that easily.

Most people I know cannot stay in the room if the average level rises
above
85dB SPL,
or about 1/2 watt with speakers capable of 88dB/W/M, which is common these
days.

**Then you/they need to listen to some live music some time. The SSO
regularly exceeds 100+dB on peaks. Let's not even get into jazz or
(amplified) rock music.

I listen to live but unamplified music all the time with friends at several
venues.
I thought the maximum orchestra levels were about 110dB standing in the centre
of the musicians with
everything going flat strap.

The RAAF military band playing with aditional musos were the loudest thing I've
heard live
in our Llewellen Hall venue that seats about 1,200.
But it wasn't as loud as I can get with a hi-fi set, but the live performance is

detailed, uncompressed, un-limited by a recording studio, and undistorted,
and tolerable for the time they play. For extended listening sessions
nobody I know plays music at venue levels.

I was about 12 metres away from the band players.
If their max peak levels on stage were 105dB, I am not sure what it would be at
12 to 24 metres.

Nevertheless, at one ABC Classic FM sunday live concert they had a lone grand
piano
made by a dude in Sydney. Not real loud at 12 metres, but very loud when
standing alongside
after the concert when several ppl from the audience played pieces of music.

An 8 watt SET amp with a sensitive pair of horns can easily reproduce all that
sound.....
Guys here I know have Altec and JBL horns and there is no shortage of power.....

Patrick Turner.




--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Prune]

Patrick Turner wrote in
:

An 8 watt SET amp with a sensitive pair of horns can easily reproduce
all that sound.....
Guys here I know have Altec and JBL horns and there is no shortage of
power.....

Patrick Turner.


I've not heard many horns, but they all sound colored to me (I'm not sure
if it's the right word, but I mean they add something to the sound). Can
horns really be that transparent?

[Sander deWaal]

"Trevor Wilson" said:


**No pots. Just 1% resistors. The 'meters', BTW, are LEDs. With your
experience, I am surprised that you dispute what I wrote. To recreate the
illusion of live music, even in an average room, quite a large amount of
power is required, for average efficiency speakers.


My listening levels hover about 80 dB at the listening position.


**Mine and most other listeners, IME, peak at around 100dB.


That is SPL unweighed?

Wow.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Ruud Broens]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: ...
: ..................
: you have fallen into the steady state thinking trap. sure, one can measure
: thd, imd, phase & frequency response, at certain voltage levels, and to
: some
: extent, that characterizes the amplifier.
:
: **Indeed. In fact, if an amplifier delivers inaudible levels of faults, then
: it can be considered as possibly faultless. If an amplifier exhibits an
: audible flaw (as characterised by any one measurement) then that amplifier
: can be assumed to be insinuating it's own distortions into the signal chain.
: IOW: Listeners are listnening to AMPLIFIERS and not the music.
:
:
: speakers, however, are mean loads, not just complex impedances, but
: time delayed voltage sources as well (the mechanical system stores energy,
: then gives it back). the proof of the pudding would be measuring the
: speaker
: output, in an anechoic room, driven by the amplifier - that's what comes
: out, eh
: ?
:
: **No argument from me. It is a classic mistake to assume that speakers
: represent a simple resistive load. As you say, not only speakers exhibit
: resistive, capacitive and inductive characteristics to the amplifier, but
: they act as an an energy generator as well. That enegery MUST be damped
: effectively by the amplifier.
:
:
: i once suggested something along those lines to Stewart Pinkerton, where
: quasi musical digital files could be compared with measured output in
: digitised form, then listening panels with those amp-speaker combinations
: in a listening room stating preferences - could lead to interesting
: correlations.
:
: **Possibly.
:
:
: for most listeners, it is hard to detect less than 0.1% distortion in a
: 400 Hz
: sinewave under ideal conditions played on headphones. taking into account
: that in musical signals, various masking effects in perception operate,
: those
: 0.1% are thorougly unproblematic. So, depending on speaker sensitivity,
: listener preference, and for most - acoustical isolation to neighbours
: :-),
: 0.5 to 10 W at or below 0.1% distortion for average listening level is
: fine.
:
: **Agreed. Except for the power level. You cannot say what power level is
: appropriate for all listeners. Some may require considerably more than 10
: Watts. One of my own amplifiers is equipped with a peak power meter and many
: people who listen to my 89dB/2.83V/M speakers listen at levels where the
: music peak at 100+ Watts. The room is around 5 Metres X 4 Metres. In larger
: rooms, considerbaly more power will be required for realistic listening.
:
:
: peaks in the musical signal will for a few ms run up the power required
: and make the amp create more distortion (not to mention what the
: speaker does), but of course, we don't perceive it as 'now it's 1%, now
: 5, now 10', our perceptive analyses is just too slow for that, we get a
: compounded impression of the distortion profile
:
: a trumpet, when blown very soft, creates nearly a sinewave output.
: as it is blown with increasing force, the amplitude increases, but an
: ever increasing number of upper partials, overtones, are created also
: at full force, up to some 50 kHz components
:
: with many natural sounds, louder is often also 'having increased
: noise content',
: heh
:
: so that for loudness perception, that is somewhat exchangeable:
: you can simulate loudness by increasing overtones level
: i'd suggest that an amplifier with a steadily increasing level of
: distortion, but with higher order harmonics staying below
: lower order distortion can suggest with good approximation
: a far larger power amp, that _then_ will create far larger speaker
: distortion levels,
: so, why the better absoluteS ?
:
: **No. It doesn't work that way. The distortion needs to remain below audible
: limits, to be, well, inaudible. Once distortion levels become audible, the
: amplifier is then insinuating it's own character on the music. I will
: readily acknowledge, however, that when _I_ look at amplifier specs, _I_
: tend to prefer one which exhibits a gradually rising level of distortion,
: with increasing power output. At all intended listening levels, that
: distortion needs to remain below the human threshold, however.
:
uhm, i think you're missing the point. i'm proposing a plausible model for
the observation that SET amplifiers, although often underpowered to
create peak levels at low distortion levels or even -at all-
still manage to produce very listenable audio from the speakers.
substituting the right mix and dynamic onset of distortion components
during the peak signals make the acoustical output appear to
'sound very much like the actual higher power
signal on a blameless speaker would sound'

this would be a form of applied psychoacoustical processing ;-)

knowing that we don't very well hear distortion in the lowest octaves,
the model would predict that for real (sub) bass, there is no substitute
for moving air. a sub with a set recommended

heh
:
: : **Really? Let's discuss facts then.
: :
: : An SE amp which delivers 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver 5 Watts @ 4
: : Ohms. OTOH, a PP amp of 10 Watts MAY be able to deliver as much as 20
: watts
: : @ 4 Ohms. Given the fact that speakers are designed to be driven from
: : Voltage sources, a PP amp is a much better choice.
: :
: hmm, you're doing ss thinking, Trevor, with an SE transformer using a
: different tap you can still do those 10W in 4 Ohms. if you mean dynamic
: load indifference, that's a function of the flatness of the loadline and
: the
: tubes' dynamic output resistance, subject to further nfb if present.
:
: **No, that is not what I am saying. The maximum output of a SE amplifier is
: dictated by the bias current. The maximum output of a PP amp is not so
: constrained. Halving the load impedance connected to a SE amp results in
: less power output, whilst halving the load impedance connected to a PP amp
: results in more power output. IOW: A PP more closely approaches that of an
: ideal pure Voltage source, whilst the SE amp is reverse.

ok, you meant compliance - sure, pp is much better in that respect (can't go
below
0 mA when tilting an SE's loadline


:
: with a theoretical perfect voltage source, a 0 ohm dynamic output
: impedance
: triode, the 'transfer curves' would be vertical lines,
:
: **Nope. Those curves will be straight lines, but not vertical. Otherwise
: amplification cannot occur.

||vertical is exactly what 0 Ohm Ra dyn means.

: so the same voltage
: swing would be possible with about _any_ load, as tilting the loadline
: would
: give the same intersection voltages (for the graphically minded
: - speakers are not pure resistor loads, the resulting real world
: elliptical
: loadlines would pose no problem, though.
:
: **For an ideal source that is correct.
:
:
: back in the real world, it is a matter of making choices, compromises, to
: come close to the perfect voltage source output
:
: **Certainly.
:
:
: some snippents
: : Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class
: A.
: :
: : **I suggest you hit the books again. A SE amp can only be a maximum of
: 25%
: : efficient (under ideal conditions), whilst a PP (Class A) amp can be 50%
: : efficient. Therefore, PP can be more efficient than SE.
:
: nope, that would be the case for an ss output stage with a current sink to
: bias it halfway. a tube amp using a transformer would under ideal
: conditions
: reach 50 percent.
:
: **Nope. According to RDH4 13.2 (iii) it is 25%. PP Class A amps can, of
: course reach (theoretically) 50% efficiency. SE cannot.

ahah error found - nope, i'm right, so therefore, RDH mustafbeenwrong.

the calculation shows it, donnit?
but for your ease of mind, here the formula in Terman :
*section 10.5, page 337, formula 10.20, 1955 ed. Electronic and Radio Eng
Plate efficiency = 0.5(1 - Uak_min/Uak_bias)( 1- I_min/ I_bias)

yep, with a theoretical 50 % when v and i swing all the way

: *didn't i give the 4cx350 as a 40% efficiency possible example?*
: (that wasn't an april 1st joke, you know :-)
: (of course, this is neglecting fil power and assuming constant load)

:
: **I further cite RDH4 13.2 (v) where the figure of 25% efficiency is quoted
: again. If you have a cite from RDH4 where the 50% figure (for SE output) is
: quoted, I will look it up.

you've earned the boterbabbelaar of the week for finding an error in RDH :-)
Rudy

: --
: Trevor Wilson
: www.rageaudio.com.au

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" said:


.... boterbabbelaar ....


He's not "wert her".

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander DeWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
:
: .... boterbabbelaar ....
:
:
: He's not "wert her".
:
: --
: "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Egte niet ?
ellipsvormig genoegen, you will note ;-)

apropos, calculating that 'ficiency,
it's easy to see graphically, when power is just the area
in the I V graph triangle of V * I sides = 50 % of VI

\r.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


**Bull****. The BEST SETs cannot compete with average push pull
amps.

You never quit making yourself look silly with such flamer
statements.

**Really? What does the RDH4 say about the advantages of SE vs. PP
amps?

Lots actually. Single tube amplifiers were used in many amplifier
applications.
Between 1925 and 1960 millions of single power triodes and tetrodes
such
as 6V6
were the main single amplifiers in countless radios and TV sets.

**Sure. They were used because they were cheap and adequate. They were
never
used to satisfy the requirements of those who wanted high quality sound.
When push pull was developed, SE was dumped pretty quickly for all high
quality applications. And here is some snippents of what the RDH4 says:

Chapter 13.1
"With push-pull Class A1 triodes the even harmonics are cancelled and
only
small third and higher odd harmonics remain. Push-pull class A1 triode
operation is regarded as providing the best fidelity obtainable without
the
use of feedback."

But by 1955 hardly anyone used triodes for output tubes.

**What is written in the RDH4 remains true today. Do you dispute that fact?

Beam tetrodes and pentodes were king and remain for nearly all tubed
amplifiers
whether SE or PP.

**We are discussing apple and and apples. SET vs. PP Triodes.

Loop NFB was routinely used in the better samples and very large numbers
of
receivers and hi-fi amps with a single 6BQ5 were produced, all of which
gave
better sound than radios with very little NFB.

**Non-sequitur.




Chapter 13.5
"Push-pull operation tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either
the
grid bias or plate supply Voltage."

That's because of the common mode rejection.

**I am pleased you finally agree with something written in the RDH4.

But many radios with attrocious
power supplies
and SE outputs were hum free. SE circuits such as all those I build have
extremely low hum levels since I use adequate amounts of capacitance which
is
very cheap.

**Non-sequitur.




Chapter 13.5 (8)
"Owing to the good linearity of the composite characteristics for Class
A1
operation, and the freedom from limitations in the vertical direstion,
elliptical loadlines may be accomodated with less distortion than with
any
other method. Negative Voltage feedback makes such an amplifier
practically
distotionless for any type of load, resistive or reactive, of any value
of
impedance; the only limitation is regarding grid current."

This does not mean that you will not get true measured hi-fi performance
from
single ended designs.

**Of course not. It's just that (according to the RDH4) better performance
is obtainable from PP. Do you dispute this fact?

Everyone who has read RDH4 knows about what it says, but
splendid amps can be made with a single output triode, or many paralleled
triodes.

**Then why do you constantly dispute what is written in the RDH4?




Of course, there's other stuff, but that is the crux of it. RDH4 is clear
and unequivocal in it's statements about the superiority of PP over SE
operation. I concur with their assessment. I find it quite surprising
that
you dispute what is writtne in that august journal.

I have no dispute with the technical reasoning in RDH4.

**Yeah, you do. You continually argue that PP is inferior to SE. The RDH4 is
quite clear in it's explanation of the superiority of PP over SE.

So don't tell me I dispute what is in the Book.

**Then stop arguing with me. I'm quoting the RDH4. You're arguing with me.
Therefore, you're disputing the facts contained within the RDH4.


Little did its authors reflect for one second that ppl in 2006 would be
building

amps with SE triodes for the output stage.
Some folks like building biplanes. Some build wooden boats.
Monoplanes and fibreglass are "better" but not to those who
are into bi-planes and timber.

**A poor analogy, but I get your point. I have no issue with people building
SET amps for fun and nostalgia. I have issue with people who promote SE amps
as being superior to PP.


Such issues were not discussed in RDH4, a book which is very notable for
what it does not say, and didn't need to say.

**The RDH4 is clear and unequivocal in explaining the hows and whys of the
superiority of PP vs. SE.





PP wasn't necessarily better sounding, and meant more power was
available
compared to what was ever used. The extra costs of PP made sure it was
rarely
used.

**In the old days, this was certainly the case. However, it is not the
case
today.

Not necessarily.
And just what experience have you had yourself to come to this conclusion?

**Common sense, logic and nearly 40 years experience. When I first started,
a (GE-MOV) KT88 cost AUS$25.00, US manufactured 6550 cost $.50 and a Mullard
12AU7 was $1.50. How much are those same items today? Nowadays, seriously
good quality tubes are very expensive, as are high quality transformers.
OTOH, cheap, Chinese tubes and transformers are relatively inexpensive. The
first few amplifiers I ever built were SE types. Then I graduated to PP
types. No comparison. In any area.


To build a PP triode amp with KT90 outputs and making 25 watts of pure
class A
costs about the same as using a 13E1 amp with one output tube for 25
watts.

Try it some time, and then you'll know.

**I don't waste my time with SE amplifiers. I trust what the RDH4 says on
the matter. You should too.






Cast you mind back to about 1958 and the deluxe TV sets made in Oz
available at
the deluxe price.
Sure they had PP amps with a lousy pair of 6BM8 for 8 watts class AB1.
The 8 watts from a lone 300B or KT88 in triode or from a single EL34 in
pentode
or SEUL
is better sounding to many folks.
Some radio makers put an 807 into their sets in triode to give a far
better
sound than a pair
of 6AR5 PP ****ants.

**Let's discuss apples and apples. Use a piar of 807s in PP anc compare
the
same tube in SET mode.

But to be fair the comparison must be where the power output is equal.

**The comparison is fair when the technology is approximately equal.

Very few folks would hear any difference between PP 807 in pure class A
and SET 807 with a pair paralleled.

**Do you have some proof of this? Are the "very few" who can hear the
difference irrelevant?





Sometimes i think you display you ignorance about such matters just to
give me
the opportunity
to tell the truth about tube use in the past.

**Your avoidance of discussing facts and preference for personal attacks,
is
duly noted.

You are not happy with my challenging you on your pet theories.

**Wrong. I am always happy to discuss facts with people. What I object to
are personal attacks. BTW: I'm not quoting theories. I'm quoting the RDH4.


Nobody else really is either. I'd rather persist with sharing my knowledge
based on experience of designing and building many amps over the last 12
years
than
try to be always popular with those who disagree, have no expereience,
and wrongly accuse me of making some personal attack where none has been
made.

**You need to study up on what constitutes discussion of facts and what
constitutes a personal attack. You seem to have no idea.


Nowdays the DIYers and middle class consumers wishing fr diversity
amoung
their
possessions
will maybe try tube amps for a taste of the past and sometimes they
find
the
sound is more enjoyable than the
latest SS POS el cheapo.

**Non-sequitur.



You have no idea what may or may not be the best SET amps.

**Non-sequitur. I said that (all things being approximately equal) a
push
pull amp will:

* Offer lower levels of distortion.

Not necessariloy so.

**Yes, necessarily so. Of course, if you wish to dispute what is written
in
the RDH4, then be my guest.

See my web pages on my SE35 amps with 4 x 6CA7 in parallel.



* Deliver a lower output impedance.

Not necessarily so at all!!!!

**Prove it.



* Provide MUCH better load tolerance.

More TW ignorance !!!!!!

**Really? Let's discuss facts then.

An SE amp which delivers 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms, can only deliver 5 Watts @ 4
Ohms.

My SEUL makes 25 watts into 8 ohms and 30 watts into 4 ohms.

The OPT ratio chosen ensures good load tolerance, or whatever load
tolerance is
desired.

Only someone hopelessly ignorant would make your above statement.

All amplifiers have a power curve that is power output vs load.
To ensure load tolerance one places the nominal load to be driven
on the part of the curve where low thd occurs and less than maximum power.
This allows the halving of the rated load value to get an increase in
power.


OTOH, a PP amp of 10 Watts MAY be able to deliver as much as 20 watts
@ 4 Ohms. Given the fact that speakers are designed to be driven from
Voltage sources, a PP amp is a much better choice.

Dear readers, load tolerance is not to be confused with output resistance.

The pure class A SE amp remains coupled to the load at all times, and Rout
is the same at 1 watt as it is at 5 watts.

The Class AB amp where one tube cuts off during the wave cycle has one of
the
two tubes becoming
disconnected from the load, leaving just one to cope with load V and I
changes.
The Rout is lowest when in pure class A for the few first watts then
becomes
lower when
moving to class AB, thus causing generation of much higher 3H and other
odd
numbered harmonics.

Class AB triode operation is usually quite OK despite the problems because
90% of the prgramme is handled by the first few watts in pure class A
which has low thd. The B part of the working is for transients so short
such as
drum beats
that the extra thd isn't noticed.
In an AB amp capable of 20 watts, such as with a pair of EL34 90%
of owners use perhaps 1 watt average. PP operation or SE operation
is quite adequate in either case and the advantages and disadvantages of
PP or
SE are
of academic relevance only.


* Be less expensive.

Hundreds of radio and TV makers of the 1950s would not have agreed with
you.

**Ancient history.


Some folks couldn't give a **** about expense.

**Sure.


Try telling ppl who buy a BMW that they should buy a Holden.

They'll tell you to **** off.



* Be substantially more efficient.

Only marginally if class AB1, and not any more efficient if pure class
A.

**I suggest you hit the books again. A SE amp can only be a maximum of
25%
efficient (under ideal conditions), whilst a PP (Class A) amp can be 50%
efficient. Therefore, PP can be more efficient than SE.

SE amps are not limited to 25% efficiency.

**Tell that to the author of the RDH4.

The SE35 I made is about maximum efficiency.

SE Triodes in A1 are about limited to 30% efficiency, but in A2 can reach
45%.

45% efficiency is about the maxima in PP or SE pure class A amps.

Audiophiles are not concerned with efficiency, just the music.

Otherwise they'd only buy class D amps.




* Sound better (more accurate)

Not necessarily. Didn't you know that class AB pentode amps have a
rotten
reputation
for lots of 3H from crossover distortions?

**Goalpost shift duly noted.

No goal posts have been shifted.

**We're discussing TRIODES.


We are discussing SET amps. Therefore, it is
reasonable to compare SET amps with PP Triode amps, operating in Class A.
In
that case, the PP will provide lower levels of distortion. Clealry you
don't
beleive me, so I suggest you refer to the RDH4 for further information.

The extra THD of SE amps may be minimized to entirely insignificant
levels.

**And it is easier to do so by using PP.

If you want to know how, read my web pages.








Than an approximately equivalent SE amp. Regardless of the technology
used
as amplifying devices. I did not say that a SET amp could not sound
good
(i.e.: Be accurate). I simply stated that a PP is better.

PP is not necessarily better.

**ALl things being approximately equal, it will always be better.

What your opinion of better is is just your
opinion, formed
after 30 years of having never designed or built anything saleable,
and spending all that time repairing SS.

**That would be projection and yet another personal attack. Try to stick
to
facts.

Not my projection at all. It is not a personal attack for me to say to the
world

that you have not designed or built an amp that you have sold during the
last 30
years.

**It is. It is also irrlevant. We are discussing SET and PP amps, not what
YOU think I may or may not have built.

I respect your many illustrious talents, but you yourself have admitted on
many
occasions that you are
inexperienced when it comes to what is possible with a few tubes and
some decently wound OPTs.

**I finished building tube amps, preamps and tuners (I once built a five
stage TRF, with an infinite impedance detector - it was huge) around 30
years ago. None of which has anything to do with the facts I related above
(quotes from the RDH4).






Unfortunately for you , the happy owners of SET amps are LAUGHING at
you
ideas
about "better".

**I will say one thing to SET proponents:

The Emperor has no clothes.

Whatever you say about SET amps won't make them dissapear.

**I don't expect them to dissappear, any more than I expect to see vintage
cars dissappear from the roads. There will always be people who enjoy
driving Model T Fords and there will always be people who enjoy listening to
SET amps. For approximately similar reasons.







At no time has any SE (or SET) proponent EVER offered an objection to
any
of
the above truths.

Then you have been blind and blinkered for so long.....

**Then feel free to argue your case.


All they can manage are personal insults, instead of
arguments. Will you now do likewise?

They offer you the facts about which you think you have a monopoly.

**What facts? So far, all I see are opinions, such as:

"But I like the sound of SETs."

So what is wrong with this?

**Absolutely nothing. Some people enjoy driving Model T Fords. That is their
choice.




OR
"A pair of tiny Pentodes sound inferior to a single large Triode."
Etc

Some would say that about PP pentodes and an SET.

Some may say anything.

The first 3 watts from a lone 300B is usually better sounding than
the first 3 watts from a pair of 6BM8 biased for class AB.

**Goal post shift, duly noted. Let's discuss A PAIR of Class A 300Bs, in PP,
compared to a 300B in SE.


I suggest you aquaint yourself to how ppl hear things.

**I've done so many times.




When you are cornered in technical arguments where you begin paroting
BS due to your attrocious in-experience with tubecraft and then you try
to
say
we are insulting you.

**I'm quoting the RDH4. You dispute the words in the RDH4?

I use many topologies in my amps. I have no quarrels with RDH4.

**Sure you do. I quote the RDH4 and you dispute it.




We wouldn't dream of wasting time to insult you because there are such
large
holes in arguments
that you present that i could easily drive an Isreali tank right on
through
without a scratch.

**Then do so.

See above. Holes driven through with tanks a plenty.




So kindly do not equate our actions in busting up the BS you tender
against SE
amps
as insults.

There is good and bad about SE AND PP amps depending on the tubes,
topology,
useage
and system implementation.

**I never suggested otherwise.

Apart from catergorising all SE amps in the same awful terminology and BS.

**PP is just better in every way. No point in arguing the issue.





What I have to say is that you are a trifle out of your depth when it
comes to
tubes
and amplifiers, and I don't want ppl reading the Internet cackles to
get
the
wrong idea
without also reading an alternative presentation.

**Then provide that alternate presentation. See if you can manage it
without
resorting to insults and personal attacks. Quote the RDH4 if you wish.

I have done all that above.
No need for me to quote from RDH4; its all there for folks to read.

**There is no point, because there is nothing for you to quote. The RDH4 is
unequivocal in it's statements about the superiority of PP amps over SE
types.


I hope my website has expanded on what RDH4 has said 50 years ago.

Now Trev, since you think you know so damn much, what is stopping you
constructing a website to give the public something good to read about
audio design??

**Why?

Feel free to choose any devices you wish, tubes, bjts, mosfets, etc.

I'll give you a tip, try to keep the spirit of wonderment about
what you might propose would be your designs.

**I deal in facts, not bull****.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" said:


: .... boterbabbelaar ....


: He's not "wert her".


Egte niet ?
ellipsvormig genoegen, you will note ;-)


Ik moet echt kotsen van die dingen.
Javaanse Jongens 3/4 met witte Mascotte any time ;-)


apropos, calculating that 'ficiency,
it's easy to see graphically, when power is just the area
in the I V graph triangle of V * I sides = 50 % of VI


Hmmm.....I must hit the books again.
I always thought class A SET had 25 % efficiency.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Patrick Turner]

Prune wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote in
:

An 8 watt SET amp with a sensitive pair of horns can easily reproduce
all that sound.....
Guys here I know have Altec and JBL horns and there is no shortage of
power.....

Patrick Turner.

I've not heard many horns, but they all sound colored to me (I'm not sure
if it's the right word, but I mean they add something to the sound). Can
horns really be that transparent?

Most horns we hear don't have a flat response so like megaphones they tend to
honk and shout.

But a couple of guys here have used large old midrange JBL compression
drivers with front
horns and bullet drivers and large bass reflex bins for good balanced sound
with great imaging with very low power levels.
The JBL mid horn can take about 100 watts but is about 106dB efficient,
and sound from that can be quite deafening with a watt+.

Alas two other guys I do know attempted to use Lowther and Fostex and
succeded only
to make bad sounding/measuring speakers good only for firewood.

Horns are tricky, but the dudes at JBL got it about right.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Delete a lot of argy bargy entrapment by TW,

I said,

Little did its authors reflect for one second that ppl in 2006 would be
building

amps with SE triodes for the output stage.
Some folks like building biplanes. Some build wooden boats.
Monoplanes and fibreglass are "better" but not to those who
are into bi-planes and timber.

Trevor replied,

**A poor analogy, but I get your point. I have no issue with people building
SET amps for fun and nostalgia. I have issue with people who promote SE amps
as being superior to PP.

But there are cases where an SET amp could be constructed to be
a lot better performing than a given PP amp.
You have never ever tried to design or build anything since 1976, so what would
you really
know?l

So anyone promoting SET amps where they are indeed better performing, (ie,
better sound, measurements)
than some particular PP amp is quite entitled to do so.

You really have issue with the inconsistencies and restrictions and fantasies
within your own mind.

Patrick Turner.

....delete another huge amount ot verbal entrapment where Trevor desperately
continues to ram a message home with a broom handle.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander DeWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: : .... boterbabbelaar ....
:
: : He's not "wert her".
:
: Egte niet ?
: ellipsvormig genoegen, you will note ;-)
:
:
: Ik moet echt kotsen van die dingen.
: Javaanse Jongens 3/4 met witte Mascotte any time ;-)

:-)
:
: apropos, calculating that 'ficiency,
: it's easy to see graphically, when power is just the area
: in the I V graph triangle of V * I sides = 50 % of VI
:
:
: Hmmm.....I must hit the books again.
: I always thought class A SET had 25 % efficiency.


If RDH states it's usually not above 25 %, i can believe it.
Although 'normal tubes' can go somewhat above that, for example
the 6Pi14EV, a poor man's 7189 of sorts, running at 380V, 38 mA
idle, loaded with 6.6 K reflected load, will put out nearly 4.5 W,
or about 30% efficiency.
/r on
But anyway, who cares, some Watts spilled, do you know the appaling
energy efficiency of large scale powerplants, incl. transport &
transformer losses not much better then sad 25 %.
Now that's where energy saving does count - we need networked
powergencells , just enough for a block of houses, an apartment floor
or so, energy companies just doing the maintenance and clearing house
function between cells - far more robust, hot water available locally,
without the ridiculous miles of isolated piping under the streets from
some megawatt powerplant.

It seems only the japanese have gotten that worked out in some detail -
proves again there are just not enough scientists in government ...
/rantoff

Rudy

[Patrick Turner]

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Sander DeWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: : .... boterbabbelaar ....
:
: : He's not "wert her".
:
: Egte niet ?
: ellipsvormig genoegen, you will note ;-)
:
:
: Ik moet echt kotsen van die dingen.
: Javaanse Jongens 3/4 met witte Mascotte any time ;-)

:-)
:
: apropos, calculating that 'ficiency,
: it's easy to see graphically, when power is just the area
: in the I V graph triangle of V * I sides = 50 % of VI
:
:
: Hmmm.....I must hit the books again.
: I always thought class A SET had 25 % efficiency.

If RDH states it's usually not above 25 %, i can believe it.
Although 'normal tubes' can go somewhat above that, for example
the 6Pi14EV, a poor man's 7189 of sorts, running at 380V, 38 mA
idle, loaded with 6.6 K reflected load, will put out nearly 4.5 W,
or about 30% efficiency.
/r on
But anyway, who cares, some Watts spilled, do you know the appaling
energy efficiency of large scale powerplants, incl. transport &
transformer losses not much better then sad 25 %.
Now that's where energy saving does count - we need networked
powergencells , just enough for a block of houses, an apartment floor
or so, energy companies just doing the maintenance and clearing house
function between cells - far more robust, hot water available locally,
without the ridiculous miles of isolated piping under the streets from
some megawatt powerplant.

It seems only the japanese have gotten that worked out in some detail -
proves again there are just not enough scientists in government ...
/rantoff

Rudy

Rudy, there would be those who would hang us from a lamp post
because of the power waste from SET amplifiers, but they spend all night
typing
BS from their PC and it uses maybe 100watts, and they leave countless
lights turned on in their
house without reason so how efficient is that?

Meanwhile you are right in principle about efficiency with energy (
electricity ) production.

In practice though, people have extremely limited ability to act communally
and locally and
have a tendency to not worry about the remote consequences of their
combined actions
such as the greenhouse effect and having more than one child who'll grow
into a fat spoiled brat.

The immediate result of inefficiency is the high price of energy, and this
limits human activity
because of the efforts made to pay the prices of energy. Almost all the
alternatives to
inefficiency such as solar and wind crap cost an enormous amount in capital
investment,
and so we stay sucking on the easiest teat of oil and coal.

But think of the worse situation where energy was almost free, and as free
as the air we breathe.
In such an imaginery situation there would be no limit to the number of
triodes
in a damned amplifier, and it would not seem wasteful to have 10 x 300B per
channel.

Worse still would be the tendency for the saved or un-spent funds for fuel
to be spent on
extra large sized vehicles or houses, many more chain saws, and so the
human attack on the envirionment,
fresh water supplies, forests, mineral resources, etc, etc, etc, would be
far greater than it is now,
ie, about the size of the coal and oil and related industries combined,
so that even sooner than we think the Amazon will turn to a desert and
gross calamaties will happen
far before any predictions even without a greenhouse effect at all.

Divide the number of tonnes of air each one of us has personally assinged
to us,
ie, World weight of air / 6,000,000,000.
Soon anyone can see the effect if each one of us dumps 10 tonnes of CO2
each year.......

If we stopped CO2 emissions totally tommorrow, the other activities
would attack all our other allotments of water, arable land, forests,
minerals etc.

Something will have to give if gasoline prices double in 2 years,
especially if Iran
chooses to pick a real fight with Israel.

I would not be surprised to learn that in 1,000 years the Human Experiment
on Earth
had failed, and a few survivors lurked in caves firing bows and arrows and
using old
Chevrolet hubcaps for shields.
Perhaps we may have genetically altered ourselves to something like a
cockroach
which could eat the mountains of **** we are piling up around the planet.

Vive le Progresse!

Happy Days!

Patrick Turner.