Jim McDonald wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton"

You really are totally ****ed in the head, aren't you Phil?



** Nazis - historically, ordinary German folk possessing an arrogant
attitude and an unshakable belief that they alone were right that was not
based on anything rational

Nazi - person who's attitudes, manner and way of treating others who are
in no position to fight back resembles the behaviour of the members of the
German fascist movement.

Stewart Pinkerton = strutting, smug, pig arrogant pommy Nazi.

Hitler would have made him an officer of the Third Reich.

Pinkerton would have licked his arse for the privilege.



Stewart Pinkerton = fascist wannabe




........... Phil

I am glad to see that the RAT's roll on. .. I am just a Pommie, halfwit,
arselicking, shhirtlifting ********, asshole and know nothing at all about
anything .. the Turneroid meets the Allison .. who couldn't make a decent
engine until Rolls Royce showed them how to do it ... Packard and North
American built 'em and we got the P51 Mustang ...

What a peach !! ..... Brits and Yanks produced ... HISTORY ..

Read the books ...... Australia produced the Koala bear ......

Points out of ten ??

Name an Australian invention ..!!

Yawn, Yawn , ... ZZZZZZZZZZ

We value your input .. you do have useful things to say .. but we don't
need all the crap which accompamies it ...

You're collonials ... ACCEPT IT !!

Yes we do accept our status in the world as it is and as it has evolved.
We didn't need to have a Civil War over slavery and lots of other issues we'd
solve
over a few drinks at the pub.
We didn't need to have the litany of British Wars to evolve.
We won't be having a shooting match again to remove the Queen, a rather harmless

and powerless old woman as our head of state when we decide to become a
republic.

Australia has had one of the longest running internally peaceful runs compared
to just about any other nation
since 1788, the official start to the beginning of the white boat people's
rule and decline of indigenous power that had preceeded for the previous 60,000+
thousand years.
I am uncertain that having 60,000 more years of having us "white folk" and other
assorted imports
will leave the country in as fine shape as it was found by the first europeans
in 1788.
So I am not so keen to rave about the wonders of what we are.

Meanwhile the best of our young men went off to fight and die in 2 world wars
for freedoms you enjoy, not to mention for the continuation of US and British
commercial interests
world wide, and here in Oz, where US/British investement was high, and thus the
yanks needed to kick
the Jap butt to keep their business safe, when the Poms couldn't stretch their
influence
strongly with us very strongly.
500 Oz soldiers died in Vietnam for a post WW2 US push to stop
communism, in a war that failed.
I don't recall we got very much out of helping "our american friends",
or "our british masters".
The present trade deals we have signed up with the US to do not place our
farmers
on the same level playing field as the US farmers, who, like so many farmers
in europe need propping up with subsidies.

Oz has produced a few inventions, but we are only a tiny country,
not as big as Califonia, and about the same population as Iraq.
I guess if Oz had as much oil here as Iraq, the place would be crawling with
yanks.

Sure the US is a major world player with its conglomerate power and inventions,
but there are 12,000 deaths pa by firearms, and a rather a bad drug problem
so I am always beware of the arrogant sods praising their beautiful country
as if it has no faults at all.
Many Australians see many americans as the worlds worst inventors
of arrogance, and they'd much prefer that the Australian Way of Life
be preserved lest it become all the worse if we addopted many US traditions.

So I am amused when a Pom labels us as a bunch of hicky colonials.

I do recall the day where Australia II whipped the arse of the America's Cup
holder in '83, and the yanks had Nasa to help their efforts, so I am quietly
proud
of our talent here.

It is very difficult to find any web forum where the signal to noise ratio
is as good as it is at RAT.

Why are there the complaints being made about the Oz contingent here?

I'll tell you why.

Its because the US contingent is so silent and reticent.
People could be forgiven for thinking the US representatives who probably
outnumber everyone else 4:1 have so little to say, and yet some complain about
Oz noise.
If Rat was as vibrant as it could be, we should have so many
US posters and so many threads that nobody would notice my
contributions or Phil's.

Should you be lucky enough to visit our fair country
I would shout you a beer if I thought it would improove
your understanding.
The other thing is that informed australians are not surprised to
find that most americans think australia is some county in europe,
and that their knowledge of and tolerance for foreign peoples is a bit dim.

But I know you know a lot more about Oz than most americans.
Prince Charles told me yesterday over lunch that he was sick of consoling the
English
Cricket Team after a mauling by our tiny country.
During his tour here he said he wanted to gain a better picture in his mind of
Oz,
an enigmatic country to understand, he said, so he could share his findings with
you
when he had you around for afternoon tea at Winsdor Castle next week.
He said you will be invited to his bucks party before finally submitting to
Camila,
but you need to suggest up a suitable venue for this; I said you'd know where
all the best places would be.

But should you visit here and be taken to one of the rare places where a Koala
bear is up a gum tree and above you, beware if it decides that it
wants to **** all over you.

The smell of that **** would kill an elephant, and it lasts for weeks.

Patrick Turner.






cherers
jim

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Jim McDonald wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton"

You really are totally ****ed in the head, aren't you Phil?



** Nazis - historically, ordinary German folk possessing an
arrogant
attitude and an unshakable belief that they alone were right that was
not
based on anything rational

Nazi - person who's attitudes, manner and way of treating others who
are
in no position to fight back resembles the behaviour of the members of
the
German fascist movement.

Stewart Pinkerton = strutting, smug, pig arrogant pommy Nazi.

Hitler would have made him an officer of the Third Reich.

Pinkerton would have licked his arse for the privilege.



Stewart Pinkerton = fascist wannabe




........... Phil

I am glad to see that the RAT's roll on. .. I am just a Pommie,
halfwit,
arselicking, shhirtlifting ********, asshole and know nothing at all
about
anything .. the Turneroid meets the Allison .. who couldn't make a
decent
engine until Rolls Royce showed them how to do it ... Packard and North
American built 'em and we got the P51 Mustang ...

What a peach !! ..... Brits and Yanks produced ... HISTORY ..

Read the books ...... Australia produced the Koala bear ......

Points out of ten ??

Name an Australian invention ..!!

Yawn, Yawn , ... ZZZZZZZZZZ

We value your input .. you do have useful things to say .. but we don't
need all the crap which accompamies it ...

You're collonials ... ACCEPT IT !!

Yes we do accept our status in the world as it is and as it has evolved.
We didn't need to have a Civil War over slavery and lots of other issues
we'd
solve
over a few drinks at the pub.
We didn't need to have the litany of British Wars to evolve.
We won't be having a shooting match again to remove the Queen, a rather
harmless

and powerless old woman as our head of state when we decide to become a
republic.

Australia has had one of the longest running internally peaceful runs
compared
to just about any other nation
since 1788, the official start to the beginning of the white boat people's
rule and decline of indigenous power that had preceeded for the previous
60,000+
thousand years.
I am uncertain that having 60,000 more years of having us "white folk" and
other
assorted imports
will leave the country in as fine shape as it was found by the first
europeans
in 1788.
So I am not so keen to rave about the wonders of what we are.

Meanwhile the best of our young men went off to fight and die in 2 world
wars
for freedoms you enjoy, not to mention for the continuation of US and
British
commercial interests
world wide, and here in Oz, where US/British investement was high, and
thus the
yanks needed to kick
the Jap butt to keep their business safe, when the Poms couldn't stretch
their
influence
strongly with us very strongly.
500 Oz soldiers died in Vietnam for a post WW2 US push to stop
communism, in a war that failed.
I don't recall we got very much out of helping "our american friends",
or "our british masters".
The present trade deals we have signed up with the US to do not place our
farmers
on the same level playing field as the US farmers, who, like so many
farmers
in europe need propping up with subsidies.

Oz has produced a few inventions, but we are only a tiny country,
not as big as Califonia, and about the same population as Iraq.
I guess if Oz had as much oil here as Iraq, the place would be crawling
with
yanks.

Sure the US is a major world player with its conglomerate power and
inventions,
but there are 12,000 deaths pa by firearms, and a rather a bad drug
problem
so I am always beware of the arrogant sods praising their beautiful
country
as if it has no faults at all.
Many Australians see many americans as the worlds worst inventors
of arrogance, and they'd much prefer that the Australian Way of Life
be preserved lest it become all the worse if we addopted many US
traditions.

So I am amused when a Pom labels us as a bunch of hicky colonials.

I do recall the day where Australia II whipped the arse of the America's
Cup
holder in '83, and the yanks had Nasa to help their efforts, so I am
quietly
proud
of our talent here.

It is very difficult to find any web forum where the signal to noise ratio
is as good as it is at RAT.

Why are there the complaints being made about the Oz contingent here?

I'll tell you why.

Its because the US contingent is so silent and reticent.
People could be forgiven for thinking the US representatives who probably
outnumber everyone else 4:1 have so little to say, and yet some complain
about
Oz noise.
If Rat was as vibrant as it could be, we should have so many
US posters and so many threads that nobody would notice my
contributions or Phil's.

Should you be lucky enough to visit our fair country
I would shout you a beer if I thought it would improove
your understanding.
The other thing is that informed australians are not surprised to
find that most americans think australia is some county in europe,
and that their knowledge of and tolerance for foreign peoples is a bit
dim.

But I know you know a lot more about Oz than most americans.
Prince Charles told me yesterday over lunch that he was sick of consoling
the
English
Cricket Team after a mauling by our tiny country.
During his tour here he said he wanted to gain a better picture in his
mind of
Oz,
an enigmatic country to understand, he said, so he could share his
findings with
you
when he had you around for afternoon tea at Winsdor Castle next week.
He said you will be invited to his bucks party before finally submitting
to
Camila,
but you need to suggest up a suitable venue for this; I said you'd know
where
all the best places would be.

But should you visit here and be taken to one of the rare places where a
Koala
bear is up a gum tree and above you, beware if it decides that it
wants to **** all over you.

The smell of that **** would kill an elephant, and it lasts for weeks.

Patrick Turner.






cherers
jim




I am glad to see that you are, awake, out there and still kicking !!
best wishes
jim

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:22:19 -0600, "JamesG"
wrote:

A friend of mine used to kill
whole threads if they contained any posts by the above mentioned individual
because they would quickly deteriorate into the type of profanity you can
see in the posts previous to this one.

Kill-file the stupid troll, and those who feed the worthless idiot by
responding.

If you are 72 and have some knowledge about things electrical and
concerning
tubes and amps, how about sharing it, so some youngster who is
reading this
right now might learn something and get excited about vintage EE

There is perhaps a slight problem here, in that RDH4 tells you all
you
need to know about the technology, and it was published more than
half
a century ago. That also points up the other problem - no one who
actually does have some knowledge about things electrical and
concerning tubes and amps, would even *consider* using tubes for
audio
amplifiers in the 21st century.....................

otherwise, when you kick-off in a few years, what good were you to
the
tranny men of tomorrow who are only 15 right now and trying to
choose
between tube amps and drugs as a fun hobby?

Tube amps can kill you faster! :-0

OTOH, since we all agree that the best tube amp is one that doesn't
have a tranny, why not go the whole hog and dump the tubes as well?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

First off this is Bull**** because we all do not agree that the best
sounding tube amp is one without a tranny. It's total Bull****. OTL
tube amps do exist and do certain things well but they are in fact a
thing that only works in spite of itself. Usually their CCS sine wave
output power into 4 or 8 ohm loads is very small. "But we don't use
them that way!" Indeed, or they wouldn't exist.

And if we dumped the tubes, we'd hardly have a tube amp. Even Nigel
Tufnel could figure this one out. The fact is , some people prefer tube
amps, partially because they tend to sound better. When designed and
built by the kind of people who build audio for their own amazement and
used under the conditions they do they tend to be more fun, less hassle
and better sounding. You are not required to build, own, or listen to
one. So if you are anti-tube you are entitled to be but go away from
this group. Even Kroomel has more sense.

Finally, the RDH4 does not tell you everything you need to know. There
was another 15 years of tube, circuit, and audio progress made after it
was written in "the mainstream" and the tube audio freaks have added on
another 25 years of apocryphal literature. Unfortunately much is in
Japanese (Asano, Shishido et al), German (zur Linde) , or French
(Hiraga). Nevertheless it's there.

In short you, Stuart, are full of ****. Perhaps even more so than
Krueger. Wait, no, no one can be more full of **** than Kroo. Kroo is
more full of ****, but yours, Pinkerton, smells worse.

The 1710 Allison gained _nothing_ from RR.

The RR Merlin was a good but ferociously difficult to produce engine
that had one crucial advantage, it had (in the appropriate Marks) a two
stage two speed centrifugal supercharger assembly. This gave it a high
altitude advantage. Allison chose not to design such an assembly
because its prime customer had designed a fighter around its engine and
a GE turbosupercharger, which would obviate the need for the two speed
blower.

Packard turned the RR Merlin into a productionable engine and was
rewarded immediately after VJ Day by the refusal of RR to extend its
license. So the Merlin 2 stage two speed blowers were grafted on to the
Allison and the result was the ultimate Mustang engine.

On 10 Mar 2005 17:15:19 -0800, wrote:

And if we dumped the tubes, we'd hardly have a tube amp. Even Nigel
Tufnel could figure this one out. The fact is , some people prefer tube
amps, partially because they tend to sound better.

That would be your *opinion*, right?

When designed and
built by the kind of people who build audio for their own amazement and
used under the conditions they do they tend to be more fun, less hassle
and better sounding. You are not required to build, own, or listen to
one. So if you are anti-tube you are entitled to be but go away from
this group. Even Kroomel has more sense.

I'm not anti-tube, I am anti those clowns who claim that SS amps
*lose* something in the sound. The plain fact is that if you genuinely
do *prefer* tube amps on sonic grounds, it's because they *add*
euphonic artifacts. Really good tube amps such as the ARC VT150 sound
just like any good SS amp.

Finally, the RDH4 does not tell you everything you need to know.

Who said it does? Aside from Turner............

A much better and more modern reference for the enthusiastic amateur
(and many pros) is Horowitz and Hall 'The Art of Electronics'.

There
was another 15 years of tube, circuit, and audio progress made after it
was written in "the mainstream" and the tube audio freaks have added on
another 25 years of apocryphal literature. Unfortunately much is in
Japanese (Asano, Shishido et al), German (zur Linde) , or French
(Hiraga). Nevertheless it's there.

Shame that they all seem to bleat on about single-ended triodes.

In short you, Stuart, are full of ****.

I never waste time debating with those who can't even spell my name.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 10 Mar 2005 17:27:21 -0800, wrote:

The 1710 Allison gained _nothing_ from RR.

Aside from the ability to provide enough power............

The RR Merlin was a good but ferociously difficult to produce engine
that had one crucial advantage, it had (in the appropriate Marks) a two
stage two speed centrifugal supercharger assembly. This gave it a high
altitude advantage.

Fairly useful in a fighter aircraft, wouldn't you agree? :-)

Allison chose not to design such an assembly
because its prime customer had designed a fighter around its engine and
a GE turbosupercharger, which would obviate the need for the two speed
blower.

Um, so why did they then use the RR blower?...............

Packard turned the RR Merlin into a productionable engine and was
rewarded immediately after VJ Day by the refusal of RR to extend its
license. So the Merlin 2 stage two speed blowers were grafted on to the
Allison and the result was the ultimate Mustang engine.

Quite so. Although others would argue for the Boss........... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:

If you are 72 and have some knowledge about things electrical and
concerning
tubes and amps, how about sharing it, so some youngster who is
reading this
right now might learn something and get excited about vintage EE

There is perhaps a slight problem here, in that RDH4 tells you all
you
need to know about the technology, and it was published more than
half
a century ago. That also points up the other problem - no one who
actually does have some knowledge about things electrical and
concerning tubes and amps, would even *consider* using tubes for
audio
amplifiers in the 21st century.....................

otherwise, when you kick-off in a few years, what good were you to
the
tranny men of tomorrow who are only 15 right now and trying to
choose
between tube amps and drugs as a fun hobby?

Tube amps can kill you faster! :-0

OTOH, since we all agree that the best tube amp is one that doesn't
have a tranny, why not go the whole hog and dump the tubes as well?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

First off this is Bull**** because we all do not agree that the best
sounding tube amp is one without a tranny. It's total Bull****. OTL
tube amps do exist and do certain things well but they are in fact a
thing that only works in spite of itself. Usually their CCS sine wave
output power into 4 or 8 ohm loads is very small. "But we don't use
them that way!" Indeed, or they wouldn't exist.

And if we dumped the tubes, we'd hardly have a tube amp. Even Nigel
Tufnel could figure this one out. The fact is , some people prefer tube
amps, partially because they tend to sound better. When designed and
built by the kind of people who build audio for their own amazement and
used under the conditions they do they tend to be more fun, less hassle
and better sounding. You are not required to build, own, or listen to
one. So if you are anti-tube you are entitled to be but go away from
this group. Even Kroomel has more sense.

Finally, the RDH4 does not tell you everything you need to know. There
was another 15 years of tube, circuit, and audio progress made after it
was written in "the mainstream" and the tube audio freaks have added on
another 25 years of apocryphal literature. Unfortunately much is in
Japanese (Asano, Shishido et al), German (zur Linde) , or French
(Hiraga). Nevertheless it's there.

I have to say I have not seen too much from these
other authors besides Langford-Smith.

From what I have heard on the grape vine, RDH4 gets the basic engineering
right, and does not proceed into some of the more blatent
tubophile or audiophile concerns that have come to almost suplant
commensense.

Don't worry about the knockers, its wastes everyone's time to read
negatives;
I even slip back down doing that too sometimes, and I regret it, so
could we not hear positives from you from these authors, and what they
added since 1955?

Patrick Turner.




In short you, Stuart, are full of ****. Perhaps even more so than
Krueger. Wait, no, no one can be more full of **** than Kroo. Kroo is
more full of ****, but yours, Pinkerton, smells worse.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 10 Mar 2005 17:15:19 -0800, wrote:

And if we dumped the tubes, we'd hardly have a tube amp. Even Nigel
Tufnel could figure this one out. The fact is , some people prefer tube
amps, partially because they tend to sound better.

That would be your *opinion*, right?

When designed and
built by the kind of people who build audio for their own amazement and
used under the conditions they do they tend to be more fun, less hassle
and better sounding. You are not required to build, own, or listen to
one. So if you are anti-tube you are entitled to be but go away from
this group. Even Kroomel has more sense.

I'm not anti-tube, I am anti those clowns who claim that SS amps
*lose* something in the sound. The plain fact is that if you genuinely
do *prefer* tube amps on sonic grounds, it's because they *add*
euphonic artifacts. Really good tube amps such as the ARC VT150 sound
just like any good SS amp.

Finally, the RDH4 does not tell you everything you need to know.

Who said it does? Aside from Turner............

Its safe to think that RDH4 doesn't cover every single iddy biddy polko dot
bikini aspect of a true beaut design.....



A much better and more modern reference for the enthusiastic amateur
(and many pros) is Horowitz and Hall 'The Art of Electronics'.

I hope it ain't a horo story.....



There
was another 15 years of tube, circuit, and audio progress made after it
was written in "the mainstream" and the tube audio freaks have added on
another 25 years of apocryphal literature. Unfortunately much is in
Japanese (Asano, Shishido et al), German (zur Linde) , or French
(Hiraga). Nevertheless it's there.

Shame that they all seem to bleat on about single-ended triodes.

In short you, Stuart, are full of ****.

I never waste time debating with those who can't even spell my name.

Didn't the Stuarts and the Stewarts have a big war or something
way back in the mists of scootish istory?

Patrick Turner.


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On 10 Mar 2005 17:15:19 -0800, wrote:
:
: And if we dumped the tubes, we'd hardly have a tube amp. Even Nigel
: Tufnel could figure this one out. The fact is , some people prefer tube
: amps, partially because they tend to sound better.
:
: That would be your *opinion*, right?
:
: When designed and
: built by the kind of people who build audio for their own amazement and
: used under the conditions they do they tend to be more fun, less hassle
: and better sounding. You are not required to build, own, or listen to
: one. So if you are anti-tube you are entitled to be but go away from
: this group. Even Kroomel has more sense.
:
: I'm not anti-tube, I am anti those clowns who claim that SS amps
: *lose* something in the sound. The plain fact is that if you genuinely
: do *prefer* tube amps on sonic grounds, it's because they *add*
: euphonic artifacts. Really good tube amps such as the ARC VT150 sound
: just like any good SS amp.
:
: Finally, the RDH4 does not tell you everything you need to know.
:
: Who said it does? Aside from Turner............
:
: A much better and more modern reference for the enthusiastic amateur
: (and many pros) is Horowitz and Hall 'The Art of Electronics'.
:
: I never waste time debating with those who can't even spell my name.
: --
:

hehe, please then spell the masterpiece thus: Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill
if you will
;-)
Rudy
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:40:08 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Didn't the Stuarts and the Stewarts have a big war or something
way back in the mists of scootish istory?

No, but the spellings do wander about a bit, whether for given or clan
names.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

TurnerI have to say I have not seen too much from these
other authors besides Langford-Smith.


From what I have heard on the grape vine, RDH4 gets the basic
engineering
right, and does not proceed into some of the more blatent
tubophile or audiophile concerns that have come to almost suplant
commensense.


Don't worry about the knockers, its wastes everyone's time to read
negatives;
I even slip back down doing that too sometimes, and I regret it, so
could we not hear positives from you from these authors, and what they
added since 1955?

Fair question.

Various editions of "Audio Cyclopedia' have coverage of the latest
circuits commonly used in professional equipment at their date of
issue. The most common was from the very late 60s and covers as I
remember it the Mcintosh and Cyclotron circuits in their late
iterations as well as a good overview of the various practices used in
almost all the quality amps built then. Solid state amps are covered
somewhat but this was before the Ampzilla and Tiger. McIntosh was
making both types then but as I remember only their tube designs are
covered.

Shea's "Amplifier Handbook" is another very good text with discussions
of many good designs and considerations circa '66 or '67.

Tube audio power amplifier design improved quite a bit between 1954
and 1971. RDH4 does not cover any of that, nor ironically does it cover
the single ended tweako designs, because they were nonexistent per se
before 1975. (Western Electric made the 91 and a couple of others, but
they were monitor amps for projectionists and were not intended or
provided for high fidelity use even by the day's standards.) All the
RDH's were written for home broadcast radio designers primarily.

In addition. RDH 4 is a dense, turgid read in part because it was
intended for trained engineers in a day when engineers were in some
ways better trained than they are now. While it is a useful work even
today, relying on it exclusively will result in a lower quality of
amplifier than if later references are used as well. It is not a rare
book, and no one should pay more than a few dollars for it.

wrote:

TurnerI have to say I have not seen too much from these
other authors besides Langford-Smith.

From what I have heard on the grape vine, RDH4 gets the basic
engineering
right, and does not proceed into some of the more blatent
tubophile or audiophile concerns that have come to almost suplant
commensense.

Don't worry about the knockers, its wastes everyone's time to read
negatives;
I even slip back down doing that too sometimes, and I regret it, so
could we not hear positives from you from these authors, and what they
added since 1955?

Fair question.

Various editions of "Audio Cyclopedia' have coverage of the latest
circuits commonly used in professional equipment at their date of
issue. The most common was from the very late 60s and covers as I
remember it the Mcintosh and Cyclotron circuits in their late
iterations as well as a good overview of the various practices used in
almost all the quality amps built then.

I copied about 1/2 the pages of Tremain's Audio Encyclopedia.
Its a 1963 book, and not much more theory is discussed than in RDH4.
I don't find myself referring to AE very often.

Solid state amps are covered
somewhat but this was before the Ampzilla and Tiger. McIntosh was
making both types then but as I remember only their tube designs are
covered.

Shea's "Amplifier Handbook" is another very good text with discussions
of many good designs and considerations circa '66 or '67.

Tube audio power amplifier design improved quite a bit between 1954
and 1971. RDH4 does not cover any of that, nor ironically does it cover
the single ended tweako designs, because they were nonexistent per se
before 1975. (Western Electric made the 91 and a couple of others, but
they were monitor amps for projectionists and were not intended or
provided for high fidelity use even by the day's standards.) All the
RDH's were written for home broadcast radio designers primarily.

And for recording gear makers, and for audio amp makers.
There is nothing on TV in RDH4, and TV was the major driver of electronics
into ppl's homes, and a major driver to production of new tubes.



In addition. RDH 4 is a dense, turgid read in part because it was
intended for trained engineers in a day when engineers were in some
ways better trained than they are now.

Methinks it trains engineers; it does not need engineers to have
much more than very basic high school physics abilities.
Remember the references. If you had all those and RDH4,
then studied it all, you could pass a "radio exam" which formerly trained
engineers had to be able to do at the colleges where formal electronics
training
was conducted in 1955.


While it is a useful work even
today, relying on it exclusively will result in a lower quality of
amplifier than if later references are used as well. It is not a rare
book, and no one should pay more than a few dollars for it.

In the presence of SS rectifiers, large reliable electrolytic capacitors,
and better grades of transformer iron, I would agree with you
about not necessarirly following it to the letter.

Analog radio and TV broadcasting is on the way out.

Lots in RDH4 is old fashioned, but to old bustards who like tinkering
with old radios, amps, etc, its a bible. The theory is still correct,
and is well explained, and it remains a great book from what much
of today's tube knowledge has been derived.

Any person into tube craft and does not own a copy of RDH4 is like a fish
without a tail.

Patrick Turner.