Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The amplifier is single-ended, zero negative feedback, built with Western Electric signal and power tubes and a Mullard tube rectifier. There are (counting by the Gaincard method which leaves the attenuator and power supply out of the count!) six components in the signal path: 3 resistors, a cap and two tubes. It is a truly silent amplifier (It sacrifices half the power for that silence) and in particular the output is free of any odd harmonics. The circuit with a single WE 417A tube doing both input and driver duty is at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg The companion, somewhat simpler and less expensive "standard good" 300B SE amplifier in the ultrafi set, the 300B SE amplifier "Populaire" with two stages of 6SN7 tubes, has been previously published at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg Both amplfiers are described in The KISS Amp section of Jute on Amps http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm From the introduction: "THE KISS AMP 300B project is an attempt to take the tube amp designer by the hand and lead him through all the highways and byways of designing an ultrafi amp, including the thought processes, the math and the development. It is half-engineering course, half metaphysics, half bloodyminded prejudice and alltogether infuriatingly complex because the simplicity of KISS has a very high price. It has its own index page for the text and another for the illustrations. You will find the majority of the most useful core articles in the old Jute on Amps site in The KISS Amp 300B files, rearranged and rewritten to make the interdependence of tube design decisions manifest." Suitable speakers for these amplifiers are also shown, the expensive first http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg and then the almost ridiculously cheap http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg More of my amplifiers, both solid state and tube (valve) are at Jute on Amps http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/JUTE%20ON%20AMPS.htm You are also invited to visit my overall netsite which has information on a couple of of my professions, as a novelist and as a typographere, and some of my other interests: music both live and recorded which I reviewed for many years for papers around the world, watches, bicycling, cooking, etc. http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ Many helped along the way by a cheery "Thanks!", or a private note telling me not to succumb before the assaults of the silicon slime and the other useless egomaniacs who create nothing except flamewars on the very few remaining productive members of RAT. (For proof, read on in the rest of this thread.) Among those who provided relevant technical advice I must in particular and in alphabetical order thank Steve Bench, John Byrns, Doug Bannard and Patrick Turner. Even more admirable than their knowledge is their patience! Controversial opinions, errors and omissions are mine, of course. Pay due respect to high voltage and live long! Andre Jute Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res 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 |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote: The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. OK... I can accept that. Now, has it been built? More importantly, does it work? Given the overall accuracy and credibility of the OP, I would believe the latter two only if independently witnessed and photographed together with a copy of a recent newspaper headline. And even then I would be skeptical. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote: The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The amplifier is single-ended, zero negative feedback, built with Western Electric signal and power tubes and a Mullard tube rectifier. There are (counting by the Gaincard method which leaves the attenuator and power supply out of the count!) six components in the signal path: 3 resistors, a cap and two tubes. Hi Andre, Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" In any case, six components give or take for the signal to pass through sounds like too many for good sonics. In my "7119 PP Potato 2 Minimal" amp the signal passes through only two components depending on exactly how you count. It is a truly silent amplifier (It sacrifices half the power for that silence) and in particular the output is free of any odd harmonics. What is the power output of your "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"? The circuit with a single WE 417A tube doing both input and driver duty is at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote: Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" A much more interesting number is those components that can do something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal. Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are Input pot 4 by 220R grid stopper First valve Coupling cap 220R grid stopper Second valve transformer 47k feedback r 200uf B1 decoupler That's 12 The signal handling components with first order effects are Battery 10 anode load 200uF B2 decoupler 47k grid leak 56uf cathode decoupler 1k cathode load That makes 18 total. Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you consider that the components in this amp are doing a disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Don Pearce wrote: Some components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal. Like coupling caps - LOL ! Who mentioned Teflon caps ? Graham |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote:
The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply? -- Nick |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:15:23 +0000, Eeyore
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns wrote: Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" A much more interesting number is those components that can do something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal. Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are Input pot 4 by 220R grid stopper First valve Coupling cap 220R grid stopper Second valve transformer 47k feedback r 200uf B1 decoupler That's 12 The signal handling components with first order effects are Battery 10 anode load 200uF B2 decoupler 47k grid leak 56uf cathode decoupler 1k cathode load That makes 18 total. Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you consider that the components in this amp are doing a disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think? d Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100 ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback - what are they doing there? LOL ! You nearly had me going there. That's the 'hum trim' control. Graham It is also negative feedback, whether or not that is the prime purpose. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
John Byrns wrote: In article .com, "Andre Jute" wrote: The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The amplifier is single-ended, zero negative feedback, built with Western Electric signal and power tubes and a Mullard tube rectifier. There are (counting by the Gaincard method which leaves the attenuator and power supply out of the count!) six components in the signal path: 3 resistors, a cap and two tubes. Hi Andre, Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" Let's take Don Pearce's list, which, whatever his motives, seems reasonable enough to me: Input pot 4 by 220R grid stopper First valve Coupling cap 220R grid stopper Second valve transformer 47k feedback r (Pearce must be referring to the grid leak resistor) 200uf B1 decoupler Now, the Gaincard method, which I checked into when I designed a minimum silicon amp http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm while I waited for you and Patrick to finish educating Pinkerton so that he could enter the design contest in which he disgraced himself, counts only components directly in the signal line from input to output, and ignores the attenuator and the power supply. That would leave one with: 1 grid stopper (4x 220R grid stoppers in parallel, counted as one as the gainclone boys do) First valve Coupling cap 220R grid stopper Second valve transformer Hmm. That's six components by the Gaincard method; I must have subliminally revolted against such wishful thinking and defiantly included the attenuator as well. Still, even if I include the attenuator, that's two less than the Gancard tally of nine. One might argue that a grid stopper soldered to the socket itself is a continuous part of a component which is not counted, and thus not count it. The truth is that I don't really care how many components I use, as long as they are the right number and quality for the sound I want; didn't Einstein say a thing should be as simple as is necessary but no simpler. The key thing is to know when too much has arrived and to step back from it. In any case, six components give or take for the signal to pass through sounds like too many for good sonics. In my "7119 PP Potato 2 Minimal" amp the signal passes through only two components depending on exactly how you count. Showoff! Reeling in shock at such parsimony, I went looking for the circuit on your site. When will you be publishing it? It sounds fascinating. It is a truly silent amplifier (It sacrifices half the power for that silence) and in particular the output is free of any odd harmonics. What is the power output of your "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"? 3.8W. I know, it doesn't look like very much from a 300B, but that is the price of silence, of loading the plate with a 5K6 primary impedance to get the noise down and the excellent harmonic distribution which you first pointed out back when you compared the output stage of an earlier version of the more affordable 6SN76SN7300B version of this amp, the T44 Populaire, http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg with the amp entered against it in an earlier design competition, the Bubbaland 300B. The circuit with a single WE 417A tube doing both input and driver duty is at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ Nice to see you back, John. I was thinking of discussing my next project (a completely differential amp to drive electrostatic earphones, what Stax calls "earspeakers on another group now that the mouthfoamers have driven out so many of the capable RATs, but if you're back perhaps we can inject some relevant interest. Mind you, my dissection partner, yeah, all those years ago, had a macabre sense of humour; he once told a female student, "Pass up that footpump so I can inflate this cadaver and have sex with it." RAT's a bit like that these days. 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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:15:23 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns wrote: Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" A much more interesting number is those components that can do something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal. Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are Input pot 4 by 220R grid stopper First valve Coupling cap 220R grid stopper Second valve transformer 47k feedback r 200uf B1 decoupler That's 12 The signal handling components with first order effects are Battery 10 anode load 200uF B2 decoupler 47k grid leak 56uf cathode decoupler 1k cathode load That makes 18 total. Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you consider that the components in this amp are doing a disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think? d Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100 ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback - what are they doing there? LOL ! You nearly had me going there. That's the 'hum trim' control. Graham It is also negative feedback, whether or not that is the prime purpose. It will introduce a smidgen of NFB for sure. Graham |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns wrote: Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" A much more interesting number is those components that can do something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal. Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are Input pot 4 by 220R grid stopper First valve Coupling cap 220R grid stopper Second valve transformer 47k feedback r 200uf B1 decoupler That's 12 Thanks for the effort, Pearce. I wasn't seriously putting forward the Gaincard method of counting, just throwing it in for discussion while I get on with the business of designing and building my next amp. However, the grid leak resistor which you call the "47k feedback r" raises an interesting point of difference between the silicon crowd and the zero negative feedback ultrafidelista faithful. You intend to mean by negative feedback *any* feedback. By convention tubies in general and ultrafidelista in particular by negative feedback mean global or universal or loop negative feedback, certainly nothing contained within one stage of any of the classical topologies (including those newly revived like the mu stage). Even a cathode follower, surely a feedback device!, is kosher to the ZNFB crowd, and they have often resented me for pointing it out as much as the silicon slime has resented me for pointing out *their* wishful thinking and other depredations on the immutable laws of physics. (Hey, there are some tubies who still want to lynch me ten years later for puncturing their bubble on SRPP, which until I made an irrefutable analysis they happily promoted for thirty years as a constant current-loaded triode, which of course it isn't.) The signal handling components with first order effects are Battery 10 anode load 200uF B2 decoupler 47k grid leak 56uf cathode decoupler 1k cathode load That makes 18 total. You counted the "47k feedback r" (the grid leak, without which the amp won't work) twice. Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you consider that the components in this amp are doing a disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think? It is rather interesting that you don't ask for the noise figures of my tube amp before you start spouting condemnations based on your prejudicial preference for silicon bodged nearly right with excessive negative feedback. Perhaps you should at least draw the loadline on the tube transfer curves and calculate the distortion before you spout off, Pearce. If you know how, of course. You might surprise yourself. (I hesitate to suggest that you build the design and measure for yourself; I wouldn't want you to electrocute yourself on unaccustomed high voltage or burn yourself with your new soldering iron.) d Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100 ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback - what are they doing there? They're humbusters for the AC filaments. You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you, Pearce? Now go on, tell me about the joys of regulation. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Always great to hear from you, Pearce. It gives me a warm glow of superiority that a famous engineer like you, a proven hostile to tube amps, can find only twee tiny quibbles when I publish a design. 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 |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Nick Gorham wrote: Andre Jute wrote: The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply? -- Nick Aha! At last, a substantive point. Where in my amp would you take off the ground for the power supply, Nick? Same question to everyone who's ever built a tube amp; don't just assume Nick will give the same answer you will. Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers. I'll explain what I actually do, what I consider optimum when possible, and what others have done when we have your answer and reasoning to hand. 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 |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you Do tell more ! Graham |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote: Andre Jute wrote: The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply? -- Nick Aha! At last, a substantive point. Where in my amp would you take off the ground for the power supply, Nick? Same question to everyone who's ever built a tube amp; don't just assume Nick will give the same answer you will. Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers. I'll explain what I actually do, what I consider optimum when possible, and what others have done when we have your answer and reasoning to hand. Well, its a loaded question, as without building and testing, I am not certain that I would use the common mode choke. Or if I did and found it offered improved noise performance I would use a WE or ultrapath bipass arangement to avoid the problem. Without that, I would see what the issue was with grounding after the choke, with the expectation that it would possibly introduce switching noise from the mains TX, which may well defeat the use of the CM choke in the first place. Personally I would use a series regulator in the supply (either referenced to a voltage ref, or just as a shunt) and not the CM choke, as I have found that they sound better than anything else I have tried. So, what was your findings? -- Nick |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Nick Gorham wrote:
So, what was your findings? Nick: You need to understand that Mr. McCoy's fantasy amplifier not much more than a mare's nest of wires and cobbled parts obtained as "samples" for other purposes than their proposed present use. That explains peculiarities in the power-supply, the lack of a mains-generated bias supply, dropping resistors on the filament supplies and so forth. Also, as it happens, the presence of feedback despite the no-feedback claim. You may also be dead-sure that it has never seen a signal applied that actually resulted in something happening at a speaker... at least that was planned anyway. After all, transformers with "correct" filament supplies are readily available. Even from Lundhal. That should be your first clue. And if an amp is based on rather expensive boutique tubes, it would just about make sense that the rest of the parade would be chosen with similar care. You are micturating in a windward direction if you expect to get any sort of cogent answers based on actual results from this particular concatenation of anecdotes. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Then why build tube amps (expensive, inefficient, expensive, hot, expensive, dangerous, expensive) to sound just like silicon amps? What you do with the filaments has much to do with the sound you get. The big modern innovation in silicon amps is actually the constant current source, not the silicon itself, which is fundamentally inferior, requiring very much NFB to linearize it. The effect of all those CCS is to nail down every voltage and every current that in tube amps in classical times were much freer (they weren't totally free and the constant current source was not unknown in tube amps either, for instance in certain WE topologies). The key thing about the sort of big American tube amp that sounds to me and many others just like silicon and therefore a big waste of money is that it ties down all the voltages with regulation: plate, bias, filaments, everything is very well regulated. Now return this whole thing from the region of argument to the region of taste. Audio is not a technical argument but an exercise in psychoacoustics; that's why the speakers are so much more important than the amp. Take a banksa6550 amp and first of all change the invariably series regulation for shunt regulation, everywhere. This will cost much more (it drops as much current in regulation as the tubes consume, usually more than that). Already the amp sounds better. Now remove the regulation in any order you please. Step by step the amp sounds more natural. Now, DC is a form of regulating the current; all rectification is. If the other forms of regulation decreased the ambience of the amp, its closeness to a window on the concert hall, then so will the removal of the crudest form of regulation, DC. I haven't touched yet on another form of regulation, which is overcapping. You might get none of the aural benefits of removing series regulation, etc, until you remove capacitance to leave only the correct amount for the operatng points of your tubes. This sort of engineering development to find the place where some obsessed meterhead went too far never fails to stun me with the fine amps that hide inside the most unpromising examples. (Okay, this assumes that you start with the most expensive and reputable, the only people with the money for over-engineering, but we are far, far beyond rational considerations of cost in this thread.) By the way, the scale of the amp might have something to do with whether and which currents you want to tie down to an anvil. We shall see examples in my next project, which is a tube amp for electrostatic headspeakers. As I say, Flipper, prove it for yourself by going too far and discovering that your sound has dried out like an old maid. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, just telling you what I did and how I arrived at the decision. 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 |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Absence of any answer noted. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Just one question - why the battery? OK 2 questions... why the 4 paralleled input resistors? Noise? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
On 14 Jan 2007 16:01:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers. Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most important, and definitely *the most* ignored for typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial) designs. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On 14 Jan 2007 16:01:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers. Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most important, and definitely *the most* ignored for typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial) designs. In pro-audio it's been well to the fore since the very beginning of the sector. There are no secrets about good grounding practice. Graham |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Absence of any answer noted. It sounded like an answer to me, essentially what he suggested was that you try it both with DC, and then with AC and choose the one that sounds best to you. A lot of people seem to prefer the sonics of AC heating, and I will give it my vote too, the only major downside of AC heating being a greater difficulty in banishing the last vestiges of hum. I suspect you are actually looking for an explanation of the physics that make AC heating sound better than DC heating, but the important thing is the sound. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:57:58 +0000, Eeyore
wrote: Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most important, and definitely *the most* ignored for typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial) designs. In pro-audio it's been well to the fore since the very beginning of the sector. There are no secrets about good grounding practice. Production sound uses balanced interconnections between multiple pieces of equipment. Internally, the same issues arise in the same ways, because the signal path is unbalanced internally. And, of course, power supplies are "unbalanced" from a signal point of view. This is definitely *not* a done deal; it's, instead, an important and mostly overlooked component of the signal path. There are no secrets about good grounding practice, but there are also no magic bullets. All grounding practices are compromises among various competing goals. Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:09:02 +0000, Eeyore
wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. Absence of any answer noted. The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't rocket surgery. Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
On 13 Jan 2007 21:53:17 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg There's a typo in the posted schematic; earth ground in the B+ supply is shown on the wrong side of the filtering (dual-winding) choke. Otherwise, copacetic! All good fortune, Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Nick Gorham wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: Nick Gorham wrote: Andre Jute wrote: The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply? -- Nick Aha! At last, a substantive point. Where in my amp would you take off the ground for the power supply, Nick? Same question to everyone who's ever built a tube amp; don't just assume Nick will give the same answer you will. Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers. I'll explain what I actually do, what I consider optimum when possible, and what others have done when we have your answer and reasoning to hand. Well, its a loaded question, as without building and testing, I am not certain that I would use the common mode choke. Or if I did and found it offered improved noise performance I would use a WE or ultrapath bipass arangement to avoid the problem. Without that, I would see what the issue was with grounding after the choke, with the expectation that it would possibly introduce switching noise from the mains TX, which may well defeat the use of the CM choke in the first place. Personally I would use a series regulator in the supply (either referenced to a voltage ref, or just as a shunt) and not the CM choke, as I have found that they sound better than anything else I have tried. So, what was your findings? -- Nick Nick I wrote you a long letter which fortunately was not delivered and then actually looked at the circuit. What happened is that I added the snubbers over the chokes at the last moment, before sending the circuit to the net. Before that the power filter had a star ground, the input had a star ground, both were the same star ground, so it didn't really matter where I parked the earth while I did major surgery on the schematic to make space for the snubbers (1), and then I just overlooked moving it again. It is exactly for this kind of correction that I post the schematic to RAT and UKRA before making any other public announcement. (It's a pity that some resident quarterwits take that as a license to indulge in childishness, but strictly for such self-selecting fools I do a little sleight of hand with (Gain) cards and simple stuff about bike computers they can look up, then they go off on a wild rabbit chase and fall over their own feet at the same time, as intended, much to the amusement of the rest of us.) In more "normal" or simple supplies I routinely use the earthy end of the bleeder at the end of the supply as a star ground. You can see a one here, http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg where the bleeder is the ali-cased resistor behind the right-hand battery box and its right end is the star earth for all sections. Thanks for your help. I'd like you to contribute when we discuss my next project. 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 (1) The choke snubbers seem to have little sonic benefit. They protect the longevity of the chokes and the power tranny, all of them expensive items. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 21:53:17 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg There's a typo in the posted schematic; earth ground in the B+ supply is shown on the wrong side of the filtering (dual-winding) choke. Otherwise, copacetic! Thanks, Chris. That problem crept in when I put in the snubbers on the chokes. Before, that whole circuit was starred and its star coincided with the signal circuit star, so it didn't matter where I put the symbol, as I explained to Nick (in a post that hours later I still can't see). I've now moved the earth to the other side of the chokes and all the snubbers and posted an amended circuit to avoid misunderstandings. It is for precisely this sort of information that I publish the circuit first to RAT, so that the knowledgeable sharpeyed can point details that through overfamiliarity I missed. All good fortune, Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau Thanks again! (No footnotes; you can stop here.) 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 |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
wrote: Just one question - why the battery? This is the circuit under discussion: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg All components have sonic signature. Some have very little, or are difficult to use for sound shaping. There is absolutely no point in building an amp this expensive unless for some purpose beyond the bragging rights of "I have Western Electric 300Bs in my amp, which of course I built myself." A good purpose is to take charge of the quality of your sound, rather than leave it in the hands of some zero-culture, long-since deaf, totally uncivilized, supercilious, smug silicon slime, of which we can see ample samples on these conferences. (There are also some very cultured and agreeable silicon designers but they are successful and don't need my help.) The WE417A driver tube was chosen for its particular signature. I had already designed a much more precise reference SE300B amp for Western Electric tubes with two 6SN7 stages, of which the most popular version is he http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg But in the T39 I was stepping back, building an amp for hedonists, not soulless technicians. The 417A is very suitable for hedonists, very linear (but not as linear as a 6SN7), quite a bit warmer in the manner of the double digit veteran directly heated triodes but much more widely available. Count what besides the 417A is in that circuit. The attenuator is a DACT, built by robots on Swiss goldplated switches with SMD resistors: zero signature, as it should be. I have no belief in anything more than marginal soundshaping with resistors; Kiwame are slightly but perceptibly warmer than the common Beyschlagg I also like, and the rest leave me indifferent to the difference between them, if any; I believe in overspeccing my resistors to run them cool and so avoid various kinds of resistor noise which can be important in small signal circuits. So that leaves the tube itself, whose sound we can shape by the value of the resistor in the plate circuit and whatever we decide to put in the cathode circuit. Taking the plate circuit first, we can lower the resistor value and thereby make the sound dirtier at the volume extremes, which to the uninitiated might sound like more bass (analogous to what you hear on boomboxes on the street or from little passing hatchbacks owned by wannabe gangsta but of course not degraded quite that far). That isn't quite my style, so I load the plate up to the maximum I can within the available power supply, thereby linearizing the response. I should explain that my style is first to extract the maximum silence that good engineering allows, which from tubes is much more impressive than you might imagine when you read the silicon slime who hang out here to tell us how wrong we are because they can't get any other employment. After that I back off to a suitable level of hedonism. This isn't quite euphonious distortion, it is more like a sense of balance and perspective, and an understanding of psychoacoustics (I'm by training an economist and psychologist). At this point we can then choose from four ways to implement a cathode circuit. One, by constant current sink, I dismiss immediately as too complicated for an amp announced as KISS (keep it simple, stupid); in my next project I shall return to CCS because there their complication is the least of the evils. That leaves three ways of doing it: a resistor alone, a resistor bypassed by a cap, and battery bias. Of these, the bypassed resistor is my instinctive fave. It is simple, it is selfadjusting, and if you spend the time and the money on development and components, you will eventually choose the right capacitor; I have long since done my homework and know what I will use. Open another circuit: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/t...17acircuit.jpg This is a complete amp built only from the first stage of the T39 (in fact it was made by removing the 300B from a T39). It should now become clear to you that if I substitute the battery with a resistor and a cap), the cap becomes the sole determinant of the sonic quality of the stage. With so little in the circuit, the cap really looms large. An unbypassed resistor has feedback which changes the sound adversely by making it harder, more crystalline and by tilting the response towards the bass when in fact I want to tilt the 417A's "natural" tendency the other way -- I just want a slightly warm amp, not a hot, gushy amp. That leaves a battery, which, while not a soundshaping element under my control (in that there is only one choice of operating conditions for a 417A with battery bias if you already decided the plate voltage), is at least perfectly neutral. The battery also has a tendency to stabilize everything around it which is a good thing as I have already paid a heavy price in efficiency for ballasts and other devices to stablilize important electrical points and any"free" margin is welcome. So, by a process of elimination, I am left only with the battery. This thought process is described in http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm If you study the T68bis "Minus Zero" circuit even cursorily, you will immediately see that the other big sonic influence, besides a putative, potential, possible cathode bypass cap, is the power supply. But that is fully developed and fixed in a desirable sonic already, and is anyway a large loose cannon on deck if you lose control of it, so you don't want to mess with success if instead you can do the job by working with one or at most two cathode circuit components, which brings us back to the battery decision, which by its impedance in turn makes any remaining solecism of the power supply a moot point. All roads lead to Rome. In the T68bis you can see how all currents must pass through that battery. It is the very dream of every control freak, though the wannabe control freaks on RAT and UKRA lack the subtlety to understand what is happening. OK 2 questions... why the 4 paralleled input resistors? Noise? The WE417A has wonderful sonics once the designer grasps how to handle it; in the hands of the usual pretenders it quickly turns to expensive noise because nobody told them it is a radio frequency tube. Almost all tubes are, of course, but the 417A is especially efficient in the RF. It has four grid pins which can pick up radio rubbish, so each one requires a grid stopper and the signal can be put in to any of them, though one is better than the others by far for simple reasons of physics that may be determined by observation. HTH. If this is more information than you wanted, next time don't ask such a(n only apparently) simple question! 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 |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
John Byrns wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Absence of any answer noted. It sounded like an answer to me, essentially what he suggested was that you try it both with DC, and then with AC and choose the one that sounds best to you. A lot of people seem to prefer the sonics of AC heating, and I will give it my vote too, the only major downside of AC heating being a greater difficulty in banishing the last vestiges of hum. I suspect you are actually looking for an explanation of the physics that make AC heating sound better than DC heating, but the important thing is the sound. I can't see why Poopie should need the physics explained to him. He claims to be an engineering graduate of the University of London. Surely, he should be explaining the physics to us, rather than the other way round. And Poopie should be explaining to us those entirely unconspiratorial grounding schemes which he smugly bragged of to Chris. It is past high time Poopie started pulling his weight and contributing something beyond snide soundbites if he wants to be accepted here. I'm working, you're working, Chris is working, Nick is working, so why isn't Poopie working? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ And one has to wonder if Poopie is blind to have missed the following extended explanation of the points on which I make my decision between AC and DC filaments, or if Poopie's soundbite mode of speech extends also to his comprehension of plain English. flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Then why build tube amps (expensive, inefficient, expensive, hot, expensive, dangerous, expensive) to sound just like silicon amps? What you do with the filaments has much to do with the sound you get. The big modern innovation in silicon amps is actually the constant current source, not the silicon itself, which is fundamentally inferior, requiring very much NFB to linearize it. The effect of all those CCS is to nail down every voltage and every current that in tube amps in classical times were much freer (they weren't totally free and the constant current source was not unknown in tube amps either, for instance in certain WE topologies). The key thing about the sort of big American tube amp that sounds to me and many others just like silicon and therefore a big waste of money is that it ties down all the voltages with regulation: plate, bias, filaments, everything is very well regulated. Now return this whole thing from the region of argument to the region of taste. Audio is not a technical argument but an exercise in psychoacoustics; that's why the speakers are so much more important than the amp. Take a banksa6550 amp and first of all change the invariably series regulation for shunt regulation, everywhere. This will cost much more (it drops as much current in regulation as the tubes consume, usually more than that). Already the amp sounds better. Now remove the regulation in any order you please. Step by step the amp sounds more natural. Now, DC is a form of regulating the current; all rectification is. If the other forms of regulation decreased the ambience of the amp, its closeness to a window on the concert hall, then so will the removal of the crudest form of regulation, DC. I haven't touched yet on another form of regulation, which is overcapping. You might get none of the aural benefits of removing series regulation, etc, until you remove capacitance to leave only the correct amount for the operatng points of your tubes. This sort of engineering development to find the place where some obsessed meterhead went too far never fails to stun me with the fine amps that hide inside the most unpromising examples. (Okay, this assumes that you start with the most expensive and reputable, the only people with the money for over-engineering, but we are far, far beyond rational considerations of cost in this thread.) By the way, the scale of the amp might have something to do with whether and which currents you want to tie down to an anvil. We shall see examples in my next project, which is a tube amp for electrostatic headspeakers. As I say, Flipper, prove it for yourself by going too far and discovering that your sound has dried out like an old maid. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, just telling you what I did and how I arrived at the decision. 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 |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
John Byrns wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Absence of any answer noted. It sounded like an answer to me, essentially what he suggested was that you try it both with DC, and then with AC and choose the one that sounds best to you. Yes that's how I'd do it too ! A lot of people seem to prefer the sonics of AC heating, and I will give it my vote too, the only major downside of AC heating being a greater difficulty in banishing the last vestiges of hum. I suspect you are actually looking for an explanation of the physics that make AC heating sound better than DC heating, but the important thing is the sound. The important thing to me that there is a real difference. I can speculate about the physics involved, I've taken a stab at it before. I was wondering perhaps if Jootikins had come across any explanation in his travels. My suspicion is that if there's an audible difference it may be amplitude modulation of the signal at 2 x line frequency. That hardly bodes well for the 'purity' or 'fidelity' of such an amplifier ! It may be an interesting effect for sure though. Graham |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Eeyore wrote: Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most important, and definitely *the most* ignored for typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial) designs. In pro-audio it's been well to the fore since the very beginning of the sector. There are no secrets about good grounding practice. Production sound uses balanced interconnections between multiple pieces of equipment. That certainly helps a lot but I've run 60 metre ( 200 feet ) cable runs unbalanced and still had excellent results. Internally, the same issues arise in the same ways, because the signal path is unbalanced internally. Indeed so for the most part but I do also run critical signals internally balanced too ( particularly when that signal is being transferred from one pcb to another for example ). And, of course, power supplies are "unbalanced" from a signal point of view. Ummmm.... are they ? This is definitely *not* a done deal; it's, instead, an important and mostly overlooked component of the signal path. There are no secrets about good grounding practice, but there are also no magic bullets. All grounding practices are compromises among various competing goals. The are some excellent principles that get you out of most trouble. Taking it to the limit is where it sorts the men from the boys. Graham |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Eeyore wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. Absence of any answer noted. The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't rocket surgery. I just posted my thoughts on the matter. How about yours ? Graham |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote: John Byrns wrote: I suspect you are actually looking for an explanation of the physics that make AC heating sound better than DC heating, but the important thing is the sound. I can't see why Poopie should need the physics explained to him. He claims to be an engineering graduate of the University of London. Surely, he should be explaining the physics to us, rather than the other way round. It was discussed in some reasonable depth here quite recently in fact. And one has to wonder if Poopie is blind to have missed the following extended explanation of the points on which I make my decision between AC and DC filaments Your 'extended explanation' was no more than plain waffle. Graham |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Why you should feel sorry for Brian McCarty, the loser who tries to persecute Bob Morein
Brian McCarty, pretending to be Robert Morein, wrote: In article , "Andre Jute" wrote: I've now moved the earth to the other side of the chokes and all the snubbers and posted an amended circuit to avoid misunderstandings. It is for precisely this sort of information that I publish the circuit first to RAT, so that the knowledgeable sharpeyed can point details that through overfamiliarity I missed. Apology accepted, with the proviso that you change "overfamiliarity" (sic) to the more accurate "profound stupidity". Bob Morein Dresher, PA (215) 646-4894 Yo, McCarty, I feel sorry for you. If Bob Morein is really such an inferior person as you claim, how come he bust a con on which you worked years? If Bob Morein is really as incompetent as you claim, how come only the minority of psychopathic lepers in even the hostile environment of the Usenet believes you? I feel sorry for you, McCarty. I really do. You're a loser, you were born a loser, you'll die hungry. BTW, if you were smart, instead of crossing Robert Morein, you would have recruited him. He's a holy fool and anyone who can harness the force of such can be rich. I know, I worked in advertising. You're too thick and slow for your own good, McCarty. You'll be no loss to the gene pool. Andre Jute |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Eeyore wrote: Chris Hornbeck wrote: Eeyore wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. Absence of any answer noted. The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't rocket surgery. I just posted my thoughts on the matter. No, Poopie, you didn't post any "thoughts" on the matter. What happenened was that John Byrns kindly explained *my* thoughts on the matter to you in a soundbite format suitable to your intelliigence and that you then agreed with me. Jute: You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Poopie tries to be smart: Absence of any answer noted. Byrns: It sounded like an answer to me, essentially what he [Andre Jute] suggested was that you try it both with DC, and then with AC and choose the one that sounds best to you. Poopie see the light: Yes that's how I'd do it too ! So the sequence is 1. Jute explains everything. 2. Poopie tries to crash the conversation by claiming Jute didn't. 3. Byrns explains to Poopie what Jute said. 4. Poopie shouts out his agreement. "Yes that's how I'd do it too !" 5. The cock crows three times -- but Poopie has beaten the cock by denying he ever said:"Yes that's how I'd do it too !" 6. Intermission while onlookers rolls on the floor laughing out loud. 7. To top it all, Poopie Numbnuts then asks earnestly, just like he is in the converesation: How about yours ? [Thoughts that is.] I can understand why the morons don't want Poopie. He'll give them a bad name. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
In article om, Andre
Jute writes flipper wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you I, too, would like to hear that explained. You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Do many posters here go to concert halls all that much?. They rarely sound like what you'd want to hear at home... -- Tony Sayer |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: John Byrns wrote: I suspect you are actually looking for an explanation of the physics that make AC heating sound better than DC heating, but the important thing is the sound. I can't see why Poopie should need the physics explained to him. He claims to be an engineering graduate of the University of London. Surely, he should be explaining the physics to us, rather than the other way round. It was discussed in some reasonable depth here quite recently in fact. Well then, Poopie, you can start work by offering us a summary. You don't even have to do any work of your own. And one has to wonder if Poopie is blind to have missed the following extended explanation of the points on which I make my decision between AC and DC filaments Your 'extended explanation' was no more than plain waffle. Then why did you shout "Eureka!" and "I've seen the light!" after John Byrns explained in soundbite form what I said? Here it is: Jute: You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall. Poopie tries to be smart and cuts away everything else Jute said, then lies: Absence of any answer noted. Byrns: It sounded like an answer to me, essentially what he [Andre Jute] suggested was that you try it both with DC, and then with AC and choose the one that sounds best to you. Poopie sees the light: Yes that's how I'd do it too ! So the sequence is 1. Jute explains everything. 2. Poopie tries to crash the conversation by claiming Jute didn't. 3. Byrns explains to Poopie what Jute said. 4. Poopie shouts out his agreement. "Yes that's how I'd do it too !" 5. Even after this revelation on the road to Damascus that Jute gets it spot on, Poopie is still so thick that he tries to claim that "Yes that's how I'd do it too!" can be reconciled with "Your 'extended explanation' was no more than plain waffle." about precisely the same materiak! Poor Poopie! Andre Jute Andre Jute Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by thickoes like Graham "Poopie" Stevenson. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
Andre Jute wrote: What happenened was that John Byrns kindly explained *my* thoughts on the matter Because you're incapable of doing it yourself I note. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The KISS AMP: a progress report | Vacuum Tubes | |||
THE KISS AMP "Ultrafi" schematic updated | Vacuum Tubes | |||
KISS Amp "Ultrafi" updated | Vacuum Tubes | |||
KISS 113 by Andre Jute | Vacuum Tubes |