[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

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

[John Byrns]

In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

Andre, I'm surprised you would give Chel such a trivially easy challenge
to meet. So as not interfere I will save my solution for a later post,
assuming anyone is even interested.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Multi-grid]

On Oct 27, 12:09 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:





Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books athttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

Visit Jute on Amps athttp://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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice puzzle Andre. Pointless from most perspectives, but interesting
anyway.

Now how does your personal attack forward the audio discussion? Do you
think more people come in to contribute because you behave that way?
cheers,
Douglas

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 26, 4:55 pm, Multi-grid wrote:

Nice puzzle Andre. Pointless from most perspectives, but interesting
anyway.

Now how does your personal attack forward the audio discussion? Do you
think more people come in to contribute because you behave that way?


Andre needs attention in the same way a potted plant needs care and
feeding. And just as a potted plant would be entirely helpless without
such care and feeding, Andre would shrivel up and die without the
attention he craves.

One needs to keep in mind that Andre is to tube amp design as National
or ITC were to tube manufacturing. Both of them rebranded work done by
others as their own. Once that is understood, the rest becomes
trivial.

Beware of those who cite themselves as "experts".

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Multi-grid]

On Oct 27, 2:41 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:55 pm, Multi-grid wrote:

Nice puzzle Andre. Pointless from most perspectives, but interesting
anyway.

Now how does your personal attack forward the audio discussion? Do you
think more people come in to contribute because you behave that way?

Andre needs attention in the same way a potted plant needs care and
feeding. And just as a potted plant would be entirely helpless without
such care and feeding, Andre would shrivel up and die without the
attention he craves.

I have noticed he has never answered a question about one of his
claims. EVER, and I ran through a lot of archives before signing up. I
don't really expect an answer; I doubt he's capable of it.



One needs to keep in mind that Andre is to tube amp design as National
or ITC were to tube manufacturing. Both of them rebranded work done by
others as their own. Once that is understood, the rest becomes
trivial.

Just like his trivial, loophole-ridden 'challenge' he opened with.



Beware of those who cite themselves as "experts".

ummm, all sarcasm aside....Duuuhhhh! anyhooo, it would be good for the
group S/N ratio if a slightly higher degree of civility were
practiced, in combination with denouncing attacks when they
happen( followed by ignoring the thread perhaps ).
cheers,
Douglas


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Scott Dorsey]

Andre Jute wrote:
[irrelevant stuff deleted]

Please keep this thread in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. This sort
of material is not appropriate for rec.audio.pro. Thank you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Clyde Slick]

ummm, all sarcasm aside....Duuuhhhh! anyhooo, it would be good for the
group S/N ratio if a slightly higher degree of civility were
practiced, in combination with denouncing attacks when they
happen( followed by ignoring the thread perhaps ).
cheers,
Douglas


up yours, ****head, I'm denouncing
your mealy mouth aatempt at an attack, right here, right now.
if you can't keep up with our level of vitriol,
go find some tamer group,or buy yourself a pair of balls!
and whip up some sarcasm, next time.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 6:50 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
[irrelevant stuff deleted]

Please keep this thread in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. This sort
of material is not appropriate for rec.audio.pro. Thank you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is your problem, Scott? This is a thread throwing out an
amplifier design challenge. Don't the pros on RAP design amplifiers?
Surely you're not all repair hacks and broomstick-holders. Perhaps
you're confusing this thread with something else. Here is the original
so you can read it all before you complain again, all the way to the
design challenge near the bottom:

On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

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

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 26, 8:55 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

up yours, ****head, I'm denouncing
your mealy mouth aatempt at an attack, right here, right now.
if you can't keep up with our level of vitriol,
go find some tamer group,or buy yourself a pair of balls!
and whip up some sarcasm, next time.


My, my... the spittle is really flying.

Clyde, with respect, Andre is not worth the water. Were it not for
John (who is a real person albeit a strange one) and Westiepoo (who
may or may not be a real person - but is certainly nearly as much of a
poseur and liar as Andre), Andre is a sad, sick neverwas depending on
a series of sockpuppets and shadows for life and support.

Yo - Commander!! Glassgrey!!

You are up now. Andre is about to throw the sardines - you need to
bark like seals and balance a ball on your nose!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

A baby seal walked into a bar. The barkeep asked him what he would
like: "Anything but a Canadian Club".

[[email protected]]

On Oct 26, 6:04 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:50 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
[irrelevant stuff deleted]

Please keep this thread in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. This sort
of material is not appropriate for rec.audio.pro. Thank you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is your problem, Scott? This is a thread throwing out an
amplifier design challenge. Don't the pros on RAP design amplifiers?

Andre Jute

A lot of really good designers used to hang here until bombarded with
too much behavior such as you are currently exhibiting. Now most of
them are on privately moderated forums.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[Multi-grid]

On Oct 27, 6:35 pm, wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:04 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:50 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
[irrelevant stuff deleted]

Please keep this thread in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. This sort
of material is not appropriate for rec.audio.pro. Thank you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is your problem, Scott? This is a thread throwing out an
amplifier design challenge. Don't the pros on RAP design amplifiers?
Andre Jute

A lot of really good designers used to hang here until bombarded with
too much behavior such as you are currently exhibiting. Now most of
them are on privately moderated forums.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaoshttp://www.bsstudios.com

It is all in the history. Examine the RAT population, and then after/
during the war named after Andre the expansion of moderated forums.
Most have a distinct paranoia of anything resembling him...
cheers,
Douglas

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 27, 8:35 am, wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:04 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:50 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
[irrelevant stuff deleted]

Please keep this thread in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. This sort
of material is not appropriate for rec.audio.pro. Thank you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is your problem, Scott? This is a thread throwing out an
amplifier design challenge. Don't the pros on RAP design amplifiers?
Andre Jute

A lot of really good designers used to hang here until bombarded with
too much behavior such as you are currently exhibiting.

You daily bitch-slapped "engineers" who lied about professional
matters? Good golly! Doesn't say much for the quality of contributors
you attracted, or it says a lot for the probity police on your
newsgroup.

That is all I did in the previous thread, lightly whack Poopie
Stevenson for lying about a professional matter for personal reasons,
and Slapdash Krueger and Bluster Pearce ditto for supporting him in
his lie for personal reasons ditto.

I suggest that an idiot like Poopie Stevenson shouting down competent
people is far more likely to drive away designers than me slapping
Poopie down for his crimes against fidelity. I expect most designers
would rather enjoy that.

I also suggest to you that your whining doesn't belong in a thread in
which I set up an amp design challenge. I'm trying to do something
positive, and all we get in the thread from the rest of you
farcatchers is bitching about me, which everyone with half a braincell
must surely know by now I don't even read after the second round in
which the fartcatcher contributes neither techical input nor
entertainment.

Now most of
them are on privately moderated forums.

Maybe they got tired of your fruitless bitching.

Do something useful. If that rude Dutch fellow doesn't take up the
challenge, why don't you? I give it again in full below the signature.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaoshttp://www.bsstudios.com

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

Here's the original challenge, lest it get lost in the noise floor:

On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

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

[Peter Wieck]

And

How does it feel to be utterly friendless but for your wet-nurse John,
your damaged acolyte Westiepoo and your array of sockpuppets being
"the commander" and Glassgrey?

One would think that at your stage in life you would be counting (and
spoiling) your grand children rather than fulminating from your dingy
little bed-sit in Ireland about subjects that you clearly do not
understand.

I acknowledge that one can be anything one wants to be when sitting in
front of a keyboard and presenting one's self to the world. But you do
over-reach a bit maybe?

And if one makes a habit as you do of ****ting in the common sandbox,
one gets exactly the respect and adulation one deserves, from exactly
the sorts of people best suited to it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Scott Dorsey]

In article .com,
wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:04 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:50 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
[irrelevant stuff deleted]

Please keep this thread in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. This sort
of material is not appropriate for rec.audio.pro. Thank you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is your problem, Scott? This is a thread throwing out an
amplifier design challenge. Don't the pros on RAP design amplifiers?

Andre Jute

A lot of really good designers used to hang here until bombarded with
too much behavior such as you are currently exhibiting. Now most of
them are on privately moderated forums.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com



The issue is that this is not a legitimate design discussion, this is a
mindless flame fest. Please keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. Do
not put rec.audio.pro back in the newsgroups line. It does not belong
there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 2:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:



On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

Andre, I'm surprised you would give Chel such a trivially easy challenge
to meet. So as not interfere I will save my solution for a later post,
assuming anyone is even interested.

You'd really assume that on a newsgroup called "rec.audio.pro" a dozen
solutions would by now have been volunteered. Instead they've wasted
everyone's time bitching that amp design challenges don't belong on
their newsgroup.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

I wouldn't be so fast in saying it is too easy a challenge. You might
get stuck again with having to tutor some diplomaed quarterwit, as you
did that time poor Pinkerton was dumb enough to announce he would
design a solid state amp that would sound just like a 300B I would
design at the same time. I nearly died of boredom waiting while you
and Patrick gave Pinkerton a crash course that stretched on and on
while yet more and more lacunae in his education became visible --
check in the ill-educated "engineers" thread for an estimate that
electronic engineers receive only 15 hours of education altogether on
amplifier design. (It's offered as an excuse for the incompetence of
Poopie, Slapdash and Bluster, so it might be an underestimate, but
even two or three times that much would still be a low number.)
Pinkostinko's incompetence is being explained before our very eyes --
about forty years too late for Pinko. I have high hopes that this
Dutch fellow might be much more competent; I hold Dutch education,
engineering and graphic arts in the very highest esteem.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 27, 7:35 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

STOP RE-NAMING EXISTING THREADS

Why are you shouting, Poopie? We're not deaf. You may be, but we can
hear you perfectly well.

[Ralph Barone]

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

blah, blah, blah, blah

Andre, please **** off. You've already ruined one newsgroup for me.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 27, 8:04 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

blah, blah, blah, blah

Andre, please **** off. You've already ruined one newsgroup for me.

Should I remember you, Ralphie? Did you do something memorable? Or
were you merely a footsoldier of the Magnequest Scum? Or just a
fellowtraveller?

You're the one creating a pointless exchange of flames. I merely
issued an amp design challenge.

Why are you lot on rec.audio.pro so extraordinarily sensitive about a
simple design exercise? There are now probably a dozen messages all
concerned with abusing me -- and none to address the design challenge.

Why do I frighten you guys on rec.audio.pro so badly?

Andre Jute
When I stop smiling...

[Mogens V.]

Andre Jute wrote:
Why do I frighten you guys on rec.audio.pro so badly?

You certainly don't. It's just annoying. Your choise of language too.
Others are so right; threads like this is what kills usenet.

Seems you're incabable of seeing it yourself, so here's the cardboard
cutout:

It starts with what looks like a serious discussion, then arguments
fail, but the discussion is kept going because people like you won't
give in and stand corrected. Pride or stupidity.. it's a Bit blurred..

The problem is that we check out the discussion, decide to leave it, but
it keeps popping up, so we check again to see if there's useful info.
So, it becomes a time waster.

Your choise of language makes people resent you, but instead of
adjusting and writing only where you (may) have knowledge, people like
you keeps on and on and on... Where's the good contacts? Gone..

I write from RAP, where quite a nof discussions keeps going because
people don't agree - but they have knowledge, and at some point agree on
parts and leave be the rest, reflect, study, test/measure et al.., and
maybe come back to renew the discussion. It's called Mature Behaviour.

It's already been suggested taking this discussion to some pure opinion
group, so please do.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former"
-- Albert Einstein.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
And

How does it feel to be utterly friendless but for your wet-nurse John,
your damaged acolyte Westiepoo and your array of sockpuppets being
"the commander" and Glassgrey?

One would think that at your stage in life you would be counting (and
spoiling) your grand children rather than fulminating from your dingy
little bed-sit in Ireland about subjects that you clearly do not
understand.

I'm unsure that a person with Jute's err preferences would ever have
descendents...

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 28, 6:19 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I'm unsure that a person with Jute's err preferences would ever have
descendents...


He has claimed both wife and son. I would expect or at least hope that
even as spavined a specimen as Andre would not lie about such core
issues.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Poor, poor, Poopie. Now he cuts of my home newsgroup, RAT, in the hope
that I won't see what he says about me and kick his butt for it some
more. And in this instance he deserves to have his butt kicked over
the houses and back again: Poopie's "final solution" to losing so many
arguments with me is to have my net access withdrawn; it is his
admission that he is a permanent loser. That was also the "solution"
of the Magnequest Scum, and see what happened to them.

Yo, Poopie, you were caught holding yourself up an expert on a subject
you knew nothing about, you got your butt kicked for it, so stop
whining.

Poopie's assault on freedom of speech, and his admission that he is a
permanent loser (because he is ignorant and clumsy), are both below.
I'll deal with Mogens Five separately.

Andre Jute
Zero tolerance for the enemies of fidelity

On Oct 28, 12:50 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Why do I frighten you guys on rec.audio.pro so badly?

You certainly don't. It's just annoying. Your choise of language too.
Others are so right; threads like this is what kills usenet.

Seems you're incabable of seeing it yourself, so here's the cardboard
cutout:

It starts with what looks like a serious discussion, then arguments
fail, but the discussion is kept going because people like you won't
give in and stand corrected. Pride or stupidity.. it's a Bit blurred..

The problem is that we check out the discussion, decide to leave it, but
it keeps popping up, so we check again to see if there's useful info.
So, it becomes a time waster.

Your choise of language makes people resent you, but instead of
adjusting and writing only where you (may) have knowledge, people like
you keeps on and on and on... Where's the good contacts? Gone..

I write from RAP, where quite a nof discussions keeps going because
people don't agree - but they have knowledge, and at some point agree on
parts and leave be the rest, reflect, study, test/measure et al.., and
maybe come back to renew the discussion. It's called Mature Behaviour.

It's already been suggested taking this discussion to some pure opinion
group, so please do.

I have trimmed rec.audio.pro from my other responses but 'Andre Jute' keeps
adding it back.

I'd suggest a complaint to his ISP/news provider but the oily slime uses Google
(who don't care) via an anonymising service to hide his real provider.

On the subject of which, I'm increasingly of the mind that Google posts should
be barred from Usenet. At least 95% of them are invariably garbage.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:
Poor, poor, Poopie. Now he cuts of my home newsgroup, RAT, in the hope
that I won't see what he says about me and kick his butt for it some
more. And in this instance he deserves to have his butt kicked over
the houses and back again: Poopie's "final solution" to losing so many
arguments with me is to have my net access withdrawn; it is his
admission that he is a permanent loser. That was also the "solution"
of the Magnequest Scum, and see what happened to them.

Yo, Poopie, you were caught holding yourself up an expert on a subject
you knew nothing about, you got your butt kicked for it, so stop
whining.

Poopie's assault on freedom of speech, and his admission that he is a
permanent loser (because he is ignorant and clumsy), are both below.
I'll deal with Mogens Five separately.

Andre Jute
Zero tolerance for the enemies of fidelity

On Oct 28, 12:50 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Why do I frighten you guys on rec.audio.pro so badly?

You certainly don't. It's just annoying. Your choise of language too.
Others are so right; threads like this is what kills usenet.

Seems you're incabable of seeing it yourself, so here's the cardboard
cutout:

It starts with what looks like a serious discussion, then arguments
fail, but the discussion is kept going because people like you won't
give in and stand corrected. Pride or stupidity.. it's a Bit blurred..

The problem is that we check out the discussion, decide to leave it, but
it keeps popping up, so we check again to see if there's useful info.
So, it becomes a time waster.

Your choise of language makes people resent you, but instead of
adjusting and writing only where you (may) have knowledge, people like
you keeps on and on and on... Where's the good contacts? Gone..

I write from RAP, where quite a nof discussions keeps going because
people don't agree - but they have knowledge, and at some point agree on
parts and leave be the rest, reflect, study, test/measure et al.., and
maybe come back to renew the discussion. It's called Mature Behaviour.

It's already been suggested taking this discussion to some pure opinion
group, so please do.

I have trimmed rec.audio.pro from my other responses but 'Andre Jute' keeps
adding it back.

I'd suggest a complaint to his ISP/news provider but the oily slime uses Google
(who don't care) via an anonymising service to hide his real provider.

On the subject of which, I'm increasingly of the mind that Google posts should
be barred from Usenet. At least 95% of them are invariably garbage.

Graham




Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 11:01 am, "Mogens V."
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Why do I frighten you guys on rec.audio.pro so badly?

You certainly don't. It's just annoying. Your choise of language too.
Others are so right; threads like this is what kills usenet.

Not at all. When correctly handled, threads like this *challenge to an
amp design contest* build newsgroups by strengthening readers' faith
in the professional abilities of participants.

Clowns like you wreck newsgroups by wittering on about personalities
rather than principles.

I made a design challenge. The only post about the design challenge in
this thread, now two dozen messages strong, came from John Byrns of
RAT, smacking his chops at the prospect of a juicy technical thread,
wondering if I hadn't made it too easy for you guys.

All the rest, over twenty messages including yours, simply abuse me.

Seems you're incabable of seeing it yourself, so here's the cardboard
cutout:

Sure. Neddy explanations are always welcome and I'm not too proud to
accept them from an expert. So let's see if you know what you're
talking about:

It starts with what looks like a serious discussion, then arguments
fail, but the discussion is kept going because people like you won't
give in and stand corrected. Pride or stupidity.. it's a Bit blurred..

First of all, the arguments that failed in the recent threads belonged
to Poopie Stevenson, Slapdash Krueger, and Bluster Pearce. My
arguments forced Poopie Stevenson to make public retraction again and
again. So how can you say "people like you won't give in and stand
corrected". I won the argument long since, I do not "stand corrected",
there is nothing for me to "give in" about. Instead, Poopie Stevenson
(and now you) whine on and on about it.

Then some rude Dutch fellow claims that I lost the argument because
the plug can be pulled on the amp and then all bets are off. Gee,
****, that's a kindergarten sophistry, not a "professional" argument.

So, keeping it professional, I challenged him to show me a circuit in
which a Class A amp keeps conducting "under any signal condition".

The Dutch clown hasn't been heard from since. None of you so-called
professionals have stepped up to take up the challenge in his place.
Instead you abuse me for showing up your champion as a fool and a
jerk.

The problem is that we check out the discussion, decide to leave it, but
it keeps popping up, so we check again to see if there's useful info.
So, it becomes a time waster.

Learn to use a killfile. Surely, if you claim to be an engineering
professional, a menu choice of whose posts to ignore should not be
beyond you.

Your choise of language makes people resent you, but instead of
adjusting and writing only where you (may) have knowledge, people like
you keeps on and on and on... Where's the good contacts? Gone..

First of all, a professional engineer would spell "choice" with a "c",
not "choise" as you have it.

Secondly, why should I care **** if inferior people like Poopie,
Slapdash and Bluster, and now you Mogens Five, resent me? On this
evidence you clearly don't know anything I want to know and you're
more interested in fighting a flame war in which, equally clearly, I
shall wipe you, than in disccussing technical matters of interest to
me.

Sorry for my mistake in thinking that recreational audio professionals
(rec.audio.pro) are interested in noise reduction!

Thirdly, I do actually "have knowledge" on this subject. That is why
the entire tier of stars on my own homebase, RAT, supported me on
this, and why Poopie Stevenson was forced to retract his erroneous
statement.

Finally -- just how many stupidities can even you get into one short
paragraph? -- I don't "keep on an on"; you have written to and about
me and I answer you. What you want is for me to back away and let your
grossly inaccurate and offensive witterings stand without challenge. I
don't think so.

I write from RAP, where quite a nof discussions keeps going because
people don't agree - but they have knowledge, and at some point agree on
parts and leave be the rest, reflect, study, test/measure et al.., and
maybe come back to renew the discussion. It's called Mature Behaviour.

Then why don't you practice Mature Behaviour instead of provoking me
with a personal attack: "people like you" when I've never been on your
quite clearly wretched newsgroup before? If you blame me for all the
ills of a sick newsgroup, don't I have a right to respond? You should
have thought of that before you hit the keyboard, shouldn't you,
Five?

It's already been suggested taking this discussion to some pure opinion
group, so please do.

How is a principle of physics a matter of "pure opinion"? Perhaps you
should read the threads you object to, or just the orignal text of the
challenge, before you start whining about it.

--
Kind regards,

Nothing kind about a personal attack.

Mogens V.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former"
-- Albert Einstein.

What stands is that I challenged a member of RAP to prove a statement
he made repeatedly by designing an amp that would operate as specified
under the parameters he claims are valid. In return we have seen zero
technical points and about twenty abusive messages.

Hardly "professional".

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

[Sander deWaal]

Andre Jute said:


But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.


I'm just a simple Dutch techie, but this schematic does things fairly
well.

I'll leave it up to you educated guys to determine whether this is
class A, AB or class T(rash).
Ra-a = 7 kohm. Vb = 440V.

Raw schematic:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1751/wkschemod0.jpg


Prototype (slightly modified, double PS tranny, some changes in
component values, softstart added) :
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3475/wkmz5.jpg


Production version, fresh from China (note the different phase
splitter and driver tubes) :
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/755/yarlandwkau6.jpg


On demo with some DIY friends:
http://members.home.nl/m.pekel/Beets...g/PA130759.JPG
http://members.home.nl/m.pekel/Beets...g/PA130754.JPG

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 10:42, Andre Jute wrote:


Clowns like you wreck newsgroups by wittering on about personalities
rather than principles.


Poopie Stevenson, Slapdash Krueger, and Bluster Pearce.
Poopie Stevenson , Poopie Stevenson
rude Dutch fellow
The Dutch clown
Poopie,
Slapdash and Bluster
Poopie Stevenson

not that there is anything wrong with personal attacks.

[Chronic Philharmonic]

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

So, drive the amplifier outside its design parameters? It sounds like you
are parsing semantics here. In a formal debate, one might lose points for
failing to say "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition /within its rated parameters/". But in a newsgroup, it isn't often
clear when the formal rules are switched on or off. It seems people
arbitrarily like to switch them on and off for their own benefit.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes, and you guys have done a poor job keeping him
restrained in rec.audio.pro where he belongs.

The problem is not any one person, the problem is the thread. Drop the
thread. Accusing anyone is not going to solve the problem. Drop the
thread. It's clear it does not belong in rec.audio.pro, and I agree it
probably doesn't belong in rec.audio.tubes. Drop it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 4:58 pm, "Chronic Philharmonic"
wrote:
But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

So, drive the amplifier outside its design parameters? It sounds like you
are parsing semantics here. In a formal debate, one might lose points for
failing to say "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition /within its rated parameters/". But in a newsgroup, it isn't often
clear when the formal rules are switched on or off. It seems people
arbitrarily like to switch them on and off for their own benefit.

That, dear Chronic Philharmonic (nice monicker!), is precisely what I
am complaining about.

Follow the steps:

A class A amplifier is one in which the devices never cease
conducting, right. We all know it means while the signal is limited so
as not to drive it out of class.

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claimed, in order to win an argument against
someone he hates for often exposing his ignorance, that a Class A
amplifier is on in which "the device(s) never cease conducting under
any signal condition." The words "under any singal condition" clearly
negate the prior part of the definition, because any signal condition
must by definition include overload that will drive the amp to
device(s) to cutoff. Arny "Slapdash" Krueger and Don "Bluster" Pearce
explicitly supported Poopie's gross misdefinition for personl reasons
of their own.

A hundred acrimonious messages later, Poopie added a phrase to the
effect of "under any signal condition that will not drive the amp
outside Class A conditions". That whole phrase is then tautological
because the latter half merely cancels out the erroneous first half.

We were back to where decent engineers would have started: "A class A
amplifier is one in which the devices never cease conducting." That
already includes limiting the signal so it cannot be driven out of
class.

So, all of this was an attempt by Poopie Stevenson, Slapdash Krueger
and Bluster Pearce to win an argument by perverting a scientific
definition for their own petty personal reasons.

As I say, you got it in one, except that you missed out on the
despicable personal reasons driving the assault on scientific decency
by these clowns Poopie, Slapdash and Bluster.

Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 6:53 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Not when you claim that a Class A device never ceases conducting
"under any signal condition."

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

Maybe you could make a living as comedian. I'll throw you a few one-
liners to start you off:

Poopie: I'm an electronics engineer.

Poopie: I understand cirkew-- you know, those electric thingies.

Poopie: I'm cleverer than you.

Graham

LOL.

Unsigned for the usual reason
That too

[John Byrns]

In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro.
None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an
examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379
...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

I don't know about Eeyore's "low-rent soundbites" beyond the fact that
they are annoying, but the rec.audio.tbues charter, which I posted a
couple of days ago, includes guitar amps, as well as high fidelity
amplifiers, and even radios which some one was complaining about, which
was the reason I posted the charter. So cut Eeyore some slack on the
guitar amp bit, but keep "helping" him change his habit of using those
irritating "low-rent soundbites".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 2:48 pm, Sander deWaal wrote:
Andre Jute said:

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.

I'm just a simple Dutch techie, but this schematic does things fairly
well.

I'll leave it up to you educated guys to determine whether this is
class A, AB or class T(rash).
Ra-a = 7 kohm. Vb = 440V.

Raw schematic:http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1751/wkschemod0.jpg

Prototype (slightly modified, double PS tranny, some changes in
component values, softstart added) :http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3475/wkmz5.jpg

Production version, fresh from China (note the different phase
splitter and driver tubes) :http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/755/yarlandwkau6.jpg

On demo with some DIY friends:http://members.home.nl/m.pekel/Beets...g/PA130754.JPG

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

Will you hate me, Sander, for saying,
`I love the driftwood
On the Chinese kay tee eightee eight,
so much better than the poli-ali
of the prototype!'

Is that an amp you designed for Chinese manufacture and local sale?
Who sells it and how much?

(And how do I get an appointment with hairdresser of the guy with the
blond streak in his hair...)

Okay, now for the tough question:

Is this circuit an entry into the challenge to show design that has
Class A output "under any signal condition"? In other words a design
that can in no way be driven to cutoff?

Or are you just throwing it in to lighten up the atmosphere?

Welcome back.

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

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 10:52 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

Are you illiterate as well as stupid, Poopie? John Byrns published the
by-laws precisely for your edification. They include high fidelity
applications, tube radios, even guitar amps.

The rest of this crap is only your crudely uninformed opinion, which
on civilized newsgroups has zero Credibility Quotient.

Anyway, I'm bored with you wriggling like demented worm on a hook.

Flick.

Unsigned out of contempt


If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 20:24, Andre Jute wrote:



(And how do I get an appointment with hairdresser of the guy with the
blond streak in his hair...)

maybe that is Mr De Waal!!!
which one is Sander?

whatever, these guys need to take better care of their disks.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 11:31 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:



On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro.
None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an
examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379
...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

I don't know about Eeyore's "low-rent soundbites" beyond the fact that
they are annoying, but the rec.audio.tbues charter, which I posted a
couple of days ago, includes guitar amps, as well as high fidelity
amplifiers, and even radios which some one was complaining about, which
was the reason I posted the charter. So cut Eeyore some slack on the
guitar amp bit, but keep "helping" him change his habit of using those
irritating "low-rent soundbites".

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

I have no problem with guitar amps. One of the first amps I ever built
from scratch was a guitar amp out of Aspen Pitman's book -- I chose it
because I had a few of the right tubes in a stash an old ham gave me,
and a chassis out of a wrecked radio a local collector gave me because
it had the right sockets and holes on it. It had a delicious sound. I
sold it for 600 Irish pounds, about a thousand dollars, to a local
audiophile who fell in love with its sound -- and hardly a month goes
by that I don't think of it and regret selling that crude little amp.

My question was about whether Poopie Stevenson has any connection to
high fidelity. He has since admitted he has no interest in high
fidelity. Which is what we knew already.

I suppose Poopie might be on RAT for the "toobed" guitar amps, but
apparently he hates tubes too.

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