[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Patrick Turner wrote:

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters
using tubes, methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife
at your house and you'd be horrified by the power bills.
The Green Police would call to arrest you for causing so
much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.

Which would mean rather a lot of time spent hunting down
the failed ones and replacing them !

We been there and done that with tubed digital computers during the 50s and
early 60s. In the mid-60s when I worked for IBM our field office still had
one client with a 650 that did thier books, and the tubed computer at
another shop had not been gone that long - some of the repair parts were
still around.

There was a funny story about the second computer. The tubed computers made
so much really hot air that their ductwork was more like a chimney than
ducts, right down to the damper. The 650 mentioned above looked like a
large hot air furnace in a basement with ducts leading off in all
directions.

At any rate one client inadvertantly left the damper open one summer
weekend. On Saturday, we had a cold snap and cold air chilled the computer
down to the 50s. On Sunday there was then a hot, humid heat wave and there
was massive condensation. The first shift on Monday morning came in and
powered the thing up. Filament supply - no problem. A brief warm up, and
then on with the HV...

Kaahhh-whhham!

Field engineers with hair dryers worked for 3 days before the thing would
power up again.

Try telling today's kids that ! ;~)

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

So what makes you hang out on rec.audio.tubes-have-worse-quality-than-
solid-state?

Sheer perversity?

This is exactly the one place where nobody is likely to believe you.
Sounds like banging one's head against a brick wall to me. Maybe in
life's rich pageant somebody somewhere has to do it.

Tubes are used notably in guitar amps where their unique combination of
soft overload and highish distortion is used 'artistically'. As such they
have their uses. Besides I learnt on valves anyway.

As a choice for hi-fi, nothing could be worse.

Graham

[NoSPAM]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Patrick Turner wrote:

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters
using tubes, methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife
at your house and you'd be horrified by the power bills.
The Green Police would call to arrest you for causing so
much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.

Which would mean rather a lot of time spent hunting down
the failed ones and replacing them !

We been there and done that with tubed digital computers during the 50s
and
early 60s. In the mid-60s when I worked for IBM our field office still
had
one client with a 650 that did thier books, and the tubed computer at
another shop had not been gone that long - some of the repair parts were
still around.

There was a funny story about the second computer. The tubed computers
made
so much really hot air that their ductwork was more like a chimney than
ducts, right down to the damper. The 650 mentioned above looked like a
large hot air furnace in a basement with ducts leading off in all
directions.

At any rate one client inadvertantly left the damper open one summer
weekend. On Saturday, we had a cold snap and cold air chilled the
computer
down to the 50s. On Sunday there was then a hot, humid heat wave and
there
was massive condensation. The first shift on Monday morning came in and
powered the thing up. Filament supply - no problem. A brief warm up, and
then on with the HV...

Kaahhh-whhham!

Field engineers with hair dryers worked for 3 days before the thing
would
power up again.

Try telling today's kids that ! ;~)

Graham



They had a 650 where I got my first summer job. One day the IBM tech came
in, took off the door and found
"burnt orange gunk" all over the insides. I didn't have the good sense to
tell him what it really was. It seems the keypunch operators liked to lay
their cheese sandwiches on top of the 650 to grill them!

Vacuum tubes make lousy switches for low level signals. Thryratrons (tube
version of a silicon controlled rectifier) would work far better since they
have a fairly stable voltage drop. For those that do not believe this, try
designing a stable DC amplifier with tubes that does not need adjustment
daily to stay balanced and with no offset. Chopper stabilization, as
described in the old MIT Radiation Laboratory series of books, is generally
required. Finding mercury wetted relays for the choppers these days would
be a chore too. An all vacuum tube DAC with 16 bits of accuracy would
require hours of adjustments for minutes of listening time.

Dr. Barry L. Ornitz

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:
The good thing about a "tube DAC" is that you can feed the DAC's
converted analog signal straight into the grids of the input tubes
together with the DC on the signal, which becomes part of the bias.
It's an elegant way of doing it and many including myself believe it
sounds better than transformer out or a solid state output stage.

How can added distortion 'sound better' ?

I think the phrase you're searching for is "How can that sound
better?"

It all depends on your understanding and perception of 'better'.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Show me a solid state DAC that doesn't require "analogue anti-aliasing and
anti-imaging filters too"?

Are you kidding me ?

No, can you show me one?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

And you'd be back to analogue anti-aliasing and
anti-imaging filters too.

Show me a solid state DAC that doesn't require "analogue
anti-aliasing and anti-imaging filters too"?

In modern ADCs and DACs, the actual brick-wall filtering is implemented in
the digital domain via oversampling.

Exactly.


There are analog filters, but they are
usually merely 4th order, and have a ultrasonic corner frequency.

Just to roll off some residual ultrasonic trash. There's not much of it
anyway.

And how is that any different than with a non-modern DAC, except as regards the
amount of analog filtering that is required?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

I thought oversampling DACs were invented because Philips only had a 14 bit
DAC
available when they compromised with Sony on the CD spec. and needed a way
to
get 16 bits out of their existing 14 bit converter? ;-)

Clearly you're a bit muddled.

I think you missed the emoticon.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

And how is that any different than with a non-modern DAC, except as regards the
amount of analog filtering that is required?

VAST !

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Show me a solid state DAC that doesn't require "analogue anti-aliasing and
anti-imaging filters too"?

Are you kidding me ?

No, can you show me one?

Get a data sheet for any modern Burr-Brown/TI , Cirrus/Crystal, AKM or Wolfson
part.

Graham

[keithr]

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

A 16 bit DAC is, basically, a current/voltage source, 16 switches, 16
precision resistors, a summing junction and output buffer. That's
hardly a 'house' full of tubes, much less 'conservative'.

As a pure DAC, sure.

Modern ones however take a serial (single wire) I2S signal input and clock.

Graham

I think that we can pretty well take it that you could build a crude DAC
with a couple of dozen tubes, now what I want to see is a mechanical DAC
to go with the replica Babbage engine in the Science Museum

Keith

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters using tubes,
methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife at your house and you'd be
horrified by the power bills. The Green Police would call to arrest you
for causing so much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.
However, their purpose would be to perform un-digitalling tasks which
can be done better with zillions of transistors in a chip.
But the tubes are very nice things to use as the fist device to handle
and filter the audio coming from the DA chip.

Patrick, methinks that you are confusing "D to A converters" with DSPs. A tube
D to A converter wouldn't be anywhere near as complex as you imply, the problem
is how to achieve the desired 16 bit accuracy. I believe D to A converters
built from tubes, of less than 16 bit accuracy, actually existed back in the
1950s, although I am not going to look for any links right now.

Perhaps your'e right, again.

But gee, using tubes for digital signal processing does take up a lotta
space otherwise used for keeping a wife at home and happy. Cast your
mind to production of a stereo FM signal. Its only a bit of analog gear
you might say, not even digital, and yet to do it all with tubes its a
very large set of boxes and a whopping PSU, and maybe it weighs 40Kg.
Its done routinely with a BA1404 chip which fits inside a pen sized
microphone along with its 1.4V AAA battery.

I look at the schematic of my Denon CD player and when unfolded it
spreads right across the kitchen table and its full of lines and boxes
with dozens of connections everywhere, and its all basically
incomprehensible mumbo jumbo to me. Denon keep the internal schematics
of the chips a complete secret, so nobody has a clue how the schematic
works; there are no wave forms, no simple explanations etc. The tubes
required to replace all that chipery ****ery junk would probably occupy
the larger portion of my house.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever sucessfully duplicated all
the chip functionings of a CD player using only vacuum tubes.

And they have not ever duplicated the functions of the chips used in FM
receivers either and including the chip based MPX decoders for producing
the L and R audio signals.

We once lived in a world where if N&D 0.1%, then tubes or a few
discrete bjts or j-fets will do fine.
But the eternal human tendency is to ask for more, at least ever since
Oliver Twist held out his soup bowl in the workhouse, if not before
that. Along come all these geeks crawling out of the woodwork and they
keep the rest of us enslaved to "moreness".
Moreness includes Lessenment. The Morenessizing and Lessenmenting of
every darn thing in the world keeps us working long hours to pay for it
all so just what real progress is made remains mysterious, considering
how unsustainable human occupation of the Planet has become unless a
whole darn lot more morenessing and lessening occurs very soon, or by
next week.
Lessenmenting means reducing defects in any system. Defects get
identified, then lessened, and the system or toy becomes so good it can
be relied upon for a moon shot with real people landing on some rock
240,000 miles away and saying something dumb about footsteps of men and
leaps for mankind, while most real problems on Earth remain the same in
a world rather content about its SNAFU operational status.

Patrick Turner.



--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message


However I don't agree that a tube DAC would "would be the
size of a large building and require its own power
plant".

http://www.analog.com/library/analog...ter%204%20Data
%20Converter%20Process%20Tech%20F.pdf

"In 1954 Epsco introduced an 11-bit,
50-kSPS vacuum-tube based SAR ADC called the DATRAC. This converter, shown
in
Figure 4.3, is generally credited as being the first commercial offering of
such a device.
The DATRAC was offered in a 19" × 26" × 15" housing, dissipated several
hundred
watts, and sold for approximately $8000.00."

Figure 4.3 says that the total power usage was 500 watts. Two would be
required for stereo.

There you go, one of these would fit perfectly on the 19" x 19" end table next
to the sofa where I am sitting as I type this. The only problem is that there
isn't a second end table at the other end of the sofa to hold the second
converter needed for stereo. But wait, maybe there isn't a problem after all,
these devices are ADCs, not the DACs we want, ADCs are considerably more complex
than DACs, so after removing the successive approximation logic, there is
probably room for a stereo pair of DACs in a single cabinet, problem solved.

I suspect that the real problem with building a
tube DAC would be achieving the required 16 bit accuracy,

Agreed.

and not that a totally unreasonable number of tubes would
be required, as you suggest.

If enough accuracy and stability were possible, the SAR DAC technology would
seem to increase the parts count linearaly with the number of bits. Since
speed of components would also increase linearly with the number of bits,
the total power usage per part might increase similarly. A 16 bit version
would have needed to be about 50%. more parts and more than twice as much
power.

But what we need is a DAC, not a successive approximation ADC. The DAC is only
one component in a successive approximation ADC. As you say the amount of
hardware scales linearly with the number of bits in a DAC, but with a DAC the
speed is constant and doesn't increase with the number of bits. A 16 bit DAC
would only require about 50% more power than the DAC component in the successive
approximation ADC. In addition all the counters and other successive
approximation logic is not needed for a DAC, which would considerably reduce the
tube count and power consumption.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Patrick Turner wrote:

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters
using tubes, methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife
at your house and you'd be horrified by the power bills.
The Green Police would call to arrest you for causing so
much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.

Which would mean rather a lot of time spent hunting down
the failed ones and replacing them !

We been there and done that with tubed digital computers during the 50s and
early 60s. In the mid-60s when I worked for IBM our field office still had
one client with a 650 that did thier books, and the tubed computer at
another shop had not been gone that long - some of the repair parts were
still around.

There was a funny story about the second computer. The tubed computers made
so much really hot air that their ductwork was more like a chimney than
ducts, right down to the damper. The 650 mentioned above looked like a
large hot air furnace in a basement with ducts leading off in all
directions.

Ah yes, the IBM 650 was the first computer I ever encountered, however I don't
remember any duct work at all connected to it. Perhaps that was because it was
installed in a very large, very cool, super air conditioned computer room. I do
agree that the 650 looked like it was styled by the same industrial design firm
that did the 1940s home heating furnaces, except that it didn't have any ducts.
The 650 was replaced a couple of years later by a CDC 1604, Seymour Cray's first
effort for CDC, or was his first effort the CDC 160, well no mater since one of
each was installed. The transistorized CDC 1604 was a much larger and more
capable computer than the IBM 650, but I suspect that it's transistors probably
generated just as much heat as the tubes in the smaller IBM 650. The 1604
included an audio amplifier and speaker in the control console that were
connected to the accumulator register for debugging and monitoring purposes,
This also served as a crude DAC through which the computer could play music if
programmed to do so.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[JP]

This has been an amusing thread to watch unfold, but I think the jist is
this:

Tube electronics used in "recording/reproducing" of music does impart
particular distortion characteristics that some people find pleasing to the
ear. It's simply a matter of taste. Anyone can say that this sounds better
than that but that is "to them". Totally subjective.

Music production is a totally separate topic. You can make a musical
instrument out of a pie tin and a hammer. If it produces a sound that is
pleasing in the orchestra or band, it's good to go.

Yes, certainly on paper and in most cases I know of, solid state electronics
will always beat tubes in efficiency, frequency response, distortion, power
consumption, and reliability. I'm sure a most of you have observed, as we
moved from tube to SS and from analog to digital (which distorts the analog
waveforms beginning with the first A to D conversion), a certain character
was lost, and another acquired.

I like all of it, quite frankly. I listen to LPs, tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc. on
tubed and SS gear, sometimes a combination of both. It can be a very
different and interesting listening experience. I expect the folks that
throw the double triodes at the output of a DAC are thinking the same thing.

But it's all a matter of taste, right?

Except for the guys with the radiation treated $1k/ft speaker cables
elevated off the floor precisely 6 inches by $50 a piece precision cut
wooden blocks... those guys are nuts. ;o)

JP


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Andy Evans wrote:

But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

So what makes you hang out on rec.audio.tubes-have-worse-quality-than-
solid-state?

Sheer perversity?

This is exactly the one place where nobody is likely to believe you.
Sounds like banging one's head against a brick wall to me. Maybe in
life's rich pageant somebody somewhere has to do it.

Tubes are used notably in guitar amps where their unique combination of
soft overload and highish distortion is used 'artistically'. As such they
have their uses. Besides I learnt on valves anyway.

As a choice for hi-fi, nothing could be worse.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
Patrick Turner wrote:

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters
using tubes, methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife
at your house and you'd be horrified by the power bills.
The Green Police would call to arrest you for causing so
much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.

Which would mean rather a lot of time spent hunting down
the failed ones and replacing them !

We been there and done that with tubed digital computers during the 50s and
early 60s. In the mid-60s when I worked for IBM our field office still had
one client with a 650 that did thier books, and the tubed computer at
another shop had not been gone that long - some of the repair parts were
still around.

There was a funny story about the second computer. The tubed computers made
so much really hot air that their ductwork was more like a chimney than
ducts, right down to the damper. The 650 mentioned above looked like a
large hot air furnace in a basement with ducts leading off in all
directions.

Ah yes, the IBM 650 was the first computer I ever encountered, however I don't
remember any duct work at all connected to it. Perhaps that was because it was
installed in a very large, very cool, super air conditioned computer room. I do
agree that the 650 looked like it was styled by the same industrial design firm
that did the 1940s home heating furnaces, except that it didn't have any ducts.
The 650 was replaced a couple of years later by a CDC 1604, Seymour Cray's first
effort for CDC, or was his first effort the CDC 160, well no mater since one of
each was installed. The transistorized CDC 1604 was a much larger and more
capable computer than the IBM 650, but I suspect that it's transistors probably
generated just as much heat as the tubes in the smaller IBM 650. The 1604
included an audio amplifier and speaker in the control console that were
connected to the accumulator register for debugging and monitoring purposes,
This also served as a crude DAC through which the computer could play music if
programmed to do so.

Sounds a bit like the Elliot 803 I first ran programs on in ~ 1971.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_803

Paper tape I/O of course.

Graham

[Andy Evans]

On Nov 29, 9:03*pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:
But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

So what makes you hang out on rec.audio.tubes-have-worse-quality-than-
solid-state?

Sheer perversity?

This is exactly the one place where nobody is likely to believe you.
Sounds like banging one's head against a brick wall to me. Maybe in
life's rich pageant somebody somewhere has to do it.

Tubes are used notably in guitar amps where their unique combination of
soft overload and highish distortion is used 'artistically'. As such they
have their uses. Besides I learnt on valves anyway.

As a choice for hi-fi, nothing could be worse.

Graham

Ah right. That makes it much clearer where you're coming from and
explains your comments and your presence on a tube group. I'd
overlooked the idea that tubes should only be used "artistically" - it
doesn't have any currency in the circles I hang out in, and I have to
say that being a bass player and not a guitarist I never had any use
for distortion in my stage amps. But your point about valve overload
in guitar amps is perfectly valid.

andy

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

If enough accuracy and stability were possible, the SAR
DAC technology would seem to increase the parts count
linearaly with the number of bits. Since speed of
components would also increase linearly with the number
of bits, the total power usage per part might increase
similarly. A 16 bit version would have needed to be
about 50%. more parts and more than twice as much power.

But what we need is a DAC, not a successive approximation
ADC. The DAC is only one component in a successive
approximation ADC. As you say the amount of hardware
scales linearly with the number of bits in a DAC, but
with a DAC the speed is constant and doesn't increase
with the number of bits.

That's true, I was thinking of the ADC. When you up the precision of the
sucessive-approximation ADC, it takes more approximations to get a
more-accurate answer, and so it needs to be faster.

A 16 bit DAC would only require
about 50% more power than the DAC component in the
successive approximation ADC. In addition all the
counters and other successive approximation logic is not
needed for a DAC, which would considerably reduce the
tube count and power consumption.

Agreed.

If the accuracy problems could be solved, a 16 bit 44 KHz stereo DAC would
appear to be be feasible as a home audio component.

If appropriate dither were applied in the digital domain to the 16 bit data,
a 12 bit tubed DAC might be both feasible and usable.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

And you'd be back to analogue anti-aliasing and
anti-imaging filters too.

Show me a solid state DAC that doesn't require "analogue
anti-aliasing and anti-imaging filters too"?

In modern ADCs and DACs, the actual brick-wall filtering
is implemented in the digital domain via oversampling.
There are analog filters, but they are usually merely
4th order, and have a ultrasonic corner frequency.

So what you are saying is that "modern ADCs and DACs" use
digital filters in addition to analog filters.

Yes.

They don't eliminate analog filters, they simply relax the
constraints on them.

Yes, but the amount of relaxation is extreme. The analog filters need to be
relatively simple, very simple.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
John Byrns wrote:

I think Eeyore needs to hit the books.

Eeyore builds with them. The very mild filtering is NOT
there for anti-aliasing or anti-imaging purposes.

Actually the simple analog filters that are used with oversampled ADCs and
DACs are there to provide anti-aliasing and anti-imaging. The aliases and
images that they are there to deal with are way up there at N (N=4,8,16...)
times the Nyquist frequency.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message


And how is that any different than with a non-modern DAC,
except as regards the amount of analog filtering that is
required?

Modern DACs with digital filters economically do things that nobody ever got
around to do, or even tried with traditional designs.

[Arny Krueger]

"NoSPAM" wrote in message
news
For those that do not believe this,
try designing a stable DC amplifier with tubes that does
not need adjustment daily to stay balanced and with no
offset.

True, even with SS amps.

Chopper stabilization, as described in the old
MIT Radiation Laboratory series of books, is generally
required.

Chopper stabilization was used, even with SS DC-coupled amps.

http://www.vaxman.de/my_machines/tel...741/ra741.html

My recollection is that the EAI TR48 that I programmed as an undergraduate
used chopper-stabilized, SS operational amplifiers and integrators.

There are also a number of chopper-stabilized IC op amps that are current
products:

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/tlc2654.html

http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/3527/t/al

Finding mercury wetted relays for the choppers
these days would be a chore too. An all vacuum tube DAC
with 16 bits of accuracy would require hours of
adjustments for minutes of listening time.

Early digital audio components, such as the 3M digital tape recorders, were
SS but were still adjustment intensive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message

But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

So what makes you hang out on
rec.audio.tubes-have-worse-quality-than- solid-state?

Sheer perversity?

A combination of sentimentality and a desire to keep people's hands on top
of the table. There are lots of honest people on RAT, but then there are the
likes of you, Andy.

[Andy Evans]

So what makes you hang out on
rec.audio.tubes-have-worse-quality-than- solid-state?

Sheer perversity?

A combination of sentimentality and a desire to keep people's hands on top
of the table. There are lots of honest people on RAT, but then there are the
likes of you, Andy.

Well, Arny old fellow, if you are holding yourself up to be an example
of the "honest people" on RAT I take that as one of the nicest
compliments I've had all week.

andy

[NoSPAM]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"NoSPAM" wrote in message
news
For those that do not believe this,
try designing a stable DC amplifier with tubes that does
not need adjustment daily to stay balanced and with no
offset.

True, even with SS amps.

Chopper stabilization, as described in the old
MIT Radiation Laboratory series of books, is generally
required.

Chopper stabilization was used, even with SS DC-coupled amps.

http://www.vaxman.de/my_machines/tel...741/ra741.html

My recollection is that the EAI TR48 that I programmed as an
undergraduate used chopper-stabilized, SS operational amplifiers and
integrators.

There are also a number of chopper-stabilized IC op amps that are current
products:

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/tlc2654.html

http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/3527/t/al

Finding mercury wetted relays for the choppers
these days would be a chore too. An all vacuum tube DAC
with 16 bits of accuracy would require hours of
adjustments for minutes of listening time.

Early digital audio components, such as the 3M digital tape recorders,
were SS but were still adjustment intensive.




Arny,

Sorry to post here but mail to hotpop failed...
: Recipient address rejected: Account closed due to
inactivity. No forwarding information is available

I guess I predate you a little. I started with the EAI TR-10 and TR-20.
By
the time I got out of graduate school, I was using an EAI 680 with EAI 693
digital interface hooked to a DEC PDP-15. I do recall a few 100 volt
machines back in the storerooms. One of those old machines (PACE, I think)
had a digital voltmeter with stepping relays submerged in mineral oil!

Have you forgiven me yet for the April Fool article on "monomethyl
lirpanoic
butyrate [April 1 skunk oil]" as a CD coating? I am glad to know you are
still around.

Barry remove the eights

[Arny Krueger]

"NoSPAM" wrote in message


Sorry to post here but mail to hotpop failed...
: Recipient address rejected: Account
closed due to inactivity. No forwarding information is
available

It has been dead for years. Solves the spam problem! ;-)

the real address is arnyk at comcast dot net.

I guess I predate you a little. I started with the EAI
TR-10 and TR-20.

Probably not that much, because I started out on a TR 20.

By the time I got out of graduate school, I was using an EAI
680 with EAI 693 digital interface hooked to a DEC
PDP-15.

Ditto, except the digital computer was an IBM 1130. I believe ours was the
big 1130 with 64K bytes (32 kwords) RAM and a ca. 512 kilo word (1
megabyte) 12" hard drive. ;-)

I do recall a few 100 volt machines back in the
storerooms. One of those old machines (PACE, I think)
had a digital voltmeter with stepping relays submerged in
mineral oil!

That's a goodie!

Have you forgiven me yet for the April Fool article on
"monomethyl lirpanoic butyrate [April 1 skunk oil]" as a CD coating?

That was you?

I am glad to know you are still around.

Alive and kicking! Kicking hard. ;-)
Barry remove the eights

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:
But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

So what makes you hang out on rec.audio.tubes-have-worse-quality-than-
solid-state?

Sheer perversity?

This is exactly the one place where nobody is likely to believe you.
Sounds like banging one's head against a brick wall to me. Maybe in
life's rich pageant somebody somewhere has to do it.

Tubes are used notably in guitar amps where their unique combination of
soft overload and highish distortion is used 'artistically'. As such they
have their uses. Besides I learnt on valves anyway.

As a choice for hi-fi, nothing could be worse.

Ah right. That makes it much clearer where you're coming from and
explains your comments and your presence on a tube group. I'd
overlooked the idea that tubes should only be used "artistically" - it
doesn't have any currency in the circles I hang out in, and I have to
say that being a bass player and not a guitarist I never had any use
for distortion in my stage amps. But your point about valve overload
in guitar amps is perfectly valid.

Bass players also tend to be more content with solid state stage amps.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Ditto, except the digital computer was an IBM 1130. I believe ours was the
big 1130 with 64K bytes (32 kwords) RAM and a ca. 512 kilo word (1
megabyte) 12" hard drive. ;-)

Where did they find a "12" hard drive", most of the 1130s had 14" hard drives?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Ditto, except the digital computer was an IBM 1130. I
believe ours was the big 1130 with 64K bytes (32 kwords)
RAM and a ca. 512 kilo word (1 megabyte) 12" hard
drive. ;-)

Where did they find a "12" hard drive", most of the
1130s had 14" hard drives?

My bad, 14" it was.

[Andy Evans]

Bass players also tend to be more content with solid state stage amps.

Graham

Practical point - they have enough to carry without heavy valve
amps!!! I use a solid state stage amp precisely for that reason - a
double bass in one hand doesn't leave room for much.

However those with roadies sometimes use valves.

Another way to do it is to use a valve preamp which some do.

andy

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message


Well, Arny old fellow, if you are holding yourself up to
be an example of the "honest people" on RAT I take that
as one of the nicest compliments I've had all week.

The logical error you made there Andy is that even if I am a liar, that
bears little on whether you are a liar or not.

I'm pretty sure that the logic of this is over your head, but I thought I'd
throw it in to help keep your head spinning. ;-)

By libeling me Andy, you tend to influence a rational observer to believe
that you are not being truthful.

[Andy Evans]

On Dec 1, 6:33*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote in


Well, Arny old fellow, if you are holding yourself up to
be an example of the "honest people" on RAT I take that
as one of the nicest compliments I've had all week.

The logical error *you made there Andy is that even if I am a liar, that
bears little on whether you are a liar or not.

I'm pretty sure that the logic of this is over your head,

I'm a university lecturer and amongst other things I teach research
methods and critical thinking.

So you're "pretty sure" this is over my head? Are you "pretty sure"
you have two feet? Are you "pretty sure" your name is Arny? If your
inductive methods are as poor as this I'm surprised you're sure of
anything. Must be worrying to get up in the morning and see something
round in the sky and think "well I'm pretty sure that's the sun".
Maybe it's the moon? How would you know?

andy

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message

On Dec 1, 6:33 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote in


Well, Arny old fellow, if you are holding yourself up to
be an example of the "honest people" on RAT I take that
as one of the nicest compliments I've had all week.

The logical error you made there Andy is that even if I
am a liar, that bears little on whether you are a liar
or not.

I'm pretty sure that the logic of this is over your
head,

I'm a university lecturer and amongst other things I
teach research methods and critical thinking.

As they say,

Those who can do it, they do it.

Those who can't do it, they try to teach it.

So you're "pretty sure" this is over my head?

I can't help but notice the monmental intellectual face plant that you
took. It is what it is.

[TT]

"flipper" wrote in message
...

Actually, other than Andy's style being perhaps more
clever than
yours, the only thing a "rational observer" could draw
from it is that
neither of you likes each other very much.

The fact is, no one likes Arny very much at all anywhere ;-)
BTW Arny is also a compulsive liar.

Cheers TT

[LGLA]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ...


LGLA wrote:

"cipher" wrote in message 0...
These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

what would be the purpose of such a device? Yes, I am young and ignorant
re electronics.

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

One thing I have noticed about stereo stacks... everything has an output
in one way or another, even if it is the sound itself, from a speaker. And,
the output stage of a DAC would be the point, just for that tube's worth
of sound quality. Any output stage to another component, is an amplifier.

This is my FIRST post, as a reply, in this NG.

Alex
SoCalifornia

Welcome to our little group. I hope you have a wardrobe full of flame
suits to protect yourself from the barbs, sarcasms, inuendo, and
downright BS that this group generates like mushrooms springing up in
compost.

Between the lines of BS there is much to be treasured here, and if you
increase the treasure then you'll get by better than some.

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters using tubes,
methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife at your house and you'd be
horrified by the power bills. The Green Police would call to arrest you
for causing so much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.
However, their purpose would be to perform un-digitalling tasks which
can be done better with zillions of transistors in a chip.
But the tubes are very nice things to use as the fist device to handle
and filter the audio coming from the DA chip.

But soon the digital world will be rocked with DXD etc, so prepare to
say tata to CDs.
The world has always hosted a mix of the best and the worst in any
product. MP3 is the worst, but the DXD could be the best but only for
those who can afford it unless the DXD becomes a real cheap alternative
due to parallel developments in data processing speeds, memory
capacities and broadband data transfer rates.


Put it this way, in 25 years time, will anyone remember how CD players
worked? Will replacement lasers be available? Will anyone know how to
install them? And won't 44kHz x 16 bit all seem even more primitive than
vinyl?

And will we have holographic porno online streaming? and film character
/ plot choice? and a host of other gee wizz ways of creating
entertainment without actors, actresses, and orchestras?

Hu nose? I don't. And the future might arrive and I'll be too old to
enjoy it.


Patrick Turner.


Patrick Turner thanks for the great, humorous and positive welcome!
That is a lot of text you typed. As far as all the future digital crap, I
love analog, but I do use basic current digital. Though it just isn't too
important to me in a personal way. Me am at a very basic level.

Thanks again much,

--
Alex
SoCalifornia

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message


Actually, other than Andy's style being perhaps more
clever than yours, the only thing a "rational observer"
could draw from it is that neither of you likes each
other very much.

Flipper, when will we know that you've gotten over your crush on Andy? ;-)

Fact of the matter is that you're just chafing under the weight of being
corrected by me so many times.

There is no thirst for truth in what you say, just a desire to balance some
imaginary books that exist only in your mind.

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

I'm a university lecturer

I have an exceptionally low opinion of those and that was at UCL.

Graham

[TT]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:26:05 +0900, "TT"

wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..

Actually, other than Andy's style being perhaps more
clever than
yours, the only thing a "rational observer" could draw
from it is that
neither of you likes each other very much.

The fact is, no one likes Arny very much at all anywhere
;-)
BTW Arny is also a compulsive liar.

Cheers TT


I was going to question the validity of those claims but
Arny is
making your case for you.

I failed to mention his sanity level is variable but you
have already figured that out by now :-)

Cheers TT

[Nick Gorham]

TT wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:26:05 +0900, "TT"

wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
...


Actually, other than Andy's style being perhaps more
clever than
yours, the only thing a "rational observer" could draw
from it is that
neither of you likes each other very much.


The fact is, no one likes Arny very much at all anywhere
;-)
BTW Arny is also a compulsive liar.

Cheers TT


I was going to question the validity of those claims but
Arny is
making your case for you.


I failed to mention his sanity level is variable but you
have already figured that out by now :-)

Cheers TT



Actually, A tube DAC would be easy, use a FPGA to convert from PCM to
delta sigma (still digital), use that to drive a pentode with a low pass
filter on its output, and there you are, the D to A is done by a tube.

(ducks and runs)

--
Nick

[Patrick Turner]

Nick Gorham wrote:

TT wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:26:05 +0900, "TT"

wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
...


Actually, other than Andy's style being perhaps more
clever than
yours, the only thing a "rational observer" could draw
from it is that
neither of you likes each other very much.


The fact is, no one likes Arny very much at all anywhere
;-)
BTW Arny is also a compulsive liar.

Cheers TT


I was going to question the validity of those claims but
Arny is
making your case for you.


I failed to mention his sanity level is variable but you
have already figured that out by now :-)

Cheers TT



Actually, A tube DAC would be easy, use a FPGA to convert from PCM to
delta sigma (still digital), use that to drive a pentode with a low pass
filter on its output, and there you are, the D to A is done by a tube.

(ducks and runs)

We might run right after you and blast your arse with buckshot.

Talk about easier said than done.

Where's your schematic for such a scheme?

Patrick Turner.

--
Nick

[Patrick Turner]

LGLA wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ...


LGLA wrote:

"cipher" wrote in message 0...
These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

what would be the purpose of such a device? Yes, I am young and ignorant
re electronics.

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

One thing I have noticed about stereo stacks... everything has an output
in one way or another, even if it is the sound itself, from a speaker. And,
the output stage of a DAC would be the point, just for that tube's worth
of sound quality. Any output stage to another component, is an amplifier.

This is my FIRST post, as a reply, in this NG.

Alex
SoCalifornia

Welcome to our little group. I hope you have a wardrobe full of flame
suits to protect yourself from the barbs, sarcasms, inuendo, and
downright BS that this group generates like mushrooms springing up in
compost.

Between the lines of BS there is much to be treasured here, and if you
increase the treasure then you'll get by better than some.

If you did all the functions of a D to A converters using tubes,
methinks you'd have no room to keep a wife at your house and you'd be
horrified by the power bills. The Green Police would call to arrest you
for causing so much greenhouse gas. Rather a lot of tubes are needed.
However, their purpose would be to perform un-digitalling tasks which
can be done better with zillions of transistors in a chip.
But the tubes are very nice things to use as the fist device to handle
and filter the audio coming from the DA chip.

But soon the digital world will be rocked with DXD etc, so prepare to
say tata to CDs.
The world has always hosted a mix of the best and the worst in any
product. MP3 is the worst, but the DXD could be the best but only for
those who can afford it unless the DXD becomes a real cheap alternative
due to parallel developments in data processing speeds, memory
capacities and broadband data transfer rates.


Put it this way, in 25 years time, will anyone remember how CD players
worked? Will replacement lasers be available? Will anyone know how to
install them? And won't 44kHz x 16 bit all seem even more primitive than
vinyl?

And will we have holographic porno online streaming? and film character
/ plot choice? and a host of other gee wizz ways of creating
entertainment without actors, actresses, and orchestras?

Hu nose? I don't. And the future might arrive and I'll be too old to
enjoy it.


Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner thanks for the great, humorous and positive welcome!
That is a lot of text you typed. As far as all the future digital crap, I
love analog, but I do use basic current digital. Though it just isn't too
important to me in a personal way. Me am at a very basic level.

Some guy has worked out how to have 24 bit x 300kHz+ sampling rate for
digital.
DXD its called, a gee wiz thinge for SACD production. The music's
transients sound right as a result they say. Finally it sounds natural
they say. Butcha still got amps and speakers the music has to get past
without loosing feathers. Oh, and microphones at the beginning, and
recording room effects and replay room effects. What we hear from
speakers will only ever be a painting, and never the real business of
artists playing real music right in front of us, with not a single
electron involved.

I'm quite happy with much vinyl I hear. I'm not happy with all vinyl or
cd though because humans always find ways of perpetuating lowest common
denominator crap if it can be at all sold profitably.

Someone moaned about the invention of the phonograph before 1900 and
said, "damn, and now we are going to be stuck with people playing
recordings of all these terrible artists".
There has always been no shortage of poor quality artists and
entertainers who think they can play something or sing, but just cannot.
A guy from a local studio here told me many pop music wannabes get
themselves recorded at his studio. He plays what he's recorded back at
them, and they often react as if in serious pain. They don't like
themselves,(no wonder depression is rife amoung artists), but then they
plead with the man, "can't you DOOO something to make me sound better?"
( Yeah, I could answer with "just stand there a minute while I load my
revolver.." ) But the man being desperate to make a buck from the
wanabes has learnt to be patient, and to attempt to make a silk purse
from a sow's ear is a daily grind. So he starts equalising the recording
and passing it through all sorts of gear, invariably it is compresseed
and de-essed, maybe put through a digital reverb, and finally through a
tube compressor from 1960.
How else can singers like Kylie Minogue ever sell recordings? Oh, and
they can change the pitch of notes that are off key.
They same approach is used in photography where some takes a snap and
then ppl with a PC trick up the photo on a screen. It makes up for the
photographers lack of ability to see something worth a photo, and just
taking a great shot.

Patrick Turner.




Thanks again much,

--
Alex
SoCalifornia