Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

"A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

Andre Jute

Dédé Jute wrote :


"A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

LOL !!!
Sorry I laugh but that's true...
Even for the guy who wrote :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."

Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
with *more* distortion ?

Enquiring minds need to know.

Graham

Lionel wrote:

Dédé Jute wrote :

"A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

LOL !!!
Sorry I laugh but that's true...
Even for the guy who wrote :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."

Blind professionals in tube tests prefer musicians !

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
with *more* distortion ?

Enquiring minds need to know.

Graham

You want *me* to make your case, Poopster? No, no, no, that's not how
debate works all all. Krueger makes the claim, then it is up to Krueger
and his busy little elves like you to prove it when it is challenged.

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion, but in
practice it's unsuccessful because the cure is far worse than the
disease.

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

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
with *more* distortion ?

Enquiring minds need to know.

Graham

You want *me* to make your case, Poopster?

Obviously Jute you know nothing about how arguments work. Your silence makes
Graham's case. Your immediate obfuscation made Graham's case. By not
providing an immediate cogent answer, you made Graham's case.

In short Jute: Y-O-U L-O-S-E!

Thanks for playing.

Can the next contestant come up to play?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,

Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean make
one up!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,

Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean make
one up!

SET advocates believe all phase splitters are imperfect and so
eliminating them eliminates asymetric drive issues, also that push-pull
transformer cores are magnetized and unmagnetized on each cycle.
However, even if that's so the core magnetization is ten times worse,
making sufficient primary inductance impossible for good LF response if
HF response is not to be killed off.

It should be noted out of fairness in the case of a deliberately
restricted bandpass amplifier, perhaps one for a treble driver, single
ended can provide better results than at first it would appear. The
Audio Anthology provides the example of a treble SET for a horn driver
that provides 4 watts, and by limiting power protects the driver since
it will handle at least three times that in square wave power at 50%,
symmetrical duty cycle.

Andre Jute wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
with *more* distortion ?

Enquiring minds need to know.

Graham

You want *me* to make your case, Poopster?

Actually I asked for a comment on distortion levels vs amplifier topologies.

It's not a 'case' at all. It's about comparing things.

No, no, no, that's not how debate works all all.

Yes it is actually. Maybe you didn't get it ?

Krueger makes the claim, then it is up to Krueger
and his busy little elves like you to prove it when it is challenged.

A.K. made no claim as far as I can see in this thread.

In fact it was you who started it as a supposed denial of A.K's comment in an
entirely different thread.

Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

Your immediate obfuscation made Graham's case

I *love* that word.

To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A
great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore

for the uninitiated............


It *so hits the spot* ! It sums up Jootie Boy's tactics to a Tee perfectly.

Graham

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.

Thank goodness for real design engineers !

I wonder who actually 'ghost writes' the techy bits on Joot's site ?
Clearly Andrew isn't up to the task. Making quasi-technical verbiage is his
style as opposed to anything of substance.

Graham

On 16 Dec 2005 19:13:15 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion, but in
practice it's unsuccessful because the cure is far worse than the
disease.

This strikes me as possibly the clearest definition
of the gulf of thoughts yet expressed here.

On different days, or times of day, I'd personally
fall out on either side of this conceptual divide,
so, for me, it defines the issue perfectly.

Perhaps strangely, I use the "SET dogma" monitoring
viewpoint for my own poor recordings' framework
monitoring, but spend most of my listening-for-
enjoyment-of-music time listening to the factory
CD player in my company Toyota Tacoma or the
ordinary home stereo here at the computer.


I need to either move this computer into the listening
room, or shut up. For now, I'll do the latter,

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"** Satan is smirking at you."

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion, but in
practice it's unsuccessful because the cure is far worse than the
disease.

The above sentence is almost completely free of meaning, but still
has words strung together.
Its like a computer left on its own to write about
The Constitution, or other subject which fascinates some ppl.


The combination of Arny, Trevor, and Bret all trying to discuss SET
amplifiers
rationally is not going to result in an informative thread.

Patrick Turner.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:25:43 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

I need to either move this computer into the listening
room, or shut up. For now, I'll do the latter,

Except! Forgot to mention; without defining our uses
and intentions, discussions of monitoring are just
yelling into computers.

Chris Hornbeck
"** Satan is smirking at you."

Poopie Bear has been perving Andre Jute's netsite again:

I wonder who actually 'ghost writes' the techy bits on Joot's site ?

Poor old Poop can't find anything to criticize, so he issues an empty
smear.

Clearly Andrew isn't up to the task. Making quasi-technical verbiage is his
style as opposed to anything of substance.

Except that on my netsite, as he just told us, this hypocrite found
"technical bits" incontestably so competent that he thinks I must have
hired an engineer to ghost them for me.

What a spiteful, vacuous little man you are--

Graham

--without a surname.

Every word on my netsite Jute on Amps not specifically identified as
written by a guest was written by me, including the technical articles.

Jute on Amps
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

Enjoy.

Andre Jute

On 16 Dec 2005 19:37:58 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,

Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean make
one up!

SET advocates believe all phase splitters are imperfect and so
eliminating them eliminates asymetric drive issues, also that push-pull
transformer cores are magnetized and unmagnetized on each cycle.
However, even if that's so the core magnetization is ten times worse,
making sufficient primary inductance impossible for good LF response if
HF response is not to be killed off.

It should be noted out of fairness in the case of a deliberately
restricted bandpass amplifier, perhaps one for a treble driver, single
ended can provide better results than at first it would appear. The
Audio Anthology provides the example of a treble SET for a horn driver
that provides 4 watts, and by limiting power protects the driver since
it will handle at least three times that in square wave power at 50%,
symmetrical duty cycle.

Of course, the above problems don't occur in a *solid state* SE amp
such as the Nelson Pass Zen or my own KISASS - but that's not a
recommendation for either in any absolute sense. You see, the fact
that SET lovers *believe* that there's something mysteriously 'wrong'
with phase splitters doesn't make it so.

1) It's certainly possible to make a push-pull amplifier with complete
symmetry, tubed or SS.

2) SET amps are *extremely* assymetric by nature, so that argument
kinda falls on its face at the first hurdle.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Relax, Patrick. Wait a bit for the bullyboys to stop shouting that it
is so because the bossbullyboy Krueger says so. Their little
streetcorner mutual masturbation society accounted for no less than
twelve messages in three hours! When that runs down we'll kick a little
ass. -- Andre Jute

Patrick Turner wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion, but in
practice it's unsuccessful because the cure is far worse than the
disease.

The above sentence is almost completely free of meaning, but still
has words strung together.
Its like a computer left on its own to write about
The Constitution, or other subject which fascinates some ppl.


The combination of Arny, Trevor, and Bret all trying to discuss SET
amplifiers
rationally is not going to result in an informative thread.

Patrick Turner.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Andre Jute
If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs --
Rudyard Kipling

Andre Jute wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Andre, pehaps you are not aware of the wars of words I have had with Trevor
Wilson
at aus.hi-fi on the subject of SET amps about which he refuses to be
rational,
and about which he foams at the mouth.
I have long since become quite immune to feeling any embarrassment or lack of

comradeship with any fellow countrymen since the Net is an International
forum,
and i wouldn't call myself a nationalist.

I'd rather try to be right than popular.

I have many times pointed out the reasons why
** WELL DESIGNED** SET amps can be considered true hi-fi amps.

Trevor tries to quote RDH4, but makes gross errors of context, and is unable
to
construct a valid argument of several coherent pages long to support
his beliefs about SE amplifiers.

There are few samples of SET amps using anything larger than a 2A3 in RDH4.
It is principally an engineers handbook, with little concerns for
any of the audiophile concerns held now.


Millions of radios and TV sets used SE pentodes with NFB because they offered

hi-fi, and completely adequate performance desired by the buyers.
Deluxe versions of the above gear used PP amps, wow, and ppl paid a
pretty penny for 8 watts instead of 4 watts.

Almost no audio amplifiers used a lone large octal SE output tube in 1955.
Nearly everyone who had hi-fi amps in 1955 was proud of their
Quads, Leaks, Radfords, or home made Williamsons or Mullard designs which
were all PP amps with NFB.

There was one commercially made exception, a Pye record player amp, the
'Motzart' model
with amps using a lone EL34 per channel and which had CFB windings
like 1/2 a Quad II amp.
Global NFB was also used to give a very functional 9 watts of SE class A
pentode power.
The sound would have been quite as good as from the amps using a pair of 6BM8

which were common at that time.

A minority of amplifiers were 4 watters with typically 6BQ5 for bedroom amps.

All amplifiers were expected to have at least 20 dB of NFB connected.

The use of SE triodes for grand lounge room performances is mainly a latter
day phenomena,
propelled by thoughts and practices originating mainly in Japanese minds,
but as you know there is much that is valid about SET amps if well designed.
The Japanese traditions were implemented mainly with high efficiency speakers

of obligingly agreeable impedances, and used in what are much smaller rooms
in japanese homes
compared to the vast rooms where americans live.
The japanese also have very good hearing; they are not as "loud" a people
compared to the americans or australians.

There is virtually nothing in RDH4 about using 300B, 211 or 845 or any other
big tube
in SE mode at all.

Many PP amps can measure and sound grim compared to
an SE design.

But I could be wrong, perhaps you'll have more luck educating
Trevor to the reasons why some of us enjoy SET amplifier topology.


Trevor has not designed or built any amplifiers for 30 years.

He is quite a nice man most of the time, but he wouldn't know how to
design any amp even if his life depended on it.

Patrick Turner.



Andre Jute
If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs --
Rudyard Kipling

Patrick Turner wrote:

I have many times pointed out the reasons why
** WELL DESIGNED** SET amps can be considered true hi-fi amps.

Yes. There is no law of fundamental physics that says SET amps have to
suck. Indeed the one "good sounging" SET amp I have heard-an Ongaku
clone powered from a modified Behlman-Invar HT supply-proves it's
possible. What physics does say is that it will be three to five times
the size of a good push-pull Class AB amp of similar listening prowess.


Trevor tries to quote RDH4, but makes gross errors of context, and is unable
to
construct a valid argument of several coherent pages long to support
his beliefs about SE amplifiers.

There are few samples of SET amps using anything larger than a 2A3 in RDH4.
It is principally an engineers handbook, with little concerns for
any of the audiophile concerns held now.


Millions of radios and TV sets used SE pentodes with NFB because they offered

hi-fi, and completely adequate performance desired by the buyers.
Deluxe versions of the above gear used PP amps, wow, and ppl paid a
pretty penny for 8 watts instead of 4 watts.

Astonishingly many color TVs had audio amps that were far better than
the crappy speakers in the set allowed them to perform.


Almost no audio amplifiers used a lone large octal SE output tube in 1955.
Nearly everyone who had hi-fi amps in 1955 was proud of their
Quads, Leaks, Radfords, or home made Williamsons or Mullard designs which
were all PP amps with NFB.

MOST hi-fi buffs were in America then as now-particularly East Coast
Italians and Jews until probably the very early 60s, where you had
college kids and West Coast technical people getting in on the
bandwagon with AR and Dyna "imported" from out East, which differed
radically from even two or three years later when Vietnam-stationed
officers and NCOs started dragging home Sansui and other Japanese gear
that was fairly well constructed and measured as well as most anything
else and cost much less. The U.S. market dwarfed the ROW until probably
the late seventies, for mainstream gear. The UK, European
(Continental), and Australasian markets were small potatoes and
protected by tarriffs.


There was one commercially made exception, a Pye record player amp, the
'Motzart' model
with amps using a lone EL34 per channel and which had CFB windings
like 1/2 a Quad II amp.
Global NFB was also used to give a very functional 9 watts of SE class A
pentode power.
The sound would have been quite as good as from the amps using a pair of 6BM8

which were common at that time.

At a substantially higher build cost...

A minority of amplifiers were 4 watters with typically 6BQ5 for bedroom amps.

All amplifiers were expected to have at least 20 dB of NFB connected.

For bedroom amps they still work pretty well, too. I would never pay
more than fifty dollars (U.S.) for one.


The use of SE triodes for grand lounge room performances is mainly a latter
day phenomena,
propelled by thoughts and practices originating mainly in Japanese minds,
but as you know there is much that is valid about SET amps if well designed.
The Japanese traditions were implemented mainly with high efficiency speakers

of obligingly agreeable impedances, and used in what are much smaller rooms
in japanese homes
compared to the vast rooms where americans live.
The japanese also have very good hearing; they are not as "loud" a people
compared to the americans or australians.

The Japanese SE-DHT amp has cultural and religious, even
implications-they are not called "Shinto Penis Shrine Amps" for
nothing. The entire triode yakuza subculture was absolutely unknown in
the US until Alan douglas published an article, "Tubes in Japan", in
Glass Audio magazine. With the possible exceptions of the Williamson
amp in Wireless World and the JAES article by Russell O. Hamm, it is
likely that no other submission to a periodical has had as much effect.
I think Joe Roberts started putting out "Sound Practices" within a year
or so, the first issue consisting of a replica WE 91 construction
project.

It neglected to bring up the fact that the WE 91 was simply designed
for projectionist monitoring use and used a single 300B mainly so one
of the pair pulled on service biannually by ERPI techs could be used
therein. It also had a flaw in the schematic and parts list that meant
the amp would not function as constructed. Because most people did not
have email at that time it led to the foundation of an immediate
sub-subculture so the electronically uneducated who'd bought expensive
Magnequeef transformers and coupling caps could get a sound out of
their conglomerations. "Vacuum Tube Valey" also came out around then
but it spent far more time extolling the virtues of piece-of-****
garage sale denizens and tube rolling than the building from scratch of
electronic mutants with expensive parts.

Getting back to Japanese 300B worship, single-ended became popular
because only one was needed per channel, obviously, and single-ended
doctrine quickly made a virtue out of necessity. As in the current
American scene, most Japanese homebuilders had serious gaps in their
education and equipment and the SE amps were more idiotproof.

There is virtually nothing in RDH4 about using 300B, 211 or 845 or any other
big tube
in SE mode at all.

Many PP amps can measure and sound grim compared to
an SE design.

Poorly designed ones or ones using dismal components, certainly.

But I could be wrong, perhaps you'll have more luck educating
Trevor to the reasons why some of us enjoy SET amplifier topology.


Trevor has not designed or built any amplifiers for 30 years.

He is quite a nice man most of the time, but he wouldn't know how to
design any amp even if his life depended on it.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,

Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean
make
one up!

SET advocates believe all phase splitters are imperfect and so
eliminating them eliminates asymetric drive issues,

Asymmetric drive - small problem
Asymmetric output stage - large problem

Typical toob bigot logic - exchange a small problem for a large problem!

also that push-pull
transformer cores are magnetized and unmagnetized on each cycle.

Only a problem to people who don't believe in soft magnetic materials.

However, even if that's so the core magnetization is ten times worse,
making sufficient primary inductance impossible for good LF response if
HF response is not to be killed off.

Typical toob bigot logic - exchange a small problem for a large problem!

It should be noted out of fairness in the case of a deliberately
restricted bandpass amplifier, perhaps one for a treble driver, single
ended can provide better results than at first it would appear.

IOW, instead of being an utter unmitigated disaster, its merely a disaster?

The Audio Anthology provides the example of a treble SET for a horn
driver
that provides 4 watts, and by limiting power protects the driver since
it will handle at least three times that in square wave power at 50%,
symmetrical duty cycle.

Sounds like a good job for a $1.00 (or less) IC.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

I have many times pointed out the reasons why
** WELL DESIGNED** SET amps can be considered true hi-fi amps.

Yes. There is no law of fundamental physics that says SET amps have to
suck. Indeed the one "good sounging" SET amp I have heard-an Ongaku
clone powered from a modified Behlman-Invar HT supply-proves it's
possible. What physics does say is that it will be three to five times
the size of a good push-pull Class AB amp of similar listening prowess.

For the same weight of an SET 211 amp with 23 watts
you can easily get 75 watts from a pair KT90 PP,
or about 300 watts in mosfets, AB, low bias current.

This is quite irelevant if we are discussing sonic abilities.




Trevor tries to quote RDH4, but makes gross errors of context, and is unable
to
construct a valid argument of several coherent pages long to support
his beliefs about SE amplifiers.

There are few samples of SET amps using anything larger than a 2A3 in RDH4.
It is principally an engineers handbook, with little concerns for
any of the audiophile concerns held now.


Millions of radios and TV sets used SE pentodes with NFB because they offered

hi-fi, and completely adequate performance desired by the buyers.
Deluxe versions of the above gear used PP amps, wow, and ppl paid a
pretty penny for 8 watts instead of 4 watts.

Astonishingly many color TVs had audio amps that were far better than
the crappy speakers in the set allowed them to perform.

In Oz colur didn't arrive until the 1970s, when all TVs were all SS by then
TV sound was still usually mediocre, but better thn am because it was carried in by
an FM signal.

Where there is a picture, ppl quickly don't notice the poor sound.




Almost no audio amplifiers used a lone large octal SE output tube in 1955.
Nearly everyone who had hi-fi amps in 1955 was proud of their
Quads, Leaks, Radfords, or home made Williamsons or Mullard designs which
were all PP amps with NFB.

MOST hi-fi buffs were in America then as now-particularly East Coast
Italians and Jews until probably the very early 60s, where you had
college kids and West Coast technical people getting in on the
bandwagon with AR and Dyna "imported" from out East, which differed
radically from even two or three years later when Vietnam-stationed
officers and NCOs started dragging home Sansui and other Japanese gear
that was fairly well constructed and measured as well as most anything
else and cost much less. The U.S. market dwarfed the ROW until probably
the late seventies, for mainstream gear. The UK, European
(Continental), and Australasian markets were small potatoes and
protected by tarriffs.


There was one commercially made exception, a Pye record player amp, the
'Motzart' model
with amps using a lone EL34 per channel and which had CFB windings
like 1/2 a Quad II amp.
Global NFB was also used to give a very functional 9 watts of SE class A
pentode power.
The sound would have been quite as good as from the amps using a pair of 6BM8

which were common at that time.

At a substantially higher build cost...

Only slightly, but yes bean counters determined what was to be built and how,
but someone must have thought the SE EL34 amp to be superior,
thumbed their noses at the accoutants, so it was built.



A minority of amplifiers were 4 watters with typically 6BQ5 for bedroom amps.

All amplifiers were expected to have at least 20 dB of NFB connected.

For bedroom amps they still work pretty well, too. I would never pay
more than fifty dollars (U.S.) for one.


I had 4 watt 6BQ5 amps in an old Trio receiver, ok for the bedroom,
but recently I happily removed the audio amps, since I wanted the tuner
and MPX decoder to be the only things on the chassis,
which are now highly modded with about 4 extra small tubes.



The use of SE triodes for grand lounge room performances is mainly a latter
day phenomena,
propelled by thoughts and practices originating mainly in Japanese minds,
but as you know there is much that is valid about SET amps if well designed.
The Japanese traditions were implemented mainly with high efficiency speakers

of obligingly agreeable impedances, and used in what are much smaller rooms
in japanese homes
compared to the vast rooms where americans live.
The japanese also have very good hearing; they are not as "loud" a people
compared to the americans or australians.

The Japanese SE-DHT amp has cultural and religious, even
implications-they are not called "Shinto Penis Shrine Amps" for
nothing. The entire triode yakuza subculture was absolutely unknown in
the US until Alan douglas published an article, "Tubes in Japan", in
Glass Audio magazine. With the possible exceptions of the Williamson
amp in Wireless World and the JAES article by Russell O. Hamm, it is
likely that no other submission to a periodical has had as much effect.
I think Joe Roberts started putting out "Sound Practices" within a year
or so, the first issue consisting of a replica WE 91 construction
project.

It neglected to bring up the fact that the WE 91 was simply designed
for projectionist monitoring use and used a single 300B mainly so one
of the pair pulled on service biannually by ERPI techs could be used
therein. It also had a flaw in the schematic and parts list that meant
the amp would not function as constructed. Because most people did not
have email at that time it led to the foundation of an immediate
sub-subculture so the electronically uneducated who'd bought expensive
Magnequeef transformers and coupling caps could get a sound out of
their conglomerations. "Vacuum Tube Valey" also came out around then
but it spent far more time extolling the virtues of piece-of-****
garage sale denizens and tube rolling than the building from scratch of
electronic mutants with expensive parts.

Getting back to Japanese 300B worship, single-ended became popular
because only one was needed per channel, obviously, and single-ended
doctrine quickly made a virtue out of necessity. As in the current
American scene, most Japanese homebuilders had serious gaps in their
education and equipment and the SE amps were more idiotproof.

Yes, but japanese listening habits in thin walled small roomed houses with
sensitive speakers
made using any more than 1/2 a watt something quite silly to the japs.
They were not so dumb as you suggest.
a 6L6 in triode is qute nice and was often used by enthusiasts, but there
were heroes who could afford a 211 to make 25 watts, so the first
1/2 watt would be almost totally blemish free.




There is virtually nothing in RDH4 about using 300B, 211 or 845 or any other
big tube
in SE mode at all.

Many PP amps can measure and sound grim compared to
an SE design.

Poorly designed ones or ones using dismal components, certainly.

I'd much rather have a 300B SET amp than a 2 x 6BM8 amp.

Patrick Turner



But I could be wrong, perhaps you'll have more luck educating
Trevor to the reasons why some of us enjoy SET amplifier topology.


Trevor has not designed or built any amplifiers for 30 years.

He is quite a nice man most of the time, but he wouldn't know how to
design any amp even if his life depended on it.

Now that Krueger and his gang of thugs have worn each other out with
mutual masturbation about how they've won this argument before it
started, I have made a fresh thread actually to start the debate. To
anyone who made a contribution here in perfect goodwill, I can only
say, all is not what it seems. See the thread "PART TWO "SET dogma
maximizes distortion" -- Arnie Krueger Lie No 51291" for an
explanation.

Andre Jute
Cool, calm and very, very collected

Andre Jute wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

"A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

Andre Jute

On 17 Dec 2005 01:01:38 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Eh? Phil decent? Andre, where have you been?

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Andre, pehaps you are not aware of the wars of words I have had with
Trevor
Wilson
at aus.hi-fi on the subject of SET amps about which he refuses to be
rational,
and about which he foams at the mouth.

**LOL! Please feel free to RATIONALLY rebuke the following statements about
SE(T) amplifiers. In your answer, please feel free to liberally quote the
RDH4 to support any arguments you may make.

---
* ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.

* ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.

* SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.

* SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of noise than PP amps.

* SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.
---

And, before you issue your standard cop-out (The one which reads: "I've
already answered these questions"), humour all of us and respond to each
point. If you can't, or won't, then supply your alleged Google cite. I'm
waiting.



I have long since become quite immune to feeling any embarrassment or lack
of

comradeship with any fellow countrymen since the Net is an International
forum,
and i wouldn't call myself a nationalist.

I'd rather try to be right than popular.

**Except you refuse to discuss the actual technical problems which are
endemic to SE(T) amplifiers.


I have many times pointed out the reasons why
** WELL DESIGNED** SET amps can be considered true hi-fi amps.

**Indeed you have. What you have failed to do, however, is discuss why a PP
amp is superior in every way. Moreover, you seem to disregard what the RDH4
says on the subject.


Trevor tries to quote RDH4, but makes gross errors of context, and is
unable
to
construct a valid argument of several coherent pages long to support
his beliefs about SE amplifiers.

**OK. Here's your chance. Prove me wrong. In your answer, please feel free
to quote from the RDH4.


There are few samples of SET amps using anything larger than a 2A3 in
RDH4.
It is principally an engineers handbook, with little concerns for
any of the audiophile concerns held now.

**Huh? You feel that the RDH4 is a useless text in the area of amplifier
design?



Millions of radios and TV sets used SE pentodes with NFB because they
offered

hi-fi, and completely adequate performance desired by the buyers.
Deluxe versions of the above gear used PP amps, wow, and ppl paid a
pretty penny for 8 watts instead of 4 watts.

**Indeed. SE amplifiers were fine for the 1930s. We've since moved on,
however. PP has convincingly and completely eliminated SE designs from the
market place.


Almost no audio amplifiers used a lone large octal SE output tube in 1955.
Nearly everyone who had hi-fi amps in 1955 was proud of their
Quads, Leaks, Radfords, or home made Williamsons or Mullard designs which
were all PP amps with NFB.

SNIP


There is virtually nothing in RDH4 about using 300B, 211 or 845 or any
other
big tube
in SE mode at all.

**Does that mean that what the RDH4 has to say about SE(T) amplifiers is
irrelevant?


Many PP amps can measure and sound grim compared to
an SE design.

**Sure. It's not hard to design a bad PP (or SET) amplifier. What's your
point?


But I could be wrong, perhaps you'll have more luck educating
Trevor to the reasons why some of us enjoy SET amplifier topology.

**I know excatly why a tiny minority of people enjoy listening to SE(T)
amplifiers. You do too, in all probability.



Trevor has not designed or built any amplifiers for 30 years.

**Even if that were true (which it is not), I fail to see why you STILL
refuse to discuss the severe limitations presented by SE(T) amplifiers.



He is quite a nice man most of the time, but he wouldn't know how to
design any amp even if his life depended on it.

**And again. If I am such a dunderhead, then tell me where I am wrong about
SE(T) amplifiers.

Go on. Educate me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



* SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may
lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.

**Whoops. That would be LOWER damping factor. Higher output impedance.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
:
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
: ...
:
:
:
: * SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may
: lead
: to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.
:
: **Whoops. That would be LOWER damping factor. Higher output impedance.
:
:
: --
: Trevor Wilson
: www.rageaudio.com.au
:
too bad, your correction, it was tempting to use:
"
tell me where I am wrong about
SE(T) amplifiers.

Go on. Educate me."

with that bit :-)

but maybe you can educate us on
- audible frequency response problems, _outside_ the audio range or
- _inaudible_ frequency response problems, within the audio range

?
:-)
R.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



* SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may
lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.

**Whoops. That would be LOWER damping factor. Higher output impedance.

Whoops ! You did the same recently in another thread but I knew what you
meant. :-)

Graham

Trevor, all that is bull****. Where in the RDH does it say SET
designers set out deliberately to "maximize" distortion? You're
supporting an absolutely idiotic troll by Krueger.

If you want to publish your list of beefs with SET in new thread with
page numbers from the RDH4, we can discuss the actual difficulties in
SET applications courteously and logically in a format we can all learn
from. Note that what you say about damping of SE vs PP is the reverse
of what is true. I am sure it is not ignorance but a slip.

However, if you actually mean to argue that we deliberately make
distortion as large as possible, as the wretched Krueger claims, I
can't be bothered to talk to idiots.

I look forward to your separate thread of logical discussion with
references.

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Andre, pehaps you are not aware of the wars of words I have had with
Trevor
Wilson
at aus.hi-fi on the subject of SET amps about which he refuses to be
rational,
and about which he foams at the mouth.

**LOL! Please feel free to RATIONALLY rebuke the following statements about
SE(T) amplifiers. In your answer, please feel free to liberally quote the
RDH4 to support any arguments you may make.

---
* ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.

* ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.

* SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.

* SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of noise than PP amps.

* SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.
---

And, before you issue your standard cop-out (The one which reads: "I've
already answered these questions"), humour all of us and respond to each
point. If you can't, or won't, then supply your alleged Google cite. I'm
waiting.



I have long since become quite immune to feeling any embarrassment or lack
of

comradeship with any fellow countrymen since the Net is an International
forum,
and i wouldn't call myself a nationalist.

I'd rather try to be right than popular.

**Except you refuse to discuss the actual technical problems which are
endemic to SE(T) amplifiers.


I have many times pointed out the reasons why
** WELL DESIGNED** SET amps can be considered true hi-fi amps.

**Indeed you have. What you have failed to do, however, is discuss why a PP
amp is superior in every way. Moreover, you seem to disregard what the RDH4
says on the subject.


Trevor tries to quote RDH4, but makes gross errors of context, and is
unable
to
construct a valid argument of several coherent pages long to support
his beliefs about SE amplifiers.

**OK. Here's your chance. Prove me wrong. In your answer, please feel free
to quote from the RDH4.


There are few samples of SET amps using anything larger than a 2A3 in
RDH4.
It is principally an engineers handbook, with little concerns for
any of the audiophile concerns held now.

**Huh? You feel that the RDH4 is a useless text in the area of amplifier
design?



Millions of radios and TV sets used SE pentodes with NFB because they
offered

hi-fi, and completely adequate performance desired by the buyers.
Deluxe versions of the above gear used PP amps, wow, and ppl paid a
pretty penny for 8 watts instead of 4 watts.

**Indeed. SE amplifiers were fine for the 1930s. We've since moved on,
however. PP has convincingly and completely eliminated SE designs from the
market place.


Almost no audio amplifiers used a lone large octal SE output tube in 1955.
Nearly everyone who had hi-fi amps in 1955 was proud of their
Quads, Leaks, Radfords, or home made Williamsons or Mullard designs which
were all PP amps with NFB.

SNIP


There is virtually nothing in RDH4 about using 300B, 211 or 845 or any
other
big tube
in SE mode at all.

**Does that mean that what the RDH4 has to say about SE(T) amplifiers is
irrelevant?


Many PP amps can measure and sound grim compared to
an SE design.

**Sure. It's not hard to design a bad PP (or SET) amplifier. What's your
point?


But I could be wrong, perhaps you'll have more luck educating
Trevor to the reasons why some of us enjoy SET amplifier topology.

**I know excatly why a tiny minority of people enjoy listening to SE(T)
amplifiers. You do too, in all probability.



Trevor has not designed or built any amplifiers for 30 years.

**Even if that were true (which it is not), I fail to see why you STILL
refuse to discuss the severe limitations presented by SE(T) amplifiers.



He is quite a nice man most of the time, but he wouldn't know how to
design any amp even if his life depended on it.

**And again. If I am such a dunderhead, then tell me where I am wrong about
SE(T) amplifiers.

Go on. Educate me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.

**Then I suggest you read the following sections, VERY CAREFULLY:

Section 13.1
Section 13.2
Section 13.4 (Not entirely necessary for this discussion)
Section 13.5 (note the following words on page 574: "Push-pull operation
tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the grid bias or plate
supply voltage.")
Section 13.6 (Not strictly for discussion, because they speak of non-Triode
amplifiers)


Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim

**I am responding to what YOU wrote. If Mr Krueger wrote something
different, then you'll need to post a clarification.

carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.

**I have enjoyed some robust argeuments with Mr Ludwig. Some of his ideas
are completely nutty. On the issue of SE(T) amplifiers, however, we are in
agreement.

Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

**I am quite happy to discuss the merits of various amplifier technologies.
Patrick, for instance, steadfastly refuses to address the following points I
made about SE(T) amplifiers:

---
* ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.

* ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.

* SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.

* SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of hum and noise than PP amps.

* SE amps have a lower damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.

---


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor, all that is bull****. Where in the RDH does it say SET
designers set out deliberately to "maximize" distortion? You're
supporting an absolutely idiotic troll by Krueger.

**RDH4 does not SPECIFICALLY state that. The RDH4 does, however, explain in
explicit detail how PP provides lower levels of distortion (along with a
host of other benefits) than SE(T) amplifiers. I don't wish to speak for Mr
Krueger, but, it would seem that his words suggest the folllowing (if I may
paraphrase):

Since the limitations of SE designs are well known, in comparison to PP
designs, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to introduce distortion, via
the use of SE(T) designs.


If you want to publish your list of beefs with SET in new thread with
page numbers from the RDH4,

**I've separately listed the relevant sections for you to read.

we can discuss the actual difficulties in
SET applications courteously and logically in a format we can all learn
from. Note that what you say about damping of SE vs PP is the reverse
of what is true. I am sure it is not ignorance but a slip.

**Of course.


However, if you actually mean to argue that we deliberately make
distortion as large as possible, as the wretched Krueger claims, I
can't be bothered to talk to idiots.

**Why else would any sane designer choose SE(T) over PP? SE(T) offers no
advantages. None whatsoever. PP is superior in every way.


I look forward to your separate thread of logical discussion with
references.

**Done and done.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor, all that is bull****. Where in the RDH does it say SET
designers set out deliberately to "maximize" distortion? You're
supporting an absolutely idiotic troll by Krueger.

**RDH4 does not SPECIFICALLY state that. The RDH4 does, however, explain in
explicit detail how PP provides lower levels of distortion (along with a
host of other benefits) than SE(T) amplifiers. I don't wish to speak for Mr
Krueger, but, it would seem that his words suggest the folllowing (if I may
paraphrase):

Since the limitations of SE designs are well known, in comparison to PP
designs, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to introduce distortion, via
the use of SE(T) designs.

You are mistaken, though your goodwill even for slime like Krueger does
you credit. In the thread

I have now forced Krueger to admit his meaning is as I read it:
********
Jute:
So, you claim, Krueger, that it is our usual practice,
supported by our moral philosophy, to make the distortion
in our SET amplifiers as large as possible?
Krueger:
So it seems.
***********
It could hardly be clearer. He admits it.

If you want to publish your list of beefs with SET in new thread with
page numbers from the RDH4,

**I've separately listed the relevant sections for you to read.

we can discuss the actual difficulties in
SET applications courteously and logically in a format we can all learn
from. Note that what you say about damping of SE vs PP is the reverse
of what is true. I am sure it is not ignorance but a slip.

**Of course.


However, if you actually mean to argue that we deliberately make
distortion as large as possible, as the wretched Krueger claims, I
can't be bothered to talk to idiots.

**Why else would any sane designer choose SE(T) over PP? SE(T) offers no
advantages. None whatsoever. PP is superior in every way.

If you subscribe to the silly SET-fanatic street myth about me
wholesaled by trash like Krueger and Pinkerton, you will be very
surprised at what happens next.

See the thread "SET v. PP, the big fight tonight" to which I have
removed your summary below for discussion.

Thank you again for being agreeable.

Andre Jute

I look forward to your separate thread of logical discussion with
references.

**Done and done.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this in a thread already
so contaminated with Krueger's deceit. I have lifted your post and
started an entirely new thread "SET v. PP, the big fight tonight". See
you all there. -- Andre Jute

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.

**Then I suggest you read the following sections, VERY CAREFULLY:

Section 13.1
Section 13.2
Section 13.4 (Not entirely necessary for this discussion)
Section 13.5 (note the following words on page 574: "Push-pull operation
tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the grid bias or plate
supply voltage.")
Section 13.6 (Not strictly for discussion, because they speak of non-Triode
amplifiers)


Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim

**I am responding to what YOU wrote. If Mr Krueger wrote something
different, then you'll need to post a clarification.

carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.

**I have enjoyed some robust argeuments with Mr Ludwig. Some of his ideas
are completely nutty. On the issue of SE(T) amplifiers, however, we are in
agreement.

Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

**I am quite happy to discuss the merits of various amplifier technologies.
Patrick, for instance, steadfastly refuses to address the following points I
made about SE(T) amplifiers:

---
* ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.

* ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.

* SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.

* SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of hum and noise than PP amps.

* SE amps have a lower damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.

---


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this

**Of course you don't. You take the Patrick Turner approach to discussions
about SE(T) amplifiers.

IE: Don't discuss the obvious problems.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this

**Of course you don't. You take the Patrick Turner approach to discussions
about SE(T) amplifiers.

IE: Don't discuss the obvious problems.


You clearly didn't finish reading my message before you started foaming
at the mouth. Try reading to the end this time before you soil your
trousers:

Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this in a thread already

so contaminated with Krueger's deceit. I have lifted your post and
started an entirely new thread "SET v. PP, the big fight tonight". See
you all there. -- Andre Jute

I have long since posted my responses and am waiting for you to discuss
them courteously. If you shoot from the hip like this, you will get no
further with me than you did with Patrick, who is hugely more tolerant
of blustering fools than I am.

I'm sure Patrick, Andre and others have said enough about this.
Allow me to post my humble view on things:


"Trevor Wilson" said:

---
* ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.


It is true that SE amps, in general, will produce more even order
harmonics than PP amps in general, be they triode or tetrode/penthode.
However, the PP stage will have lower amplitude odd harmonics, which
are eqasier to detect for human ears, and hence, the number needs to
be considerably lower than that of the SE amp.
One can deliberately tune this out in a PP amp by slightly driving
off-balance.
A bit of GNFB will do the rest.


* ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.


Partly. However, keep in mind that most SET users have the "right"
speakers to match.


* SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.


So what? My class A MOSFETs are also very inefficient.


* SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of noise than PP amps.


Why? If so, they're poorly designed.
Power supply ripple is unneccesary these days with high quality high
value caps and good chokes or stabiliser ICs.


* SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.


Again, with the speakers one usually spots in SET systems, no problem.
And this may also be the case *why* SET amplifiers are preferred over
others.

PS. bear in mind that I use Maggies, and therefore *need* more power
than an affordable SET can give me.
Nevertheless, the mere 15 watts that my 2A3 PP furnitures, seems in
most cases enough to drive the Maggies to my satisfaction (not with
all music, you will note).

Anyway, the 20Vrms (50 watts/8 ohm) of my hybrids is in all cases more
than enough for me. Current capability, yup.

PS2: I also prefer triode PP over most SET amps.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005