[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:36:15 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message

Hmm. Interesting use of a 6U8. I'd not seen a half pentode half triode
LPT/grounded grid phase inverter before.

Arthur Radford and Dr Bailey, wrote an interesting
article about this topology in Wireless World. It's a very good
series of amps, despite what Phil might say:-).

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radford_Electronics

It's cool they mention it but I want the article!

I have it somewhere, with a million other articles.
It's just a matter of finding it. I will do my best.

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure what MC75 cost in 1967. What did Quad and other brands
cost?

Here are some UK retail prices in UKP from 1968:

Dynaco ST-35 £40.19s
Dynaco ST-70 £59.17s
Kerr McCosh CWA2/12Wpc £48.
Kerr McCosh CWA40 (40W Monobloc) £45
Leak Stereo 30 (transistorised) £58.10s
Leak Stereo 70 (ditto) £69.10
Leak Point One (valve) 30Wpc £45
Lowther L18S £47
Radford STA15 £42.10s
Radford STA25 £52.10s
Radford STA100 £112
Quad II (12Wpc) £25
Shirley Laboratories 25W stereo £52
Vortexion 100W (silicon) £70

With people earning £20 per week, you can draw
your own conclusions. It is not surprising that as
available power increases, the cost per watt
decreases. With the exception of the Dynaco,
all theamplifiers loisted above were made in the UK.
The Quad II was the cheapest, by far.

At the rate of 10 shillings/Watt, my small rented
apartment in London at that time cost me 6W.

Ah, so you had to supply 6W to power the apartment? :-)
But here it cost $12, about similar, give or take 50%.

You cannot hear economics and the THD meter can't measure economics.

Agreed. I have no doubt that major customers took
some units for listening evaluation by some of the best
ears in the business. Next the units would be handed over
to the technical boffins for technical evaluation, performanc, build
quality and reliability. Then all of these parameters including of course
the price would be compared with other available products, and a
choice would be made.


However, there was NOTHING to stop anyone buying a couple of STA 100
amps for home

Why a couple? It's a stereo amplfier.

The THD at 100W was 0.1% which, at typical
domestic listening levels, was probably reduced by
an order of magnitude.

The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than
normal amounts of NFB.

It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published
by the manufacturer.


Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967?

Well broadcasters and professional studios
had them in quantity.

Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers.

They went primarily for a high power high performance reliable amp.


I still maintain the recipe of the STA 100 is inappropriate for home hi-
fi and that a quad or six pack of OP tubes will perform better.

Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed
for home hi-fi. The STA15 and STA25 were designed for
domestic use.


Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

Patrick
Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967?

Iain
Well broadcasters and professional studios
had them in quantity.

Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers.

Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say
X units a month over 2 years. I bet that even you would pull out all
the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-)))

I can remember visitng the Leak factory in Acton, London W3, with
my Dad circa 1955 when we took his TL12 for service (which they did
while we waited and drank tea in the reception area) The place was
pretty small. I can remember about 12-15 women wearing bright
aprons and floral headscarves on the assembly bench, There was a
storeage area, a listening room and two or three "lab type" rooms
with people in white coats. It was quite a nice art deco building on
an industrial state, probably long demolished. I was expecting
something much bigger.

Radford has about 120 people working at Ashton Vale Bristol
when I went there mid 60s. They did everything in house, including
transformer windings. There were three machines. We were even
shown "Radford's Book" where all the winding info had been entered.
There were several buildings, metal fabrication, paint shop, amp
assembly, tuner assembly, test, R+D, and offices.

The firm closed after Arthur Radford died, but Wayne Kerr took over
the manufacture of Radford's lab equipment, the LDO (low distortion
oscillator) the Psophometer, and waveform analyser.

I forgot to mention that Radford also made a "reference standard"
power amplfier, the ISTA which was not available to the public.
It was used by universities, research labs, and speaker manufacturers.

In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the
name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve
amps again using the same Radford logo. There were legal
complications, and nothing came of it.

Iain

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 17, 5:35*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

...

I'm not sure what MC75 cost in 1967. What did Quad and other brands
cost?

Here are some UK retail prices in UKP from 1968:

Dynaco ST-35 40.19s
Dynaco ST-70 59.17s
Kerr McCosh CWA2/12Wpc 48.
Kerr McCosh CWA40 (40W Monobloc) 45
Leak Stereo 30 (transistorised) 58.10s
Leak Stereo 70 (ditto) 69.10
Leak Point One (valve) 30Wpc 45
Lowther L18S 47
Radford STA15 * 42.10s
Radford STA25 * 52.10s
Radford STA100 112
Quad II (12Wpc) 25
Shirley Laboratories 25W stereo 52
Vortexion 100W (silicon) * 70

Quad-II does more than 12W/channel, more like 22W, so
comparable to the STA25, but 1/2 the price.

You said Radford did everything in house to get costs lower, but they
charged more.

Still, who cares now?

Try to buy a Quad Eighty now. Boyo boy, chinese made with Chinese
costs at 64c/Hr for labour, and maybe IAG who own the QUad name are
related to the Chinese Commutits Party. I guess Quad or whoever they
really are, are making up for lost time.

With people earning 20 per week, you can draw
your own conclusions. It is not surprising that as
available power increases, the cost per watt
decreases. *With the exception of the Dynaco,
all theamplifiers loisted above were made in the UK.
The Quad II was the cheapest, by far.

At the rate of 10 shillings/Watt, my small rented
apartment in London at that time cost me 6W.

Ah, so you had to supply 6W to power the apartment? :-)
But here it cost $12, about similar, give or take 50%.

You cannot hear economics and the THD meter can't measure economics.

Agreed. I have no doubt that major customers took
some units for listening evaluation by some of the best
ears in the business. Next the units would be handed over
to the technical boffins for technical evaluation, performanc, build
quality and reliability. Then all of these parameters including of course
the price would be compared with other available products, and a
choice would be made.

Yeah, blah blah blah but still I find lots of things in STA100 and
other radfords I would definately have done differently, and better,
but trying to assert that in 1967 against egotesticalated company
leaders could get you sacked.

However, there was NOTHING to stop anyone buying a couple of STA 100
amps for home

Why a couple? It's a stereo amplfier.
The THD at 100W was 0.1% which, at typical
domestic listening levels, was probably reduced by
an order of magnitude.

The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than
normal amounts of NFB.

It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published
by the manufacturer.

Must be huge ampunt of NFB. It wasn't unusual for a number of
companies to have 30dB GNFB in tube amps so when the dick swinging
comparisons began someone could say
"well my amp has less THD than yours" etc.....

So claims for THD lowness mean SFA to me, unless the amount of NFB in
comparisons is the SAME.

If there was only 20dB GNFB instead of 30dB, expect 0.3% THD. Not so
hot but quite OK because at 2 watts it would have been about 0.04%
like so many other UL tube amps with similar levels of GNFB.

Using Ea = 600Vdc and with Eg2 at the same level because g2 connect to
the anode UL tap then methinks one might not want to use 6550, and
you'd have to use KT88, and I worry about those made now with EA = Eg2
= 600V.

Nothing you have said will change my view that a quad of 6L6GC would
be superior in every way to a pair of KT88.

Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967?

Well broadcasters and professional studios
had them in quantity.
Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers.

They went primarily for a high power high performance reliable amp.

I still maintain the recipe of the STA 100 is inappropriate for home hi-
fi and that a quad or six pack of OP tubes will perform better.

Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed
for home hi-fi. *The STA15 and STA25 were designed for
domestic use.

Sure, but read my lips... STA100 *could -have - been - used - for -
domestic - audio.*

These days a 15W or 25W amp is a bit low on power for modern speakers
requiring 4 times the power needed for more sensitive speakers made in
1960s.

Patrick Turner.



*Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Quad-II does more than 12W/channel, more like 22W, so
comparable to the STA25, but 1/2 the price.

And Phil thought the Radford was cheap !!! LOL:-)

According to the spec I have before me (Hi Fi Year Book)
Quad II is quoted at 15W. Distortion 3rd harmonic and
higher is given as 0.1% at 12W

So if we are to compare apples with apples and use
0.1% as a standard as Radford did, then the Quad II
is a 12W amp.

Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed
for home hi-fi. The STA15 and STA25 were designed for
domestic use.

Sure, but read my lips... STA100 *could -have - been - used - for -
domestic - audio.*

Just as an Aston Martin could be used for pizza delivery

Cheers
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 17, 5:36*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

Patrick

Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967?

Iain
Well broadcasters and professional studios
had them in quantity.
Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers.

Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say
X units a month over 2 years. *I bet that even you would pull out all
the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-)))

To win a contract like that you'd need to know the right ppl in the
right places plus show you had already established a factory which
could increase production numbers.

To repeat anything like what happened in 1960s is utterly impossible.
I'm 50 years too late. I'd have needed venture capital and a team and
so on. Not now, ppl just go to China.

I can remember visitng the Leak factory in Acton, London W3, with
my Dad circa 1955 when we took his TL12 for service (which they did
while we waited and drank tea in the reception area) * The place was
pretty small. *I can remember about 12-15 women *wearing bright
aprons and floral headscarves on the assembly bench, There was a
storeage area, a listening room and two or three "lab type" rooms
with people *in white coats. It was quite a nice art deco building on
an industrial state, probably long demolished. I was expecting
something much bigger.

Radford has about 120 people working at Ashton Vale Bristol
when I went there mid 60s. *They did everything in house, including
transformer windings. *There were three machines. *We were even
shown "Radford's Book" where all the winding info had been entered.
There were several buildings, metal fabrication, paint shop, amp
assembly, tuner assembly, test, *R+D, and offices.

All very impressive nostalgia.

The firm closed after Arthur Radford died, but Wayne Kerr took over
the manufacture of Radford's lab equipment, the LDO (low distortion
oscillator) the Psophometer, and waveform analyser.

I forgot to mention that Radford also made a "reference standard"
power amplfier, the ISTA which was not available to the public.
It was used by universities, research labs, and speaker manufacturers.

In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the
name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve
amps again using the same Radford logo. *There were legal
complications, and nothing came of it.

Not much in Google about Radford RFTD amp models, (Raised from The
Dead)

Manufacturing tube amps in western countries is a big risk because Mr
China gives a better price to Joe Public who has loyalty to low
prices, and not to any brand name. Mr Western Middleman still takes
the lion's share of the retail price.

Tube amps all have essentially very simple and similar circuits with
similar amounts of THD if the loadings for the class of operation and
amount of GNFB plus any local NFB is the same. Hence a Chinese made
tube amp can measure equally well to anything made in the UK, and now
sometimes the quality of some supposedly UK made amps may be far worse
than something made made in China.

So, when I inevitably have to examine other makers amps turning up
here for de-smoking and singing lessons I find very little to get
excited about, and a lot which would cause depression in other techs.

It seems to me there are plenty of tube amps made by companies in
which not a single man has read RDH4.

Patrick Turner.





Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
On Jun 17, 5:36 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say
X units a month over 2 years. I bet that even you would pull out all
the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-)))

To win a contract like that you'd need to know the right ppl in the
right places plus show you had already established a factory which
could increase production numbers.

These days many firms are kick-started on venture capital.
If you can convince a major potential client regarding the
product you are proposing to build.

I can think of many examples, most of which started out a
shirtcuff sketches. The British are pretty good at that sort
of thing but somehow they don't seem to be able to sustain
the momentum to follow through.


In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the
name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve
amps again using the same Radford logo. There were legal
complications, and nothing came of it.

Not much in Google about Radford RFTD amp models, (Raised from The
Dead)

No. They contacted me a an early stage. There were lots of news
bulletins sent to potential investors and other interested parties.
But product demonstration deadlines came and went with nothing
to show. Then silence.

I am pretty sure I know what the reason was......

Iain

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 17, 8:03*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 5:36 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

....
On Jun 17, 1:46 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

Huge quantities were not ordered for immediately delivery, but say
X units a month over 2 years. I bet that even you would pull out all
the stops if you could win an order ike that, Patrick:-)))
To win a contract like that you'd need to know the right ppl in the
right places plus show you had already established a factory which
could increase production numbers.

These days many firms are kick-started on venture capital.
If *you can convince a major potential client regarding the
product you are proposing to build.

I can think of many examples, most of which started out a
shirtcuff sketches. * The British are pretty good at that sort
of thing but somehow they don't seem to be able to sustain
the momentum to follow through.

The high Oz dollar and shipping costs would kill profits I could make
manufacturing tube amps in large numbers here in Oz while I paid high
Oz costs for every damn thing.

Tube amps are niche products, not mainstream.

And I'm too ****in' old to want to **** up a nice life by working 80
hours a week to make it all happen, even if I could get venture
capital. Usually such venturists would want to take out a mortgage on
my house so they don't really venture or take much of a risk, they
just charge a yet another big cost on business.

The commercial historty of tube amp makers in Oz is littered with ppl
who have gone broke.

If I was 25, and had no money, then fine, going broke just loses
someone else's money, and they can't get blood from a stone. I've met
young blokes who have had **** happen despite huge hard work and
finance backing and a good product. One made snow boards. After that
failed he lived in a VW kombi for 2 years and moved around to stop
the creditors getting his beat up kombi and the shirt from his back. I
could smell him coming because he never had anywhere to wash his
clothes or himself. But finally he recovered a bit and went to the UK
to work where he's started a new life and although he works for the
man he has autonomy, and is doing real well. Ben was heavily into
alternative music, and would need advice about crazy electronics he
dabbled with. He was a born dreamer, alas, not always practical.

In 2006 an announcement was made that a new company using the
name Radford Electonics would start to build the STA series valve
amps again using the same Radford logo. There were legal
complications, and nothing came of it.
Not much in Google about Radford RFTD amp models, (Raised from The
Dead)

No. *They contacted me a an early stage. *There were lots of news
bulletins sent to potential investors and other interested parties.
But product demonstration deadlines came and went with nothing
to show. Then silence.

I am pretty sure I know what the reason was......

No demand?

Price way too high?

Trouble with unions?

Conducting Business is one damn thing after another.

Patrick Turner.

Iain

[Patrick Turner]

I said....
The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than
normal amounts of NFB.

You repeated....
It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published
by the manufacturer.

A quick look at the STA-100 shows that probably 40Vrms is needed to
drive each KT88 grid for 100W at 8 ohms where there would be 28Vrms.

The LTP with EF184 probably has a gain of 100, so only 0.8Vrms is
needed to produce Va-a = 80Vrms.
The cascode 6DJ8 has gain around 27 for the top tube and maybe 2 for
bottom tube. There is some local current FB for the bottom tube which
has very low Cin. I've estimated that without NFB only 0.04Vrms of
input is needed for 100W output and that the NFB network delivers 20dB
of NFB and input then needed is 0.4Vrms. Tally with your spec sheets?

So if there is indeed 0.1% at 100W with what must be 8 ohms, then
that's not bad, but perhaps all is not quite clear, and that although
100W is available the 0.1% occurs with a 16 ohm load. There is no
mention of 4 ohm loads, or any other load matches apart from the 100V
so the schematic I have is rather deficient, so what did Radford
conceal rather than explain fully in his schematic?

In all my tests of amps only those with 12% to 20% CFB in the OP stage
and lots of class A working ever give less than 1% THD without global
NFB, so that with 20dB GNFB you get D 0.1%.
Typcal UL amps with low class A and high B portion typically give 4%
with no CFB and no GNFB.

Its possible the 3H created in the EF184 LTP has opposite phase to the
3H in output stage and some cancelling of 3H goes on. Unlikely though,
as most amps 3H is the effect of the flattening of the peaks on waves
where the voltage never quite makes it to where its supposed to get to
before it changes in direction at sine wave peaks.

I'd have preferred to use the EF184 in triode mode and taken one grid
to 0V and a common cathode R down to say -200V which would have been
easy; Radford had already dumped tube rectifiers from their circuits.
The triode LTP would still have had good gain if RL was high enough
because the EL184 triode µ = 60, and Ra = 12k, much lower/better than
running the darn things in pentode with all those extra biasing
networks as shown.
There is no real need for a cascode input stage at all.
A paralleled 6DJ8 would have been fine. No need for a gain pot at
input; the gain should be controlled in a preamp. I prefer the drive
amp I use in my 8585. See Fig 1 on the page at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/8585-a...ober-2006.html

EL84 in triode are unsurpassable drivers IMHO.

BTW, I recently re-engineered a pair of 100W Ming Da monoblocs and the
input tube was SRPP 6SN7 which I changed to simpler paralleled input
triodes. I used a very similar LF shelving network to Radford's shown
after his cascode to prevent LF instability. So of course Radford and
I share some ideas, except that I used the network he has to direct
couple a following LTP with 6SN7, with longer tail R and usual 1M from
grid to grid and 2uF to 0V to ground the dead grid. The Ming Da have
a balanced amp with a pair of 300B following 6SN7 LTP to get enough
drive for up to 140Vrms at each 845 grid. The 300Bs are "over the top"
but were used to make the amp look spectacular. But it works OK, even
with only 7mA in each 300B. It was only 4mA when I first looked at it.
More could be done, but it sounds excelent, and not a single darn
pentoad to be seen anywhere.

There are simpler and better ways to to design an input & driver stage
than what Radford uses.

Patrick Turner.

[John L Stewart]

Originally Posted by Iain Churches[_2_]

"John L Stewart" wrote in message
...

Hmm. Interesting use of a 6U8. I'd not seen a half pentode half triode
LPT/grounded grid phase inverter before.

Where is the link to that 6U8 cct? Sounds a bit like part of the DC
amp used commonly in tubed regulated DC power supplies.



John. the STA25 is he

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/elect...ew.php?id=2362

Iain

Thanx for that link Iain. Very odd cct, but similar to a common application in the DC FB amp used in the error amp of a tubed reg PS. Looks like they have both HF & LF shelf at the EF86 anode.

But the 6U8 pentode screen does not return to the cathode. It is AC bypassed to the common rail. The extra time constant probably complicates things. Will have to try it sometime.

Cheers, John

[Trevor Wilson[_3_]]

Phil Allison wrote:


Was Arthur Radford a " penny pincher " ???

**Maybe. IME, however, Radford built crossovers for his speakers that far
eclipsed the KEF crossover, that were used for the same drivers (B139, B110,
T27). In 1974 I built a pair of Bailey designed transmission lines, based on
the above KEF drivers. Bailey suggested the use of Radford crossovers for a
modest sonic improvment. The improvement was far from modest. Radford used
hefty air core inductors (rather than the crappy ferrite cored KEF ones and,
most interestingly, a parallel LC network to cure a resonance problem with
the B110 (that KEF never bothered to sort out 'till much later). The Radford
crossovers were impressive beasts, compared to the KEF ones, both visually
and sonically.

Was Radford a penny-pincher?

Not with crossovers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"John L Stewart"

John. the STA25 is he

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/elect...ew.php?id=2362


** Look, look, lookie - there is a filter choke in the PSU that feeds the
OP tranny.

So noooooo amplitude modulation !!!

And no stupid, damn zener diode in the bias supply.

BTW:

One of these came across my bench back in 1980 for a full overhaul.




..... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

I am always amazed at how you arrogantly imagine to know what "the
vast majority of ppl" think or do; especially since, by your own chest
thumping, you and 'the vast majority of ppl" have nothing in common.

You are out of touch with the vast majority.

I have no dents on chest and never thump it.

I am aware of what my customers tell me.

Most of my customers represent the vast marority, representiatives of
the average person.

I'd never buy what most of them bring to me for a repair. Sure, I
don't have much in common with the vast majority of average ppl
earning an average $44,000 wage and buying all of whatever they buy.
But it does not mean I don't understand them fairly well. I try to
treat everyone like a king or queen, but its not always doable or
justified.


who buy bread and butter budget models of
consumer goods do not spend time seraching the internet for reviews on
such things and in forums. They do not get the chance to talk to 10
ppl who have owned what they consider buying for several years. They
just go to a store, and end up taking a risk on something that fits
their wallet. Maybe their dad bought a Yamaha, so son buys Yamaha. Dad
had Cerwin Vega speakers, and sone wants Cerwin Vega, and now Cerwin
Vega offer far bigger speakers than Dad could have bought in 1978.

Speak for yourself, paleface. Recently I thought about getting a dirt
cheap 'decent' SW portable receiver and the first thing I did was look
for reviews and 'comparison shootout' articles. Now, we could imagine
I'm a one off genius but if that were the case there'd be nothing for
me to find, but there's a whole world of things to find.

You'd be a minority. And genius you ain't !!!!!!!!

If everyone had the same mind, only one variety of goods or service
would ever sell.

But most ppl just go to a store for a CD player and take the advice of
a sales person. I don't know a single person who ever listens to SW.
And don't forget that reviews can be a pack of lies.

I knew one man who'd spend days in agony checking out 59 different
brands of sleeping bag before going on a camping trip. Everything he
chooses to buy is a result of an epic search. It took several weeks to
find what he thought was a good deal for a mountain bike. But he's
fat, un-healthy, a bloody great bore, and he's getting worse with age.
When he went to a restaurant, he'd want to chat with the staff for 30
minutes and change te menu. I breathed a sigh of relief when he moved
town because this one wasn't good enough for him. But the quality of
his services fixing computers was so bad that a couple of guys tried
to sue his arse off, and a couple just refused to pay him. The PC he
assembled for me went phut after a few months. He charged me $1,800.
Later I found the parts he'd used were all old, and I could have
bought a working PC just as good in a clearence shop for $200. The
guy is an inconsistent fraud. I'm just wondering how you'd compare to
this guy.

Fortunately, most ppl only take 2 minutes to order a meal at a
restaurant, 20 minutes to buy a CD player.



The fact that there are thousands of resources on everything
imaginable disproves your 'theory'.

Nobody who brings me Yamaha or Cerwin Vega speakers to to me for
repair ever tell me about their searches for reviews or peer group
forums; they consider most info to be BS anyway.

Maybe they don't care to waste their time talking to a brick wall but,
whatever their reason, the handful of select people bringing you
broken equipment hardly represents "the vast majority of ppl."

I've had hundreds cross my threshold. None have told me about their
long search for the best amp or CD player. Except one, the guy I
mentioned above. He phoned me twice a week for 2 months during two
consecutive years about the purchase of a pair of tube amps worth
$3,000. He bought chinese amps amps for $200 cheaper. The **** wasted
days of my time. He's the exception. But are you like that?

You claming to know what "the vast majority of ppl" do based on the
few who bring you broken things is like a heart surgeon claiming "the
vast majority of ppl" need bypass surgery because the ones who come to
him do. And I dare say he has a larger sample size.

The vast majority of ppl have hearts, right, but we all know a
minority will need a bypass.

Doctors don't hear stories about where ppl bought their hearts,
although some patients have ended up with a cold lump of stone after
shopping for a heart all those years ago. You analogy is absurd.

People's mums bought Hover washing machines made in Oz in the 1970s.
My departing feckless ex-wife took the Hoover when she vanished one
day while I was at work. Next day I bought another Hoover. ****in good
stuff, not too many fixes needed which I could not do myself. Goes
like a trooper, 33 years old, no major parts replacements.

Is that supposed to be a 'review' that "the vast majority of ppl" will
not bother with?

Weel, a lotta customers buy what their parents have owned. My mum has
now been through about 4 washing machines in the last 20 years. She
takes the advice of anyone she considers honest. I don't decide things
like that for her. But my washer is still running fine after 33 years.
I'm on my 4th motor vehicle since 1975, not including motorcycles. But
I know ppl who go have to replace gear far more often than I do. I'm
not aware they make a better choice than I do.

Probably there was no need of the Internet in 1978.

People made do with the resources at hand. Now there are more. This is
called "progress."

To where? oblvion? Don't worry, genetic engineering research is
underway and ppl will soon to be able to eat their own poop so bean
counters can't stress out over the costs of food. Diet recommendations
by Bean Counters can work wonders for some. Ppl need to be able to
breathe in CO2 and exhale O2. Rubbish piles up and up, and should be
re-cycled, so open your mouths everyone, and run it through again. And
sure there is progress, I agree with you on that, but to be smug and
content about its quality is to have the mind of a moron. I just pass
on most opportunities to buy stuff which won't last despite reviews, I
won't buy stuff to make me feel better, usually it don't, and I have
nobody I need to impress for stupid vain reasons. I am a marketeer's
disaster zone. Basically nobody can sell me anything much at all. I'm
very successful at avoiding expenses and silly habits. I could say I
have benfitted from is the evolution of medical knowhow and the
democratic process in Australia. But If I still needed a horse and
buggy and the bicycle hadn't been invented, life would still be OK, as
the Mormons have shown. Maybe I'd be a specialist in cart wheel
repairs. I cannot just say how wonderful everything is about modern
life without wearing out the air pointing out so many things that are
a PITA.

Patrick Turner.