Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
the design and my efforts toward restoration.
You’ll find photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson

The subject at hand is a pre-amplifier that appears to have been made
in the early ‘80s (1982 or later). It uses vacuum tubes in the signal
path and high voltage rectifier, a hand full of transistors to
regulate the B+ voltages and IC regulators to supply the tube
filaments with DC voltage.

The reason it crossed my path is a small child was playing with it;
repeatedly turning it on and off. The resulting hot-switching
transients opened up several resistors in the HV power supply and blew
one of the two filament regulators. I also found the output mute
circuit inoperative and a shaky mod job of replacing capacitors.
Thankfully, the owner had a schematic.

Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power
to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8
total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable
chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal
output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on
one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. Line level, phono and filament grounds are
loosely coupled with big Rs and small Cs.

The smoothing capacitors were originally two 200uF 350V caps in series
but whoever “re-capped” the unit replaced them with a “universal”
60-90uF 500V cap in parallel with one of several 20uF non-electrolytic
and put a 2K resistor in series with the rectifier cathode to reduce
the voltage (to 430V nominal) and keep from over stressing the cap.
Unfortunately this nearly eliminates the regulators ability to
tolerate low line voltage. I restored the original configuration with
two Nichicon high temp (105C) 220uF 350V caps and bleeder resistors. I
like the idea of some extra resistance to limit cathode current of the
rectifier since it feeds such a large smoothing capacitor (10-20uF
would be run-of-the-mill with a 12X4) so I replaced the 2K with a 649
ohm 3W resistor. Now the HV regulators deliver clean DC down to a line
voltage of 104VAC.

The first HV regulator uses a stack of zener diodes, fed a constant
current, plus an emitter follower to deliver 410VDC. Four R-C filters
provide extra smoothing to each high level amplifying stage. The Cs
were originally 60uF electrolytics but have been replaced with non-
electrolytic 20uF units. All the Rs were blown from the switching
transients. A couple of the zeners were shorted and reduced the output
voltage to ~350V. The second regulator starts with the 410V and uses
more zeners and an emitter follower to deliver 380V to the low level
phono amplifiers, through 4 more R-C filters.

The mute circuit uses a relay and a unijunction transistor to short
the output lines to ground for approx. one minute after the unit is
turned on. There is also a mute button on the front that controls this
relay. A wise choice, considering it was able to deliver a 200V peak-
to-peak sine wave without clipping, driven from the phono input. This
circuit had been bypassed however. A timing capacitor became leaky and
prevented the timer from timing out. Evidently, someone mistakenly
changed the relay and miswired the replacement. I restored the circuit
to its original configuration.

Another relay and timer to prevent hot switching would make the unit
more robust and toddler resistant.

Tim Brown
circuitsmith * at * verizon * dot * net
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/12/2010 4:07 PM Circuitsmith spake thus:

Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power
to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8
total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable
chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal
output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on
one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design.


So any thoughts of adding a filament transformer for the rectifier? Is
there room for one? What's the downside to this: reduced rectifier life?
Arc-over?

Interesting stuff; thanks for posting.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Phil Allison[_3_] Phil Allison[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


"Circuitsmith"


" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "


** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.

They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating)
heater supply.

http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf

The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


..... Phil




  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 12, 9:05*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith"

" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
*Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average *400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "

** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts *- *long as the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.

They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating)
heater supply.

http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf

The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.

.... *Phil


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. It's still
operating beyond the Sylvania spec.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 12, 8:10*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

So any thoughts of adding a filament transformer for the rectifier? Is
there room for one? What's the downside to this: reduced rectifier life?
Arc-over?


The main problem would be where to put the transformer and not
introduce hum into the phono section.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Phil Allison[_3_] Phil Allison[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


"Circuitsmith"
" Phil Allison"
"Circuitsmith"

" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "

** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.

They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
floating)
heater supply.

http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf

The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.


** No they do NOT !!!

YOU are persistently misreading the data.

The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured
from heater to cathode.

The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity

http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif


It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.


** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.



..... Phil


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 11:07*am, Circuitsmith wrote:
It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
the design and my efforts toward restoration.
You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson


I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so
numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be
proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The
PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially
with the phono stage I put in like the schematic at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp...rated-2006.htm, see
sheet1 1/2 way down the page.

The phono stage can be used with low output MC.

I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged.
Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in
the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days.

Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start
really experimenting to learn.
Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a
complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters
chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal
circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the
makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards
have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block
diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so
much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked
through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the
bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts
can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C
parts and only use new ones.

Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about
how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place
things while thinking about what might be affected.

I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except
electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board
or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes.
Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near
anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima
630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on
large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and
figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's
breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up
really Hard Wired and truly point to point. Dust and pollution does
not settle on parts under the boards.

All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be
turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed.

I don't like tube rectifiers. Better the tube diodes are retired when
you make a separate PSU in a remote box. You can get a higher B+ but
you have more headroom to drop down with filter R. The current even
with increased revised current values will not be huge, and draw id
re

I don't use much B+ regulation in preamps because I use some simple
CRCRC filtering using lots of 470uF caps.
But a simple shunt reg for B+ to the first phono stage is a good idea
because VLF rail noise is amplified by the high LF gain of the phono
stages.

Patrick Turner.





The subject at hand is a pre-amplifier that appears to have been made
in the early ‘80s (1982 or later). It uses vacuum tubes in the signal
path and high voltage rectifier, a hand full of transistors to
regulate the B+ voltages and IC regulators to supply the tube
filaments with DC voltage.

The reason it crossed my path is a small child was playing with it;
repeatedly turning it on and off. The resulting hot-switching
transients opened up several resistors in the HV power supply and blew
one of the two filament regulators. I also found the output mute
circuit inoperative and a shaky mod job of replacing capacitors.
Thankfully, the owner had a schematic.

Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power
to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8
total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable
chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal
output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on
one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average *400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. Line level, phono and filament grounds are
loosely coupled with big Rs and small Cs.

The smoothing capacitors were originally two 200uF 350V caps in series
but whoever *“re-capped” the unit replaced them with a “universal”
60-90uF 500V cap in parallel with one of several 20uF non-electrolytic
and put a 2K resistor in series with the rectifier cathode to reduce
the voltage (to 430V nominal) and keep from over stressing the cap.
Unfortunately this nearly eliminates the regulators ability to
tolerate low line voltage. I restored the original configuration with
two Nichicon high temp (105C) 220uF 350V caps and bleeder resistors. I
like the idea of some extra resistance to limit cathode current of the
rectifier since it feeds such a large smoothing capacitor (10-20uF
would be run-of-the-mill with a 12X4) so I replaced the 2K with a 649
ohm 3W resistor. Now the HV regulators deliver clean DC down to a line
voltage of 104VAC.

The first HV regulator uses a stack of zener diodes, fed a constant
current, plus an emitter follower to deliver 410VDC. Four R-C filters
provide extra smoothing to each high level amplifying stage. *The Cs
were originally 60uF electrolytics but have been replaced with non-
electrolytic 20uF units. All the Rs were blown from the switching
transients. A couple of the zeners were shorted and reduced the output
voltage to ~350V. The second regulator starts with the 410V and uses
more zeners and an emitter follower to deliver 380V to the low level
phono amplifiers, through 4 more R-C filters.

The mute circuit uses a relay and a unijunction transistor to short
the output lines to ground for approx. one minute after the unit is
turned on. There is also a mute button on the front that controls this
relay. A wise choice, considering it was able to deliver a 200V peak-
to-peak sine wave without clipping, driven from the phono input. This
circuit had been bypassed however. A timing capacitor became leaky and
prevented the timer from timing out. Evidently, someone mistakenly
changed the relay and miswired the replacement. I restored the circuit
to its original configuration.

Another relay and timer to prevent hot switching would make the unit
more robust and toddler resistant.

Tim Brown
circuitsmith * at * verizon * dot * net


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 12, 9:46*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith"



" Phil Allison"
"Circuitsmith"


" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "


** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.


They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
floating)
heater supply.


http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf


The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.

** No they do *NOT *!!!

YOU are persistently misreading the data.

The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" *has the figure of *" -450 *" volts measured
from heater to cathode.

The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity

http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif

It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.

** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.

.... * Phil


It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??

Over is over, and certainly NOT conservative in my book.

Tim Brown
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 4:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

Use a carpenters
chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
the boards clean.


I really don't think that's what the client wanted.

Tim Brown
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Phil Allison[_3_] Phil Allison[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


"Circuitsmith"
"Phil Allison"
"Circuitsmith"

" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "


** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as
the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.


They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
floating)
heater supply.


http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf


The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.

** No they do NOT !!!

YOU are persistently misreading the data.

The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured
from heater to cathode.

The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity

http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif

It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.

** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.


It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??


** YOU are one PIG arrogant ****ing, ****head.

Clearly 100max = +100 volts

**** off and DIE you smug ****.



...... Phil






  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Phil Allison[_3_] Phil Allison[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


"Circuit****"

I really don't think that's what the client wanted.


** No "client" needs a smug turd like you anywhere near them

FOAD.




..... Phil


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 11:16*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith"
"Phil Allison"
*"Circuitsmith"





" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "


** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as
the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.


They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
floating)
heater supply.


http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf


The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.


** No they do NOT !!!


YOU are persistently misreading the data.


The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured
from heater to cathode.


The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity


http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif


It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.


** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.


It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??

** *YOU *are one PIG *arrogant ****ing, ****head.

* Clearly 100max * = *+100 volts

* **** off and DIE *you smug ****.

..... * Phil


You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.

Have a fabulous life,

Tim Brown
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 3:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:07*am, Circuitsmith wrote:

It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
the design and my efforts toward restoration.
You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson


I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so
numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be
proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The
PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially
with *the phono stage I put in like the schematic athttp://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp-10tube-integrated-2006.htm, see
sheet1 1/2 way down the page.

The phono stage can be used with low output MC.

I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged.
Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in
the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days.

Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start
really experimenting to learn.
Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a
complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters
chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal
circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the
makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards
have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block
diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so
much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked
through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the
bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts
can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C
parts and only use new ones.

Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about
how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place
things while thinking about what might be affected.

I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except
electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board
or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes.
Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near
anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima
630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on
large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and
figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's
breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up
really Hard Wired and truly point to point. *Dust and pollution does
not settle on parts under the boards.

All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be
turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed.



That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that
sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted
in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance,
then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right?

When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they
are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be. It's
radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify
most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you
describe render the product unresaleable.

Years ago I knew a guy who bought an expensive sports car at auction.
It turned out that someone had replaced the original engine with an
American V8, and in doing so had made major structural modifications
that were economically irreversible. He sold it for peanuts to another
guy who did likewise and finally, a serious collector of the marque
bought the car, stripped off all the usable parts, and had the hulk
hauled down to the crusher where he paid a fair bonus to the crusher
operator to have him crunch it while he videotaped the procedure. He
sent copies to several people including the shop that did the butch
job and the owner who paid for it. Similar fates have befallen
drastically modified audio equipment.

If you don't like a piece, if it has value it's smarter to sell it
and build one from scratch your own way.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 10:16*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith"
"Phil Allison"
*"Circuitsmith"





" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "


** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as
the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.


They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
floating)
heater supply.


http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf


The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.


** No they do NOT !!!


YOU are persistently misreading the data.


The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured
from heater to cathode.


The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity


http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif


It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.


** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.


It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??

** *YOU *are one PIG *arrogant ****ing, ****head.

* Clearly 100max * = *+100 volts

* **** off and DIE *you smug ****.


Phil is autistic and needs a phone magneto to be wired to his nuts
and cranked a few times.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 10:25*am, Circuitsmith wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:16*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:



"Circuitsmith"
"Phil Allison"
*"Circuitsmith"


" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "


** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as
the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.


They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
floating)
heater supply.


http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf


The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.


So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.


** No they do NOT !!!


YOU are persistently misreading the data.


The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured
from heater to cathode.


The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity


http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif


It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.


** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.


It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??


** *YOU *are one PIG *arrogant ****ing, ****head.


* Clearly 100max * = *+100 volts


* **** off and DIE *you smug ****.


..... * Phil


You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.


Where did that rule come from?

Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???

Hitler was bad, but not as bad as Stalin.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:

On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:

**** off and DIE you smug ****.


You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.


Where did that rule come from?

Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???


Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.

Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as
a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums
such as this, it's often not correct at all.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/13/2010 4:47 PM flipper spake thus:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:

On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:

**** off and DIE you smug ****.

You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.

Where did that rule come from?

Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???


Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.


Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states
""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.

Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of
it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion
forums such as this, it's often not correct at all.


What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad
Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
association fallacy (but can include others as well).

You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.


Dang.

Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/13/2010 4:47 PM flipper spake thus:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:

On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:

**** off and DIE you smug ****.

You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.

Where did that rule come from?

Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???

Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.


Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states
""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.

Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of
it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion
forums such as this, it's often not correct at all.


What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad
Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
association fallacy (but can include others as well).

You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.


Dang.

Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.


Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?

d
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Dang.

Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.


Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?


Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:50:04 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Dang.

Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.


Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?


Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler?


Rotten taste in moustaches, and far too fond of shorts. Can't trust
someone like that.

d


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:50:04 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Dang.

Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've
ever read anywhere.

Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?


Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler?


Rotten taste in moustaches, and far too fond of shorts.
Can't trust someone like that.


Umm, and the continual dyspepsia and flatulence. One can only wonder what
would have happened had Adolph been able to avail himself of Omeprazole (AKA
Pepcid). ;-)


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 14, 12:29*am, Circuitsmith wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote:



Use a carpenters
chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
the boards clean.


I really don't think that's what the client wanted.


I can see you despise tradesmen that you'd never be able to afford.

I have used a nicely sharpened carpenter's chisel with a nice flat
blade to ease tracks off stupidly designed high end amplifier boards.
The hammer is needed on some to get through the board connections, or
to get well stuck tracks away.
But on many boards the tracks peel away all too easily. Its all done
*without* cracking a board and leaving huge gouges after trying to
grind tracks away. The clients all love the sound and ease of
servicing afterwards.

And maybe you wouldn't like to see what a surgeon does when he cuts a
piece of bone from a pelvis to fit somewhere else in the body. Twit!

Patrick Turner.

Tim Brown


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 14, 6:49*am, Bret L wrote:
On Feb 13, 3:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote:





On Feb 13, 11:07*am, Circuitsmith wrote:


It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
the design and my efforts toward restoration.
You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson


I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so
numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be
proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The
PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially
with *the phono stage I put in like the schematic athttp://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp-10tube-integrated-2006.htm, see
sheet1 1/2 way down the page.


The phono stage can be used with low output MC.


I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged.
Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in
the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days.


Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start
really experimenting to learn.
Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a
complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters
chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal
circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the
makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards
have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block
diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so
much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked
through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the
bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts
can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C
parts and only use new ones.


Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about
how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place
things while thinking about what might be affected.


I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except
electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board
or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes.
Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near
anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima
630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on
large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and
figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's
breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up
really Hard Wired and truly point to point. *Dust and pollution does
not settle on parts under the boards.


All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be
turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed.


*That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that
sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted
in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance,
then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right?


I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you
did with all of his awful artworks.

But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of
them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value
by 10c.

Clearly you have no idea about the utter ****ing bull**** goings on in
the art world.
Big stoopid money, all ****ing crap mainly, and you can't eat art.

So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if
they'll hang it beside AWs crap?

All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes.


*When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they
are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be.


Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often,
and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a
piebald camel.

radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify
most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you
describe render the product unresaleable.


I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ
bought it on E-bay for $150.
It is just old junk.

To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from
CJ, maybe he pays $7,000.
But I cost him $500, cheap!



*Years ago I knew a guy who bought an expensive sports car at auction.
It turned out that someone had replaced the original engine with an
American V8, and in doing so had made major structural modifications
that were economically irreversible. He sold it for peanuts to another
guy who did likewise and finally, a serious collector of the marque
bought the car, stripped off all the usable parts, and had the hulk
hauled down to the crusher where he paid a fair bonus to the crusher
operator to have him crunch it while he videotaped the procedure. He
sent copies to several people including the shop that did the butch
job and the owner who paid for it. Similar fates have befallen
drastically modified audio equipment.


Who gives a **** about such total brainless petrol head idiocy?

I modified a pair of Quad 40s recently.

All due respect to Andy Groves design abilities, but I saw fit to
remove 30 bits and replace them with 36 others. The Chinese makers had
fitted an awfull performing OPT and the mods were necessary.

Only a complete idiot would then have these amps crushed while making
a video.

Why do ya think Detroit has seccumbed to economic failure in the face
of opposition? Its because they just try to cling onto poor designs of
the past.

America should wake up and move on, and strat producing electric
trucks, busses and cars, and forget the past BS.

And BTW, I don't like the soup Andy tried to advertise.

*If you don't like a piece, if it has value it's smarter to sell it
and build one from scratch your own way.- Hide quoted text -


But one could never make the box and internal metalwork and a PT for
$150.
The CJ I altered was dirt cheap, and worth the price even with with
the porr quality guts all stripped out.

Oh, and BTW, I replaced all the RCA connectors. The originals were of
poor design and in extremely poor condition.

The new CJ RCA terminals are quite good afaik, with steel spring
grippers around the centre gripper in the socket..
But you pay through the nose for them.

Patrick Turner.

- Show quoted text -


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:

On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:

**** off and DIE you smug ****.

You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.

Where did that rule come from?

Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???


Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.


Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states
""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.

Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as
a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums
such as this, it's often not correct at all.


What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad
Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
association fallacy (but can include others as well).

You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.

The supposed 'rule' part is an extension of the general debate adage
that the first one to engage in ad hominem 'loses' and is based on the
theory that the reduction to vitriol shows you've obviously run out of
legitimate arguments with which to rebut, thereby leaving the opposing
(un rebutted) argument(s) the 'winner'. Plus, it's ceased to be a
'debate'.

The 'rule' is also an inducement to civility that usually deteriorates
rapidly once violated but, of course, it can also be simply a personal
'rule' to not engage with A-holes.

As a side note, reductio ad Stalinum is the same thing, but invoking
Stalin rather than Hitler, and you can substitute any other notorious
figure, such as reductio ad bin-Ladenum.


or hated group, as in "Islamo-facist" or "liberal-facist".


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Engineer[_2_] Engineer[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 13, 7:47*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl



wrote:
On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:


On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote:


On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:


* **** off and DIE *you smug ****.


You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.


*Where did that rule come from?


*Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???


Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.


Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states
""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.

Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as
a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums
such as this, it's often not correct at all.


What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad
Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
association fallacy (but can include others as well).

You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.

The supposed 'rule' part is an extension of the general debate adage
that the first one to engage in ad hominem 'loses' and is based on the
theory that the reduction to vitriol shows you've obviously run out of
legitimate arguments with which to rebut, thereby leaving the opposing
(un rebutted) argument(s) the 'winner'. Plus, it's ceased to be a
'debate'.

The 'rule' is also an inducement to civility that usually deteriorates
rapidly once violated but, of course, it can also be simply a personal
'rule' to not engage with A-holes.

As a side note, reductio ad Stalinum is the same thing, but invoking
Stalin rather than Hitler, and you can substitute any other notorious
figure, such as reductio ad bin-Ladenum.


"Correlation is not causality". Just because I wear a cotton
nightshirt like bin laden and many of his followers, it doesn't make
me a terrorist. :-)
Must be a slow day... sorry!
Cheers,
Roger


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be
turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed.


That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that
sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted
in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance,
then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right?


I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you
did with all of his awful artworks.

But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of
them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value
by 10c.

Clearly you have no idea about the utter ****ing bull**** goings on in
the art world.
Big stoopid money, all ****ing crap mainly, and you can't eat art.

So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if
they'll hang it beside AWs crap?

All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes.



When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they
are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be.


Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often,
and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a
piebald camel.

radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify
most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you
describe render the product unresaleable.


I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ
bought it on E-bay for $150.
It is just old junk.

To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from
CJ, maybe he pays $7,000.
But I cost him $500, cheap!


You're willfully intransigent.

If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
any resale value in a few years.

I have a truck that is what is called a "Carolina Hauler". It's a
pickup that has been reworked to tow a race car trailer on highway
that should by rights have had a Class 8 road tractor pulling it. It
was built at a cost of over thirty thousand US dollars in 1980, when
that sum would nearly have bought a new Ferrari. It has basically the
driveline of a schoolbus and a reinforced frame and (before I took it
off) an alternator capable of running a fair sized house. I bought it
for fifteen hundred bucks in good running shape as no one wanted it.
It has no value. It's an oddly modified old Dodge. Mileage sucks, but
I never drive it very far, it's my bad weather beater.

If I keel over dead tomorrow, it'll go to the crusher once it quits
running for its new owner. Everything on it is non stock. I have "the
book" containing most of the part numbers needed to maintain it, but
most of the people who are buyers for old pickups around here are
illiterate, whether they are American hicks or mestizos who speak a
bad flavor of Spanish but are not so good at reading it even if the
book were in it. It's an interesting piece of circle track racing
history but not worth anything. So it lives for awhile as my beater
truck.

If you had simply refused to work on the new Quad amp and told the
owner you could sell him a new amp cheaper which was better you both
would have been ahead. As it is he has a lump worth nothing and no
dealer will take it on trade.

For what it is worth, the problem with American car makers is not
that they did not change, but that they did. Americans still want big
comfortable cars, but EPA and fuel mileage laws dictate that they can
not make them. So the wealthy buy big Benzes and BMWs and the less
fortunate get a ****box like it or not. Under the bull**** ageis of
global warming, which is horse****, and oil shortages, more and more
of these laws are going in effect.

If people could buy a brand new 1968 Buick Electra 225 today over
these econo****s they would. i certainly would. **** these
environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

Bret L wrote:

**** these environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.


They're not socialists, they're socialism. No point in
denying it. And if we don't get a grip and take charge of
it, it'll take charge of us.

Ian


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus:

[snip lunacy from P. Turner]

You're willfully intransigent.

If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
any resale value in a few years.


[snip]

Two things:

1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e.,
anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the
overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever
turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society
for you if you're if you're interested.

2. Having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of Turner's
idiotic approach to audiophool-gear butchering. "Willfully intransigent"
says it perfectly.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

David wrote:

Two things:

1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****"
(i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and
amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and
other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've
got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you
if you're if you're interested.

2. Having said that, I agree completely with your
assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear
butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly.


Says what, perfectly?

Ian


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/15/2010 1:35 PM Ian Iveson spake thus:

David wrote:

Two things:

1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****"
(i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and
amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and
other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've
got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you
if you're if you're interested.

2. Having said that, I agree completely with your
assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear
butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly.


Says what, perfectly?


Oh, I don't know: that Mr. Turner should have a restraining order placed
on him keeping him at least a thousand feet away from any high-quality
audio equipment?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/15/2010 5:30 PM flipper spake thus:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:48:15 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus:

[snip lunacy from P. Turner]

You're willfully intransigent.

If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
any resale value in a few years.


[snip]

Two things:

1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e.,
anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given
the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey,
whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat
Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested.

One of these days AGW worshipers should share some of the so called
"overwhelming evidence" because the religious zealot stuff isn't
working.


I leave it to you to read "the literature" as its called. I'm not a
religious zealot of any stripe, anthropogenic climate change or any
other banner.

You just can't contradict good science. The scary thing is that the
empirical evidence is showing a much faster rate of change than even the
most confident of researchers were predicting.

Like I said, I've got memberships to the Flat Earth Society available to
any takers ...


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Watt? Me worry? Watt? Me worry? is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration


You just can't contradict good science.



Hi RATs!

Good science often finds errors of fact and/or logic in earlier good
science.

Some folks think the price of stuff is important.

A good audio system is a joy beyond price, to some dreamers

Happy Ears!

Al

PS I, too, predict the weather will get worse, and better... it has
happened before, even before mankind started complaining.

But, if no one complains, is weather more important, or less?

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 15, 7:17*pm, Bret L wrote:
All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be
turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed.


*That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that
sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted
in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance,
then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right?


I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you
did with all of his awful artworks.


But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of
them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value
by 10c.


Clearly you have no idea about the utter ****ing bull**** goings on in
the art world.
Big stoopid money, all ****ing crap mainly, and you can't eat art.


So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if
they'll hang it beside AWs crap?


All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes.


*When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they
are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be.


Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often,
and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a
piebald camel.


radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify
most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you
describe render the product unresaleable.


I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ
bought it on E-bay for $150.
It is just old junk.


To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from
CJ, maybe he pays $7,000.
But I cost him $500, cheap!


*You're willfully intransigent.


In other words, a grumpy old curmudgeon.

*If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
any resale value in a few years.


Well, I am not so sure all ppl will chuck my stuff when I am gone.
And if they do, so what? Not a huge drama afaiac.
If I had 10 bucks for each person who willingly replaced well regarded
tube gear with sordid state gear I would be STOINKINLY RICH.

When the 1960s rolled along, thousands of ppl were only too happy to
get rid of the hot heavy mono tube sytems and crummy single speakers
and invest in a cool running stereo system.

*I have a truck that is what is called a "Carolina Hauler". It's a
pickup that has been reworked to tow a race car trailer on highway
that should by rights have had a Class 8 road tractor pulling it. It
was built at a cost of over thirty thousand US dollars in 1980, when
that sum would nearly have bought a new Ferrari. It has basically the
driveline of a schoolbus and a reinforced frame and (before I took it
off) an alternator capable of running a fair sized house. I bought it
for fifteen hundred bucks in good running shape as no one wanted it.
It has no value. It's an oddly modified old Dodge. Mileage sucks, but
I never drive it very far, it's my bad weather beater.


A Bitza.

*If I keel over dead tomorrow, it'll go to the crusher once it quits
running for its new owner. Everything on it is non stock. I have "the
book" containing most of the part numbers needed to maintain it, but
most of the people who are buyers for old pickups around here are
illiterate, whether they are American hicks or mestizos who speak a
bad flavor of Spanish but are not so good at reading it even if the
book were in it. It's an interesting piece of circle track racing
history but not worth anything. So it lives for awhile as my beater
truck.


Horses for courses.

*If you had simply refused to work on the new Quad amp and told the
owner you could sell him a new amp cheaper *which was better you both
would have been ahead. As it is he has a lump worth nothing and no
dealer will take it on trade.


My guess is that NOBODY will realise what improvements I have to the
Quad 40 amps.
The owner is about 70, and maybe in 10 years the amps will get re-
cycled by way of deceased estate auction, or the guys offspring won't
want the amps so they'll sell them on Ebay and without a picture of
the undersides.
So its most likely the going price for old Quad 40 will be paid. The
****wit buyer/collectors who insist that the bloody old junk they buy
must include all the original parts including the design faults are
luckily in the minority.


*For what it is worth, the problem with American car makers is not
that they did not change, but that they did. Americans still want big
comfortable cars, but EPA and fuel mileage laws dictate that they can
not make them. So the wealthy buy big Benzes and BMWs and the less
fortunate get a ****box like it or not. Under the bull**** ageis of
global warming, which is horse****, and oil shortages, more and more
of these laws are going in effect.


Well of course the trend to SUV style vehicles is raging in Oz as many
but by no means all Australians want the biggest SOB peice of rolling
real estate they can afford.

Personal transport such as cars will be with us with global warming
and oil shortages. They'll all just get electric motors, or become
hybrid, petrol-electric.


*If people could buy a brand new 1968 Buick Electra 225 today over
these econo****s they would. i certainly would. **** these
environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.- Hide quoted text -


I know how maybe 40% of the world's motorists think greenhouse
emissions are not heating the planet. And how they say that somehow
there will always be an oil supply they can afford, and that "
environmentalist socialist cocksuckers"
should really spend their time ****ing their mothers.

But maybe 20% don't have a clue about all that stuff. But 40% think
green, and don't like cars that emit too much and they don't want to
live lives and buy junk which might ruin a good planet.

I see that oil prices will inevitably rise and put such a heavy
squeeze upon users of low efficiency fossil engines that electric
motors will become the choice. Electric has a way to go before it
matures, but when it does ppl will wonder why we ever bothered with
petrol engines.
And I have not even mentioned hydrogen power.

Ppl in the northern hemisphere have become disbelievers in the
greenhouse effect where they see the record slow falls this winter.

Well the trouble with the greenhouse effect is that as we add CO2 to
the air, the total weather system becomes more unstable due to
interrelated and extremely complex positive and negative feedback
systems. So the whole total system tends to become unstable before
settling at a changed state, ie, hotter, where the changed conditions
give rise to an equilibrium at a higher temperature. Between now and
the hotter state we will likely see some very extreme winters and
summers as well as some very mild winters and summers but the trend
will continue to show a net warming of a few C over the next 50 years
at least.

OK, no big deal. The weather goes 5C hotter at the equator, and large
swathes of land become unusable, and drought in Oz causes our national
food production to halve so we stop exporting food. 20 million more
ppl try to live in Oz within 50 years, so we would have to import the
amount of food we export now.
But many ppl won't have food to export then.

The fact is that this world cannot support 12 billion middle class
people all living high on the hog like that 2 billion middle class ppl
do now.

In many ways I see numerous future points in history which will be
CRUNCH TIME where something has to give, or where certain countries
might give things a bit of a shove to make wanted changes to their
people's standard of living. So some little or big nuclear wars look
very probable.

The evironment will be completely ****ed up in 50 years.

It won't bee my problem, and not a problem of my kids. I didn't have
any.

People will live like rats in a sewer if they damn well have to.

Patrick Turner.



- Show quoted text -


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 16, 9:48*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/15/2010 1:35 PM Ian Iveson spake thus:





David wrote:


Two things:


1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****"
(i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and
amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and
other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've
got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you
if you're if you're interested.


2. Having said that, I agree completely with your
assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear
butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly.


Says what, perfectly?


Oh, I don't know: that Mr. Turner should have a restraining order placed
on him keeping him at least a thousand feet away from any high-quality
audio equipment?



I'd find ways to get around the orders. People disgruntled with the
crap they have bought from yet another High End con man will still
flock to my door wanting determined modifications which render gear
usable and reliable and musical.

I raise my hat to High End Audio. They help keep me in business.

When they learn how to build stuff that's simple, cheap and good
sounding, then I will starve, but it ain't likely to happen because
they cannot slay the dragon of their own puffed up egos.

Patrick Turner.



--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 16, 12:41*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/15/2010 5:30 PM flipper spake thus:





On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:48:15 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:


On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus:


[snip lunacy from P. Turner]


*You're willfully intransigent.


*If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
any resale value in a few years.


[snip]


Two things:


1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e.,
anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given
the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey,
whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat
Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested.

One of these days AGW worshipers should share some of the so called
"overwhelming evidence" because the religious zealot stuff isn't
working.


I leave it to you to read "the literature" as its called. I'm not a
religious zealot of any stripe, anthropogenic climate change or any
other banner.

You just can't contradict good science. The scary thing is that the
empirical evidence is showing a much faster rate of change than even the
most confident of researchers were predicting.


This is the sad part.

The world has gone through a number of mass extinction events
according to the fossil record. Often the rates of change within these
periods has been much slower than now.

Given another 10,000 years of gung-ho business as usual and complete
utilisation of all nature to suit consumers, the world will become
vastly different and most likely a far more poisenous a place to live
than now.
The greenhouse effect is onle of many bothers which look set to make
millions dpressed about their existance.

There are just too many ppl wanting too much stuff on this planet.

But ppl won't mind living like frightened rats down toxic sewers if
they have to.

Patrick Turner.



Like I said, I've got memberships to the Flat Earth Society available to
any takers ...

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 16, 2:35*pm, "Watt? Me worry?" wrote:
You just can't contradict good science.


Hi RATs!

Good science often finds errors of fact and/or logic in earlier good
science.

Some folks think the price of stuff is important.

A good audio system is a joy beyond price, to some dreamers


But if the price of an EL34 went up to $5,000, doncha think ya dreams
would be shattered a bit?

Patrick Turner.

Happy Ears!

Al

PS I, too, predict the weather will get worse, and better... it has
happened before, even before mankind started complaining.

But, if no one complains, is weather more important, or less?


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 16, 1:57*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

But ppl won't mind living like frightened rats down toxic sewers if
they have to.


And there will be ignorant people like Bret Ludwig who will blame some
racial cause as the reason.

Stupidity breeds like rats.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
flipper wrote:

The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has
been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not
'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Context is important.

Stephen
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Watt? Me worry? Watt? Me worry? is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 16, 1:58*am, Patrick Turner wrote:


But if the price of an EL34 went up to $5,000, doncha think ya dreams
would be shattered a bit?

Patrick Turner.



Hi RATs!

I have switched to 6BQ6

Got 18 NOS for US$9.95 off Ebait, a few weeks ago. I will not live to
see the tubes I have be worn out. Sigh.

Nobody will ever guess they sound good. They have a top cap
connection. So very scary

"A fool knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Happy Ears!
Al

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has
been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not
'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Context is important.


Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back
removing all traces of it.


I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions.

I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started
practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming"
hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted.


To what point? Both things can be true: no statistically significant
warning in the last five years and overall warming faster than once
expected.

Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus while your
description implies he's suddenly changed his mind.

Stephen
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fs conrad johnson premier 1 amp Crossovertome53 Marketplace 2 June 22nd 04 12:53 AM
FS: conrad-johnson Premier 11a Amp Gary Marketplace 0 July 24th 03 03:58 AM
WTB Conrad Johnson Premier 12 Monoblocks robert2003 Marketplace 0 July 4th 03 12:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"