[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

1. Jute explains everything.

Jute never explains when posturing, pontification and disingenuity are available options.

Graham

[Eeyore]

tony sayer wrote:

Andre Jute writes
flipper wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you

I, too, would like to hear that explained.

You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control.
Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not
faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall.

Do many posters here go to concert halls all that much?. They rarely
sound like what you'd want to hear at home...

I go to live gigs.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I suspect you are actually looking for an explanation of the physics that
make AC heating sound better than DC heating, but the important thing is
the sound.

I can't see why Poopie should need the physics explained to him. He
claims to be an engineering graduate of the University of London.
Surely, he should be explaining the physics to us, rather than the
other way round.

It was discussed in some reasonable depth here quite recently in fact.

Well then, Poopie, you can start work by offering us a summary. You
don't even have to do any work of your own.

Why don't you just read the thread ?

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 14 Jan 2007 15:48:00 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

Thanks for the effort, Pearce. I wasn't seriously putting forward the
Gaincard method of counting, just throwing it in for discussion while I
get on with the business of designing and building my next amp.

However, the grid leak resistor which you call the "47k feedback r"
raises an interesting point of difference between the silicon crowd and
the zero negative feedback ultrafidelista faithful. You intend to mean
by negative feedback *any* feedback. By convention tubies in general
and ultrafidelista in particular by negative feedback mean global or
universal or loop negative feedback, certainly nothing contained within
one stage of any of the classical topologies (including those newly
revived like the mu stage). Even a cathode follower, surely a feedback
device!, is kosher to the ZNFB crowd, and they have often resented me
for pointing it out as much as the silicon slime has resented me for
pointing out *their* wishful thinking and other depredations on the
immutable laws of physics. (Hey, there are some tubies who still want
to lynch me ten years later for puncturing their bubble on SRPP, which
until I made an irrefutable analysis they happily promoted for thirty
years as a constant current-loaded triode, which of course it isn't.)


My error on the 47k - apologies tendered.

But then you beg the question (and I mean that in the true sense of
the logical fallacy), when you start to claim that feedback isn't
feedback because you define it thus. Well, I have news for you.
Feedback IS feedback, however you apply it. If the output signal is
capable of comparison with the input and thereby reducing some of its
error, you have feedback - live with it and don't try your nonsense
with me. You may get away with it with your dullard mates, so stick
with them.

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

You counted the "47k feedback r" (the grid leak, without which the amp
won't work) twice.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

It is rather interesting that you don't ask for the noise figures of my
tube amp before you start spouting condemnations based on your
prejudicial preference for silicon bodged nearly right with excessive
negative feedback.

Why would I give a toss about the noise figure of a power amp? It
didn't even occur to me that you might screw that up.

Have you?

Perhaps you should at least draw the loadline on the tube transfer
curves and calculate the distortion before you spout off, Pearce. If
you know how, of course. You might surprise yourself. (I hesitate to
suggest that you build the design and measure for yourself; I wouldn't
want you to electrocute yourself on unaccustomed high voltage or burn
yourself with your new soldering iron.)

d

Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

They're humbusters for the AC filaments. You do know that DC filaments
on DHT sound like ****, don't you, Pearce? Now go on, tell me about the
joys of regulation.


So you are claiming that an unbypassed cathode resistor is NOT a
voltage feedback system? Your technical abilities plumb yet greater
depths.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Always great to hear from you, Pearce. It gives me a warm glow of
superiority that a famous engineer like you, a proven hostile to tube
amps, can find only twee tiny quibbles when I publish a design.


When you publish a design claiming it to have no feedback, and I can
show that it does indeed use feedback, you can expect me to speak.
Bull**** always stinks.

When you claim there are only six components in the signal path and I
count 17 (yes, still apologies for the miscount and misidentification
- apropos of which you might want to redraw the schematic to make that
57k look a bit less like a feedback resistor), you can expect me to
speak. Even you should be able to count a bit better than that.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On 14 Jan 2007 18:02:34 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control.
Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not
faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall.

Do explain how the tone quality is under your control. With tube amps
you get what you get and there is bugger all you can do about it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

flipper wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like
****, don't you

I, too, would like to hear that explained.

You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your
own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by
observing that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce
the experience of the concert hall.

Absence of any answer noted.

It sounded like an answer to me, essentially what he
suggested was that you try it both with DC, and then with
AC and choose the one that sounds best to you. A lot of
people seem to prefer the sonics of AC heating, and I
will give it my vote too, the only major downside of AC
heating being a greater difficulty in banishing the last
vestiges of hum. I suspect you are actually looking for
an explanation of the physics that make AC heating sound
better than DC heating, but the important thing is the
sound.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

[Arny Krueger]

"tony sayer" wrote in message

In article
om,
Andre Jute writes

flipper wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****,
don't you

I, too, would like to hear that explained.

You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your
own control. Most audiophiles arrived there by observing
that silicon amps do not faithfully reproduce the
experience of the concert hall.

Do many posters here go to concert halls all that much?.
They rarely sound like what you'd want to hear at
home...

More to the point, most audiophiles long ago observed that tubed amps aren't
worth the trouble or expense.

[Iain Churches]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

What happenened was that John Byrns kindly explained *my* thoughts on
the matter

Because you're incapable of doing it yourself I note.

Graham


You don't have to take Andre's word (or anyone else's word)
for it Graham - try it for yourself:-)

Take off your engineer's hat, put on your musician's hat,
and listen to the music.

People who have actual hands-on experience with
building SET amps will confirm that there is a difference,
but you need to prove it for yourself, as I am doing.

It's a good test for your levels of aural perception:-)

Regards to all
Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

More to the point, most audiophiles long ago observed that tubed amps
aren't worth the trouble or expense.

Arny. I don't know about the situation in the US but here in
Scandinavia your statement could not be more wrong:-(

A recent survey here has shown that the top of the
high-end market for music systems (not home theatre)
is totally dominated by tube amplifiers. My local dealer,
who also supplies professional equipment will offer an
SS Crown or Krell at a very attractively discounted
price. For a CJ or any other good tube amp the
customer must pay full retail and wait up to three
months. Most are happy to do so.

To endorse the confidence in their products, many
bespoke amp builders now offer a 5 year warranty
on tube amps.

There is more interest in tube audio now than
for many years. People are keen, I am told,
to trade in their SS equipment for something
which better satisfies their musical taste
(their words to the dealer) A tube amp is
invariably their choice. No-one I have heard
of in the past ten years has gone in the other
direction.

Regards to all
Iain

PS. Arny, your presence on RAT, as one who holds tube
audio in low regard, is something of an enigma.

[Peter Wieck]

Iain Churches wrote:

People who have actual hands-on experience with
building SET amps will confirm that there is a difference,
but you need to prove it for yourself, as I am doing.

Iain:

What you write is likely true. However in this case you are backing a
three-legged mule in a horserace by using Mr. McCoy in the same general
post when you mention "People who have actual hands-on experience..."
and so on. The two are mutually exclusive. Though you did leave the
door open with the vagueness of the term 'people'.

I have always heard the difference between tube and SS, even tube and
massive, well-built SS amps. There are differences... more than a few.
I have even heard a reputedly very well made Set/Single-Driver horn
system. That it lacked for dynamic sources and had no perceptable bass
did not detract from the fact that it produced quite beautiful music
from limited source material. I post here because I have an abiding
interest in tube stuff, I have just rebuilt a vintage amp and am
gradually working through a vintage receiver. Eventually my home-brew
will get off the breadboard and onto a chassis... eventually.

But at this moment, Mr. McCoy has nothing but a loose grab-bag of
miscellaneous parts, no actual built anything and a schematic that even
when "final" is still fraught with error and questionable choices. It
is hardly a shining example of the species, nor is Mr. McCoy hardly a
shining example of a careful, thoughtful home-brewer both by manner and
execution.

We had a recent example of a very nice home-brew that not only was
gorgeous, but surely worked, and was exquisitely well made using
affordable and accessible means and methods. The creator made his
choices because he like them, and not as anything but what he wanted.
And certainly not as "ultra" anything.

Note the difference in behavior, note the difference in performance,
note the difference in result.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Keith G]

"Iain Churches" wrote


You don't have to take Andre's word (or anyone else's word)
for it Graham - try it for yourself:-)

Take off your engineer's hat, put on your musician's hat,
and listen to the music.

People who have actual hands-on experience with
building SET amps will confirm that there is a difference,
but you need to prove it for yourself, as I am doing.



I haven't been following this thread closely but if you mean there is a
difference between SETs and other valve amps then I can add that, over the
Christmas period, I revisited my various amps (valve SET/PP and SS) - by way
of 'realignment and reaffirmation' and confirm that the SETs have it by a
mile....

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

More to the point, most audiophiles long ago observed
that tubed amps aren't worth the trouble or expense.

Arny. I don't know about the situation in the US but here
in Scandinavia your statement could not be more wrong:-(

A recent survey here has shown that the top of the
high-end market for music systems (not home theatre)
is totally dominated by tube amplifiers.


When you have some audited stats from an independent source, be sure to post
them Iain. Until then, it looks like you're talking out of the back of your
neck, as usual. ;-(

[Peter Wieck]

Arny Krueger wrote:

When you have some audited stats from an independent source, be sure to post
them Iain. Until then, it looks like you're talking out of the back of your
neck, as usual. ;-(

Arny:

Relax. Iain rarely makes stuff up, and in this case, he may be dead-on
target. Just parse the claim:

Top end of the market. Dominated by tubes.

With absolute respect to those very few in the top end of any market
who are there because they actually demand the best and are willing to
pay for it, most anyone paying nose-bleed prices for stereo equipment
are typically not overly gifted with either taste or common sense. They
purchase what is in fashion at the moment, mostly because they can.

It is certainly the case that tube equipment happens to be "in fashion"
at this moment. My friend at the local High end ship (The Stereo
Trading Outlet in Jenkintown, PA) has started to move a great deal of
tube stuff lately and the trend is increasing.

It would not surprise me one bit if Iain's claim is true. How long it
remains true is a different question, as trends evolve.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Don Pearce]

On 15 Jan 2007 12:54:58 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

When you have some audited stats from an independent source, be sure to post
them Iain. Until then, it looks like you're talking out of the back of your
neck, as usual. ;-(

Arny:

Relax. Iain rarely makes stuff up, and in this case, he may be dead-on
target. Just parse the claim:

Top end of the market. Dominated by tubes.

With absolute respect to those very few in the top end of any market
who are there because they actually demand the best and are willing to
pay for it, most anyone paying nose-bleed prices for stereo equipment
are typically not overly gifted with either taste or common sense. They
purchase what is in fashion at the moment, mostly because they can.

It is certainly the case that tube equipment happens to be "in fashion"
at this moment. My friend at the local High end ship (The Stereo
Trading Outlet in Jenkintown, PA) has started to move a great deal of
tube stuff lately and the trend is increasing.

It would not surprise me one bit if Iain's claim is true. How long it
remains true is a different question, as trends evolve.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to define the top
end of the market as that using tubes, then the top end will be
dominated by tubes. On the other had if, like anyone sensible, you
define the top end of the market as that with the most accurate
systems, there won't be a tube in sight. So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in operation.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Peter Wieck]

Don Pearce wrote:

It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to define the top
end of the market as that using tubes, then the top end will be
dominated by tubes. On the other had if, like anyone sensible, you
define the top end of the market as that with the most accurate
systems, there won't be a tube in sight. So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in operation.

I was defining "Top End" solely based on cost. I expect that Iain was
as well. Those who choose what they want based on knowledge and the
expectation of certain and sure results will choose based on those
requirements, not on cost.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Don Pearce]

On 15 Jan 2007 13:38:41 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to define the top
end of the market as that using tubes, then the top end will be
dominated by tubes. On the other had if, like anyone sensible, you
define the top end of the market as that with the most accurate
systems, there won't be a tube in sight. So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in operation.

I was defining "Top End" solely based on cost. I expect that Iain was
as well. Those who choose what they want based on knowledge and the
expectation of certain and sure results will choose based on those
requirements, not on cost.

Defining on cost has exactly the result I was describing. There is
nothing in a solid state high end amp that would force cost up to the
levels demanded by anything with tubes and a sensible amount of power
- the sheer physical mass simply isn't there. So defining by cost is
essentially the same as defining by tube content.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Don Pearce at
wrote on 1/15/07 4:08 PM:

On 15 Jan 2007 12:54:58 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

When you have some audited stats from an independent source, be sure to post
them Iain. Until then, it looks like you're talking out of the back of your
neck, as usual. ;-(

Arny:

Relax. Iain rarely makes stuff up, and in this case, he may be dead-on
target. Just parse the claim:

Top end of the market. Dominated by tubes.

With absolute respect to those very few in the top end of any market
who are there because they actually demand the best and are willing to
pay for it, most anyone paying nose-bleed prices for stereo equipment
are typically not overly gifted with either taste or common sense. They
purchase what is in fashion at the moment, mostly because they can.

It is certainly the case that tube equipment happens to be "in fashion"
at this moment. My friend at the local High end ship (The Stereo
Trading Outlet in Jenkintown, PA) has started to move a great deal of
tube stuff lately and the trend is increasing.

It would not surprise me one bit if Iain's claim is true. How long it
remains true is a different question, as trends evolve.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to define the top
end of the market as that using tubes, then the top end will be
dominated by tubes. On the other had if, like anyone sensible, you
define the top end of the market as that with the most accurate
systems, there won't be a tube in sight. So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in operation.

d


There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing. If the elusive, subjective
concept of "sonically pleasing" applies to "upper end", then there would
certainly be a place for tube gear.

Jon

[Peter Wieck]

Don Pearce wrote:

Defining on cost has exactly the result I was describing. There is
nothing in a solid state high end amp that would force cost up to the
levels demanded by anything with tubes and a sensible amount of power
- the sheer physical mass simply isn't there. So defining by cost is
essentially the same as defining by tube content.


Have you priced some of the stuff out there lately. There is not much
to choose between tube and SS in prices. These guys charge what they
charge because they can. In the immortal words of W.C. Fields (or
Edward Albee if you are of that persuasion): Never give a sucker an
even break.

As in most things, 'fashion' drives the very top end of the industry.
Once that is understood, the rest follows.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On 14 Jan 2007 23:51:59 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


wrote:
Just one question - why the battery?

This is the circuit under discussion:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg

All components have sonic signature. Some have very little, or are
difficult to use for sound shaping.

There is absolutely no point in building an amp this expensive unless
for some purpose beyond the bragging rights of "I have Western Electric
300Bs in my amp, which of course I built myself." A good purpose is to
take charge of the quality of your sound, rather than leave it in the
hands of some zero-culture, long-since deaf, totally uncivilized,
supercilious, smug silicon slime, of which we can see ample samples on
these conferences. (There are also some very cultured and agreeable
silicon designers but they are successful and don't need my help.)

The WE417A driver tube was chosen for its particular signature. I had
already designed a much more precise reference SE300B amp for Western
Electric tubes with two 6SN7 stages, of which the most popular version
is he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg
But in the T39 I was stepping back, building an amp for hedonists, not
soulless technicians. The 417A is very suitable for hedonists, very
linear (but not as linear as a 6SN7), quite a bit warmer in the manner
of the double digit veteran directly heated triodes but much more
widely available. Count what besides the 417A is in that circuit. The
attenuator is a DACT, built by robots on Swiss goldplated switches with
SMD resistors: zero signature, as it should be. I have no belief in
anything more than marginal soundshaping with resistors; Kiwame are
slightly but perceptibly warmer than the common Beyschlagg I also like,
and the rest leave me indifferent to the difference between them, if
any; I believe in overspeccing my resistors to run them cool and so
avoid various kinds of resistor noise which can be important in small
signal circuits.

So that leaves the tube itself, whose sound we can shape by the value
of the resistor in the plate circuit and whatever we decide to put in
the cathode circuit. Taking the plate circuit first, we can lower the
resistor value and thereby make the sound dirtier at the volume
extremes, which to the uninitiated might sound like more bass
(analogous to what you hear on boomboxes on the street or from little
passing hatchbacks owned by wannabe gangsta but of course not degraded
quite that far). That isn't quite my style, so I load the plate up to
the maximum I can within the available power supply, thereby
linearizing the response. I should explain that my style is first to
extract the maximum silence that good engineering allows, which from
tubes is much more impressive than you might imagine when you read the
silicon slime who hang out here to tell us how wrong we are because
they can't get any other employment. After that I back off to a
suitable level of hedonism. This isn't quite euphonious distortion, it
is more like a sense of balance and perspective, and an understanding
of psychoacoustics (I'm by training an economist and psychologist).

At this point we can then choose from four ways to implement a cathode
circuit. One, by constant current sink, I dismiss immediately as too
complicated for an amp announced as KISS (keep it simple, stupid); in
my next project I shall return to CCS because there their complication
is the least of the evils. That leaves three ways of doing it: a
resistor alone, a resistor bypassed by a cap, and battery bias.

Of these, the bypassed resistor is my instinctive fave. It is simple,
it is selfadjusting, and if you spend the time and the money on
development and components, you will eventually choose the right
capacitor; I have long since done my homework and know what I will use.
Open another circuit:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/t...17acircuit.jpg
This is a complete amp built only from the first stage of the T39 (in
fact it was made by removing the 300B from a T39). It should now become
clear to you that if I substitute the battery with a resistor and a
cap), the cap becomes the sole determinant of the sonic quality of the
stage. With so little in the circuit, the cap really looms large. An
unbypassed resistor has feedback which changes the sound adversely by
making it harder, more crystalline and by tilting the response towards
the bass when in fact I want to tilt the 417A's "natural" tendency the
other way -- I just want a slightly warm amp, not a hot, gushy amp.
That leaves a battery, which, while not a soundshaping element under my
control (in that there is only one choice of operating conditions for a
417A with battery bias if you already decided the plate voltage), is at
least perfectly neutral. The battery also has a tendency to stabilize
everything around it which is a good thing as I have already paid a
heavy price in efficiency for ballasts and other devices to stablilize
important electrical points and any"free" margin is welcome.

So, by a process of elimination, I am left only with the battery. This
thought process is described in
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm

If you study the T68bis "Minus Zero" circuit even cursorily, you will
immediately see that the other big sonic influence, besides a putative,
potential, possible cathode bypass cap, is the power supply. But that
is fully developed and fixed in a desirable sonic already, and is
anyway a large loose cannon on deck if you lose control of it, so you
don't want to mess with success if instead you can do the job by
working with one or at most two cathode circuit components, which
brings us back to the battery decision, which by its impedance in turn
makes any remaining solecism of the power supply a moot point.

All roads lead to Rome. In the T68bis you can see how all currents must
pass through that battery. It is the very dream of every control freak,
though the wannabe control freaks on RAT and UKRA lack the subtlety to
understand what is happening.

OK 2 questions... why the 4 paralleled input resistors? Noise?

The WE417A has wonderful sonics once the designer grasps how to handle
it; in the hands of the usual pretenders it quickly turns to expensive
noise because nobody told them it is a radio frequency tube. Almost all
tubes are, of course, but the 417A is especially efficient in the RF.
It has four grid pins which can pick up radio rubbish, so each one
requires a grid stopper and the signal can be put in to any of them,
though one is better than the others by far for simple reasons of
physics that may be determined by observation.

HTH.

If this is more information than you wanted, next time don't ask such
a(n only apparently) simple question!


Not too much at all - it was a great read! ( I din't have time yet to follow
the links but I will.)

I also build amps, have been since the 60s ( hence the moniker) and noise is
very important to me, since lots of recordings I have are very quiet (read weak)
and amp noise can be overwhelming.

My choice for power supply is hefty sand diodes and hundreds of µf of
capacity... I believe it eliminates the PS from the equations. I also spider
wire everything, no series de-coupling for me... ( except if you count the
multi-cap distribution resistors!.) OK I lied... I also float the caps from
the chassis, I like to have the final word in where the earth point is...

One thing - did you put a scope to the battery? Is there any signal visible on
it or is it a good ground?

Thanks

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:27:07 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or
even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't
rocket surgery.

I just posted my thoughts on the matter.

How about yours ?

A voltage gradient across the cathode is similar to
a geometric gradient in cathode-grid spacing, or
alternatively to a variable grid winding pitch.

Neither are exact, but give the flavor. The voltage
gradient causes distortion by increasing the
exponent in the Child's approximation.

IIRC this may have been discussed in threads
about ultrasonic heating of filamentary valves.
But maybe not.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Peter Wieck]

wrote:

One thing - did you put a scope to the battery? Is there any signal visible on
it or is it a good ground?

You need to keep in mind thjat Mr. McCoy has not built it yet.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Iain Churches]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing. If the elusive, subjective
concept of "sonically pleasing" applies to "upper end", then there would
certainly be a place for tube gear.

Jon

It does. There is.
Iain

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

On 15 Jan 2007 12:54:58 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

When you have some audited stats from an independent source, be sure to post
them Iain. Until then, it looks like you're talking out of the back of your
neck, as usual. ;-(

Arny:

Relax. Iain rarely makes stuff up, and in this case, he may be dead-on
target. Just parse the claim:

Top end of the market. Dominated by tubes.

With absolute respect to those very few in the top end of any market
who are there because they actually demand the best and are willing to
pay for it, most anyone paying nose-bleed prices for stereo equipment
are typically not overly gifted with either taste or common sense. They
purchase what is in fashion at the moment, mostly because they can.

It is certainly the case that tube equipment happens to be "in fashion"
at this moment. My friend at the local High end ship (The Stereo
Trading Outlet in Jenkintown, PA) has started to move a great deal of
tube stuff lately and the trend is increasing.

It would not surprise me one bit if Iain's claim is true. How long it
remains true is a different question, as trends evolve.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to define the top
end of the market as that using tubes, then the top end will be
dominated by tubes. On the other had if, like anyone sensible, you
define the top end of the market as that with the most accurate
systems, there won't be a tube in sight. So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in operation.

d

Another thing to bear in mind is whether whatever the 'top end of the market' finds
to be flavour of the month is any valid indicator that one should pay attention to
when considering such products' merits.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or
even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't
rocket surgery.

I just posted my thoughts on the matter.

How about yours ?

A voltage gradient across the cathode is similar to
a geometric gradient in cathode-grid spacing, or
alternatively to a variable grid winding pitch.

That's what I concluded too. Like a variable mu tube IIRC.


Neither are exact, but give the flavor. The voltage
gradient causes distortion by increasing the
exponent in the Child's approximation.

Yes.


IIRC this may have been discussed in threads
about ultrasonic heating of filamentary valves.
But maybe not.

I hadn't heard that one.

In any event, an audible difference between DC and AC heating of DHTs indicates
to me that with AC there must be some signal modulation at 2 x line frequency,
like a tiny tremolo effect perhaps.

Graham

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control.
Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not
faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall.

Absence of any answer noted.

Is that a polite version of bull****?

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
You build tube amps to have the tone quality under your own control.
Most audiophiles arrived there by observing that silicon amps do not
faithfully reproduce the experience of the concert hall.

Absence of any answer noted.

Is that a polite version of bull****?

It was actually an indication that Joot failed to answer my question in fact,
posting instead some his usual rambling nonsense.

That he also writes bull**** is incidental to that point.

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

Andrew Jute McCoy blathered:

BTW, if you were smart, instead of crossing Robert Morein, you would
have recruited him. He's a holy fool and anyone who can harness the
force of such can be rich. I know, I worked in advertising. You're too
thick and slow for your own good, McCarty. You'll be no loss to the
gene pool.

Always ready to advise exploitation. Somehow that is exactly in your
character.

Morein may be a fool, he may even be "holy" as you suggest as he
certainly tilts at many windmills and has the general attitude of the
obsessed. All-and-at-the-same-time, he is at least human. A
characteristic that you lack to any discernable degree.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

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

Brian McCarty, pretending to be Robert Morein, wrote:
In article
,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

[snip]

BTW, if you were smart, instead of crossing Robert
Morein, you would have recruited him. He's a holy fool
and anyone who can harness the force of such can be rich.

Andre, do elaborate !!!

Obviously Robert, you're a true believer in any number of audio myths.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or
even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't
rocket surgery.

I just posted my thoughts on the matter.

How about yours ?

A voltage gradient across the cathode is similar to
a geometric gradient in cathode-grid spacing, or
alternatively to a variable grid winding pitch.

That's what I concluded too. Like a variable mu tube IIRC.


Neither are exact, but give the flavor. The voltage
gradient causes distortion by increasing the
exponent in the Child's approximation.

Yes.


IIRC this may have been discussed in threads
about ultrasonic heating of filamentary valves.
But maybe not.

I hadn't heard that one.

In any event, an audible difference between DC and AC
heating of DHTs indicates to me that with AC there must
be some signal modulation at 2 x line frequency, like a
tiny tremolo effect perhaps.


How can this sonic effect be perceived as improved realism?

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com

Relax. Iain rarely makes stuff up,

Kinda. He's good at mis-perceiving reality.

and in this case, he may be dead-on target. Just parse the claim:

Top end of the market. Dominated by tubes.

With absolute respect to those very few in the top end of
any market who are there because they actually demand the
best and are willing to pay for it, most anyone paying
nose-bleed prices for stereo equipment are typically not
overly gifted with either taste or common sense. They
purchase what is in fashion at the moment, mostly because
they can.

If you haven't noticed, I live in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Plenty of that
sort of thing going on, only not so much with audio gear. We've got lots of
very boatable fresh water nearby, if you catch my drift.

It is certainly the case that tube equipment happens to
be "in fashion" at this moment.

This may be true in certain limited areas, but it is not a global truth.

My friend at the local
High end ship (The Stereo Trading Outlet in Jenkintown,
PA) has started to move a great deal of tube stuff lately
and the trend is increasing.

Isolated anecdote?

It would not surprise me one bit if Iain's claim is true.

Given his many misperceptions in the past, it might just as easily be false.

How long it remains true is a different question, as
trends evolve.

That it is true at all, remains questionable.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to
define the top end of the market as that using tubes,
then the top end will be dominated by tubes.

Now that is more characteristic of Iain's sort of thinking.

On the other
had if, like anyone sensible, you define the top end of
the market as that with the most accurate systems, there
won't be a tube in sight.

Roughly true. Using tubes isn't absolutely detrimental to sonic accuracy,
just debilitating.

So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in
operation.

Given my experience with Iain, the more likely situation.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com

I was defining "Top End" solely based on cost.

In fact, an incomplete way to define "Top end". Things like reputation and
who else owns the products, also relate.

I expect that Iain was as well.

Nahh, Iain defines "Top End" in a more self-centered way.

Those who choose what they want
based on knowledge and the expectation of certain and
sure results will choose based on those requirements, not
on cost.

Agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com

Have you priced some of the stuff out there lately.

That only shows the offering prices, not the prices that are actually paid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but actual selling prices usually undershoot asking
prices by just a wee little bit?

There
is not much to choose between tube and SS in prices.

I'm not sure about that, if we are talking asking prices. I know about
fractional million $$$ tubed amps (e.g. Wavac), I may be speaking in
ignorance, but I know of no SS amps in the same range.

These guys charge what they charge because they can. In
the immortal words of W.C. Fields (or Edward Albee if you
are of that persuasion): Never give a sucker an even
break.

E.g. true believers like Iain.

As in most things, 'fashion' drives the very top end of
the industry. Once that is understood, the rest follows.

IME fashion relates to more than just prices.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message


There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a
THD & IM perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

Prove it.

You're only deifiying your tastes and prejudices.

If the elusive, subjective concept of "sonically pleasing"
applies to "upper end", then there would certainly be a
place for tube gear.

Beyond a certain price point, products tend to be less practical. Their
weirdness and peculiarities become part of their charm.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jon Yaeger wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a
THD & IM perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

The criteria of those who lack absolute references.

[Peter Wieck]

Eeyore wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

Keeerist, Graham!

Get a grip!

Not everything is measurable. And _many_ things are a matter of taste
and preference, not fact and measurement. I cannot abide sweet-potatoes
or pudding in any form. Others dote on either or both. At any volume,
blind-folded and with a head-cold, I can distinguish between several
brands of 12AX7 & clone tubes. Do I think one is necessarily 'better"
than the other? Not hardly. Would they measure differently, I doubt it.
I find tube sound *different* from SS sound. There are times when I
prefer one over the other, and there are times when I could care less.
I have access to both, and within each several choices. Each appeals in
its own way. However EACH of them does great credit to the music I
choose to play. My wife, on the other hand, has a distinctly favorite
combination and could care less about the rest of it. That favorite is
100% solid-state, but uses our commonly preferred speakers. I believe
that it has much to do with the simplicity of that system vs. the
others. She has only to deal with two switches: On/Off/Volume & Source.


Comes to it, I believe that my choice of speakers has far more to do
with what things 'sound like' than my choice of amplification.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com

Not everything is measurable.

But everything that is audible is readily measurable.

IOW, in a discussion of audio, everything is measuable.

And _many_ things are a
matter of taste and preference, not fact and measurement.

Taste and preference are also measurable. Perhaps not as well as some would
like.

Furthermore, there are ways to isolate many perceptions from preconceived
notions.

I cannot abide sweet-potatoes or pudding in any form.

The diffrences between foods you like and foods you don't like are generally
measurable.

Others dote on either or both.

Guilty as charged! ;-)

At any volume,
blind-folded and with a head-cold, I can distinguish
between several brands of 12AX7 & clone tubes.

Horsefeathers.

Do I think one is necessarily 'better" than the other? Not hardly.

I think you've not done enough blind listening tests to speak as you do.

Would they measure differently, I doubt it.

Horsefeathers. Tubes measure differently all day long. Anybody with adequate
experience with a comprehensive tube tester knows that.

I find tube sound *different* from SS sound.

That may or not be true. Depends which SS and which tubes.

There are times when I
prefer one over the other, and there are times when I
could care less.

Guilty as charged. ;-)

I have access to both, and within each
several choices. Each appeals in its own way. However
EACH of them does great credit to the music I choose to
play.

IME some does, some doesn't.

My wife, on the other hand, has a distinctly
favorite combination and could care less about the rest
of it. That favorite is 100% solid-state, but uses our
commonly preferred speakers. I believe that it has much
to do with the simplicity of that system vs. the others.
She has only to deal with two switches: On/Off/Volume &
Source.

Women seem to have this practical streak... ;-)

Of course there's always Jenn over in RAO. A rare exception does not
disprove the rule.

Comes to it, I believe that my choice of speakers has far
more to do with what things 'sound like' than my choice
of amplification.

That makes sense. The reasons are measurable, BTW.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The answer is easily derived from basic principles, or
even from a Google search on this newsgroup. It ain't
rocket surgery.

I just posted my thoughts on the matter.

How about yours ?

A voltage gradient across the cathode is similar to
a geometric gradient in cathode-grid spacing, or
alternatively to a variable grid winding pitch.

That's what I concluded too. Like a variable mu tube IIRC.

Neither are exact, but give the flavor. The voltage
gradient causes distortion by increasing the
exponent in the Child's approximation.

Yes.

IIRC this may have been discussed in threads
about ultrasonic heating of filamentary valves.
But maybe not.

I hadn't heard that one.

In any event, an audible difference between DC and AC
heating of DHTs indicates to me that with AC there must
be some signal modulation at 2 x line frequency, like a
tiny tremolo effect perhaps.

How can this sonic effect be perceived as improved realism?

It wouldn't be of course but SETs aren't about realism anyway.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

Keeerist, Graham!

Get a grip!

Not everything is measurable.

No ?

My point is that Jon made a blanket statement that has no basis in fact as far
as I can see. Hence I asked for some elaboration.

Graham