[cipher[_3_]]

These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 24, 12:21*pm, cipher wrote:
These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

Well, given the silliness of a DAC and a tube, the purpose is so that
the manufacturer can say that their device (were it actually 'all
tube' would be the size of a large building and require its own power-
plant) is "tube". There is no legitimate reason in my opinion.

My guess is that at-best, the unit uses a tube at the analog output
end - nowhere in the actual conversion process.

That same crowd that purchases speaker cable catenaries, $X,XXX.XX
cables and patch cords, magic rocks and so forth will eat it right up.
Nothing counter-intuitive about separating the sheep from their wool.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Nov 24, 12:21*pm, cipher wrote:
These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

Well, given the silliness of a DAC and a tube, the purpose is so that
the manufacturer can say that their device (were it actually 'all
tube' would be the size of a large building and require its own power-
plant) is "tube". There is no legitimate reason in my opinion.

My guess is that at-best, the unit uses a tube at the analog output
end - nowhere in the actual conversion process.

I would agree with you there, most likely these devices use a silicon solid
state DAC followed by an analog tube based output buffer stage.

However I don't agree that a tube DAC would "would be the size of a large
building and require its own power plant". I suspect that the real problem with
building a tube DAC would be achieving the required 16 bit accuracy, and not
that a totally unreasonable number of tubes would be required, as you suggest.

I can think of at least three possible approaches to building a reasonably
living room friendly real tube DAC, perhaps with enough effort one of these
approaches could be made to provide the required accuracy.

Your comments suggest that you are thinking of not just a tube DAC, but also a
tube DSP, for it to "be the size of a large building and require its own power
plant".

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Andy Evans]

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

andy

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

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

How can added distortion 'sound better' ?

Graham

[Andy Evans]

On Nov 29, 3:24*pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:
The good thing about a "tube DAC" is that you can feed the DAC's
converted analog signal straight into the grids of the input tubes
together with the DC on the signal, which becomes part of the bias.
It's an elegant way of doing it and many including myself believe it
sounds better than transformer out or a solid state output stage.

How can added distortion 'sound better' ?

Graham

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

andy

[fryzz]

One possible approach not requiring a roomful of equipment: An analog
voltage representation of a sixteen bit value can be achieved by
summing the voltages corresponding to the states of the individual
bits. This would require sixteen voltage references with .01%
error, sixteen precision analog switches, and a precision summing
junction. As John points out, achieving the required accuracy would
be the challenge here.

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

However I don't agree that a tube DAC would "would be the size of a large
building and require its own power plant". I suspect that the real problem with
building a tube DAC would be achieving the required 16 bit accuracy, and not
that a totally unreasonable number of tubes would be required, as you suggest.

It would have to be a very primitive DAC as used in early CD players. No
oversampling or internal DSP filtering.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
John Byrns wrote:

However I don't agree that a tube DAC would "would be
the size of a large building and require its own power
plant". I suspect that the real problem with building a
tube DAC would be achieving the required 16 bit
accuracy, and not that a totally unreasonable number of
tubes would be required, as you suggest.

It would have to be a very primitive DAC as used in early
CD players. No oversampling or internal DSP filtering.


Right the oversampling and the DSP filters would put the parts count over
the top.

BTW, I don't think that modern DACs include a DSP to do the digital
filtering, but rather use combinatorial logic.

Based on the info in this page

http://www.analog.com/library/analog...0 F.pdfFigure 4.2, I would expect that a stereo 16 bit DAC, were it even possibleto achieve that kind of precision, would have at least 3 times the partscount and at least 4-5 times the power usage. So we're talking about afull rack and a couple-three kilowatts.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message


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

http://www.analog.com/library/analog...Tech%20 F.pdf

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message


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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

My guess is that at-best, the unit uses a tube at the analog output
end - nowhere in the actual conversion process.

I should have made that clear in my response too.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

**There is no such thing as a "tube DAC". Given the requirements of a
typical DAC, to build one from tubes would occupy the volume of a small
house. Power consumption would likely be in the order of many tens of
kWatts.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 24, 4:21*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"cipher" wrote in message

0...

These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

**There is no such thing as a "tube DAC". Given the requirements of a
typical DAC, to build one from tubes would occupy the volume of a small
house. Power consumption would likely be in the order of many tens of
kWatts.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Awwww... c'mon, guy!!

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bizzyb/TADAC.html

http://www.audioreview.com/USBTDcrx.aspx

http://www.highendpalace.com/HEP%20CD.htm

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[TT]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 4:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"cipher" wrote in message

0...

These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

**There is no such thing as a "tube DAC". Given the requirements of a
typical DAC, to build one from tubes would occupy the volume of a small
house. Power consumption would likely be in the order of many tens of
kWatts.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Awwww... c'mon, guy!!

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bizzyb/TADAC.html

http://www.audioreview.com/USBTDcrx.aspx

http://www.highendpalace.com/HEP%20CD.htm

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Trevor is dead right or even a little conservative with his estimation.
Look at the very first link you posted and read the specs as it uses a "96k
max input data speed, Crystal 8414 feeds a 192k 24-Bit Burr-Brown 1793
Advanced Segment Verification Jitter Free D/A chip" So it has a silicon
chip in it that is *not* a tube,

BTW check this link out and see how hard it is to just make a digital clock
out of tubes.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/26/a...in-the-making/

And you want to make a DAC chip out of them? Best of luck ;-)

Perhaps people should accurately call these things what they really are a
"tubed output stage DACs"

Cheers TT

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 28, 5:15*pm, "TT" wrote:

Perhaps people should accurately call these things what they really are a
"tubed output stage DACs"


Your sarcasm-detector needs adjustment!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[TT]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 5:15 pm, "TT" wrote:

Perhaps people should accurately call these things what they really are a
"tubed output stage DACs"


Your sarcasm-detector needs adjustment!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Perhaps. Your posts are usually very sensible (unless replying to Arny or
Jute) and if you were using sarcasm then I did miss it ;-)

Obvious both Trevor and I took the points literally.

Cheers TT

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

Perhaps people should accurately call these things what they really are a
"tubed output stage DACs"

You presume the sellers care about accuracy whether descriptive or sonic.

Graham

[TT]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:15:02 +0900, "TT"
wrote:


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 4:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"cipher" wrote in message

0...

These seem to be popping up everywhere in audiophile circles..

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

**There is no such thing as a "tube DAC". Given the requirements of a
typical DAC, to build one from tubes would occupy the volume of a small
house. Power consumption would likely be in the order of many tens of
kWatts.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Awwww... c'mon, guy!!

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bizzyb/TADAC.html

http://www.audioreview.com/USBTDcrx.aspx

http://www.highendpalace.com/HEP%20CD.htm

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Trevor is dead right or even a little conservative with his estimation.
Look at the very first link you posted and read the specs as it uses a
"96k
max input data speed, Crystal 8414 feeds a 192k 24-Bit Burr-Brown 1793
Advanced Segment Verification Jitter Free D/A chip" So it has a silicon
chip in it that is *not* a tube,

BTW check this link out and see how hard it is to just make a digital
clock
out of tubes.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/26/a...in-the-making/

And you want to make a DAC chip out of them? Best of luck ;-)

You're making the same mistake Trevor did in confusing a DSP with a
DAC.

We are discussing DACs - Digital Analog Converters right? Things that
convert 1s and 0s to sine waves?

The basic principle of a "DAC" is rather simple,

Yes it is for a silicon chip ;-)

and a whole lot
simpler than the tube clock you mention,

I beg to differ. A tube DAC would be as Trevor described it.

but it's moot as there's no
'audio' value to doing digital circuits with tubes.

Correct but people still do.

Perhaps people should accurately call these things what they really are a
"tubed output stage DACs"

If it makes you feel good but there's nothing particularly 'wrong'
with calling it a Tube DAC either.

Yes there is when no part of the DAC circuit is controlled by tubes!

Just as there's nothing
particularly 'wrong' with "tube record player" instead of "tubed
output mechanical audio reproduction device."

Record players *DO NOT* require tubes or any other amplification circuitry
to work. The signal from the machine can be passed to any device you so
wish or in the case of a gramophone no other device is even required. That
is a bad example you used!

It's just that the means of getting from pit marked plastic to 'audio'
is a heck of a lot more complex than a wiggling needle but,, once
audio, the active device is, in both cases, tubes.

You have failed to convince me ;-) There is no such thing as a Tube DAC for
16 bit audio. There are, however a lot of tubed output stage DACs available
as the DAC is still a silicon chip.


Cheers TT

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

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

As a pure DAC, sure.

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

Graham

[LGLA]

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.


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

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

Alex
SoCalifornia

[Patrick Turner]

LGLA wrote:

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

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

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

Alex
SoCalifornia

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[keithr]

John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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


You could theoretically build a DAC with a few dozen tubes, but you
would need a precision resistor network. These days DACs are usually of
the delta-sigma type that do not need precision parts but do use
thousands of transistors, they work much better.

Keith

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

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

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

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

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

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

Perhaps your'e right, again.

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.



--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Kaahhh-whhham!

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

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Kaahhh-whhham!

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

Try telling today's kids that ! ;~)

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Patrick Turner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Hu nose?

A Chinese friend ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

But the tubes are very nice things to use as the fist device to handle
and filter the audio coming from the DA chip.

In what way are they nice for this task ?

Graham

[LGLA]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ...


LGLA wrote:

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

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

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

Alex
SoCalifornia

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Patrick Turner.


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

Thanks again much,

--
Alex
SoCalifornia

[Patrick Turner]

LGLA wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ...


LGLA wrote:

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

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

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

Alex
SoCalifornia

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Patrick Turner.

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.




Thanks again much,

--
Alex
SoCalifornia

[Cipher]

Patrick Turner wrote in
:



LGLA wrote:

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

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

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

Alex
SoCalifornia

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Patrick Turner.

There are several benefits to DXD(24 bit word @ 352,8 kHz sample rate) as
a recording and editing medium(such as the allowance for a relaxed ADC
anti-aliasing roll-off filter)but, I do not think it will make a big
splash, personally...a couple of companies use it(Telarc and Lyndberg Lyd
labels are a couple), but the software/hardware required is too expensive
and propreitary..... it is a small niche format for small niche
companies. im guessing it wont do any better than DSD..)

tape and 24/96 etc will reign supreme for a very long time.

[Eeyore]

LGLA wrote:

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

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

something about the whole thing seems counter intuitive to me.

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

But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LME49720.html
And it'll cost less than a tube and not require special power supplies.

Graham

[Andy Evans]

But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

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

Sheer perversity?

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

andy

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

But tubes have WORSE audio quality than solid state !

Graham

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

Sheer perversity?

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

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

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

Graham