Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about the design and my efforts toward restoration. You’ll find photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson The subject at hand is a pre-amplifier that appears to have been made in the early ‘80s (1982 or later). It uses vacuum tubes in the signal path and high voltage rectifier, a hand full of transistors to regulate the B+ voltages and IC regulators to supply the tube filaments with DC voltage. The reason it crossed my path is a small child was playing with it; repeatedly turning it on and off. The resulting hot-switching transients opened up several resistors in the HV power supply and blew one of the two filament regulators. I also found the output mute circuit inoperative and a shaky mod job of replacing capacitors. Thankfully, the owner had a schematic. Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8 total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. Line level, phono and filament grounds are loosely coupled with big Rs and small Cs. The smoothing capacitors were originally two 200uF 350V caps in series but whoever “re-capped” the unit replaced them with a “universal” 60-90uF 500V cap in parallel with one of several 20uF non-electrolytic and put a 2K resistor in series with the rectifier cathode to reduce the voltage (to 430V nominal) and keep from over stressing the cap. Unfortunately this nearly eliminates the regulators ability to tolerate low line voltage. I restored the original configuration with two Nichicon high temp (105C) 220uF 350V caps and bleeder resistors. I like the idea of some extra resistance to limit cathode current of the rectifier since it feeds such a large smoothing capacitor (10-20uF would be run-of-the-mill with a 12X4) so I replaced the 2K with a 649 ohm 3W resistor. Now the HV regulators deliver clean DC down to a line voltage of 104VAC. The first HV regulator uses a stack of zener diodes, fed a constant current, plus an emitter follower to deliver 410VDC. Four R-C filters provide extra smoothing to each high level amplifying stage. The Cs were originally 60uF electrolytics but have been replaced with non- electrolytic 20uF units. All the Rs were blown from the switching transients. A couple of the zeners were shorted and reduced the output voltage to ~350V. The second regulator starts with the 410V and uses more zeners and an emitter follower to deliver 380V to the low level phono amplifiers, through 4 more R-C filters. The mute circuit uses a relay and a unijunction transistor to short the output lines to ground for approx. one minute after the unit is turned on. There is also a mute button on the front that controls this relay. A wise choice, considering it was able to deliver a 200V peak- to-peak sine wave without clipping, driven from the phono input. This circuit had been bypassed however. A timing capacitor became leaky and prevented the timer from timing out. Evidently, someone mistakenly changed the relay and miswired the replacement. I restored the circuit to its original configuration. Another relay and timer to prevent hot switching would make the unit more robust and toddler resistant. Tim Brown circuitsmith * at * verizon * dot * net |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/12/2010 4:07 PM Circuitsmith spake thus:
Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8 total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. So any thoughts of adding a filament transformer for the rectifier? Is there room for one? What's the downside to this: reduced rectifier life? Arc-over? Interesting stuff; thanks for posting. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. ..... Phil |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 12, 9:05*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. *Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average *400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts *- *long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. .... *Phil So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 12, 8:10*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
So any thoughts of adding a filament transformer for the rectifier? Is there room for one? What's the downside to this: reduced rectifier life? Arc-over? The main problem would be where to put the transformer and not introduce hum into the phono section. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"Circuitsmith" " Phil Allison" "Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. ** No they do NOT !!! YOU are persistently misreading the data. The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured from heater to cathode. The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. ** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so. ..... Phil |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 11:07*am, Circuitsmith wrote:
It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about the design and my efforts toward restoration. You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially with the phono stage I put in like the schematic at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp...rated-2006.htm, see sheet1 1/2 way down the page. The phono stage can be used with low output MC. I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged. Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days. Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start really experimenting to learn. Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C parts and only use new ones. Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place things while thinking about what might be affected. I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes. Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima 630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up really Hard Wired and truly point to point. Dust and pollution does not settle on parts under the boards. All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed. I don't like tube rectifiers. Better the tube diodes are retired when you make a separate PSU in a remote box. You can get a higher B+ but you have more headroom to drop down with filter R. The current even with increased revised current values will not be huge, and draw id re I don't use much B+ regulation in preamps because I use some simple CRCRC filtering using lots of 470uF caps. But a simple shunt reg for B+ to the first phono stage is a good idea because VLF rail noise is amplified by the high LF gain of the phono stages. Patrick Turner. The subject at hand is a pre-amplifier that appears to have been made in the early ‘80s (1982 or later). It uses vacuum tubes in the signal path and high voltage rectifier, a hand full of transistors to regulate the B+ voltages and IC regulators to supply the tube filaments with DC voltage. The reason it crossed my path is a small child was playing with it; repeatedly turning it on and off. The resulting hot-switching transients opened up several resistors in the HV power supply and blew one of the two filament regulators. I also found the output mute circuit inoperative and a shaky mod job of replacing capacitors. Thankfully, the owner had a schematic. Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8 total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average *400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. Line level, phono and filament grounds are loosely coupled with big Rs and small Cs. The smoothing capacitors were originally two 200uF 350V caps in series but whoever *“re-capped” the unit replaced them with a “universal” 60-90uF 500V cap in parallel with one of several 20uF non-electrolytic and put a 2K resistor in series with the rectifier cathode to reduce the voltage (to 430V nominal) and keep from over stressing the cap. Unfortunately this nearly eliminates the regulators ability to tolerate low line voltage. I restored the original configuration with two Nichicon high temp (105C) 220uF 350V caps and bleeder resistors. I like the idea of some extra resistance to limit cathode current of the rectifier since it feeds such a large smoothing capacitor (10-20uF would be run-of-the-mill with a 12X4) so I replaced the 2K with a 649 ohm 3W resistor. Now the HV regulators deliver clean DC down to a line voltage of 104VAC. The first HV regulator uses a stack of zener diodes, fed a constant current, plus an emitter follower to deliver 410VDC. Four R-C filters provide extra smoothing to each high level amplifying stage. *The Cs were originally 60uF electrolytics but have been replaced with non- electrolytic 20uF units. All the Rs were blown from the switching transients. A couple of the zeners were shorted and reduced the output voltage to ~350V. The second regulator starts with the 410V and uses more zeners and an emitter follower to deliver 380V to the low level phono amplifiers, through 4 more R-C filters. The mute circuit uses a relay and a unijunction transistor to short the output lines to ground for approx. one minute after the unit is turned on. There is also a mute button on the front that controls this relay. A wise choice, considering it was able to deliver a 200V peak- to-peak sine wave without clipping, driven from the phono input. This circuit had been bypassed however. A timing capacitor became leaky and prevented the timer from timing out. Evidently, someone mistakenly changed the relay and miswired the replacement. I restored the circuit to its original configuration. Another relay and timer to prevent hot switching would make the unit more robust and toddler resistant. Tim Brown circuitsmith * at * verizon * dot * net |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 12, 9:46*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith" " Phil Allison" "Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. ** No they do *NOT *!!! YOU are persistently misreading the data. The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" *has the figure of *" -450 *" volts measured from heater to cathode. The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. ** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so. .... * Phil It says"PEAK value -450 max". What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand?? Over is over, and certainly NOT conservative in my book. Tim Brown |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 4:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Use a carpenters chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand the boards clean. I really don't think that's what the client wanted. Tim Brown |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"Circuitsmith" "Phil Allison" "Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. ** No they do NOT !!! YOU are persistently misreading the data. The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured from heater to cathode. The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. ** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so. It says"PEAK value -450 max". What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand?? ** YOU are one PIG arrogant ****ing, ****head. Clearly 100max = +100 volts **** off and DIE you smug ****. ...... Phil |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"Circuit****" I really don't think that's what the client wanted. ** No "client" needs a smug turd like you anywhere near them FOAD. ..... Phil |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 11:16*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith" "Phil Allison" *"Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. ** No they do NOT !!! YOU are persistently misreading the data. The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured from heater to cathode. The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. ** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so. It says"PEAK value -450 max". What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand?? ** *YOU *are one PIG *arrogant ****ing, ****head. * Clearly 100max * = *+100 volts * **** off and DIE *you smug ****. ..... * Phil You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. Have a fabulous life, Tim Brown |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 3:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:07*am, Circuitsmith wrote: It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about the design and my efforts toward restoration. You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially with *the phono stage I put in like the schematic athttp://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp-10tube-integrated-2006.htm, see sheet1 1/2 way down the page. The phono stage can be used with low output MC. I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged. Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days. Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start really experimenting to learn. Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C parts and only use new ones. Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place things while thinking about what might be affected. I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes. Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima 630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up really Hard Wired and truly point to point. *Dust and pollution does not settle on parts under the boards. All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed. That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance, then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right? When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be. It's radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you describe render the product unresaleable. Years ago I knew a guy who bought an expensive sports car at auction. It turned out that someone had replaced the original engine with an American V8, and in doing so had made major structural modifications that were economically irreversible. He sold it for peanuts to another guy who did likewise and finally, a serious collector of the marque bought the car, stripped off all the usable parts, and had the hulk hauled down to the crusher where he paid a fair bonus to the crusher operator to have him crunch it while he videotaped the procedure. He sent copies to several people including the shop that did the butch job and the owner who paid for it. Similar fates have befallen drastically modified audio equipment. If you don't like a piece, if it has value it's smarter to sell it and build one from scratch your own way. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 10:16*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Circuitsmith" "Phil Allison" *"Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. ** No they do NOT !!! YOU are persistently misreading the data. The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured from heater to cathode. The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. ** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so. It says"PEAK value -450 max". What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand?? ** *YOU *are one PIG *arrogant ****ing, ****head. * Clearly 100max * = *+100 volts * **** off and DIE *you smug ****. Phil is autistic and needs a phone magneto to be wired to his nuts and cranked a few times. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 10:25*am, Circuitsmith wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:16*am, "Phil Allison" wrote: "Circuitsmith" "Phil Allison" *"Circuitsmith" " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise conservative design. " ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the heater is negative with respect to the cathode. They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating) heater supply. http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the cathode. So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. ** No they do NOT !!! YOU are persistently misreading the data. The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured from heater to cathode. The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec. ** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so. It says"PEAK value -450 max". What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand?? ** *YOU *are one PIG *arrogant ****ing, ****head. * Clearly 100max * = *+100 volts * **** off and DIE *you smug ****. ..... * Phil You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. Where did that rule come from? Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but not, say, Stalin??? Hitler was bad, but not as bad as Stalin. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:
On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote: On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote: **** off and DIE you smug ****. You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. Where did that rule come from? Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but not, say, Stalin??? Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I guess) said so. Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums such as this, it's often not correct at all. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/13/2010 4:47 PM flipper spake thus:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus: On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote: On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote: **** off and DIE you smug ****. You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. Where did that rule come from? Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but not, say, Stalin??? Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I guess) said so. Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness. Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums such as this, it's often not correct at all. What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by association fallacy (but can include others as well). You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law) it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect. Dang. Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 2/13/2010 4:47 PM flipper spake thus: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus: On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote: On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote: **** off and DIE you smug ****. You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. Where did that rule come from? Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but not, say, Stalin??? Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I guess) said so. Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness. Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums such as this, it's often not correct at all. What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by association fallacy (but can include others as well). You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law) it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect. Dang. Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere. Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi? d |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: Dang. Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere. Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi? Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler? -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:50:04 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: Dang. Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere. Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi? Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler? Rotten taste in moustaches, and far too fond of shorts. Can't trust someone like that. d |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:50:04 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: Dang. Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere. Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi? Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler? Rotten taste in moustaches, and far too fond of shorts. Can't trust someone like that. Umm, and the continual dyspepsia and flatulence. One can only wonder what would have happened had Adolph been able to avail himself of Omeprazole (AKA Pepcid). ;-) |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 14, 12:29*am, Circuitsmith wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote: Use a carpenters chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand the boards clean. I really don't think that's what the client wanted. I can see you despise tradesmen that you'd never be able to afford. I have used a nicely sharpened carpenter's chisel with a nice flat blade to ease tracks off stupidly designed high end amplifier boards. The hammer is needed on some to get through the board connections, or to get well stuck tracks away. But on many boards the tracks peel away all too easily. Its all done *without* cracking a board and leaving huge gouges after trying to grind tracks away. The clients all love the sound and ease of servicing afterwards. And maybe you wouldn't like to see what a surgeon does when he cuts a piece of bone from a pelvis to fit somewhere else in the body. Twit! Patrick Turner. Tim Brown |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 14, 6:49*am, Bret L wrote:
On Feb 13, 3:50*am, Patrick Turner wrote: On Feb 13, 11:07*am, Circuitsmith wrote: It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about the design and my efforts toward restoration. You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially with *the phono stage I put in like the schematic athttp://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp-10tube-integrated-2006.htm, see sheet1 1/2 way down the page. The phono stage can be used with low output MC. I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged. Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days. Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start really experimenting to learn. Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C parts and only use new ones. Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place things while thinking about what might be affected. I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes. Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima 630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up really Hard Wired and truly point to point. *Dust and pollution does not settle on parts under the boards. All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed. *That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance, then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right? I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you did with all of his awful artworks. But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value by 10c. Clearly you have no idea about the utter ****ing bull**** goings on in the art world. Big stoopid money, all ****ing crap mainly, and you can't eat art. So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if they'll hang it beside AWs crap? All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes. *When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be. Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often, and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a piebald camel. radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you describe render the product unresaleable. I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ bought it on E-bay for $150. It is just old junk. To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from CJ, maybe he pays $7,000. But I cost him $500, cheap! *Years ago I knew a guy who bought an expensive sports car at auction. It turned out that someone had replaced the original engine with an American V8, and in doing so had made major structural modifications that were economically irreversible. He sold it for peanuts to another guy who did likewise and finally, a serious collector of the marque bought the car, stripped off all the usable parts, and had the hulk hauled down to the crusher where he paid a fair bonus to the crusher operator to have him crunch it while he videotaped the procedure. He sent copies to several people including the shop that did the butch job and the owner who paid for it. Similar fates have befallen drastically modified audio equipment. Who gives a **** about such total brainless petrol head idiocy? I modified a pair of Quad 40s recently. All due respect to Andy Groves design abilities, but I saw fit to remove 30 bits and replace them with 36 others. The Chinese makers had fitted an awfull performing OPT and the mods were necessary. Only a complete idiot would then have these amps crushed while making a video. Why do ya think Detroit has seccumbed to economic failure in the face of opposition? Its because they just try to cling onto poor designs of the past. America should wake up and move on, and strat producing electric trucks, busses and cars, and forget the past BS. And BTW, I don't like the soup Andy tried to advertise. *If you don't like a piece, if it has value it's smarter to sell it and build one from scratch your own way.- Hide quoted text - But one could never make the box and internal metalwork and a PT for $150. The CJ I altered was dirt cheap, and worth the price even with with the porr quality guts all stripped out. Oh, and BTW, I replaced all the RCA connectors. The originals were of poor design and in extremely poor condition. The new CJ RCA terminals are quite good afaik, with steel spring grippers around the centre gripper in the socket.. But you pay through the nose for them. Patrick Turner. - Show quoted text - |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus: On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote: On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote: **** off and DIE you smug ****. You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. Where did that rule come from? Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but not, say, Stalin??? Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I guess) said so. Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness. Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums such as this, it's often not correct at all. What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by association fallacy (but can include others as well). You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law) it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect. The supposed 'rule' part is an extension of the general debate adage that the first one to engage in ad hominem 'loses' and is based on the theory that the reduction to vitriol shows you've obviously run out of legitimate arguments with which to rebut, thereby leaving the opposing (un rebutted) argument(s) the 'winner'. Plus, it's ceased to be a 'debate'. The 'rule' is also an inducement to civility that usually deteriorates rapidly once violated but, of course, it can also be simply a personal 'rule' to not engage with A-holes. As a side note, reductio ad Stalinum is the same thing, but invoking Stalin rather than Hitler, and you can substitute any other notorious figure, such as reductio ad bin-Ladenum. or hated group, as in "Islamo-facist" or "liberal-facist". |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 13, 7:47*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus: On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote: On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote: * **** off and DIE *you smug ****. You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially finished this USENET conversation. *Where did that rule come from? *Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but not, say, Stalin??? Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I guess) said so. Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness. Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums such as this, it's often not correct at all. What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by association fallacy (but can include others as well). You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law) it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect. The supposed 'rule' part is an extension of the general debate adage that the first one to engage in ad hominem 'loses' and is based on the theory that the reduction to vitriol shows you've obviously run out of legitimate arguments with which to rebut, thereby leaving the opposing (un rebutted) argument(s) the 'winner'. Plus, it's ceased to be a 'debate'. The 'rule' is also an inducement to civility that usually deteriorates rapidly once violated but, of course, it can also be simply a personal 'rule' to not engage with A-holes. As a side note, reductio ad Stalinum is the same thing, but invoking Stalin rather than Hitler, and you can substitute any other notorious figure, such as reductio ad bin-Ladenum. "Correlation is not causality". Just because I wear a cotton nightshirt like bin laden and many of his followers, it doesn't make me a terrorist. :-) Must be a slow day... sorry! Cheers, Roger |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed. That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance, then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right? I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you did with all of his awful artworks. But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value by 10c. Clearly you have no idea about the utter ****ing bull**** goings on in the art world. Big stoopid money, all ****ing crap mainly, and you can't eat art. So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if they'll hang it beside AWs crap? All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes. When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be. Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often, and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a piebald camel. radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you describe render the product unresaleable. I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ bought it on E-bay for $150. It is just old junk. To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from CJ, maybe he pays $7,000. But I cost him $500, cheap! You're willfully intransigent. If you put your time and energy into production and made your own product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having any resale value in a few years. I have a truck that is what is called a "Carolina Hauler". It's a pickup that has been reworked to tow a race car trailer on highway that should by rights have had a Class 8 road tractor pulling it. It was built at a cost of over thirty thousand US dollars in 1980, when that sum would nearly have bought a new Ferrari. It has basically the driveline of a schoolbus and a reinforced frame and (before I took it off) an alternator capable of running a fair sized house. I bought it for fifteen hundred bucks in good running shape as no one wanted it. It has no value. It's an oddly modified old Dodge. Mileage sucks, but I never drive it very far, it's my bad weather beater. If I keel over dead tomorrow, it'll go to the crusher once it quits running for its new owner. Everything on it is non stock. I have "the book" containing most of the part numbers needed to maintain it, but most of the people who are buyers for old pickups around here are illiterate, whether they are American hicks or mestizos who speak a bad flavor of Spanish but are not so good at reading it even if the book were in it. It's an interesting piece of circle track racing history but not worth anything. So it lives for awhile as my beater truck. If you had simply refused to work on the new Quad amp and told the owner you could sell him a new amp cheaper which was better you both would have been ahead. As it is he has a lump worth nothing and no dealer will take it on trade. For what it is worth, the problem with American car makers is not that they did not change, but that they did. Americans still want big comfortable cars, but EPA and fuel mileage laws dictate that they can not make them. So the wealthy buy big Benzes and BMWs and the less fortunate get a ****box like it or not. Under the bull**** ageis of global warming, which is horse****, and oil shortages, more and more of these laws are going in effect. If people could buy a brand new 1968 Buick Electra 225 today over these econo****s they would. i certainly would. **** these environmentalist socialist cocksuckers. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
Bret L wrote:
**** these environmentalist socialist cocksuckers. They're not socialists, they're socialism. No point in denying it. And if we don't get a grip and take charge of it, it'll take charge of us. Ian |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus:
[snip lunacy from P. Turner] You're willfully intransigent. If you put your time and energy into production and made your own product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having any resale value in a few years. [snip] Two things: 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested. 2. Having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
David wrote:
Two things: 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested. 2. Having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly. Says what, perfectly? Ian |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/15/2010 1:35 PM Ian Iveson spake thus:
David wrote: Two things: 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested. 2. Having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly. Says what, perfectly? Oh, I don't know: that Mr. Turner should have a restraining order placed on him keeping him at least a thousand feet away from any high-quality audio equipment? -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/15/2010 5:30 PM flipper spake thus:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:48:15 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus: [snip lunacy from P. Turner] You're willfully intransigent. If you put your time and energy into production and made your own product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having any resale value in a few years. [snip] Two things: 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested. One of these days AGW worshipers should share some of the so called "overwhelming evidence" because the religious zealot stuff isn't working. I leave it to you to read "the literature" as its called. I'm not a religious zealot of any stripe, anthropogenic climate change or any other banner. You just can't contradict good science. The scary thing is that the empirical evidence is showing a much faster rate of change than even the most confident of researchers were predicting. Like I said, I've got memberships to the Flat Earth Society available to any takers ... -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
You just can't contradict good science. Hi RATs! Good science often finds errors of fact and/or logic in earlier good science. Some folks think the price of stuff is important. A good audio system is a joy beyond price, to some dreamers Happy Ears! Al PS I, too, predict the weather will get worse, and better... it has happened before, even before mankind started complaining. But, if no one complains, is weather more important, or less? |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 15, 7:17*pm, Bret L wrote:
All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed. *That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance, then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right? I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you did with all of his awful artworks. But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value by 10c. Clearly you have no idea about the utter ****ing bull**** goings on in the art world. Big stoopid money, all ****ing crap mainly, and you can't eat art. So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if they'll hang it beside AWs crap? All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes. *When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be. Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often, and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a piebald camel. radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you describe render the product unresaleable. I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ bought it on E-bay for $150. It is just old junk. To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from CJ, maybe he pays $7,000. But I cost him $500, cheap! *You're willfully intransigent. In other words, a grumpy old curmudgeon. *If you put your time and energy into production and made your own product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having any resale value in a few years. Well, I am not so sure all ppl will chuck my stuff when I am gone. And if they do, so what? Not a huge drama afaiac. If I had 10 bucks for each person who willingly replaced well regarded tube gear with sordid state gear I would be STOINKINLY RICH. When the 1960s rolled along, thousands of ppl were only too happy to get rid of the hot heavy mono tube sytems and crummy single speakers and invest in a cool running stereo system. *I have a truck that is what is called a "Carolina Hauler". It's a pickup that has been reworked to tow a race car trailer on highway that should by rights have had a Class 8 road tractor pulling it. It was built at a cost of over thirty thousand US dollars in 1980, when that sum would nearly have bought a new Ferrari. It has basically the driveline of a schoolbus and a reinforced frame and (before I took it off) an alternator capable of running a fair sized house. I bought it for fifteen hundred bucks in good running shape as no one wanted it. It has no value. It's an oddly modified old Dodge. Mileage sucks, but I never drive it very far, it's my bad weather beater. A Bitza. *If I keel over dead tomorrow, it'll go to the crusher once it quits running for its new owner. Everything on it is non stock. I have "the book" containing most of the part numbers needed to maintain it, but most of the people who are buyers for old pickups around here are illiterate, whether they are American hicks or mestizos who speak a bad flavor of Spanish but are not so good at reading it even if the book were in it. It's an interesting piece of circle track racing history but not worth anything. So it lives for awhile as my beater truck. Horses for courses. *If you had simply refused to work on the new Quad amp and told the owner you could sell him a new amp cheaper *which was better you both would have been ahead. As it is he has a lump worth nothing and no dealer will take it on trade. My guess is that NOBODY will realise what improvements I have to the Quad 40 amps. The owner is about 70, and maybe in 10 years the amps will get re- cycled by way of deceased estate auction, or the guys offspring won't want the amps so they'll sell them on Ebay and without a picture of the undersides. So its most likely the going price for old Quad 40 will be paid. The ****wit buyer/collectors who insist that the bloody old junk they buy must include all the original parts including the design faults are luckily in the minority. *For what it is worth, the problem with American car makers is not that they did not change, but that they did. Americans still want big comfortable cars, but EPA and fuel mileage laws dictate that they can not make them. So the wealthy buy big Benzes and BMWs and the less fortunate get a ****box like it or not. Under the bull**** ageis of global warming, which is horse****, and oil shortages, more and more of these laws are going in effect. Well of course the trend to SUV style vehicles is raging in Oz as many but by no means all Australians want the biggest SOB peice of rolling real estate they can afford. Personal transport such as cars will be with us with global warming and oil shortages. They'll all just get electric motors, or become hybrid, petrol-electric. *If people could buy a brand new 1968 Buick Electra 225 today over these econo****s they would. i certainly would. **** these environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.- Hide quoted text - I know how maybe 40% of the world's motorists think greenhouse emissions are not heating the planet. And how they say that somehow there will always be an oil supply they can afford, and that " environmentalist socialist cocksuckers" should really spend their time ****ing their mothers. But maybe 20% don't have a clue about all that stuff. But 40% think green, and don't like cars that emit too much and they don't want to live lives and buy junk which might ruin a good planet. I see that oil prices will inevitably rise and put such a heavy squeeze upon users of low efficiency fossil engines that electric motors will become the choice. Electric has a way to go before it matures, but when it does ppl will wonder why we ever bothered with petrol engines. And I have not even mentioned hydrogen power. Ppl in the northern hemisphere have become disbelievers in the greenhouse effect where they see the record slow falls this winter. Well the trouble with the greenhouse effect is that as we add CO2 to the air, the total weather system becomes more unstable due to interrelated and extremely complex positive and negative feedback systems. So the whole total system tends to become unstable before settling at a changed state, ie, hotter, where the changed conditions give rise to an equilibrium at a higher temperature. Between now and the hotter state we will likely see some very extreme winters and summers as well as some very mild winters and summers but the trend will continue to show a net warming of a few C over the next 50 years at least. OK, no big deal. The weather goes 5C hotter at the equator, and large swathes of land become unusable, and drought in Oz causes our national food production to halve so we stop exporting food. 20 million more ppl try to live in Oz within 50 years, so we would have to import the amount of food we export now. But many ppl won't have food to export then. The fact is that this world cannot support 12 billion middle class people all living high on the hog like that 2 billion middle class ppl do now. In many ways I see numerous future points in history which will be CRUNCH TIME where something has to give, or where certain countries might give things a bit of a shove to make wanted changes to their people's standard of living. So some little or big nuclear wars look very probable. The evironment will be completely ****ed up in 50 years. It won't bee my problem, and not a problem of my kids. I didn't have any. People will live like rats in a sewer if they damn well have to. Patrick Turner. - Show quoted text - |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 16, 9:48*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/15/2010 1:35 PM Ian Iveson spake thus: David wrote: Two things: 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested. 2. Having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly. Says what, perfectly? Oh, I don't know: that Mr. Turner should have a restraining order placed on him keeping him at least a thousand feet away from any high-quality audio equipment? I'd find ways to get around the orders. People disgruntled with the crap they have bought from yet another High End con man will still flock to my door wanting determined modifications which render gear usable and reliable and musical. I raise my hat to High End Audio. They help keep me in business. When they learn how to build stuff that's simple, cheap and good sounding, then I will starve, but it ain't likely to happen because they cannot slay the dragon of their own puffed up egos. Patrick Turner. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 16, 12:41*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/15/2010 5:30 PM flipper spake thus: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:48:15 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus: [snip lunacy from P. Turner] *You're willfully intransigent. *If you put your time and energy into production and made your own product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having any resale value in a few years. [snip] Two things: 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bull****" (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested. One of these days AGW worshipers should share some of the so called "overwhelming evidence" because the religious zealot stuff isn't working. I leave it to you to read "the literature" as its called. I'm not a religious zealot of any stripe, anthropogenic climate change or any other banner. You just can't contradict good science. The scary thing is that the empirical evidence is showing a much faster rate of change than even the most confident of researchers were predicting. This is the sad part. The world has gone through a number of mass extinction events according to the fossil record. Often the rates of change within these periods has been much slower than now. Given another 10,000 years of gung-ho business as usual and complete utilisation of all nature to suit consumers, the world will become vastly different and most likely a far more poisenous a place to live than now. The greenhouse effect is onle of many bothers which look set to make millions dpressed about their existance. There are just too many ppl wanting too much stuff on this planet. But ppl won't mind living like frightened rats down toxic sewers if they have to. Patrick Turner. Like I said, I've got memberships to the Flat Earth Society available to any takers ... -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 16, 2:35*pm, "Watt? Me worry?" wrote:
You just can't contradict good science. Hi RATs! Good science often finds errors of fact and/or logic in earlier good science. Some folks think the price of stuff is important. A good audio system is a joy beyond price, to some dreamers But if the price of an EL34 went up to $5,000, doncha think ya dreams would be shattered a bit? Patrick Turner. Happy Ears! Al PS I, too, predict the weather will get worse, and better... it has happened before, even before mankind started complaining. But, if no one complains, is weather more important, or less? |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 16, 1:57*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
But ppl won't mind living like frightened rats down toxic sewers if they have to. And there will be ignorant people like Bret Ludwig who will blame some racial cause as the reason. Stupidity breeds like rats. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Context is important. Stephen |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 16, 1:58*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
But if the price of an EL34 went up to $5,000, doncha think ya dreams would be shattered a bit? Patrick Turner. Hi RATs! I have switched to 6BQ6 Got 18 NOS for US$9.95 off Ebait, a few weeks ago. I will not live to see the tubes I have be worn out. Sigh. Nobody will ever guess they sound good. They have a top cap connection. So very scary "A fool knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing." Happy Ears! Al |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Context is important. Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back removing all traces of it. I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions. I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming" hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted. To what point? Both things can be true: no statistically significant warning in the last five years and overall warming faster than once expected. Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus while your description implies he's suddenly changed his mind. Stephen |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
fs conrad johnson premier 1 amp | Marketplace | |||
FS: conrad-johnson Premier 11a Amp | Marketplace | |||
WTB Conrad Johnson Premier 12 Monoblocks | Marketplace |