Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default New year's resolution

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve
amplifier?

I see two possible approaches. One way to begin is to
establish the purpose of the machine, divide that purpose
into a series of processes, and develop a block diagram of a
generic amplifier. The other is to examine various circuit
fragments in order to understand how they, and their
components, behave. These two approaches may be termed "top
down" and "bottom up", respectively. Most books on design
cover both aspects, in one order or the other. Both can be
dealt with using the common logic of analysis.

Both are problematic. Whichever aspect the novice encounters
first, he will be bemused for lack of prior understanding of
the other. It's hard to grasp a block diagram without
knowing what might be inside the boxes and why; and it's
hard to grasp a fragment such as a mu-follower without
knowing what it might be used for and why.

Perhaps the novice could be reassured if, in a preface, the
author were to acknowledge these problems, and provide some
logic that the novice might employ to guide him through the
process of learning to design?

This year I have resolved to write such a preface. Ideas are
welcome.

Is the process of design predictable? Can you characterise
the logic of development, from start to finish?

The best structure, by far, I have come across is in the
late J L Hood's "Valve and Transistor Audio Amplifiers".
Typical circuits are introduced and analysed in historical
context, so the reader becomes aware of the issues in just
the same way as history did. However, the reason for using
such a narrative style is not made explicit, and so the
novice may not get the point.

New valve enthusiasts, and especially young people, are
needed or there'll be nothing left when we all die.

Which won't be this year, I hope.

Anyone else made a resolution.

Best wishes,

Ian





  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Phil Allison Phil Allison is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,444
Default New year's resolution


"Ian Iveson Colossal ****HEAD" "

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve amplifier?



** Wot an insanely STUPID troll.

Novices need to first discover how tube amps work and why they are built in
the various ways they commonly are.

Then they need to build a few circuits and tinker with them.

Then they need to have a well equipped workshop in order to do performance
testing and maybe refine what they have built.

They do NOT and probably NEVER WILL need to know how design new tube
circuits that have not been already designed.

And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.

****wit.



...... Phil





  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Nick Gorham Nick Gorham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default New year's resolution

Ian Iveson wrote:
How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve
amplifier?

I see two possible approaches. One way to begin is to
establish the purpose of the machine, divide that purpose
into a series of processes, and develop a block diagram of a
generic amplifier. The other is to examine various circuit
fragments in order to understand how they, and their
components, behave. These two approaches may be termed "top
down" and "bottom up", respectively. Most books on design
cover both aspects, in one order or the other. Both can be
dealt with using the common logic of analysis.

Both are problematic. Whichever aspect the novice encounters
first, he will be bemused for lack of prior understanding of
the other. It's hard to grasp a block diagram without
knowing what might be inside the boxes and why; and it's
hard to grasp a fragment such as a mu-follower without
knowing what it might be used for and why.

Perhaps the novice could be reassured if, in a preface, the
author were to acknowledge these problems, and provide some
logic that the novice might employ to guide him through the
process of learning to design?

This year I have resolved to write such a preface. Ideas are
welcome.

Is the process of design predictable? Can you characterise
the logic of development, from start to finish?

The best structure, by far, I have come across is in the
late J L Hood's "Valve and Transistor Audio Amplifiers".
Typical circuits are introduced and analysed in historical
context, so the reader becomes aware of the issues in just
the same way as history did. However, the reason for using
such a narrative style is not made explicit, and so the
novice may not get the point.

New valve enthusiasts, and especially young people, are
needed or there'll be nothing left when we all die.

Which won't be this year, I hope.

Anyone else made a resolution.

Best wishes,

Ian






Well, with respect, I think you have decided to solve a problem that you
have decided exists, but in my experence doesn't in the real world. As a
programmer who started in the 70's I am well aware of the top down and
bottom up design methods, and both work just fine, the only issue is the
middle out one.

From what I have seen, Phil's answer is just about on the money, people
start wanting to build valve amps because they want to use valve amps.
They already have a goal. And they resolve this by either building a
kit, or a existing well documented design. Some never go further than
this point. But some want to know a bit more, so they read a lot of
books, ask a lot of questions on the internet, and try and follow the
design patterns that already exist, mix and match them to fit their
needs and interests. Some then never go past this as they have a block
about maths, so they never go beyond graphical methods. Then a few more
progress to the point of trying to get to the level of understanding of
a EE in the 1950's. But from what I have seen those that try and get to
the 1950's level (I am trying hard to get there myself) normally have a
fair bit of EE education in their background anyway, so they don't need
the basics explaining to them, and if they did, they know what books to
read to try and make up for the lacks in the education.

There are a few on the fringes that are doing things that were not done
in the 50's, but they are not inventing new topologies, they are just
updating older ideas using components that were not available in the 1950's

In the people I know (which I imagine is a small but representive subset
of the rest of the world) who mess with valves, there are folk in all
the groups, and there seems to be no lack of interest in learning and
building.

In terms of progress, in my view its simple, 1. Build a kit, 2. Read
Morgan Jones, 3. Buy a copy of RDH and read. 4. Keep reading RDH. And
between 1 and 4, build, tinker and measure a lot.

--
Nick
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
tubegarden tubegarden is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default New year's resolution

On Jan 1, 5:53*am, Nick Gorham wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve
amplifier?


I see two possible approaches. One way to begin is to
establish the purpose of the machine, divide that purpose
into a series of processes, and develop a block diagram of a
generic amplifier. The other is to examine various circuit
fragments in order to understand how they, and their
components, behave. These two approaches may be termed "top
down" and "bottom up", respectively. Most books on design
cover both aspects, in one order or the other. Both can be
dealt with using the common logic of analysis.


Both are problematic. Whichever aspect the novice encounters
first, he will be bemused for lack of prior understanding of
the other. It's hard to grasp a block diagram without
knowing what might be inside the boxes and why; and it's
hard to grasp a fragment such as a mu-follower without
knowing what it might be used for and why.


Perhaps the novice could be reassured if, in a preface, the
author were to acknowledge these problems, and provide some
logic that the novice might employ to guide him through the
process of learning to design?


This year I have resolved to write such a preface. Ideas are
welcome.


Is the process of design predictable? Can you characterise
the logic of development, from start to finish?


The best structure, by far, I have come across is in the
late J L Hood's "Valve and Transistor Audio Amplifiers".
Typical circuits are introduced and analysed in historical
context, so the reader becomes aware of the issues in just
the same way as history did. However, the reason for using
such a narrative style is not made explicit, and so the
novice may not get the point.


New valve enthusiasts, and especially young people, are
needed or there'll be nothing left when we all die.


Which won't be this year, I hope.


Anyone else made a resolution.


Best wishes,


Ian


Well, with respect, I think you have decided to solve a problem that you
have decided exists, but in my experence doesn't in the real world. As a
programmer who started in the 70's I am well aware of the top down and
bottom up design methods, and both work just fine, the only issue is the
middle out one.

*From what I have seen, Phil's answer is just about on the money, people
start wanting to build valve amps because they want to use valve amps.
They already have a goal. And they resolve this by either building a
kit, or a existing well documented design. Some never go further than
this point. But some want to know a bit more, so they read a lot of
books, ask a lot of questions on the internet, and try and follow the
design patterns that already exist, mix and match them to fit their
needs and interests. Some then never go past this as they have a block
about maths, so they never go beyond graphical methods. Then a few more
progress to the point of trying to get to the level of understanding of
a EE in the 1950's. But from what I have seen those that try and get to
the 1950's level (I am trying hard to get there myself) normally have a
fair bit of EE education in their background anyway, so they don't need
the basics explaining to them, and if they did, they know what books to
read to try and make up for the lacks in the education.

There are a few on the fringes that are doing things that were not done
in the 50's, but they are not inventing new topologies, they are just
updating older ideas using components that were not available in the 1950's

In the people I know (which I imagine is a small but representive subset
of the rest of the world) who mess with valves, there are folk in all
the groups, and there seems to be no lack of interest in learning and
building.

In terms of progress, in my view its simple, 1. Build a kit, 2. Read
Morgan Jones, 3. Buy a copy of RDH and read. 4. Keep reading RDH. And
between 1 and 4, build, tinker and measure a lot.

--
Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
tubegarden tubegarden is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default New year's resolution

Happy New Troll!

Software and hardware face some common problems.

One is definition of goal.

Software is blessed with an endless supply of critics who know at
least one thing we totally forgot ...

Hardware is caught in another, more deadly trap, it costs money to
change anything ... beyond the fixed overhead of engineering time

Often software is modified to accomodate a Feature of the platform.

This is called a Kludge.

Klooj, in some circles

We pose as champions of clear thought and good purpose, but, we do
whatever those morons back East want.

My amps are free of critical comment and always ready to try a new
thing.

It ain't profitable, it is Fun

Happy Ears!
Al


PS The past made many decisions. None were blessed by any God. We are
free to examine all and challenge all.

It is the nature of human endeavor. And the humility of each who
really tries.

The vanity of those who judge is well founded in Hubris, no shortage
has ever been reported


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Nick Gorham Nick Gorham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default New year's resolution

tubegarden wrote:

Happy New Troll!

Software and hardware face some common problems.

One is definition of goal.

Software is blessed with an endless supply of critics who know at
least one thing we totally forgot ...


Tis true.


Hardware is caught in another, more deadly trap, it costs money to
change anything ... beyond the fixed overhead of engineering time


Not as true as it used to be, see FPGA.

--
Nick
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Addendum

Forgot a question mark:

Anyone else made a new year's resolution?

Ian


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Addendum

In article ,
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

Forgot a question mark:

Anyone else made a new year's resolution?


Yes.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New year's resolution

On Jan 1, 1:31*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve
amplifier?


Mistake here to combine "novice" and "design". Even with an EE
background, tubes are no longer in common parlance within Academia -
students are well beyond the "Edison Effect" as it were. And without
an EE background, even the theory of tubes is difficult to explain in
the level of detail that would allow a novice to "design" anything.

So, they are left with a cobbler's options vs. a shoemaker's options
for learning the trade. They need to learn how these things work
starting with very simple things and gradually working their way up to
where they might be able to predict an outcome. Even with all this,
most everything in tubes that can be done has been done, and done-to-
death in most cases. So they could do a great deal worse than to pick
some established options and designs from whatever decade they like
and attempt to emulate it.

New valve enthusiasts, and especially young people, are
needed or there'll be nothing left when we all die.


Not hardly. As long as there are wannabe musicians using electrical
amplification, tubes will survive in active use and at least some
level of experimentation will occur. Just Tuesday, I finished
rebuilding two Fender amps (Princeton Reverb and Champ) that were
brought to me on the edge of smoke-loss. By someone 20 years old. He
wanted them to be reliable and stable - he knew all about 'special
caps' and things like the "harmonica modification" and several other
options. We went over them in turn and their goods and bads. He
decided to stick with the OEM design, but using new caps rated at
higher voltages and so forth.

20 years old. And the Champ was something his buddy (17) found in his
dad's closet. Needed caps and a set of tubes. A few years ago, I
worked (from Saudi) with a 16 YO in San Francisco via his mom and dad
to rebuild a Marshall. The mom could put my instructions into a state
they could follow, the dad was an automotive electrician, so between
them the amp was rebuilt.

As to the audio stuff - I am pretty sanguine about that as well. The
Chinese are doing the hobby a favor in a small way by showing us how
*not* to do it, yet forcing those who go that way to have to learn
more so as to be able to undo their kludges.

The major issue that exists with the hobby is the cost. Even cheap
tubes and hardware far exceed that of solid-state stuff. after which,
kids these days may have a certain amount of money but they neither
have the otherwise-unmanaged time we had growing up nor, typically,
the space to dedicate to such a hobby. Those are things not so easily
solved.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default New year's resolution

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"Ian Iveson Colossal ****HEAD" "

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve amplifier?



** Wot an insanely STUPID troll.

Novices need to first discover how tube amps work and why they are built in
the various ways they commonly are.

Then they need to build a few circuits and tinker with them.

Then they need to have a well equipped workshop in order to do performance
testing and maybe refine what they have built.


I'm with you up to this point.

They do NOT and probably NEVER WILL need to know how design new tube
circuits that have not been already designed.


Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then they will
need to know how to design new tube circuits.

And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.


I would question whether the talent to design a valve amplifier is as rare as
you imply, the talent to do really good design may be rare, however the talent
to design a run of the mill valve amplifier is more common.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default New year's resolution

On Jan 1, 8:39*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Ian Iveson Colossal *****HEAD" "

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve amplifier?


** Wot an insanely *STUPID * troll.

Novices need to first discover how tube amps work and why they are built in
the various ways they commonly are.

Then they need to build a few circuits and tinker with them.

Then they need to have a well equipped workshop in order to do performance
testing and maybe refine what they have built.

They do *NOT *and probably *NEVER WILL need to know how design new tube
circuits that have not been already designed.


I'm with you all the way up to here, Phil.

And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.


But that should not stop those of us who are qualified to explain
subtle and complicated things from trying, even if the effort only
succeeds in clarifying our own minds. I've in fact done it for tubes
several times already, most recently at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm . Of
course, the teaching has not been grafted successfully on too many of
the students, but that is, as you say, only to be expected with such a
tricky subject. I wouldn't count Iveson among my greatest successes...

****wit.


If Iveson had any brains, he would instead spend his time designing a
tube amp cheap enough for a student to build, so that we can interest
the younger generation. My own designs of an inexpensive amp and
speakers for a student are at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Jute-EL34-SEntry.jpg and
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg
and are described in http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/JUTE%20ON%20AMPS.htm


..... * Phil


Andre Jute
from a family of teachers and preachers
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default Happy New Troll! was New year's resolution

On Jan 1, 1:51*pm, tubegarden wrote:
Happy New Troll!


Ha!

And a prosperous and happy new year to all Rodents.

Andre Jute
The vanity of those who judge is well founded in hubris, of which no
shortage has ever been reported -- Al Marcy
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New year's resolution

On Jan 1, 11:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:

Bunch-O-self-serving crap.


Andre, with all due respect, write for yourself and drop the "we".
Y'ain't nohow royalty, nor are you in any sort of sufficiently
exhalted condition as your words require or deserve it.

As to 'explaining subtle and complicated things' - please let me know
when you make such an attempt I would be fascinated to see you
actually do so after the twaddle, drivel and pretty much dangerous
crap you have peddled in the past.

Entry level: Try some vintage stuff. Dynaco or Eico springs to mind.
Scott or Fisher or Sherwood for tuners and the like. Stuff that is
extremely well-supported in the literature and the hobby and stuff
that serves as excellent test beds for modifications and changes. One
may learn a great deal from established designs modified a step at a
time - established designs don't burn controls, for example.

There really isn't a whole lot complicated about tubes. What they are
and what they do has been established since about 1920, with growth &
progress being evolutionary for a very few more years, then pretty
much incremental after that. And their actions are about as subtle as
a Caterpillar D9 High-Wheel http://centralpt.com/customer/image_...9R%20Large.jpg
Why do you attempt to mystify something that isn't? This is a hobby,
not a cabal, open to pretty much anyone, not just those with a
purported $1,000,000 education.

Lastly, the difference between you and Iverson is that he actually
works with tubes, apparently on a daily basis. When is the last time
you actually did something - anything - with tubes? 5 years ago? 15?
25?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Engineer Engineer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Location: Thornhill, Ontario
Posts: 104
Default Addendum


"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
...
Forgot a question mark:

Anyone else made a new year's resolution?

Ian

Not me - never do!
Cheers,
Roger


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Restless Fingers Syndrome Restless Fingers Syndrome is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default New year's resolution

We do this every year ...

http://www.freewebs.com/willispage7/ampaa.htm


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Phil Allison Phil Allison is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,444
Default New year's resolution


"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"
"Ian Iveson Colossal ****HEAD" "

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve amplifier?



** Wot an insanely STUPID troll.

Novices need to first discover how tube amps work and why they are built
in
the various ways they commonly are.

Then they need to build a few circuits and tinker with them.

Then they need to have a well equipped workshop in order to do
performance
testing and maybe refine what they have built.


I'm with you up to this point.

They do NOT and probably NEVER WILL need to know how design new tube
circuits that have not been already designed.


Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then they
will
need to know how to design new tube circuits.


** Ambiguous drivel.

Define "new".



And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.


I would question whether the talent to design a valve amplifier is as rare
as
you imply,



** Creativity in any field is a rare talent.

You certainly do not have any.



..... Phil





  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Phil Allison Phil Allison is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,444
Default New year's resolution


"Andre Jute"
"Phil Allison"
"Ian Iveson Colossal ****HEAD" "

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve amplifier?


** Wot an insanely STUPID troll.

Novices need to first discover how tube amps work and why they are built
in
the various ways they commonly are.

Then they need to build a few circuits and tinker with them.

Then they need to have a well equipped workshop in order to do performance
testing and maybe refine what they have built.

They do NOT and probably NEVER WILL need to know how design new tube
circuits that have not been already designed.


I'm with you all the way up to here, Phil.

And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.


But that should not stop those of us who are qualified to explain
subtle and complicated things from trying,


** The creative process can be explained - post mortem.




....... Phil






  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default New year's resolution

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"
"Ian Iveson Colossal ****HEAD" "

How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve amplifier?


** Wot an insanely STUPID troll.

Novices need to first discover how tube amps work and why they are built
in
the various ways they commonly are.

Then they need to build a few circuits and tinker with them.

Then they need to have a well equipped workshop in order to do
performance
testing and maybe refine what they have built.


I'm with you up to this point.

They do NOT and probably NEVER WILL need to know how design new tube
circuits that have not been already designed.


Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then they
will
need to know how to design new tube circuits.


** Ambiguous drivel.

Define "new".


Different.

And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.


I would question whether the talent to design a valve amplifier is as rare
as
you imply,


** Creativity in any field is a rare talent.


Define "creativity".

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New year's resolution

On Jan 1, 5:40*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:

* * You certainly do not have any.


Now wait just one minute, Phil~!~

John has the best ability to separate fly-poop from pepper on earth.
Is that not a creative talent worth recognition?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Phil Allison Phil Allison is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,444
Default New year's resolution

"John Byrns =Colossal ****HEAD"



Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then
they
will need to know how to design new tube circuits.


** Ambiguous drivel.

Define "new".


Different.



** That is not any sort of definition - ****wit.


** Creativity in any field is a rare talent.


Define "creativity".



** Look it up in a dictionary - ****wit.




...... Phil









  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default New year's resolution

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"John Byrns =Colossal ****HEAD"

Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then
they
will need to know how to design new tube circuits.

** Ambiguous drivel.

Define "new".


Different.


** That is not any sort of definition - ****wit.


It's straight out of the dictionary which you seem to endorse below. It conveys
the meaning I intended.

** Creativity in any field is a rare talent.


Define "creativity".


** Look it up in a dictionary - ****wit.


I did, it is defined in terms of a lot of other words from which can choose to
take you a lot of different places.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
tubegarden tubegarden is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default New year's resolution

Hi RATs!

Perhaps a few extra coins on text lubricant might be effective,

Now that 401K payments are preety much over.

Happy Ears!
Al

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Phil Allison Phil Allison is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,444
Default New year's resolution


"John Byrns =Colossal ****ING MORON "


Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then
they will need to know how to design new tube circuits.

** Ambiguous drivel.


Define "new".

Different.

** That is not any sort of definition - ****wit.


It's straight out of the dictionary



** I asked YOU to define what YOU meant by it in the context here.

To remove the bloody ambiguity in YOUR words.

****HEAD !!




** Creativity in any field is a rare talent.

Define "creativity".


** Look it up in a dictionary - ****wit.


I did,



** Shame YOU are an congenital, illiterate ASD ****ed jerk - isn't it ?





...... Phil





  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default New year's resolution

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"John Byrns =Colossal ****ING MORON "


Why not? What if they feel an urge to build something original, then
they will need to know how to design new tube circuits.

** Ambiguous drivel.

Define "new".

Different.

** That is not any sort of definition - ****wit.


It's straight out of the dictionary



** I asked YOU to define what YOU meant by it in the context here.

To remove the bloody ambiguity in YOUR words.

****HEAD !!


You misquoted me, I will repeat what I said again

"It's straight out of the dictionary which you seem to endorse below. It
conveys the meaning I intended."

As you can see I anticipated and answered your second question before you asked
it, even telling you what I meant by it. I meant "different".

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Addendum



John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

Forgot a question mark:

Anyone else made a new year's resolution?


Yes.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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


I told myself not to ever become a grumpy fat old ******* yet again.

My Bicycle also told me the same thing.

Patrick Turner.


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default New year's resolution

Someone said.....

** Ambiguous drivel.



Someone demanded....

Define "new".



Somebody else answered...


Different.


And then it bantered along with .....


And you cannot teach such a rare talent to anyone.

I would question whether the talent to design a valve amplifier is as rare
as
you imply,


** Creativity in any field is a rare talent.


Define "creativity".



"Creative" often means you do a heck of a lot, but the whole operation
isn't profitable.



--
Regards,

John Byrns




All I can say is that its very difficult to be unique these days because
not enough history has been erased. Being different is extremely easy;
you just have to do what legions of engineers would never do, and
whether it sounds good while measuring terribly is a moot point;
if it doesn'r smoke.

Patrick Turner.



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

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
tubegarden tubegarden is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default New year's resolution

On Jan 2, 6:01*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

/snip

and
whether it sounds good while measuring terribly is a moot point;
if it doesn'r smoke.

Patrick Turner.



Hi RATs!

There is no conflict. Measurements are for number crunching.

Listening is for pleasure.

Some may listen for pain, but, any joyful measurements may be
difficult to share.

But, God knows we try, anyhow.

Everyone and everything is unique.

Even an electron is only in one place at a time ... if briefly

Legions of engineers? The folly is not that widespread ...

You and I may be handmade, but, only our insanity insists we are
unique

We cannot know if we are correct, but, we can let the music urge us
toward something better.

We may follow in any direction.

Happy Ears!
Al

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Addendum

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

Forgot a question mark:

Anyone else made a new year's resolution?


Yes.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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


I told myself not to ever become a grumpy fat old ******* yet again.

My Bicycle also told me the same thing.


What sort of bicycle should I purchase? That is one of my three resolutions.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default New year's resolution


"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Ian Iveson wrote:
How would you explain to a novice how to design a valve
amplifier?

I see two possible approaches. One way to begin is to
establish the purpose of the machine, divide that purpose
into a series of processes, and develop a block diagram
of a generic amplifier. The other is to examine various
circuit fragments in order to understand how they, and
their components, behave. These two approaches may be
termed "top down" and "bottom up", respectively. Most
books on design cover both aspects, in one order or the
other. Both can be dealt with using the common logic of
analysis.

Both are problematic. Whichever aspect the novice
encounters first, he will be bemused for lack of prior
understanding of the other. It's hard to grasp a block
diagram without knowing what might be inside the boxes
and why; and it's hard to grasp a fragment such as a
mu-follower without knowing what it might be used for and
why.

Perhaps the novice could be reassured if, in a preface,
the author were to acknowledge these problems, and
provide some logic that the novice might employ to guide
him through the process of learning to design?

This year I have resolved to write such a preface. Ideas
are welcome.

Is the process of design predictable? Can you
characterise the logic of development, from start to
finish?

The best structure, by far, I have come across is in the
late J L Hood's "Valve and Transistor Audio Amplifiers".
Typical circuits are introduced and analysed in
historical context, so the reader becomes aware of the
issues in just the same way as history did. However, the
reason for using such a narrative style is not made
explicit, and so the novice may not get the point.

New valve enthusiasts, and especially young people, are
needed or there'll be nothing left when we all die.

Which won't be this year, I hope.

Anyone else made a resolution.

Best wishes,

Ian






Well, with respect, I think you have decided to solve a
problem that you have decided exists, but in my experence
doesn't in the real world.


I'm unsure wether this is a semantic or a philisophical
difference. If you think that the process of design is not
problematic, then do you at least see it as an issue? If the
difference is philisophical, then perhaps I should make
clear that I believe that most problems still exist even
when a total solution has been found. What is left, in my
view, is problem + solution, rather than no problem. In
summary, just because I perceive the process of learning how
to design to be problematic, doesn't mean that I don't know
the answer, or failing that, have no plan to get to know it.
Otherwise I wouldn't have made my new year's resolution.

As a programmer who started in the 70's I am well aware of
the top down and bottom up design methods, and both work
just fine, the only issue is the middle out one.


My experience as an engineer in various fields, including
programming, has made made it clear that, for any but
trivial designs, both top-down and bottom-up are necessary.
Perhaps you mean that it doesn't matter with which one
starts? I would advise beginning with top-down, myself. How
one can know when to swap from one to the other is moot.

From what I have seen, Phil's answer is just about on the
money, people start wanting to build valve amps because
they want to use valve amps. They already have a goal.


Not, generally I would guess, a particular architecture.
That is, they don't begin with a top-down view of the
amplifier they wish to design. Their goal is merely
"amplifier" as an unknown entity that they hope will perform
a particular task to their satisfaction. A black box with a
set of performance criteria.

And they resolve this by either building a kit, or a
existing well documented design.


Resolve? Do you mean "achieve"? My experience here is that
those who build a kit often do so blindly. It achieves the
same goal, with respect to amplifier procurement, as picking
one from a dealer without listening. They also achieve the
goal of building an amplifier, but not of designing one.
They are unlikely to increase their understanding of
anything other than soldering, and maybe not even that. A
few may learn something from testing and adjusting their
creation.

Some never go further than this point. But some want to
know a bit more, so they read a lot of books, ask a lot of
questions on the internet, and try and follow the design
patterns that already exist, mix and match them to fit
their needs and interests.


Right, OK, this is more like what I'm looking for, thanks.
Some sense of process here. However, although the locus of
the process is interesting, it's the *logic* of the process
that I wish to uncover. What determines when it is advisable
to pursue one of your list of operations, and when another?
Can the apparent flitting from one to another, and the
character of each flit, be determined in advance? Can the
process be planned? Would it help the traveller on this
journey to understand its nature from the outset?

Some then never go past this as they have a block about
maths,


Code for "feckless", IMHO.

so they never go beyond graphical methods. Then a few more
progress to the point of trying to get to the level of
understanding of a EE in the 1950's. But from what I have
seen those that try and get to the 1950's level (I am
trying hard to get there myself) normally have a fair bit
of EE education in their background anyway, so they don't
need the basics explaining to them, and if they did, they
know what books to read to try and make up for the lacks
in the education.

There are a few on the fringes that are doing things that
were not done in the 50's, but they are not inventing new
topologies, they are just updating older ideas using
components that were not available in the 1950's


I wrote of design, not invention. Updating a design is a
form of designing. In my view, anything that requires a
decision about the value of a component, or where to put it,
is a design decision. People who have no knowledge of design
are apt to make the wrong decision, even if it is the
relatively simple matter of replacing a blown component
where no exact replica is available.

In the people I know (which I imagine is a small but
representive subset of the rest of the world) who mess
with valves, there are folk in all the groups, and there
seems to be no lack of interest in learning and building.


Tautological, surely? That is, amongst those with an
interest in valves, there seems to be no lack of interest in
valves.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is full of people who, by
and large, have either no interest in any kind of
engineering whatsoever (because in my view they too are
feckless) or would like to pursue an interest but are lost
for a feasible point of entry. Valve engineering is not
special in that respect. The principles of my preface would
apply equally to all design engineering.

In terms of progress, in my view its simple, 1. Build a
kit, 2. Read Morgan Jones, 3. Buy a copy of RDH and read.
4. Keep reading RDH. And between 1 and 4, build, tinker
and measure a lot.


OK, good, this is a valuable insight, thanks. I note that
your plan appears to be an iterative process, being build,
read, build, read, etc. That carries with it the sense of
emerging history that I would wish to convey. It also seems
to make a distinction between modern or state-of-the-art
theory, and stock-in-trade or established theory (or perhaps
peripheral and fundamental, respectively). That would also
help to get across the fact that design is a historical
process, thanks.

It also says something about the relationship between the
pursuits of practice and theory. Is that the same as
bottom-up and top-down, or similar, or something quite
different, would you say? If on the other hand it is all
top-down, or bottom-up, then do you have an alternative plan
that would equally "work just fine"?

Anyway, as I wrote above, I am interested in the *logic* of
your plan. How does the novice designer know when to pass
from one activity to another? Can the details of each sortie
be determined in advance? How, exactly? Can the whole
sequence be summed up in a schedule that the novice can
follow? If not, then why not, exactly? If so, can that
schedule be generalised and applied to all kinds of design
work? What are its variables? Is there some formula that
relates those variables, each to the others?

cheers,

Ian


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Addendum

John Byrns wrote:

What sort of bicycle should I purchase? That is one of my
three resolutions.


How about a "double pylon" made by

http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/

I notice it's remarkably like a Vincent motorcycle, without
the engine, which was the best bit, unfortunately.

From experience with motorcycles, and assuming you are quite
old, I suggest that it is most important that you don't have
too much weight on your arms at cruising speed, but not so
little that the front wheel washes out on fast corners. You
shouldn't be hunched up too much and you should be able to
fully stretch your legs. And you should be able to put at
least one foot flat on the floor without tottering. If you
don't get these things right you may end up in serious pain.
Apart from consideration of ergonomics, everything else
depends on terrain, speed and baggage-handling capability.

Perhaps you might observe what other cyclists use in your
area. Bicycle couriers were happy to advise me and seemed to
know what they were on about, although they have a bias
towards urban freestyling.

There are no cyclists in my area in spite of all the cycle
lanes. Hilly towns are no fun because you have to struggle
up slopes with lungs full of car exhaust.

Ian




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default New year's resolution


"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
...

Anyone else made a resolution.


Yes. Two.

To get my cholesterol level down from 5.6 to 5.0
and my weight down from 76kg to 72kg

Oh and a third. To build an SET amp:-)

Iain



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arny Krueger's New Year's Resolutions Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 0 January 1st 06 06:22 AM
Resolution vs Headroom Dik Ledoux Pro Audio 8 August 30th 05 11:35 AM
Any other year's models fit '93 Civic original radio/cassette? Scott Mumford Car Audio 1 January 16th 05 12:34 AM
All My CDs Are Discounted Until New Year's Day! Harold Marketplace 0 December 30th 03 07:15 AM
Alpine Nav resolution? Dan FlyingPolarBear Car Audio 1 October 18th 03 12:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"