Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:16:22 GMT, John Byrns
wrote: In article , bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns wrote: In article , bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote: isn't this getting rather tiresome? give it a rest. who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7? Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more popular. that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish. You are the one doing the point scoring, not me. Regards, John Byrns au contraire, i i think that this whole group has been infested with nonsense. I have no interest in point scoring or any other kind or scoring. |
#162
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School
Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points? Andre Jute What, the other stuff you fabricated about me? No need to keep proving you a liar. I'll leave it to the others. Jon Real gracious of you, Yaeger, to be so ungracious as to remove from me the onus of discovering if there is anything else I should apologize for. You're your own worst enemy. -- Andre Jute I've said it all before. You weren't listening. I'm bored and finished with this thread / topic. Have a nice evening with your family. Jon |
#163
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
John Byrns wrote: IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling. Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it should have read "aluminum V8". Goes without saying. No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum 90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile). What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of weasel words to me. My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what you mean by "initially contemporaneous". According to Hardcastle, the 198 cu in cast iron V-6 was developed from that engine using some of the design and tooling. And was in production for about a year at the same time as the V-8. It was made from '62-'67 after which GM sold their tooling to Jeep - then bought it back from AMC and produced the 231 cu in V-6 in '75. The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from it. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962 model year for the 90 degree V8. I well remember the events as GM was recruiting new automotive engineering graduates from the college I attended and they had a big display explaining the design, technology, and production of their newly introduced V6. Not only did the V6 obviously follow the aluminum V8 to the market, meaning it came later, but my memory is that GM presented it to the newly minted engineers as a replacement for the ill stared aluminum V8. The other point Hardcastle makes is that the Buick 300 and 340 units are based on that original V-8 using the by now developed thin wall cast iron casting techniques which helped to minimise the weight penalty. -- *Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#164
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 14, 8:35 pm, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com... [Deleted] You are an inherently unreasonable person, Andre, so by definition no productive purpose can come from trying to argue reasonably with you. Those who argue reasonably with me find me eminently reasonable; I'm happy to talk forever. Those who try to shut me up by violence and character assassination, as the Magnequest Scum did under the leadership of you and Michael LeFevre, as your surrogate Worthless Wiecky is trying to do today, eventually discover that I'm eminently reasonable quite until the day that, still smiling and joking and singing about my work, I destroy them for their hubris in attacking free speech. I really don't understand what your beef is: you tried to be a player way outside your league, your methods were immoral, you were soundly beaten (and became a laughingstock with your peers for not realiizing for several years that I whipped your ass on day one), you were thrown out of the game because of your contempt for the rules of decent behaviour and your association with criminals: what else did you expect? But, in any event, Plod, you never tried reason on me; a psychopath like you always confuses his intention with reason. It isn't. For instance, in our very first exchange after this abortive "comeback" you characterisctically committed the gross dishonesty of deliberately snipping my post to make it seems as if I said the opposite of what I did say. When I pointed it out, you went into this snit. Enjoy your misery, sonny; it's all you have left. I'll say again: It's long past time (say, ten years) for your departure. I don't expect you to agree, but it's the truth nonetheless. One of the alltime great failures and mighthavebeens of RAT parachutes in for the weekend because his family is fed up with his maudlin self- pity, and tells me what to do! Thanks for the giggle, Plod. But I still have a couple of projects cooking for my Stax headphone amps, so, with your permission or without, I'm here. -Henry Oh, and I'll do exactly as my morality dictates. It is a sick joke for someone with your record of public immorality to offer me instructions on behaviour. Unsigned out of contempt |
#165
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gentlemen in Audio was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 15, 12:50 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , John Byrns wrote: IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling. Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it should have read "aluminum V8". Goes without saying. Yes, I saw it too, and just passed it by, knowing that John meant the V8. I really can't resist saying that this is the way gentlemen treat an obvious typo by anyone else. This thread gets its very name "More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation" because I was ****ed off by the boorish way in which some parties on these conferences screech every tiny error into a heresy simply to build up their own low self- esteem. There's a right way and a wrong way. Congratlulations to Dave and Arny for showing that there are still gentlemen left here. Andre Jute |
#166
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
The Sin Eater Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 14, 10:51 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
Have a nice evening with your family. Jon Just about the only good advice available, so I took it. Cooked a meal for my family, watched a movie with them. The Sin Eater with Heath Ledger. Superb; better than those millennium movies, one with Arnold Schwarzenegger, one with Gabriel Byrne. Andre Jute Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo |
#167
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com...
It is a sick joke for someone with your record of public immorality to offer me instructions on behaviour. Do you ever let up? -Henry |
#168
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 14, 9:53 pm, bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:16:22 GMT, John Byrns wrote: In article , bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns wrote: In article , bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote: isn't this getting rather tiresome? give it a rest. who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7? Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more popular. that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish. You are the one doing the point scoring, not me. Regards, John Byrns au contraire, i i think that this whole group has been infested with nonsense. I have no interest in point scoring or any other kind or scoring. Are you sure you want to say "or any other kind of scoring", Bill. This is a tube audio group, dedicated to mechanims on which music is played. Music is all about scoring on large lined sheets of paper... Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#170
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Andre - how would you explain this?
On Sep 15, 9:19 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article om, Andre Jute at wrote on 9/15/07 10:38 AM: On Sep 14, 10:51 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote: Have a nice evening with your family. Jon Just about the only good advice available, so I took it. Cooked a meal for my family, watched a movie with them. The Sin Eater with Heath Ledger. Superb; better than those millennium movies, one with Arnold Schwarzenegger, one with Gabriel Byrne. Andre Jute Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo Andre, If you'll note the time of my post, it was 10:51 PM. Dublin time was 3:51 A.M., I believe. We keep Leprechaun Time. That was also 3.51am. When you wrote your reply it was 10:38 AM your time. About 7 hours later. Remember the Zulu witchdoctor who nearly killed me with thirst and sunburn? Among the things I did to pay him back: I would follow him around and tell his three wives what he thought of the younger women, and I was always right, as they could see on his face; they made his life hell for months, until he gave blood for me to stop cursing him. I knew you (or somebody) would say, get a life, spend more time with your family, go cook a barbeque, something like that. So I did, stopping off long enough to take three bets on it (EUR 250 altogther, about USD300) and in the morning there was your letter. Of course, the witchdoctor is smoke and mirrors. It isn't even psychology, just being sensitive to people. Interesting schedule your family keeps during the "evening." Are you sure you're in Ireland -- not Transylvania? http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Going%20wolfie.html ;-) Jon Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey |
#171
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 15, 7:42 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in ooglegroups.com... It is a sick joke for someone with your record of public immorality to offer me instructions on behaviour. Do you ever let up? -Henry Why don't you have the last word, Plod. Make it "goodbye". Andre Jute Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo |
#172
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either! Can we say rock and roll? ;-) IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling. Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it should have read "aluminum V8". No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum 90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile). What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of weasel words to me. How about this: the Buick 90 degree V6 and the oldsmobile aluminum V8 were both introduced for the 1962 model year. My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what you mean by "initially contemporaneous". The Wiki article says that the 215 V8 was introduced in 1961 - IOW, for the 1962 model year. "In 1961 Buick unveiled an entirely new small V8 engine with aluminum cylinder heads and cylinder block." The Wiki V6 article says that the 90 degree V6 was first available for the 1962 model year, which you say below. The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from it. The derivation happened during engineering. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962 model year for the 90 degree V8. No, the Wikipedia says that the aluminum V8 was introduced in 1961, which is when the 1962 model year was introduced in the US. In those days, the new model year cars were introduced in September-October of the previous year. I think they are more flexible about that these days. |
#173
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either! Can we say rock and roll? ;-) IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling. Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it should have read "aluminum V8". No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum 90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile). What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of weasel words to me. How about this: the Buick 90 degree V6 and the oldsmobile aluminum V8 were both introduced for the 1962 model year. My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what you mean by "initially contemporaneous". The Wiki article says that the 215 V8 was introduced in 1961 - IOW, for the 1962 model year. I think that is where you are going wrong, check this "Wiki" article which says that the 215 V8 was "introduced for the 1961 model year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine#215 The Wiki V6 article says that the 90 degree V6 was first available for the 1962 model year, which you say below. The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from it. The derivation happened during engineering. The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in more new tooling. See he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Special The "Wiki" also says "In 1962, the Special was the first American car to use a V6 engine." My memory is that a considerable amount of time elapsed between the introduction of the V8 and the V6, at least a year and probably more. It wouldn't be at all surprised at all if the V6 was introduced later in the 1962 model year and not at the time of the initial introduction of the 1962 models. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962 model year for the 90 degree V8. No, the Wikipedia says that the aluminum V8 was introduced in 1961, which is when the 1962 model year was introduced in the US. In those days, the new model year cars were introduced in September-October of the previous year. Check the above "Wiki" reference for the V8, it specifically says "1961 model year", not the 1962 model year. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#174
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
John Byrns wrote: The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in more new tooling. The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and maintain. The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed. -- Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#175
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 17, 3:58 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , John Byrns wrote: The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in more new tooling. The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and maintain. The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed. Dave, why does the book you have say a) the engine was expensive to make for GM and b) Rover could make it cheaper in much smaller numbers Neither statement makes much sense. Ali isn't that much more expensive as a raw material, and GM, unless they bought the casting in, had already made the investment in design, smelters, whatever is necessary to make a run of ali blocks. With all of that tooling set up, the expense per unit couldn't have been all that much more than per iron block, comparing like with like, a low-run iron block with a low-run ali block. Not knowing the facts, I have no problem imagining a meeting in which the marketing guy says, "That engine is doing our image harm with consumers," and he engineers say, "But--" and the guy at the head of the table says, "**** it, it earns us peanuts. We don't need it. Lose it." On the Rover side, I can easily understand the attraction of a powerful engine already fully developed, without the baggage of the old, heavy heritage engines; a high tech engine of the sort for which the board won't vote development funds. But how you can say, as you did earlier, that Rover could make the engine cheaper is a mystery. Surely Rover never contemplated the sales numbers that GM must have had in mind for this engine (whether achieved or not). And Rover would have had to set up a casting shop, and special machine tools. It may be true that after a few years and with additional uses (in the Range Rover, for instance) that engine eventually became cheap to make, but there is no way the management could have foreseen that. (It is one of the things that makes buying that orphan engine such an inspired decision: good managers not only have good judgement, they have good luck.) I agree with your assessment that Rover wouldn't have worried about the marketing downside of customers not looking after the engine properly, as GM correctly did in their own market. The British had long experience of looking after fiddly engines well, and the Rover bosses could count on them keeping to the instructions. (I seem to remember cross-pushrods in one British engine I rebuilt in my teens -- it looked like an explosion in a hedgehog nest up there -- and that wasn't the only cheap stupidity in Brit engines.) Any advertising man with international experience will tell you Americans are generally more bolshy than anyone else, though they prefer to describe it as "rugged individualism". The upshot is that you have to explain to them ten times why they are supposed to do something, and what the consequences will be if they don't, and then they still think they know better and do exactly the opposite. It's what makes theirs the land of the free but it can also make the marketing of innovations in basic commodities (which a car is in the States) a bit fraught for marketers. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#176
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , John Byrns wrote: The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in more new tooling. I'm willing to concede to John that maybe the V6 lagged the V8 by a model year. However lead times for new engines, even just derivatives, were a lot more than a year. They had planned the V6 before the V8 first saw the light of day. There was no doubt a lot of controversy over this decision within GM so they moved based on a problem that was either predicted or showed up in early pre-release testing. The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and maintain. Eventually making aluminum engines got cheaper, and keeping a good modern coolent in them became accepted practice for all engines. For example, the Vega had a die-cast aluminum engine and was supposedly an economy car. Didn't pan out that way for either GM or the owners! :-( The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed. That seems to be the case. Also, in those days stainless steel and robust corrosion-resistent coatings didn't grow on trees, so the aluminum engine was a bit of an electrolytic nightmare, now easily addressed with modern coolants. |
#177
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote: The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and maintain. The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed. Dave, why does the book you have say a) the engine was expensive to make for GM and b) Rover could make it cheaper in much smaller numbers I didn't mean to say Rover could actually make it cheaper per unit cost. Both are relative. GM would expect a unit cost *way* below one that Rover could sustain - Rover was an upmarket brand similar to Jaguar in some ways and their large cars which this engine was intended for way above the average UK car cost. Probably over double. The Buick, on the other hand, was a pretty ordinary car in the US at or near the bottom cost wise of home produced cars? Neither statement makes much sense. Ali isn't that much more expensive as a raw material, and GM, unless they bought the casting in, had already made the investment in design, smelters, whatever is necessary to make a run of ali blocks. With all of that tooling set up, the expense per unit couldn't have been all that much more than per iron block, comparing like with like, a low-run iron block with a low-run ali block. Not knowing the facts, I have no problem imagining a meeting in which the marketing guy says, "That engine is doing our image harm with consumers," and he engineers say, "But--" and the guy at the head of the table says, "**** it, it earns us peanuts. We don't need it. Lose it." Well, aluminium has always been a much more expensive material than cast iron both to buy and work. And saving a few dollars per unit over a production of millions makes a big difference to profits. Not the same with the relatively low volume Rover production - and besides cars have always been much more expensive in the UK than US. Rover also went to a cheaper casting method - sand cast. Suited to their volumes. Die cast is cheaper for large volumes but needs a big investment. On the Rover side, I can easily understand the attraction of a powerful engine already fully developed, without the baggage of the old, heavy heritage engines; a high tech engine of the sort for which the board won't vote development funds. But how you can say, as you did earlier, that Rover could make the engine cheaper is a mystery. Surely Rover never contemplated the sales numbers that GM must have had in mind for this engine (whether achieved or not). And Rover would have had to set up a casting shop, and special machine tools. That's it in a nutshell. IIRC the Buick unit sold more in its few years than in the 30 or so as made by Rover. It may be true that after a few years and with additional uses (in the Range Rover, for instance) that engine eventually became cheap to make, but there is no way the management could have foreseen that. (It is one of the things that makes buying that orphan engine such an inspired decision: good managers not only have good judgement, they have good luck.) They will have compared likely production costs against the engines they already made. If in the same ballpark it would be economical. Perhaps had GM still made it they could have bought it in from them cheaper. But that option didn't exist. I agree with your assessment that Rover wouldn't have worried about the marketing downside of customers not looking after the engine properly, as GM correctly did in their own market. The British had long experience of looking after fiddly engines well, and the Rover bosses could count on them keeping to the instructions. (I seem to remember cross-pushrods in one British engine I rebuilt in my teens -- it looked like an explosion in a hedgehog nest up there -- and that wasn't the only cheap stupidity in Brit engines.) It's only really a question of using the correct coolant year round. Something we're all used to these days. Otherwise it required little maintenance - hydraulic tappets were a bit of a novelty in the UK in those days. Any advertising man with international experience will tell you Americans are generally more bolshy than anyone else, though they prefer to describe it as "rugged individualism". The upshot is that you have to explain to them ten times why they are supposed to do something, and what the consequences will be if they don't, and then they still think they know better and do exactly the opposite. It's what makes theirs the land of the free but it can also make the marketing of innovations in basic commodities (which a car is in the States) a bit fraught for marketers. It's interesting that many US driver still want to change engine oil every 3000 miles. The last 'ordinary' UK car I know of that needed that was in the '50s. So why your less highly stressed units in a country that used to have very low speed limits needed such care, I don't know. -- *I brake for no apparent reason. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Williamson kt66 mono amp and pwr supply $400 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS. Williamson kt66 amp (acrosound 300 transformer) $400 | Marketplace | |||
Williamson Amplifier-a good web page | Vacuum Tubes | |||
neatly built Williamson monoblocks | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS: WILLIAMSON G-400 Mono Power Amps | Vacuum Tubes |