| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Iain Churches wrote: "TT" wrote in message ... "Mark" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... I have updated my page on measuring tube amp noise. Any comments/additions would be appreciated http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...eAmpNoise.html -- My tube amp makes a noise why I turn up the volume knob. Is that what you mean? ...duh! Iain Well, you did say ANY comment would be appreaciated.  Here's a comment then, "Don't give up your day job because you will starve trying to be a comedian". :-) BTW for the record this is one of the reasons why I don't have valve gear, the hiss, hum and other noises are a put off! It is not too difficult to build a tube powered system which is totally silent with the CD player on pause, even ear-against-the-speaker. "Inky blackness" my pal Richard calls it. My 50W PPP EL34 amp has a SNR of 106dB that's 10dB better than a CD:-))) 50 watts into 8 ohms = 20Vrms of signal, and if the noise was 106dB below this, unweighted, 20Hz to 20kHz -3dB BW, then noise = 20V / 200,000 = 0.2mV. This is a fair result achieved easily with most tube power amps if competently designed and not faulty. As long as the noise stays low with an increase of signal level then the noise won't be heard. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...em/C50_002.jpg Tube amps usuallly have fairly simple linear PSUs but they need quite a lot of good iron to perform well, and this is first place where builders try to cut corners. The amp shown above has a C-L-C-L-C-R-C supply chain with each stage fed separately. To achieve the above good noise figures, the power supply filtering does not have to be so good for PP circuits and a basic CLC for OPT CT supply is usually very adequate, and Quad-II with their appalling toy like PS simply relied on common mode rejection to allow a good noise performance. But the Quad22 preamp was not so hot. Also special attention needs to be paid to the grounding scheme (there is a good thread on this topic with plenty of info on RAT at the moment) and also to the heater and anode supplies. It can be done. It is well worth the effort - especially if it's a homebrew amp:-) All that is basic good practice. Chinese amps are not silent because, to cut costs, they often have AC heaters and very basic supplies. Some very cheaply priced Chinese Kracker Amplifiers which go off in smoke after a month's use are very quiet, but also very poorly designed in other ways, and they go noisy if at first they were not, simply because of the initial balance of Idc in each half of the OPT and the CMRR in class A PP, like Quad-II. AV heaters do help, but Quad-II never had AC heaters, and hum from heaters was low. Iain You have referred us to your web page on tube amp noise where you introduce the subject with... """"""Measuring Tube Amplifier Noise. Unlike distortion, which is a produced by the amplifier and added to the input signal during the amplification process, amplifier noise is not signal related. It can sometimes be heard during low volume passages of music, and can be measured when there is no input signal present. Such measurements are usually taken with the input grounded. In a tube amplifier, the internal noise is caused by the components which comprise the circuit, such as tubes, resistors, capacitors, gain controls etc. The power supply may add ripple voltage, and there also may be magnetic coupling through the chassis which will cause hum. The noise level can be quoted in two ways, in decibels, referred to the maximum power output, or as a voltage. The first method may be misleading, as the amplifier under test may rarely be reproducing music at full power in the normal listening environment. """""""" I have a few comments. Amplifier noise can be signal related if the noise increases with increased signal. Class AB amps are subject to this phenomena since the PSU has to provide additional Idc to the output stage as the amp crosses over from the class A to AB threshold. Most certainly, the noise of any amp should be measured with its input terminal grounded. For quietest noise performance, series resistance between the input terminal and grid should be minimal, about 3k3 maximum. Large anode swing signals in class AB are therefore in series with PSU ripple at the CT, and not rejected by CMRR, and this rectifier noise is in the output unless excellent hum filtering is used along with a large value of C between the CT ands 0V. The noise of a typical 3 stage amplifier is usually determined by the FIRST tube in the line up. Adding NFB does nothing to reduce the noise in the input tube grid circuit which is responsible for most noise in most power and preamps. SO, if we have done our design homework we will have applied DC to the heaters of at least V1 of a 3 stage amp. We will have chosen the input tube carefully for low grid noise and microphony, especially important with a phono or microphone amp. Suppose we have chosen a quiet 6CG7 for the input tube to a power amp. The grid noise with dc to the heaters will be perhaps 2uV. If the gain with NFB of the power amp is say 20x, or 26dB, then the noise at the output from grid input noise will be 20uV x 20 = 400uV, or 0.4mV. Usually hum from other sources within the amp might equal this hiss noise from the grid and the final outcome could thus be 1.41 x 0.4mV = 0.56mV and quite OK. Phono preamps and mic amps have lots more gain yet the grid noise is the same as above with 2uV being typical noise. So you need a large input signal to get a 60dB SNR. The tube preamp will be the amp which determines the noise figure. I have said a lot more on how to measure preamp tube noise at rec.audio.tubes, and how to test each triode for its noise by amplifying the anode output noise with grid grounded using a typical well measuring opamp preamplifier, gain = 1,000, and with 20Hz to 20kHz BW. Its noise will uisually be well below the tube noise which is being tested. Most ppl wouldn't use a tube to amplify a low level mic signal. They'd have a fet at the input, or a step up tranny. Ditto MC phono. With Phono, the BW of the amp is reduced from 20Kz-20kHz to 20Hz-50Hz because of the RIAA filter. The bandwidth is reduced by a factor of (50 - 20) / (20,000 = 20) = approx to 30/20,000 = 0.0015, and noise is reduced by the square root of this bandwidth reduction factor, ie, by a factor of 0.038 So, if the 20kHz BW noise at the input was 2uV, and gain was say 10,000 without RIAA then noise at the output = 2uV x 10,000 = 20mV, which is loud as bugary! But with RIAA, noise becomes 20mV x 0.038 = 0.76mV, and mainly all rumble at LF and which does not offend the ear as much as it would if the noise was unattenuated at say 1 kHz. SO, if the signal was 0.76Vrms at the output of the phono amp, we'd have an SNR = 60dB. In practice, this would be hopelessly too noisy unless we had a large input signal from an MM cart, and so to get a phono amp to be quiet with tubes we need a step up tranny or use a fet input stage which is tyically 10 times quieter than any tube, because of the higher transconductance. More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. A typical tube phono input preamp using a well chosen 12AX7 meant for MM will need at least 2mV of average input signal to give a good enough SNR for most ppl, but 5mV is better, say from a Shure V15. If an MC cart with typically 0.4mV of rated input is used you should hear the amp noise being louder than the noise from an un-modulated vinyl groove. Hence the need for the quieter fet input for MC. Step up trannies with 1:10 voltage ration will lift MC signals from 0.4mV to 4mV without adding noise. The typical output resistance of MC = 20ohms, and such a low Z means very low noise is made by this resistance. When the signal is inceased, the low noise of the 20 ohms is also increased, but the SNR is very good at this early point in the circuit, and better than the following amp. In the past very few commercial phono amps or phono stages within integrated preamps ever had a step up transformer for MC, unless it was used for professional studios or used in broadcast stations. I recall that after FM broadcasting was introduced to Oz in the 1970s, many vinyl records were used as signal source, and usually MC was used. MM was a basically a consumer friendly vinyl replayer, because a broken/worn stylus was so much cheaper than an MM stylus. I like MC better though. Mic amps are more noise prone because they have no filtering of HF. I have cross posted to rec.audio.tubes where there may be some other ppl able to comment and stay on topic, apart from the usual useless crew of no hopers who warp the topic into an abortion. Patrick Turner. |
|
#2
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
... "TT" wrote in message ... "Mark" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... I have updated my page on measuring tube amp noise. Any comments/additions would be appreciated http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...eAmpNoise.html My tube amp makes a noise why I turn up the volume knob. Is that what you mean? ...duh! Well, you did say ANY comment would be appreaciated. Here's a comment then, "Don't give up your day job because you will starve trying to be a comedian". :-) BTW for the record this is one of the reasons why I don't have valve gear, the hiss, hum and other noises are a put off! It is not too difficult to build a tube powered system which is totally silent with the CD player on pause, even ear-against-the-speaker. "Inky blackness" my pal Richard calls it. My 50W PPP EL34 amp has a SNR of 106dB that's 10dB better than a CD:-))) 50 watts into 8 ohms = 20Vrms of signal, and if the noise was 106dB below this, unweighted, 20Hz to 20kHz -3dB BW, then noise = 20V / 200,000 = 0.2mV. This is a fair result achieved easily with most tube power amps if competently designed and not faulty. As long as the noise stays low with an increase of signal level then the noise won't be heard. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...em/C50_002.jpg Tube amps usuallly have fairly simple linear PSUs but they need quite a lot of good iron to perform well, and this is first place where builders try to cut corners. The amp shown above has a C-L-C-L-C-R-C supply chain with each stage fed separately. To achieve the above good noise figures, the power supply filtering does not have to be so good for PP circuits and a basic CLC for OPT CT supply is usually very adequate, and Quad-II with their appalling toy like PS simply relied on common mode rejection to allow a good noise performance. But the Quad22 preamp was not so hot. Also special attention needs to be paid to the grounding scheme (there is a good thread on this topic with plenty of info on RAT at the moment) and also to the heater and anode supplies. It can be done. It is well worth the effort - especially if it's a homebrew amp:-) All that is basic good practice. Chinese amps are not silent because, to cut costs, they often have AC heaters and very basic supplies. Some very cheaply priced Chinese Kracker Amplifiers which go off in smoke after a month's use are very quiet, but also very poorly designed in other ways, and they go noisy if at first they were not, simply because of the initial balance of Idc in each half of the OPT and the CMRR in class A PP, like Quad-II. AV heaters do help, but Quad-II never had AC heaters, and hum from heaters was low. You have referred us to your web page on tube amp noise where you introduce the subject with... """"""Measuring Tube Amplifier Noise. Unlike distortion, which is a produced by the amplifier and added to the input signal during the amplification process, amplifier noise is not signal related. It can sometimes be heard during low volume passages of music, and can be measured when there is no input signal present. Such measurements are usually taken with the input grounded. In a tube amplifier, the internal noise is caused by the components which comprise the circuit, such as tubes, resistors, capacitors, gain controls etc. The power supply may add ripple voltage, and there also may be magnetic coupling through the chassis which will cause hum. The noise level can be quoted in two ways, in decibels, referred to the maximum power output, or as a voltage. The first method may be misleading, as the amplifier under test may rarely be reproducing music at full power in the normal listening environment. """""""" I have a few comments. Amplifier noise can be signal related if the noise increases with increased signal. Class AB amps are subject to this phenomena since the PSU has to provide additional Idc to the output stage as the amp crosses over from the class A to AB threshold. Most certainly, the noise of any amp should be measured with its input terminal grounded. For quietest noise performance, series resistance between the input terminal and grid should be minimal, about 3k3 maximum. Large anode swing signals in class AB are therefore in series with PSU ripple at the CT, and not rejected by CMRR, and this rectifier noise is in the output unless excellent hum filtering is used along with a large value of C between the CT ands 0V. The noise of a typical 3 stage amplifier is usually determined by the FIRST tube in the line up. Adding NFB does nothing to reduce the noise in the input tube grid circuit which is responsible for most noise in most power and preamps. SO, if we have done our design homework we will have applied DC to the heaters of at least V1 of a 3 stage amp. We will have chosen the input tube carefully for low grid noise and microphony, especially important with a phono or microphone amp. Suppose we have chosen a quiet 6CG7 for the input tube to a power amp. The grid noise with dc to the heaters will be perhaps 2uV. If the gain with NFB of the power amp is say 20x, or 26dB, then the noise at the output from grid input noise will be 20uV x 20 = 400uV, or 0.4mV. Usually hum from other sources within the amp might equal this hiss noise from the grid and the final outcome could thus be 1.41 x 0.4mV = 0.56mV and quite OK. Phono preamps and mic amps have lots more gain yet the grid noise is the same as above with 2uV being typical noise. So you need a large input signal to get a 60dB SNR. The tube preamp will be the amp which determines the noise figure. I have said a lot more on how to measure preamp tube noise at rec.audio.tubes, and how to test each triode for its noise by amplifying the anode output noise with grid grounded using a typical well measuring opamp preamplifier, gain = 1,000, and with 20Hz to 20kHz BW. Its noise will uisually be well below the tube noise which is being tested. Most ppl wouldn't use a tube to amplify a low level mic signal. They'd have a fet at the input, or a step up tranny. Ditto MC phono. With Phono, the BW of the amp is reduced from 20Kz-20kHz to 20Hz-50Hz because of the RIAA filter. The bandwidth is reduced by a factor of (50 - 20) / (20,000 = 20) = approx to 30/20,000 = 0.0015, and noise is reduced by the square root of this bandwidth reduction factor, ie, by a factor of 0.038 So, if the 20kHz BW noise at the input was 2uV, and gain was say 10,000 without RIAA then noise at the output = 2uV x 10,000 = 20mV, which is loud as bugary! But with RIAA, noise becomes 20mV x 0.038 = 0.76mV, and mainly all rumble at LF and which does not offend the ear as much as it would if the noise was unattenuated at say 1 kHz. SO, if the signal was 0.76Vrms at the output of the phono amp, we'd have an SNR = 60dB. In practice, this would be hopelessly too noisy unless we had a large input signal from an MM cart, and so to get a phono amp to be quiet with tubes we need a step up tranny or use a fet input stage which is tyically 10 times quieter than any tube, because of the higher transconductance. More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. A typical tube phono input preamp using a well chosen 12AX7 meant for MM will need at least 2mV of average input signal to give a good enough SNR for most ppl, but 5mV is better, say from a Shure V15. If an MC cart with typically 0.4mV of rated input is used you should hear the amp noise being louder than the noise from an un-modulated vinyl groove. Hence the need for the quieter fet input for MC. Step up trannies with 1:10 voltage ration will lift MC signals from 0.4mV to 4mV without adding noise. The typical output resistance of MC = 20ohms, and such a low Z means very low noise is made by this resistance. When the signal is inceased, the low noise of the 20 ohms is also increased, but the SNR is very good at this early point in the circuit, and better than the following amp. In the past very few commercial phono amps or phono stages within integrated preamps ever had a step up transformer for MC, unless it was used for professional studios or used in broadcast stations. I recall that after FM broadcasting was introduced to Oz in the 1970s, many vinyl records were used as signal source, and usually MC was used. MM was a basically a consumer friendly vinyl replayer, because a broken/worn stylus was so much cheaper than an MM stylus. I like MC better though. Mic amps are more noise prone because they have no filtering of HF. I have cross posted to rec.audio.tubes where there may be some other ppl able to comment and stay on topic, apart from the usual useless crew of no hopers who warp the topic into an abortion. A most interesting & informative post Patrick. I hope to add something by way of a reply tomorrow. ruff |
|
#3
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: It is not too difficult to build a tube powered system which is totally silent with the CD player on pause, even ear-against-the-speaker. "Inky blackness" my pal Richard calls it. My 50W PPP EL34 amp has a SNR of 106dB that's 10dB better than a CD:-))) 50 watts into 8 ohms = 20Vrms of signal, and if the noise was 106dB below this, unweighted, 20Hz to 20kHz -3dB BW, then noise = 20V / 200,000 = 0.2mV. To achieve the above good noise figures, the power supply filtering does not have to be so good for PP circuits and a basic CLC for OPT CT supply is usually very adequate, and Quad-II with their appalling toy like PS simply relied on common mode rejection to allow a good noise performance. Yes. One often sees PP output stages fed straight from the reservoir cap! Also special attention needs to be paid to the grounding scheme (there is a good thread on this topic with plenty of info on RAT at the moment) and also to the heater and anode supplies. It can be done. It is well worth the effort - especially if it's a homebrew amp:-) All that is basic good practice. Easy when you know how:-) It took me a long time by trial and error, and discussion with others, to find out what works and what doesn't. As someone said just recently, the schematic tells you only part of the story. The implementation is a totally different thing. Amplifier noise can be signal related if the noise increases with increased signal. Class AB amps are subject to this phenomena since the PSU has to provide additional Idc to the output stage as the amp crosses over from the class A to AB threshold. Hmm. Yes I see. But one cannot measure the noise floor if the amp is playing music. What would be a typical increase as we move into class AB? Most certainly, the noise of any amp should be measured with its input terminal grounded. For quietest noise performance, series resistance between the input terminal and grid should be minimal, about 3k3 maximum. Yes. That's how I do it. The noise of a typical 3 stage amplifier is usually determined by the FIRST tube in the line up. I found that out, too a long time ago, when pentodes were in vogue! Adding NFB does nothing to reduce the noise in the input tube grid circuit which is responsible for most noise in most power and preamps. Agreed/understood. Wehave discussed this before. SO, if we have done our design homework we will have applied DC to the heaters of at least V1 of a 3 stage amp. We will have chosen the input tube carefully for low grid noise and microphony, especially important with a phono or microphone amp. Suppose we have chosen a quiet 6CG7 for the input tube to a power amp. The grid noise with dc to the heaters will be perhaps 2uV. If the gain with NFB of the power amp is say 20x, or 26dB, then the noise at the output from grid input noise will be 20uV x 20 = 400uV, or 0.4mV. Usually hum from other sources within the amp might equal this hiss noise from the grid and the final outcome could thus be 1.41 x 0.4mV = 0.56mV and quite OK. Thanks. That's good info. I am working on a power amp with a 6CG7 front end. I will take somne measurements and see how it adds up. Phono preamps and mic amps have lots more gain yet the grid noise is the same as above with 2uV being typical noise. So you need a large input signal to get a 60dB SNR. I use 5mV input and 44dB gain (0.775V out) as a design target. It seems to be difficult to better SNR 72dB without a FET or transformer at the input. I have said a lot more on how to measure preamp tube noise at rec.audio.tubes, and how to test each triode for its noise by amplifying the anode output noise with grid grounded using a typical well measuring opamp preamplifier, gain = 1,000, and with 20Hz to 20kHz BW. Its noise will uisually be well below the tube noise which is being tested. Yes. I built a 60dB "measuring amp" with a Hardy type 990 discrete Op-Amp. It rather overkill but I had a box of then. Then I got the Radford ANM3 psophometer (audio noise meter) which has a resolution better than 10µV full scale, on the most sensitive setting. That was a real eye opener! http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...adfordANM3.jpg It can also measure wide band, audio band, and with various weighting factors. Most ppl wouldn't use a tube to amplify a low level mic signal. There are some very good tube mic preamps available. Many old Neumann studio mics, type U47, U49, U50 which were converted to FET in the 1970s have since been converted back again:-) The bandwidth is reduced by a factor of (50 - 20) / (20,000 = 20) = approx to 30/20,000 = 0.0015, and noise is reduced by the square root of this bandwidth reduction factor, ie, by a factor of 0.038 So, if the 20kHz BW noise at the input was 2uV, and gain was say 10,000 without RIAA then noise at the output = 2uV x 10,000 = 20mV, which is loud as bugary! But with RIAA, noise becomes 20mV x 0.038 = 0.76mV, and mainly all rumble at LF and which does not offend the ear as much as it would if the noise was unattenuated at say 1 kHz. Yes indeed. When I was at Decca, we trainees cut some vinyl with the RIAA record curve switched out, so that it could be replayed through a mic preamp. The surface noise (normally attenuated by the RIAA repro curve) was horrendous. In addition, the LF took up so much lateral space (as it was not attenuated on record) that onlyt about 10-12 mins of playing time was possible. I have cross posted to rec.audio.tubes where there may be some other ppl able to comment and stay on topic, apart from the usual useless crew of no hopers who warp the topic into an abortion. Thanks! Is nice to find someone is still interested. It was alarming to see how fast the thread on Ground busses was morphed into an argument about the relative merits of PC and Mac. Regards Iain |
|
#4
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... SNIP More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. **Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long time. Here's a few patent references: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...d3915900a7771e http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457 Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. Having said all that, practical FETs did not arrive until around 1958. Long after RDH4 was written. Trevor Wilson |
|
#5
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:19:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... SNIP More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. **Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long time. Lilienfeld's FET is not a jFET. Here's a few patent references: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...d3915900a7771e http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457 Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. There was the not entirely trivial problem of being unable to make them. As the story goes, Shockley was unsuccessfully trying to make a field effect device (FET) like Lilienfeld's and, in investigating the problem, Bardeen and Brattain stumbled upon the point-contact bipolar transistor. You have a similar 'theory' vs 'make it' problem with lasers, the basic theory stemming from Einstein in 1917 but it took till 1960 for the first ruby laser to work. And Gabor developed the theory of holography in 1948, over a decade before there was a laser to make one with. **You're wrong. I saw a MacGyver episode which clearly showed a practical, working laser, from the 4th or 5th century. :-) Trevor Wilson |
|
#6
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
On Mar 17, 4:21*am, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:19:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... SNIP More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. **Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long time. Lilienfeld's FET is not a jFET. Here's a few patent references: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...&RPN=CA272437&... http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457 Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. There was the not entirely trivial problem of being unable to make them. As the story goes, Shockley was unsuccessfully trying to make a field effect device (FET) like Lilienfeld's and, in investigating the problem, Bardeen and Brattain stumbled upon the point-contact bipolar transistor. You have a similar 'theory' vs 'make it' problem with lasers, the basic theory stemming from Einstein in 1917 but it took till 1960 for the first ruby laser to work. And Gabor developed the theory of holography in 1948, over a decade before there was a laser to make one with. Having said all that, practical FETs did not arrive until around 1958. Long after RDH4 was written. Trevor Wilson The interesting thing is the visible acceleration between conception and practical execution. -- Andre Jute |
|
#7
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Trevor Wilson wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... SNIP More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. **Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long time. Here's a few patent references: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...d3915900a7771e http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457 Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. Having said all that, practical FETs did not arrive until around 1958. Long after RDH4 was written. It has been said by some folks that had someone been able to make a reliable and useful and saleable j-fet or mosfet devices before the germanium transistor was invented then nobody would have bothered with germanium. Germanium transistors were rather awful creatures and every real tubeman laughed at them. Then came the silicon variety, and nobody laughed any more, they cried instead. The consecutive discoveries only became important when there was an application, and now developments spur applications, and applications spur development, and as a species we have learnt to develop many things just for the heck of it because a good use will come along soon enough and money can be made. Usually good uses are defined as being initially useful to the military, so its all a sham anyway..... Now the boffins are into quantum computers and goodness knows what they use, but the holy grail is to have a computer not very big, that can operate like all the PCs now in the world combined, only 1,000 times faster. I dunno what the basic unit is, certainly not a fet, triode or anything I know. The CIA will be able to send a remote nano bot to your toilet seat and relay messages back to the Pentagon about who else other than yourself had a **** this morning, and then work out whether anyone had any rotten anti-establishment thoughts over a glass of plonk the night before. Other nano bots can be sent in to take you out, and unless you have a country as powerful as the US, or as China will be, then youse got no chance. Never mind 1984, wait until 2084, or 3084, and then the fun really begins, but you'll think its just normal...... The trouble is that the Universe contains an infinite amount of information about its own composite nature and about what goes on at every part of it including the billions of planets with life like/unlike ours. Humans have only tiny little finite brains, only very recently evolved from apes, so we have an increasingly difficult task ahead of us to know more about how the Universe and all its matter ticks and tocks. So we need to have more powerful computers and better devices. Meanwhile, a lot of wisdom could be classified as noise because there isn't much of a positive result; the more we know, the bigger the mess we make of the planet, and each advance against noise, polution, inefficiencies, corruption simply leads to more negative activities that have not been reformed. So when we got computers, everyone was fascinated, and they never bothered to fix all the other problems. So if we had free non polluting energy, we'd all have money left over to spend on more timber for houses, and dang, there goes the last bit of forest. So having less noise in amplifiers and all the other gear spurred the the recording and broadcasting industries, and while musing with music, we forgot to solve other problems. Somebody rich and famous and able to go to the theatre each night of the week said in 1890, when the first phonograph was played, " Damn it George, now we'll have to put up with this rubbish being able to be heard again and again. " There was a time when an average person might have heard an orchestra about an average of 0.85 times in a lifetime, and had to put up with the noise at the local pub. For the Godly, who never went to Pubs, there was **** all else to do at night, and not many folks about, so blokes just blew out the candle and had another root, and very soon too many people were about. If only we could fix all the problems like we fixed amplifier noise, than we all decided to have less instead of more. This would be a real triumph for hu-manity, and hu-womanity. Patrick Turner. Trevor Wilson |
|
#8
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
flipper wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:27:10 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... SNIP More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. **Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long time. Here's a few patent references: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...d3915900a7771e http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457 Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. Having said all that, practical FETs did not arrive until around 1958. Long after RDH4 was written. It has been said by some folks that had someone been able to make a reliable and useful and saleable j-fet or mosfet devices before the germanium transistor was invented then nobody would have bothered with germanium. The operative phrase is "had someone been able to make (it)" Germanium transistors were rather awful creatures and every real tubeman laughed at them. At the time, germanium was the only crystalline semiconductor material that could be made pure enough to work Then came the silicon variety, and nobody laughed any more, they cried instead. Everybody had known that silicon would be a better material but it was Texas Instruments discovering a way to make silicon pure enough that made them possible. People way underestimate, like generally ignore, the contribution of materials and manufacturing technology to a 'great idea'. The consecutive discoveries only became important when there was an application, There is seldom a 'shortage' of applications. The problem is usually in being able to make whatever it is. For example, almost all of the automobile's mechanical devices we consider 'modern' were tried within a decade or two of the automobile's invention. But 'automatic transmissions' made with leather belts don't last very long and turbochargers made with the crude metallurgy of the day burned up, not to mention the problem of how you keep the heads and seals on the block with that much power in the cylinder. Same kind of problem with the gasoline engine itself. People thought it would be a good idea but no one could make cylinders and pistons accurate enough to contain the explosive force and the steam engine's solution of leather seals just didn't cut it. and now developments spur applications, and applications spur development, and as a species we have learnt to develop many things just for the heck of it because a good use will come along soon enough and money can be made. The reason people 'make money' is because other people find their idea/invention useful. This is called a 'good thing'. And its called a good thing even when the result is bloody misery for many and only good for a few, like the invention of the atomic bomb. Think of the "better" purposes that the expenses wasted on arms world wide could have been spent on. One man's good idea is a devil of an idea to another. Usually good uses are defined as being initially useful to the military, so its all a sham anyway..... There are infinitely more things invented for peaceful purposes, such as Franklin's lightning rod to prevent house fires, the steam engine for pumping water out of mines, the steamboat for passenger and freight service, the telephone coming from Bell's work with the deaf, the vacuum tube triode for telephone repeater service, and the transistor coming from a search for a better telephone 'relay' switch. Wars hustled the whole inventionality along at a great rate of knots, no? Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? Thousands more than necessary were shot because of it and because men didn't know how to resolve issues peacefully. But you make interesting points about the importance of technical feasablity. I heard that young bright scholars were talking dreamily about digital information transfer in the cafes of the 1930s, and knew a whole new world awaited them. But huge numbers of very cheap fast switches were required, and memory storage. Then WW2 got in the way a bit and many inventions were needed to fix that problem. Another 20 years passed and technology matured a tiny bit and then in 1997 the Internet became mainstream, ie, slightly more "maturity," and now we find we are still scratching on the very surface of knowledge about lots of things, and in 100 years time our wonderful technical revolution of the last century will seem like very inefficient and wasteful horse and buggy days. We may look back and think the whole deal about the Internet to be the height of imaturity and waste. But we have better dentists and doctors than in Athens in 500BC. ( Mind you, Micheal Moore has a few words to say about modern health care... ) Life was grand in 500BC, to be sure, and quite good enough in many ways, except for the brutal dentists, and the doctors who'd more likely speed your death from some minor ailment. snip of 'hate mankind' babble Quite OK with me Flipper. I find much to dislike about humanity. Don't let it bother you. Patrick Turner. |
|
#9
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison Keith |
|
#10
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
keithr wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison Easier to kill everything and think and talk later, the good ol american way! Well, if you kill everything, you don't have to talk later. Problems are so much more easily solved when you have simply blown it away. And wild bison could be replaced with cattle ranches. We had a similar policy here in Oz. We tried to get the aboriginies to breed themselves out of existance. Many horrid ways were found to discourage them. Our Govt has just publically apologized for all the crap, and number od indigenous are increasing. We have to invent the wisdom to ensure everyone gets a fair go. There are more dead kangaroos killed by the roadside than ever before. If they were bison, they'd make a bigger mess of a car when you hit one. Hitting an average roo is about like hitting an average 10 yr old kid. Grim, but country dwellers are used to the carnage of Oz wildlife. They are not inclined to double fence heights. But you are right, but wasn't it the spiral rifling in barrels and the bullet and cartridge which was faster to reload than the muzzle loader and powder was it not? We had a documentary I saw about the American Civil War shown here about 10 years ago when I may have watched it. Invented "better devices" were of great assistance to whoever won. But how many Americans die on the roads each year? So just how good is the motor car? What will americans do when oil runs out? Its better to stay at home and pipe your music through some ever so slightly noisy tubes than go out searching for an ultimate experience. But most western civilisations are afflicted by the affluenza disease where the more you get, the more you want. We are gonna affluend the whole ****ing planet. Not by tommorrow, but in a thousand years things will have to be very different indeed if our species is to survive; hint, let's genetically modify our species, and then we can live in any sort of world. First we have GM crops, then GM animals, and why the heck not GM people? If we get all the problems we see around us fixed, we'll get bored out of our minds, so ppl will think of new exciting things, like having GM kids to win gold medals at the Olympics, and then we will move right along from there..... All the rules we know now are set to be broken by the coming explosion of knowledge. Patrick Turner. Keith |
|
#11
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Patrick Turner wrote: But how many Americans die on the roads each year? About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head of population here in the UK. Graham |
|
#12
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: But how many Americans die on the roads each year? About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head of population here in the UK. I have never driven in the US, but even in various countries in the EU the difference in the driving standard is quite marked. Despite the high level of traffic density, the British are still very polite, and very flexible road users. Even though they still insist on driving on the wrong side, at speeds measured in mph, I enjoy driving there very much. Iain |
|
#13
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Trevor Wilson |
|
#14
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: But how many Americans die on the roads each year? About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head of population here in the UK. **Presumably, seat belts are compulsory to wear in the UK? Like pretty much most places, except most of the US. Americans prefer to exhibit their freedoms, by demanding not to wear seat belts. [Shakes head] Apparently they gain a good deal of satisfaction by dying in automobile accidents. Trevor Wilson |
|
#15
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... keithr wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison Easier to kill everything and think and talk later, the good ol american way! Shoot first and ask no embarissing questions later. Well, if you kill everything, you don't have to talk later. Problems are so much more easily solved when you have simply blown it away. And wild bison could be replaced with cattle ranches. We had a similar policy here in Oz. We tried to get the aboriginies to breed themselves out of existance. Many horrid ways were found to discourage them. Our Govt has just publically apologized for all the crap, and number od indigenous are increasing. The histories of the Aboriginals and the North American Indians have a lot of parallels, they were both the subject of genocide which I suppose was considered acceptable in those days. They both have problems with alcohol, but the Indians are better off these days than the Aborigionals since they own their own reservations which are effectively independant little states. So they own their mineral rights, and, since they are not subject to state law, are free to run casinos in states where gambling is not allowed. some tribes have become quite rich on that. We have to invent the wisdom to ensure everyone gets a fair go. There are more dead kangaroos killed by the roadside than ever before. If they were bison, they'd make a bigger mess of a car when you hit one. Hitting an average roo is about like hitting an average 10 yr old kid. Grim, but country dwellers are used to the carnage of Oz wildlife. They are not inclined to double fence heights. If you drive in New Hampshire in the US, you see huge yellow signs saying "Brake For Moose". I don't know if you have ever seen a moose, but anybody encountering on on the road and not braking, would definitely have a faulty sense of self preservation. But then New Hampshire is different, seatbelts are compulsory until the age of 18 then who cares, they also have safety rest stops on the freeways that inevitably contain a state run liquor shop. But you are right, but wasn't it the spiral rifling in barrels and the bullet and cartridge which was faster to reload than the muzzle loader and powder was it not? First came the paper cartridge (which set off the Indian mutiny) and rifling then the percussion cap then the breech loader and the metallic cartridge (The Martini Henry rifle for instance) and lastly the repeating rifle. We had a documentary I saw about the American Civil War shown here about 10 years ago when I may have watched it. Probably the one made by PBS, the nearest thing that the yanks have to the ABC. If so, it was a very good program, about 5 episodes I think. Invented "better devices" were of great assistance to whoever won. But how many Americans die on the roads each year? I don't know, probably similar per capita to here. So just how good is the motor car? At what? If you live in Australia or the US, and you are in the middle classes, chances are you live in a spread out suburb, and a car is an essential part of life. If you live in Europe or Japan there is a much greater chance that you live in a high density area with reasonable public transport and the car is a luxury. When I lived in Weston Creek, I don't think that I could have done without a car, now I live on the north coast of NSW I still need it, carrying the groceries up the hill from Woollies would be a drag on foot. To get to the major shops by bus would be an all day job and then there would be the problem of carrying the purchases home, I can't see the bus driver being impressed with me carrying a 6 metre length of pipe from Bunnings on his bus. So I need my car, but in general, I only need to fill it up every 3 weeks or so. What will americans do when oil runs out? Thats a way off yet, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, although it will get progressively more expensive. It has gone up more in the US than here. When I went to live there in 1998, petrol was 90c per gallon (4 litres) there and just under $1 per litre here. Now it is pushing $1.50 here but $4.00 per gallon there. Someone has come up with a process to turn carbon dioxide and water into hydrocarbon fuel, that could kill two stones with one bird but at what cost has yet to be determined. The biggest red herring is bio fuel, the world will starve if they try to replace oil with that. Its better to stay at home and pipe your music through some ever so slightly noisy tubes than go out searching for an ultimate experience. Depends what you like, peronally I have never found a system that can come near the live performance, and that usually involves some travel. But most western civilisations are afflicted by the affluenza disease where the more you get, the more you want. We are gonna affluend the whole ****ing planet. That was predicted back in the 60's when the "Club of Rome" put out their report "The limits to growth", they were laughed at then.The author Vance Packard also wrote a number of prophetic books like "The Wastemakers" but those views weren't fashionable and clashed with the basic tennets of capitalism Not by tommorrow, but in a thousand years things will have to be very different indeed if our species is to survive; hint, let's genetically modify our species, and then we can live in any sort of world. First we have GM crops, then GM animals, and why the heck not GM people? If we get all the problems we see around us fixed, we'll get bored out of our minds, so ppl will think of new exciting things, like having GM kids to win gold medals at the Olympics, and then we will move right along from there..... All the rules we know now are set to be broken by the coming explosion of knowledge. I don't know about an explosion of knowledge, but there is an explosion of information. When I started with the company that I work for we sold computer storage units that could hold 128 9 gig drives, now the biggest model can contain 2700 1 terrabyte drives. Where all that information is comming from and why people find the need to keep it is beyond me, but I suppose that it keeps a roof over my head and puts a bit by for retirement. Keith |
|
#16
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: But how many Americans die on the roads each year? About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head of population here in the UK. **Presumably, seat belts are compulsory to wear in the UK? Like pretty much most places, except most of the US. Americans prefer to exhibit their freedoms, by demanding not to wear seat belts. [Shakes head] Apparently they gain a good deal of satisfaction by dying in automobile accidents. Trevor Wilson In Massachusetts at least, the law says that you have to wear a seatbelt, but a policeman cannot stop you for just that. He can only charge you for failing to wear a seatbelt if he detected another offence. In New Hampshire, you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you are over 18, you don't need to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike either. I don't know about the other states, but Americans definitely do not like seatbelts which is why a lot of them die in SUV rollovers. Keith |
|
#17
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Trevor Wilson A typical supply and demand situation, after the Civil War (what an oxymoron) there was a lot of surplus supply of weapons to the arms manufacturers went out to create a demand where previously there was none. Just look who bankrolls the NRA, arguably the most powerful lobby group in the US. Keith |
|
#18
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"keithr" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Trevor Wilson A typical supply and demand situation, after the Civil War (what an oxymoron) there was a lot of surplus supply of weapons to the arms manufacturers went out to create a demand where previously there was none. Just look who bankrolls the NRA, arguably the most powerful lobby group in the US. **Of course the rest of the world (and a handful of thinking Americans) can see how the NRA manipulates the political system and the minds of the majority of Americans into thinking that sane gun control is a bad thing. They fail to note the outstanding success of recent gun controls here in Australia, however. The really sad thing, is that the NRA was once a rather proud and noble organisation, which actually was helpful in forcing political change in the US in the first half of last Century. Sometime in the 1960s, however, their purpose was subverted by gun and ammunition manufacturers for a darker purpose. Profit. I guess, at some time, enough Americans will awake from their slumber and demand change. Or not. Still, with the coming recession in the US, violent gun crimes will occur more frequently. Gun related homicides are already in an uptrend (since 2001) They'll either demand easier access to more and higher power weapons (like that's even possible!), or tougher gun controls. Trevor Wilson |
|
#19
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right. **Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Trevor Wilson |
|
#20
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "flipper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right. **Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Trevor Wilson In the US it very much depends on where you live. The town that I lived in for 5 1/2 years in Massachusetts had not one murder in that time, 30 miles away though,in some of the less desirable suburbs of Boston someone was murdered every week. I have a number of otherwise sane friends there who wouldn't be without their guns, there seems to be a paranoia in the country that you need to be ready to defend yourself at all times. This is especially true in the south where you can buy guns at what amount to trash and treasure sale without checks of any sort. In Massachusetts I couldn't own a pistol, you have to be a US citizen to do so, but I could own a hunting rifle as long as I could pass a simple test. In many other states, you just have to show that you are a local resident, are not a felon, and are not a certified (as yet) loony. Keith |
|
#21
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
On Mar 19, 1:54*am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Trevor Wilson At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*- regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000 dead are. Andre Jute Darwin's little helper |
|
#22
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"keithr" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "flipper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right. **Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Trevor Wilson In the US it very much depends on where you live. The town that I lived in for 5 1/2 years in Massachusetts had not one murder in that time, 30 miles away though,in some of the less desirable suburbs of Boston someone was murdered every week. I have a number of otherwise sane friends there who wouldn't be without their guns, there seems to be a paranoia in the country that you need to be ready to defend yourself at all times. **Indeed. What is worse, is that the facts tell us that the 10,000 dead Americans each year have traded their lives so that a handful can own whatever guns they want and to ensure that gun control laws are kept weak, so that bad people have easy access to guns. This fosters further paranoia. The reality is that guns are used by civilians around 200 times per year for self defence. 200 - 10,000. Pretty hard to reconcile the actual facts, huh? This is especially true in the south where you can buy guns at what amount to trash and treasure sale without checks of any sort. **Yep. Therein lies the weakness of the American model. Whilst Federal checks on new gun slaes are reasonable, secondary gun sales are largely unregulated throughout much of the US. In Massachusetts I couldn't own a pistol, you have to be a US citizen to do so, but I could own a hunting rifle as long as I could pass a simple test. In many other states, you just have to show that you are a local resident, are not a felon, and are not a certified (as yet) loony. **Yep. Kinda laughable, isn't it? Trevor Wilson |
|
#23
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right. **Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." Separate clause. **The meaning is clear enough. The US Foers refer to a "well regulated militia" as part of the rights to gun ownership. American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read English, such as "the right of the people..." **And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part. They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents, the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government established by the Constitution, and U.S. history. **They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the law by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text had no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008. **Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to reflect the reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that Amendment, given the situation which exists today: * The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power. * Savage natives no longer present a threat. * Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded. In fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of obliterating every armed force on the planet. * Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein. * Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of seconds. * Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to those available several hundred years ago. * Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided a method for this to be accomplished. Trevor Wilson |
|
#24
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
flipper wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:12:54 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: flipper wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:27:10 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... SNIP More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not invented in 1953 when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net and read many books to put themselves in touch with what makes a quiet preamp. **Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long time. Here's a few patent references: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...d3915900a7771e http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457 Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. Having said all that, practical FETs did not arrive until around 1958. Long after RDH4 was written. It has been said by some folks that had someone been able to make a reliable and useful and saleable j-fet or mosfet devices before the germanium transistor was invented then nobody would have bothered with germanium. The operative phrase is "had someone been able to make (it)" Germanium transistors were rather awful creatures and every real tubeman laughed at them. At the time, germanium was the only crystalline semiconductor material that could be made pure enough to work Then came the silicon variety, and nobody laughed any more, they cried instead. Everybody had known that silicon would be a better material but it was Texas Instruments discovering a way to make silicon pure enough that made them possible. People way underestimate, like generally ignore, the contribution of materials and manufacturing technology to a 'great idea'. The consecutive discoveries only became important when there was an application, There is seldom a 'shortage' of applications. The problem is usually in being able to make whatever it is. For example, almost all of the automobile's mechanical devices we consider 'modern' were tried within a decade or two of the automobile's invention. But 'automatic transmissions' made with leather belts don't last very long and turbochargers made with the crude metallurgy of the day burned up, not to mention the problem of how you keep the heads and seals on the block with that much power in the cylinder. Same kind of problem with the gasoline engine itself. People thought it would be a good idea but no one could make cylinders and pistons accurate enough to contain the explosive force and the steam engine's solution of leather seals just didn't cut it. and now developments spur applications, and applications spur development, and as a species we have learnt to develop many things just for the heck of it because a good use will come along soon enough and money can be made. The reason people 'make money' is because other people find their idea/invention useful. This is called a 'good thing'. And its called a good thing even when the result is bloody misery for many and only good for a few, like the invention of the atomic bomb. The 'atom bomb' is only one incarnation of particle physics that also includes everything from x-ray machines to cancer radiation therapy to nuclear power generation. Think of the "better" purposes that the expenses wasted on arms world wide could have been spent on. Like the 'better purpose' of being enslaved? Because the Hitlers, Tojos, Stalins, Ho Chi Minhs and Maos of the world think you even sillier than I do. Hang on, the western allies were always able to outspend and out bomb the nazis or nationalists without an A bomb. Did anyone seriously consider stopping Mao? He killed about 70 million of his own countries ppl and what did we do to stop him? I get the feeling the western leaders were happy to see a Chinese leader reducing China's ""threat"" by reducing its population murderously. Anyway, atomic war knowhow was inevitable. Some things very unpleasant wait in the closits of un-utilised ideas, and then suddenly someone works it out and the closit door is opened; if not some defecting German boffins in the 30s and 40s, then most certainly by someone else, maybe Russians, Chinese if not the Russians, and so on. So we have this silly scene where trillions are spent by the tribes on sharpening their spears but nobody is game to use them. An invention is what man makes of it but 'it', the invention, is neither immoral or moral. So is invention amoral? Usually good uses are defined as being initially useful to the military, so its all a sham anyway..... There are infinitely more things invented for peaceful purposes, such as Franklin's lightning rod to prevent house fires, the steam engine for pumping water out of mines, the steamboat for passenger and freight service, the telephone coming from Bell's work with the deaf, the vacuum tube triode for telephone repeater service, and the transistor coming from a search for a better telephone 'relay' switch. Wars hustled the whole inventionality along at a great rate of knots, no? Inventions don't 'stop' during a war but that doesn't alter the fact that infinitely more are done outside of war. Gee I thought the US became very inventive in war years.... The US was the only country who had a rising standard of living during WW2. This was efficient business at work for Mr and Mrs Worker. and the US became rather High and Mighty as a result. There is good and bad involved in this process and this isn't the group where I would want to discuss it all in detail. Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of 'southern' comment or just have your American wars mixed up. The 'American war of Independence was circa 1776. The Henry repeating rifle was circa 1860. The American Civil war is what I was talking about. If you're a Northerner, the conflict beginning in 1861 was the (American) "Civil War." If you're a hard core Southerner it was the "War of Northern Aggression." If you're neutral is was the "War Between the States." Here in Oz, the war between Union North States and southern Confederates which killed a million men so stupidly is known as the American Civil War. Thousands more than necessary were shot because of it That's just plain silly. Indeed it was silly so many were shot. The war was another case of Grand Stubborness. The 'shooting' stops when one or the other, or both, side(s) have had enough of it. Till then it's 'necessary'. Its stupid until it stops. Absurd, ridiculous, and vain. The object is to have the other side decide 'first' with the least damage to yours. Lives are actually saved... yours. and because men didn't know how to resolve issues peacefully. You have a point. Things can usually be resolved 'peacefully' if you're willing to bow low enough, kneel on command, and kiss enough ass. Well, unless you get someone like Hitler who just wants 'your kind' dead to begin with. In which case dying will resolve it 'peacefully' and NAZI ovens were full of 'peaceful' Jews. A premptive strike on Germany in 1933 mighta done some good. But the means for that to be accurate enough to take out the right guys wasn't perfected. Today there are conflicts still going on with stubborns refusing to give in. And agressors continue to agress. Then the US invades Iraq because of its oil. Sure wasn't because of brocoli. Plenty worse dictators than Saddam have been left alone by the US or its allies. about 3 trillion bucks have been spent by US taxpayers and if the US left tommorow, Iraq would become a bloodbath while they sorted out amoung themselves what to do about who has the power and of course the ****ing oil. And now the US can't raise a good enough force to take on Iran. Western nation young men don't like fighting much. Anyway, I doubt the US will declare war on Iran. They will wait until Iran steps right out of line, like maybe with a nuke on Israel. Then stand well back, for the sparks will fly; it will be very unknown territory into which humanity descends IMHO. There isn't a darn thing I can do to solve the middle east problems, but if the main oil fields become radioactive, then we'll all have to get used to less oil. I've had most of my life, so whether I am right or wrong in my perceptions about what the world is coming to just does not matter one iota because I can't change it a bit, and its why I don't waste hours and hours arguing on line, and why I don't feel a need to be right about the issues. My dear old mum thinks I should attend the University Of The Third Age, and get with people my age to discuss and learn about the world. She's concerned about my lack of social life. Anyway, I don't plan to waste my time talking to anyone much about the world; I do enjoy talking to the few young customers who bring me electronic gear to fix, because they have 50 years to live, and their collective spending habits, decisions and voting habits will shape the future, not my silly old fuddy duddy lot of baby boomers. I only learn what I need to learn that's harmless and which give me an income and which I enjoy. But you make interesting points about the importance of technical feasablity. I heard that young bright scholars were talking dreamily about digital information transfer in the cafes of the 1930s, and knew a whole new world awaited them. But huge numbers of very cheap fast switches were required, and memory storage. Then WW2 got in the way a bit and many inventions were needed to fix that problem. Another 20 years passed and technology matured a tiny bit and then in 1997 the Internet became mainstream, ie, slightly more "maturity," and now we find we are still scratching on the very surface of knowledge about lots of things, and in 100 years time our wonderful technical revolution of the last century will seem like very inefficient and wasteful horse and buggy days. We may look back and think the whole deal about the Internet to be the height of imaturity and waste. Unlikely. We'll wonder how they managed with such primitive technology but admire the ingenuity and effort, like we do with the short lived Pony Express. Never underestimate the ingenuity of your ancestors. The ancient Greeks had it pretty well worked out. But we have better dentists and doctors than in Athens in 500BC. ( Mind you, Micheal Moore has a few words to say about modern health care... ) Michael Moore is a lying ass. Yeah, and whoever said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were lying their ass off as well. Un-truth abounds. Someone lamented the fact that the horse **** was knee deep in big cities in 1890. But they were already up to their armpits in bull****. Gee, you don't have to look far, and there's another pile of bull**** trotted out as facts. Get the boys with their truck ready with their shovels and brooms... Life was grand in 500BC, to be sure, and quite good enough in many ways, except for the brutal dentists, and the doctors who'd more likely speed your death from some minor ailment. What? No 'universal heath care'? Unisys provided the care. A Greek God. You prayed he'd help, and sometimes he did. Sometimes he didn't. But the Greeks realized life wasn't permanent, no big deal if you died today rather than in 3 weeks time. Praying was being seen to be doing something. A placibo. Maybe that's another greek word; I don't know. The Romans could have been a bit worse off. Life expectancy was about 25 years, hey, that's all you need to get old enough to pork a few shielas, and die gloriously in battle, or ungloriously from a ruptured appendix. snip of 'hate mankind' babble Quite OK with me Flipper. I find much to dislike about humanity. Just remember, you 'is' one of it. Exactly. Atoms of H2O which were once in Julious Ceasar or Hitler may now form part of me. We are all one, and breathe the same air. Apparrently, 6 billion ppl breathing puts out more CO2 than does all the world airlines. In my estimation the biggest problem with 'humanity' are the members who have such a low opinion of it, because it doesn't take too many more steps before some of them decide the rest are 'in the way' and/or begin to think about 'purifying' things. So are you saying I am dangerous? Definately not. There'something else required for a Dennis the Menace dictator to get up. Sure he thinks everyone else is up **** creek in many ways, but he is hell bent on changing it all. I am quite happy to have never had children, and i see the human species as a group of slow moving lemmings slowly gathering pace as the mob heads over the cliff. But I am not conning all these available monkeys around me to change anything. Hitler was a very fine orator, he could galvanise millions to act together. George Dubbya by comparison is a dunce, but has been in power over a much more potentially powerful country than Germany ever was or could be. So now the US is bogged in Iraq, peace cannot be declared, because war wasn't declared. Look what it took to get a victory against Germany. Many flattened cities. Finally, they gave up. Too many dead bodies to step over. Dealing with Iraqis is slightly different. They don't give up so easily. They breed sons and daughters who will fight for 100 years if that's how long it takes. They've been squabbling over a lousy dusty arsole of a country for about 8,000 years. But only in recent times do they realize they have their arses pointing to lakes of oil beneath their feet. The Iraqis done nothin to the US. OK, they been a bit naughty about compliance with UN resolutions after the first gulf war where the US had the sense to quit when it did when the alternative was way too tricky. Every country is naughty. Australia even paid "trucking fee" bribes to the Saddam regime during wheat deals. There was a major scandal here about it. We went in with Dubbya in a very minor way, but had helped Saddam arm his army. So an Iraq war really didn't need to be. Oh, except for Oil, ohh farking bloody OIL; it quite bessotted a whole US regime and the multinational company elite and military. And now look at gas prices! Somebody has to pay for it all. The reasons for the war were lies, and trillions have been wasted for want of honesty and consistency. Saddam would have been toppled sooner or later from within, and Sunni rule gone from bad to worse, maybe a revolution mighta happened, and none of that would have cost the US a cent. The oil would have been always there to buy because whoever had power in Iraq needed domani. The west would have had to turn a blind eye to appalling human rights abuses. But it does anyway elsewhere. Don't worry, be happy, unreal eh! Patrick Turner. Don't let it bother you. Patrick Turner. |
|
#25
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: But how many Americans die on the roads each year? About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head of population here in the UK. I have never driven in the US, but even in various countries in the EU the difference in the driving standard is quite marked. Despite the high level of traffic density, the British are still very polite, and very flexible road users. Even though they still insist on driving on the wrong side, at speeds measured in mph, I enjoy driving there very much. Iain Tehran is where its really exciting to drive they say. The death rate from motor accidents is one of the highest in the world. They put their trust in Allah, and as you should know Allah akbah! Its the kinda place I would not be seen dead on a bicycle. India and China are getting more wheels, and as they do the hospitals are filling up.... Patrick Turner. |
|
#26
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Trevor Wilson wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Trevor Wilson I got my american wars wrong. I should have asked, " Was not the repeating rifle a boon the American Civil War? " Patrick Turner. |
|
#27
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Trevor Wilson At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*- regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000 dead are. And a large number of those 10,000 are American school children, shot in school, buy one of their classmates who had access to a sub-machine gun. Suff that one into ure Constitution. Andre Jute Darwin's little helper |
|
#28
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided a method for this to be accomplished. Trevor Wilson No US polititian would even contemplate it, it would be political suicide. Even the non gun nuts would run him out of town for rtemoving one of their "Rights" Keith |
|
#29
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Mark" wrote in message ... At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*- regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000 dead are. And a large number of those 10,000 are American school children, shot in school, buy one of their classmates who had access to a sub-machine gun. A slight exaggeration, even in the US, sub machine guns are hard to come by. Semi automatic pistols however are not in many states (gun laws in the US are state matters and there is a huge difference between states). A lot of the deaths however are accidents and not a few suicides too. I did once hire a Thompson sub machine gun at a range in Las Vagas, but I wasn't allowed to handle it other than to actually fire it down the range. Very cathartic actually filling a large sheet of paper with holes with bits of brass flying everywhere. Beats gambling any day. Keith |
|
#30
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
On Mar 19, 3:33*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: But how many Americans die on the roads each year? About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head of population here in the UK. I have never driven in the US, but even in various countries in the EU the difference in the driving standard is quite marked. Despite the high level of traffic density, the British are still very polite, and very flexible road users. Even though they still insist on driving on the wrong side, at speeds measured in mph, I enjoy driving there very much. Iain Tehran is where its really exciting to drive they say. The death rate from motor accidents is one of the highest in the world. They put their trust in Allah, and as you should know Allah akbah! Its the kinda place I would not be seen dead on a bicycle. India and China are getting more wheels, and as they do the hospitals are filling up.... Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Patrick: I have driven in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A few small points: The term is "in'sh'Allah" meaning "God Willing". I will make this left turn from the right hand lane in'sh'Allah. I will get through this intersection against traffic in'sh'Allah - you get the picture. I would put driving in Riyadh the equal of anywhere in the world based on the white- knuckle factor. The UAE, Jordan, and Bahrain are distant seconds, Istanbul is a piece-of-cake. New York City is a pleasure by comparison. The in-city highway speed limit is 120kph (75mph for those still on the old currency). The most popular vehicle in Saudi is the US-made Chevy Suburban a massive SUV. Women are not permitted to drive. Traffic signals and stop signs are optional, lane markers are meaningless. Merge or die. Desert highway speeds are catch-me-if-you- can. One needs to put American driving in perspective as well. All of Europe could fit inside the US east of the Mississippi. Picking one example, my state: " The total area of Pennsylvania is 45,308 sq mi (117,348 sq km), of which land occupies 44,888 sq mi (116,260 sq km) and inland water 420 sq mi (1,088 sq km). The state extends 307 mi (494 km) E-W and 169 mi (272 km) N-S. Pennsylvania is rectangular in shape, except for an irregular side on the E and a break in the even boundary in the NW where the line extends N-E for about 50 mi (80 km) along the shore of Lake Erie. " This is about half the size of England, and is the 33rd largest state of 50. http://www.wisegeek.com/how-big-are-...in-america.htm gives you more detail. Accordingly, Americans who do not live in the very few cities where personal cars are truly a luxury (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia (barely), Washington DC and a handful of others) drive A LOT. Typically, I drive ~24,000 miles a year (38,400km), of which 2/3 is business. My wife drives about 10,000 (16,000km) miles per year, very little on business. And by US standards we are very conservative in our habits. So, if accidents are a function of being in harm's way, and measured in per-mile-driven rather than per-capita, I would posit that the US accident rate is rather low by comparison. Right now, per NHTSA (as of 2002) fatalities + reportable injuries are running under 2/100,000 (160,000km) miles driven and trending down. Similarly in England, but their rate (also 2002) is just over 2, close-but-below France and so forth. Most of the rest of the world is several orders-of-magnitude higher. Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#31
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Mpffffff... Here is the 2nd Amendment in full, as written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What with three commas, it may be parsed in any number of ways. Keep in mind also that at the time, "arms" consisted of single-shot muzzle loading pistols, rifles and cannon, the very best shooters could get off perhaps three shots in a minute (fewer if accuracy counted). And, as it happened, "people" consisted of male property owners... all of whom were technically eligble for the "Militia". Actually, it is my personal belief as a gun owner that any individual ought to be able to own any weapon whatsoever right up to tactical nukes - provided that they insure them appropriately. Much as about any individual may own about any vehicle they choose - as long a they insure it appropriately. I own several weapons (one of which does happen to be a functional muzzle-loader), all properly insured, and all of them carrying a policy that covers me should they be stolen and used in a crime. A few bucks a year additional on our property insurance but it does give peace-of-mind. But about every Swiss household has a fully automatic weapon in it. Canada has a higher per-capita ownership level (fewer guns per capita, but more individuals owning them), they are simply less prone to using them badly, it seems. And Americans (the home of the Hummer) just like doing things in a big way, even if that big-way is eventually just stupid. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#32
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
On Mar 19, 3:42*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Trevor Wilson I got my american wars wrong. I should have asked, " Was not the repeating rifle a boon the American Civil War? " Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Patrick: The Winchester Repeating Rifle was made practical in 1873. The Henry repeater was patented in 1860, but did not reach _any_ troops until 1862, and even then the vast majority of troops throughout the war use single-shot cap-and-ball rifles. The Gatling Gun came in 1862, but in tiny, nearly meaningless numbers. Then and now, the expression was that it took a man's weight in bullets to kill him. Today, that weight may be distributed more quickly. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#33
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Peter Wieck wrote: Accordingly, Americans who do not live in the very few cities where personal cars are truly a luxury (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia (barely), Washington DC and a handful of others) drive A LOT. Typically, I drive ~24,000 miles a year (38,400km), of which 2/3 is business. My wife drives about 10,000 (16,000km) miles per year, very little on business. And by US standards we are very conservative in our habits. So, if accidents are a function of being in harm's way, and measured in per-mile-driven rather than per-capita, I would posit that the US accident rate is rather low by comparison. Right now, per NHTSA (as of 2002) fatalities + reportable injuries are running under 2/100,000 (160,000km) miles driven and trending down. Similarly in England, but their rate (also 2002) is just over 2, close-but-below France and so forth. Most of the rest of the world is several orders-of-magnitude higher. Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure. So, if you're typical, your mileage is around 1.5 times the UK average. Yet, UK road deaths per head of population are around one THIRD the US rate. How do you account for this apparent mismatch. Does the **average** US driver cover 35,000 mi annually ? Graham |
|
#34
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
On Mar 19, 11:20*am, Eeyore
wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Accordingly, Americans who do not live in the very few cities where personal cars are truly a luxury (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia (barely), Washington DC and a handful of others) drive A LOT. Typically, I drive ~24,000 miles a year (38,400km), of which 2/3 is business. My wife drives about 10,000 (16,000km) miles per year, very little on business. And by US standards we are very conservative in our habits. So, if accidents are a function of being in harm's way, and measured in per-mile-driven rather than per-capita, I would posit that the US accident rate is rather low by comparison. Right now, per NHTSA (as of 2002) fatalities + reportable injuries are running under 2/100,000 (160,000km) miles driven and trending down. Similarly in England, but their rate (also 2002) is just over 2, close-but-below France and so forth. Most of the rest of the world is several orders-of-magnitude higher. Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure. So, if you're typical, your mileage is around 1.5 times the UK average. Yet, UK road deaths per head of population are around one THIRD the US rate. How do you account for this apparent mismatch. Does the **average** US driver cover 35,000 mi annually ? Graham- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do some checking. The average UK vehicle (as of 2002) travels ~12,000 miles annually. This compares with the American average of just over 12,000 miles annually. Keep in mind that nearly every American between age 16 and death owns a car if not several, and irrespective of income. Most of those cars don't go far. Some go exceedingly far. We own three vehicles. All three of them (including my business miles) travel about 40,000 miles per year. Pull out my business miles (16,000 miles) and that comes to about 8000 per vehicle. The reality is 8, 10, and 6. But my risk is elevated as I am driving at 2 x the national average. As the Greyhound Bus driver answered when asked at his 2,000,000 accident-free miles ceremony how he did it: Drive like the other guy's crazy. Excellent advice. Just check deaths + serious injuries per mile driven and see that they compare nearly exactly, or within 1/100,000 throughout the North American and Western Europe. Accidents per head are not an accurate measure. I would bet that a significant segment of the British population simply does not own a motor-vehicle. That greatly skews the figures if based only on a head count. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#35
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
Peter Wieck wrote: I would bet that a significant segment of the British population simply does not own a motor-vehicle. Well, from what I found, there are 25 million cars registered here and 136 million in the USA That's 41% vs 45%. Hardly a huge difference. Graham |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
... The Winchester Repeating Rifle was made practical in 1873. The Henry repeater was patented in 1860, but did not reach _any_ troops until 1862, and even then the vast majority of troops throughout the war use single-shot cap-and-ball rifles. Interesting post Peter. The British Army had rifle regiments by the early 1850s. The King's Royal Rifle Corps was raised in the American Colonies in 1756 as the 62nd Foot (The Royal American Reg't) The Gatling Gun came in 1862, but in tiny, nearly meaningless numbers. There was a British Army song that went: "Pity the poor old hottentot. We have the Gatling gun - he does not!" I think that the first British regiment to repace the musket with the rifle was the 60th Rifles (circa 1854?) Then and now, the expression was that it took a man's weight in bullets to kill him. Today, that weight may be distributed more quickly. During WW1, both the British and the Germans had considerable success with marksmen (sharpshooters) armed with small bore rifles. One shot (through the centre of the forehead) was enough, when one of the enemy was foolish enough to poke his head up above the parapet. The Boers had shown similar skills in South Africa against the British some fifteen years earlier. There is a famous photograph of an entire Bn of British infantry laying in a shallow trench - each man with a bullet hole dead centre above the eyes. By the start of WW1, the mchine gun, which the British were slow to adopt, had made conventional infantry tactics all but suicidal. But still, in 1914 the British swarmed out of their trenches at the blast of a whistle, led by an officer brandishing a revolver, a sword or an umbrella. Iain |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
On Mar 19, 1:03*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... The Winchester Repeating Rifle was made practical in 1873. The Henry repeater was patented in 1860, but did not reach _any_ troops until 1862, and even then the vast majority of troops throughout the war use single-shot cap-and-ball rifles. Interesting post Peter. *The British Army had rifle regiments by the early 1850s. The King's Royal Rifle Corps was raised in the American Colonies in 1756 as the 62nd Foot (The Royal American Reg't) The Gatling Gun came in 1862, but in tiny, nearly meaningless numbers. There was a British Army song that went: "Pity the poor old hottentot. We have the Gatling gun - he does not!" I think that the first British regiment to repace the musket with the rifle was the 60th Rifles (circa 1854?) Then and now, the expression was that it took a man's weight in bullets to kill him. Today, that weight may be distributed more quickly. During WW1, both the British and the Germans had considerable success with marksmen (sharpshooters) armed *with small bore rifles. *One shot (through the centre of the forehead) was enough, when one of the enemy was foolish enough to poke his head up above the parapet. The Boers had shown similar skills in South Africa against the British some fifteen years earlier. There is a famous photograph of an entire Bn of British infantry laying in a shallow trench - each man with a bullet hole dead centre above the eyes. By the start of WW1, the mchine gun, which the British were slow to adopt, had made conventional infantry tactics all but suicidal. *But still, in 1914 the British swarmed out of their trenches at the blast of a whistle, led by an officer brandishing a revolver, a sword or an umbrella. Iain Iain: Lemme see... Of repeating rifles (vs. semi-automatic or automatic rifles), there are three options: Pump, lever and bolt. The Mausers patented the bolt-action as a single shot in 1871, shortly followed by magazine-equipped bolt actions. The pump action was developed nearly simultaneously to the lever action - but was nearly exclusively used for shotguns (and there is lots of discussion on those having to do with how the subsequent rounds are triggered or not). So, use 1860 as a round number for this as well. I have not seen a rolling-block (1860) or split-breach repeater - the designs don't fit this option well, of course Rifle regiments? With repeaters? During the American Revolution, the British ran into problems with the American "amateur" soldiers. First they mostly had rifles vs. smooth- bores, second they mostly were ex-hunters and actually aimed. There are some descriptions of the charges at Breeds Hill (AKA "the Battle of Bunker Hill) where the trees and branches above the battlefield on the revolutionary side were shredded as most of the shots from the British went over the heads of the entrenched Americans. Also, Americans often used "buck and ball" meaning typically four pieces of buckshot per ball. A wounded soldier took two healthy ones to carry him off the field. A tactic that is still used today, shoot to wound or AP mines designed to damage, not kill. Nothing new under the sun. I will say that shooting black powder is a blast (pun intended). The significant delay between the hammer release and the *BANG* together with a 9 pound piece makes aiming a trip. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#38
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message m... On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "keithr" wrote in message ... "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of Independance? not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage. Come in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the bison **Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the Civil War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and it's manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the hands of the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small part, for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in US history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans seem to think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals, despite the very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right. **Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated militia.." Separate clause. **The meaning is clear enough. Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." **As part of a well regulated militia. The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence. "Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the convenience of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the State is why explicit protections are stated. **And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot Act. The people ---- which universally means the people both individually and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. **With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course. The US Foers refer to a "well regulated militia" as part of the rights to gun ownership. It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration is explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." **I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of the 2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is clear that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed militia. American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read English, such as "the right of the people..." **And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part. Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood. **I just deal in facts. They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents, the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government established by the Constitution, and U.S. history. **They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the law by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers. You are not 'the law' **I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on behalf of the gun pushers. They also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons each and every year. Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text had no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008. **Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to reflect the reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that Amendment, given the situation which exists today: What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as intended. **The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people. It would seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people. * The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power. And it wasn't in 1789 either. **It was still under threat. The US military was in it's infancy. The British armed forces were substantial. * Savage natives no longer present a threat. Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self defense? **It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along with an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither existed several hundred years ago. Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else? **People are free to defend themselves. I do, however, challenge the delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st Century. In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each year, whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs). It would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around 10,000 must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull over. * Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded. As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well. **Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded back then. In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the militia, arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for 'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already provided for. In fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of obliterating every armed force on the planet. Good. **Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is. * Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein. Your choice. **Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of Americans. Freedom means someone else has their choice. **Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations have the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are more than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is. That is a nice freedom to have. * Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of seconds. Good. * Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to those available several hundred years ago. Good. * Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available. They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available', virtually everyone had them. **They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are. Nor as reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more importantly, no where near as deadly. Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided a method for this to be accomplished. That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of B.S. about what the existing text means. **The existing text seems clear enough to most people. They refer to a "well regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys wandering around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape. Trevor Wilson |
|
#39
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... Mpffffff... Here is the 2nd Amendment in full, as written: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What with three commas, it may be parsed in any number of ways. Keep in mind also that at the time, "arms" consisted of single-shot muzzle loading pistols, rifles and cannon, the very best shooters could get off perhaps three shots in a minute (fewer if accuracy counted). And, as it happened, "people" consisted of male property owners... all of whom were technically eligble for the "Militia". Actually, it is my personal belief as a gun owner that any individual ought to be able to own any weapon whatsoever right up to tactical nukes - provided that they insure them appropriately. Much as about any individual may own about any vehicle they choose - as long a they insure it appropriately. I own several weapons (one of which does happen to be a functional muzzle-loader), all properly insured, and all of them carrying a policy that covers me should they be stolen and used in a crime. A few bucks a year additional on our property insurance but it does give peace-of-mind. But about every Swiss household has a fully automatic weapon in it. Canada has a higher per-capita ownership level (fewer guns per capita, but more individuals owning them), they are simply less prone to using them badly, it seems. And Americans (the home of the Hummer) just like doing things in a big way, even if that big-way is eventually just stupid. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Exactly how does your insurance help me if you or someone else uses your gun to kill me? |
|
#40
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Road Deaths was Tube/Valve Amp Noise
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: I would bet that a significant segment of the British population simply does not own a motor-vehicle. Well, from what I found, there are 25 million cars registered here and 136 million in the USA That's 41% vs 45%. Hardly a huge difference. Graham Don't you guys think the discussion is just a tad off topic? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Tube/valve amp kit question | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Tube (valve) bases? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Calibrating an AVO tube/valve tester | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Valve Art KT100?? Can I use this tube? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Valve/Tube Tester on U.K. Ebay | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Linear Mode
