[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
The Boss

You're a fraud.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

Andy Evans wrote:
How much more bottom of the barrel can you get ?

Both Morgan and I have published about five books, a couple of which
are currently used as standard texts - from the bottom of the barrel no
doubt. Would you care to give us your own book refs, Graham? Amazon
will do. Failing that, any articles? Failing that a letter to a
utilities company showing you can write? Andy

Gee, you fellows musta been idling down to retirement.

It is a good question to ask how many books someone has published
because books are not only subject to peer review (often malicious and
never less than hostile) but, unlike papers given free of charge to a
professional body, published books are the survivors of a ruthlessly
darwinian commercial weeding process.

I fell off my chair laughing and wasted a glass of good wine to stain a
favourite carpet when I read you asking the non-kulturny clown Poopie
Stevenson for his books. Nice one!

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

[Ian Iveson]

Phil Allison wrote:

below, prose so perfect I couldn't bring myself to break it up:

So what, sweetarse, do you think "linear" means wrt a power supply?

To what should it have a linear response?

Surely a reasonable application of the word would be to describe a
supply that conforms to Ohm's law? That is, voltage out is a linear
function of voltage in and current out? That is, an unregulated
supply? Or, if applied to a regulator, one that is in effect a
self-adjusting potentiometer?

No-one seems to have thought of an alternative collective term for the
kind of supply Iain meant. The context is quite correct. Everyone
knows what he means.

If there were an alternative, I would advocate it, because although I
can't agree that "linear" in this context is ambiguous, it does cloud
its usual meaning in the context of audio machines, and could be a red
herring to a novice.

But there isn't. If I want a linear PS, or a linear regulator, rather
than a switching PS or a switching regulator, that's what I have to
ask for. Otherwise the supplier won't know what I want.

Maybe we could invent a word and persuade the world to use it.
Continuous?

love and kisses,
Ian



in message ...

"Ian Iveson Pile of ASD ****ed Pommy Pus "


But if Linear = Linear Regulated, then Regulated = 0

** Purest gobbledegook.

Quite.


** Yep.



It is common to use "linear" as distinct from "switching".


** It is an error to do so if the supply is not regulated, on the
grounds that ambiguity is error.

But there is already a good word for "regulated". We generally say
"regulated".


** Another non sequitur ..... yawn.



Plus - there is nothing very " linear " about what happens when
an AC supply is rectified and filtered by electros to get DC.
Such supplies are mostly called "conventional" when there is a
need to distinguish them from the switchmode kind.

Rubbish.


** Fraid it is true - ****wit.


Just searched several suppliers for "Linear unregulated power
supply". Plenty hits.


** Agrees with the point about ambiguity exactly.



Linear is pretty meaningless word to use for a power supply anyway,


** Not it isn't - you ****ing ass.



What you call them in writing DEPENDS ON CONTEXT.

As with all things.


** Then stop ignoring that fact - ****HEAD.




....... Phil

[Andre Jute]

Poopie "Jailhouse Hoover" Stevenson wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
The Boss

You're a fraud.

Graham

But, Poopie, I make inadequates jump when I say boo, that's what I do,
at least when I can't see any enemies of society to stomp and get
bored. You're inadequate, you're here, you're useless, you're
offensive. you're dull and you're boring, so there is no excuse for not
stepping on you. And, anyhow, you were so terminally stupid as to
announce when you arrived that you had come to RAT "to be on Jute's
arse". Whoopee-doo, we can all see you being on my arse day in, day
out, with such success! Rolling on the floor, laughing, will put more
marks on my teflon than you have in two years. Moron. Excuse me while I
pray. Just once, please Lord, -- and I know wit is too much to ask for
-- but can't I have someone quick and alive on my arse, instead of this
parade of fatty substances and ineffectual cholerics and thick
mechanics and secondhand janitors?

This is what Poor Poopie was too enraged to reply to:

Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute threw out an old boot and Poopie tried it on:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Today we thoughtlessly accept as axiomatic the wretchedly inaccurate
statement, devised by bureaucrats for the convenience of lowest common
denominator engineers

If you think you're a lowest common denominator "engineer", Poopie, the
boot fits.

and jumped-up techies,

If you think you're a jumped-up techie, Poopie, the boot fits.

that the human audio range
is 20Hz to 20KHz, and furthermore we don't swat down those idiots

If you think you're an idiot, Poopie, the boot fits.

who
claim all speakers should go down to 20Hz just because any old fool

If you know you're an old fool, Poopie, the boot fits.

can
make a solid state amp produce some kind of 20Hz noise

If you admit that you make noise rather than music, Poopie, the boot
fits.

(and it isn't so
difficult in tubes either, though tubies are generally a bit smarter).

If you agree that it has often been demostrated that the tubies are
smarter than you, Poopie, the boot fits.

These two facts between them account for a lot of truly wretched sound

If all that wretched sound you made haunts you, Poopie, the boot fits.

produced at vast expense. That position can only become worse when the
same morons

Here's a boot we don't even have to ask about, eh, Poopie. Everyone,
including you, know you're a moron.

will assure us that, because the new media can go up to
35KHZ, we should follow the techies up there. No one asks the
devastating question, Why?

And the best this clown can come up with is to call me an "idiot" as
in:
the idiot Joot

Poor old Poopie. That's the difference between us. I know how little I
know -- and still I pull your chain every time I'm bored, without fail.
You're a jailhouse ****mat, man.

Andre Jute
The Boss

[Iain Churches]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

How many hundreds of thousand of units of your designs have you sold ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/L-k-Studiomast...QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-8...QQcmdZViewItem


(huge snip)

Gosh Graham. I really hope you are nothing to do with StudioMaster.
It is a name with a very poor reputation in this part of the world, -
known for cheap and cheerful PA, DJ and Karaoke equipment.

No self respecting concert master or PA mixer would touch 'em!
They rate a long way below Yamaha, Soundcraft,
Allen and Heath and most of the other budget names.

Now if you told me you had designed the Crown MacroTech 5000
amp, or the SSL C200 console then I *would* be impressed:-)

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

How many hundreds of thousand of units of your designs have you sold ?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/L-k-Studiomast...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-8...QQcmdZViewItem


(huge snip)

Gosh Graham. I really hope you are nothing to do with StudioMaster.
It is a name with a very poor reputation in this part of the world, -
known for cheap and cheerful PA, DJ and Karaoke equipment.

We don't make Karaoke equipment and such of the stuff that's Suitable for DJ use ( 1 model ) is high-end in that market.


No self respecting concert master or PA mixer would touch 'em!
They rate a long way below Yamaha, Soundcraft,
Allen and Heath and most of the other budget names.

Have you ever listened to any ? It's *way* superior to Yamaha's budget line of kit and certainly at least on a par with some Soundcraft. Indeed
it's durability is considerably better than most economy kit today. There's no disgrace in making affordable gear you know especially when the
performance is up there with the best of them. However some ppl do like to belittle gear on price.

It doesn't claim to be Allen & Heath but that's not the intended market. FYI it's very 'business-like' kit with many units in service 20 yrs
after they were bought.

The amps are a good line btw. Wholly my own designs.


Now if you told me you had designed the Crown MacroTech 5000
amp, or the SSL C200 console then I *would* be impressed:-)

I did work at Neve for a while ( mainly on the V series ans also on the DTC digital mastering console ).

Graham

[Andy Evans]

So you're suggesting I should bow to you because you wrote a book or
two of
nonsense ?

You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're always the first
person to rubbish something you know absolutely nothing about. And so
it goes on.

[Andy Evans]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Andy Evans wrote:

Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers

If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen.

http://www.clarisonus.com/blog/

Worshipper of the late Harvey Rosenberg

If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin

True believer in the holy rite of the 2A3

If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm

http://www.pacifier.com/~gpimm/

Believes in tubes with solid state biasing circuits.

If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle

http://www.intactaudio.com/

True believer in autotransformer volume controls

If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones

Wrote many books touting the superiority of tubes

If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html

"In my experience all stranded Cables where each single conductor is made
from several strands of copper that are not insulated from each other
imparts an unpleasant harshness and brightness to the sound."

If you don't believe him, read Poindexter

real name is apparently Eric Kingsbury

Audio Asylum regular, you guessed it, Tubes Asylum to be more specific,

http://ekingsbu.users4.50megs.com/

If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett

Self-proclaimed "tubehead".

http://www.pmillett.com/

If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter

U.S. Importer of Lundahl transformers, it seems

http://www.kandkaudio.com/

Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ?

A little googling shows that this is a list of people who have suspended
disbelief and promote tubes as a superior high fidelity alternative.

Or in your immortal words,
"Character assassination seems to be the only debating tool you tubie
vinylite bigots have left"

I sometimes think it should be you writing books not Andre Jute, though
I would suggest sitcoms if you can come up with a steady stream of one
liners like that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Gosh Graham. I really hope you are nothing to do with
StudioMaster. It is a name with a very poor reputation in
this part of the world, - known for cheap and cheerful
PA, DJ and Karaoke equipment.

Gosh Iain, I really hope you are nothing to do with Decca. They had an
amazing catalog of great recordings and a great history of recording
technology in the early days of hifi, but they didn't keep up with the
technology or the market.

No self respecting concert master or PA mixer would touch 'em!

Irrelevant criteria because concent masters play violins, not audio
production equipment.

Secondly, Studiomaster should probably be compared with (favorably)
Behringer, and lots of self-respecting PA mixers work with Behringer
equipment these days. The audio production market has changed Iain, and
you're obviously not keeping up.

They rate a long way below Yamaha, Soundcraft,
Allen and Heath and most of the other budget names.

Actually, none of those are budget names. All of them sell volumes of mixers
in the high 5 figures and up.

Now if you told me you had designed the Crown MacroTech 5000

Actually, not a bad amp. Too bad you wallow around with all that
retro-technology drek, Iain.

amp, or the SSL C200 console then I *would* be impressed:-)

There is very little market left for mixers in the mid-six figure range.
Your problem Iain is that you just haven't kept
up.

BTW here is SSL's latest-greatest:

http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/duende_home.html

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Andy Evans wrote:

Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers

If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen.

http://www.clarisonus.com/blog/

Worshipper of the late Harvey Rosenberg

If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin

True believer in the holy rite of the 2A3

If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm

http://www.pacifier.com/~gpimm/

Believes in tubes with solid state biasing circuits.

If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle

http://www.intactaudio.com/

True believer in autotransformer volume controls

If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones

Wrote many books touting the superiority of tubes

If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html

"In my experience all stranded Cables where each single
conductor is made from several strands of copper that
are not insulated from each other imparts an unpleasant
harshness and brightness to the sound."

If you don't believe him, read Poindexter

real name is apparently Eric Kingsbury

Audio Asylum regular, you guessed it, Tubes Asylum to be
more specific,

http://ekingsbu.users4.50megs.com/

If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett

Self-proclaimed "tubehead".

http://www.pmillett.com/

If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter

U.S. Importer of Lundahl transformers, it seems

http://www.kandkaudio.com/

Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ?

A little googling shows that this is a list of people
who have suspended disbelief and promote tubes as a
superior high fidelity alternative.

Or in your immortal words,
"Character assassination seems to be the only debating
tool you tubie vinylite bigots have left"

Sue me for inspecting a bowl of nuts and pronouncing them nuts.

I sometimes think it should be you writing books not
Andre Jute, though I would suggest sitcoms if you can
come up with a steady stream of one liners like that.

Unfortuntately all of those folks seem to be deadly serious - deadly
seriously deluded in public for personal profit.

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ?

Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ?

What a charlatan !

This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting from
RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14:

"If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable
of handling frequencies below a criticial value without
serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower
frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad
effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to
say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..."

Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights with
him on points where he's obviously correct.

You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the
end of the last sentence :-).

Tim.

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

So you're suggesting I should bow to you because you wrote a book or
two of nonsense ?

You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're always the first
person to rubbish something you know absolutely nothing about. And so
it goes on.

You haven't offered anything worth taking seriously.

Talk about 'fast capacitors' because you say they sound like it. in defiance of
the scientific facts, makes you look very foolish.

There used to be ppl who belived in 'magic cables' too and some even fell for
the Tice clock. You sound like one of them.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message
oups.com

You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're
always the first person to rubbish something you know
absolutely nothing about. And so it goes on.

I scratch-built audio gear during the days when tubes were all we had. I
built kits. I bought stuff off the shelf. I worked in an audio store where
the shelves were full of tubed equipment ranging from Lafayette LA 224 to KT
550 & 600, Sherwood, Dyna, Eico, H. H. Scott, Fisher, etc., etc.

So remind me again how I know nothing about tubes. ;-)

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ?

Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ?

What a charlatan !

This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting from
RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14:

"If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable
of handling frequencies below a criticial value without
serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower
frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad
effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to
say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..."

Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights with
him on points where he's obviously correct.

You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the
end of the last sentence :-).

I don't have RDH4 on this PC so I'll leave that for later !

There is some validity to the above of course and it revolves around the many
various limitations of transformers for audio.

Of course the best way to deal with that is simply to avoid using transformers
where possible.

I can't agree that it's a good reason to dismiss the idea of full frequency
range reproduction though !

Graham

[Andy Evans]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message
oups.com

You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're
always the first person to rubbish something you know
absolutely nothing about. And so it goes on.

I scratch-built audio gear during the days when tubes were all we had. I
built kits. I bought stuff off the shelf. I worked in an audio store where
the shelves were full of tubed equipment ranging from Lafayette LA 224 to KT
550 & 600, Sherwood, Dyna, Eico, H. H. Scott, Fisher, etc., etc.

So remind me again how I know nothing about tubes. ;-)

Hello Arny - I was referring to Graham rubbishing books he hadn't read,
which I think you'll admit is about as unscientific as it gets. I know
you have knowledge of tubes and many other things besides. Andy

[Ian Iveson]

Tim wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth
too ?

Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ?

What a charlatan !

This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting
from
RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14:

"If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable
of handling frequencies below a criticial value without
serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower
frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad
effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to
say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..."

Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights
with
him on points where he's obviously correct.

You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the
end of the last sentence :-).

Tim.

Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out
that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here?

The reason for restricting bass is that otherwise, consequent
transformer distortion and/or malfunction can disrupt everything else.
Not true for HF.

One poster was talking about HF, the other about bandwidth...some of
these plots are hard to follow on my erratic server.

cheers, Ian

[Sander deWaal]

Eeyore said:


Any honest person knows full well that your hearing can vary significantly over
even a short period and is readily and hugely influenced by 'stimulants' and
state of mind too.


Then why rule those factors out in a (double) blind test? ;-)


Rule out which ones though ?


Exactly!


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

Tim wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth
too ?

Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ?

What a charlatan !

This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting
from
RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14:

"If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable
of handling frequencies below a criticial value without
serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower
frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad
effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to
say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..."

Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights
with him on points where he's obviously correct.

You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the
end of the last sentence :-).

Tim.

Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out
that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here?

The reason for restricting bass is that otherwise, consequent
transformer distortion and/or malfunction can disrupt everything else.
Not true for HF.

One poster was talking about HF, the other about bandwidth...some of
these plots are hard to follow on my erratic server.

cheers, Ian

Here's an idea for you that addresses this issue.

Bi-amplifaction is regularly used in high-end monitors.

If the LF and HF amps are specifically designed to be bi-amp only, then the HF
amp need only have a very much lighter transformer that doesn't need to deal
with LF and its characterisitics can be so optimised. Likewise the LF
transformer can be designed for effortless 20Hz reproduction without
compromising its HF abilities.

(c) Graham Stevenson 2006

Graham

[Bob H.]

Hi Ian

I really haven't experimented with listening to small power supply
configuration changes. The transformer I used for prototyping was a bit
under spec'd for two 300B's. I was trying to get a near-choke input
supply to a decent ripple level and b+ level without adding additional
stages. Each stage decreases available b+. The 10uf cap at the choke
input gave me the best bang for the buck. I'll have more leeway when I
switch to 2a3's, and then will have the margin to experiment with
power. It should be sometime in 2008, give or take five years.
I ended up starting out with small capacitance levels, and gradually
increased the values until ripple was very low and I got a decent
voltage and frequency range on a 300B SE amp. I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure
that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil
caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
required.

Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small
amount of time I have for this hobby.

Bob H.


Iain Churches wrote:
"Bob H." wrote in message
ups.com...

I find that a smallish cap, like 10 uf before the first choke sounds
nice,

Hi Bob,

Now we are getting to the crux of the question:-))
Does is sound *different* to a long string of high
capacitance electrolytics?

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Bob H." wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Ian

I really haven't experimented with listening to small power supply
configuration changes. The transformer I used for prototyping was a bit
under spec'd for two 300B's. I was trying to get a near-choke input
supply to a decent ripple level and b+ level without adding additional
stages. Each stage decreases available b+. The 10uf cap at the choke
input gave me the best bang for the buck. I'll have more leeway when I
switch to 2a3's, and then will have the margin to experiment with
power. It should be sometime in 2008, give or take five years.
I ended up starting out with small capacitance levels, and gradually
increased the values until ripple was very low and I got a decent
voltage and frequency range on a 300B SE amp. I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure
that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil
caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
required.

Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small
amount of time I have for this hobby.

Bob H.

Hi Bob,

I have little or no experience with SET amps, except to have been very
impressed with a Russian-built Resnekov owned by a cellist acquaintance
of mine. We share a passion for the Shostakovich Quartets, and
despite its modest bench performance, this amp with a pair ELS gave
perhaps the mot realistic listening experience I have ever enjoyed.

I would have thought that for SET, without the common mode rejection
offered by PP output stages, would have required a very well designed
psu. The 100µF-10H-100µF-10H-100µF which you ended up with
is the sort of thing I had in mind.

I have made a promise to myself to build a SET amp one day.

Regards
Iain

[Andy Evans]

I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure
that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil
caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
required.

Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small
amount of time I have for this hobby.

Bob H.

Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a few of us have
ended up with after prolonged listening tests. Only difference is that
some of us 'cheapies' use modern motor runs rather than the oil filled
ones. Did you find there was much audible difference? Andy

[[email protected]]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out
that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here?

In fact they are entirely correlated. If you want to reduce bass
response below say 200Hz, it probably makes perfect sense to also be
reducing HF response above 8kHz.

Otherwise you get what my ears today call "computer speaker" sound:
Unbalanced, Tinny, Crappy. Unfortunately this phenomenon has spread far
beyond "computer speakers" (which you expect to sound crappy
considering their completely ass-backward cabinet design with a
bazillion buzzy resonances and supposed 80 watt power handling in a 2
inch speaker and a $5 price tag) and today can be found in lots of
craptacular home AV systems and even a bunch of crappy speakers that
the stereo discounters bizarrely push as "studio monitors".

But this is all unrelated to the OP which was asking about sizing power
supply capacitors to handle 2Hz audio content (which for better or
worse is often correlated with the coupling capacitors also being sized
to handle 2Hz which is what launched us into this subthread).

Tim.

[Andy Evans]

The 100µF-10H-100µF-10H-100µF which you ended up with
is the sort of thing I had in mind.

I have made a promise to myself to build a SET amp one day.

Regards
Iain

I think Bob meant 10uF-10H- 100uF-10H- 100uF. Particularly the second
cap can be some way below 100uF. Usually it measures better when you
step up the cap values if you look in PSUD. Andy

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure
that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil
caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
required.

Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small
amount of time I have for this hobby.

Bob H.

Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a few of us have
ended up with after prolonged listening tests. Only difference is that
some of us 'cheapies' use modern motor runs rather than the oil filled
ones. Did you find there was much audible difference? Andy

Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor dielectric voodoo.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Andy Evans wrote:

I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per
stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal
capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a
huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
required.

Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough
of the small amount of time I have for this hobby.

Bob H.

Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a
few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening
tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use
modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did
you find there was much audible difference? Andy

Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor
dielectric voodoo.

Agreed - the leading perpetrators of capacitor dielectric mythology dug
their own grave when they lined up and promoted the practice of putting
small caps with sacred dielectrics in paralell with larger value caps. It's
easy to show that while this can help with ESR, it does absolutely nothing
for DA.

Capacitor dielectric mythology is just another example of snake oil that
washes out with proper subjective testing. The home audio gear construction
hobby is profoundly affected by "constructor's ear" where people do
something that they would know is crazy were they well-educated, and then
brag to high heavens when the equipment they butcher is robust enough to
continue to work despite their naive and inexpert ministrations.

The ESR problem was always a matter of naive construction techniques, and
was corrected by just about every manufacturer that was serious about making
good caps.

People who are sensitive to authentic appearances would be wise to gut the
cases of NOS classic cap designs and put modern pieces inside.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Ian Iveson wrote:
Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky
if I point out that you are at the opposite end of the
spectrum here?

In fact they are entirely correlated. If you want to
reduce bass response below say 200Hz, it probably makes
perfect sense to also be reducing HF response above 8kHz.

There has long been the idea of balancing your high and low frequency
roll-offs so that their product is a constant number such as 400,000.

Otherwise you get what my ears today call "computer
speaker" sound: Unbalanced, Tinny, Crappy.

This would be the consequence of having more octaves of response 1 KHz
than below.

Unfortunately
this phenomenon has spread far beyond "computer speakers"
(which you expect to sound crappy considering their
completely ass-backward cabinet design with a bazillion
buzzy resonances and supposed 80 watt power handling in a
2 inch speaker and a $5 price tag) and today can be found
in lots of craptacular home AV systems and even a bunch
of crappy speakers that the stereo discounters bizarrely
push as "studio monitors".

If a speaker is smooth but unbalanced, it can be amazing how well a
properly-implemented subwoofer can restore the necessary balance.

But this is all unrelated to the OP which was asking
about sizing power supply capacitors to handle 2Hz audio
content (which for better or worse is often correlated
with the coupling capacitors also being sized to handle
2Hz which is what launched us into this subthread).

I've always been under the impression that one favorable result of very
large PS caps combined with modest coupling caps can be reduction of power
supply-related turn on, and turn-off thumps.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
: "Eeyore" wrote in
: message
: Andy Evans wrote:
:
: I ended up with two 7-10
: henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per
: stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal
: capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a
: huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
: required.
:
: Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough
: of the small amount of time I have for this hobby.
:
: Bob H.
:
: Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a
: few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening
: tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use
: modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did
: you find there was much audible difference? Andy
:
: Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor
: dielectric voodoo.
:
: Agreed - the leading perpetrators of capacitor dielectric mythology dug
: their own grave when they lined up and promoted the practice of putting
: small caps with sacred dielectrics in paralell with larger value caps. It's
: easy to show that while this can help with ESR, it does absolutely nothing
: for DA.
:
: Capacitor dielectric mythology is just another example of snake oil that
: washes out with proper subjective testing. The home audio gear construction
: hobby is profoundly affected by "constructor's ear" where people do
: something that they would know is crazy were they well-educated, and then
: brag to high heavens when the equipment they butcher is robust enough to
: continue to work despite their naive and inexpert ministrations.
:
: The ESR problem was always a matter of naive construction techniques, and
: was corrected by just about every manufacturer that was serious about making
: good caps.
:
: People who are sensitive to authentic appearances would be wise to gut the
: cases of NOS classic cap designs and put modern pieces inside.
:
.................................................. ................................
...........................
B&W used extended listening tests configuring their crossover filters -
they use Mundorf caps for best results. Are you saying B&W engineering
doesn't know what they're doing ?
(the 802D's being regarded as some of the finest speakers available)
Snake oil ??

Rudy

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Andy Evans wrote:

I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per
stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal
capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a
huge amount of real estate on the chassis being
required.

Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough
of the small amount of time I have for this hobby.

Bob H.

Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a
few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening
tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use
modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did
you find there was much audible difference? Andy

Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor
dielectric voodoo.

Agreed - the leading perpetrators of capacitor dielectric mythology dug
their own grave when they lined up and promoted the practice of putting
small caps with sacred dielectrics in paralell with larger value caps. It's
easy to show that while this can help with ESR, it does absolutely nothing
for DA.

Capacitor dielectric mythology is just another example of snake oil that
washes out with proper subjective testing. The home audio gear construction
hobby is profoundly affected by "constructor's ear" where people do
something that they would know is crazy were they well-educated, and then
brag to high heavens when the equipment they butcher is robust enough to
continue to work despite their naive and inexpert ministrations.

The ESR problem was always a matter of naive construction techniques, and
was corrected by just about every manufacturer that was serious about making
good caps.

People who are sensitive to authentic appearances would be wise to gut the
cases of NOS classic cap designs and put modern pieces inside.

Now *that* would be really amusing !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
..........................
B&W used extended listening tests configuring their crossover filters -
they use Mundorf caps for best results. Are you saying B&W engineering
doesn't know what they're doing ?
(the 802D's being regarded as some of the finest speakers available)
Snake oil ??

If you think a *brand* of cap affects the sound then you truly are barking mad. Yes,
that's snake oil.

I have little doubt that plastic film caps can outperform bipolar electrolytics in
crossover filters though. Can polypropylene outperform polyester ? I see no logical
basis for that at all.

As for B&W, it's more a case of their marketing dept knowing what it's doing ! You
fell for it didn't you ?

Graham

p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ?

[Ruud Broens]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: ..........................
: B&W used extended listening tests configuring their crossover filters -
: they use Mundorf caps for best results. Are you saying B&W engineering
: doesn't know what they're doing ?
: (the 802D's being regarded as some of the finest speakers available)
: Snake oil ??
:
: If you think a *brand* of cap affects the sound then you truly are barking mad.
Yes,
: that's snake oil.
:
: I have little doubt that plastic film caps can outperform bipolar electrolytics
in
: crossover filters though. Can polypropylene outperform polyester ? I see no
logical
: basis for that at all.
:
: As for B&W, it's more a case of their marketing dept knowing what it's doing !
You
: fell for it didn't you ?
:
: Graham
:
: p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ?
:
silly question - a brand in itself: nothing.
it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences.
so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're
quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ?
ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
as, in theory, they can't !

Rudy

[Eeyore]

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
:
: p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ?
:
silly question - a brand in itself: nothing.

Thank goodness for that at least !


it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences.
so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're
quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ?

Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands of units
in use worldwide of my designs.

As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their alleged
superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's certain
that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all well and
fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to sonic
differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis.


ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
as, in theory, they can't !

There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth.

Now ask me something about audio electronics.

Graham

[Andy Evans]

Now ask me something about audio electronics. Graham

Why on earth would anyone want to ask you questions about audio
electronics? - You are a bigoted old fool who seems incapable of
digesting the slightest idea that didn't come out of whatever
electronics textbook you read in 1943.

[Ruud Broens]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: "Eeyore" wrote in message
: :
: : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ?
: :
: silly question - a brand in itself: nothing.
:
: Thank goodness for that at least !
:
:
: it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences.
: so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're
: quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ?
:
: Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands
: of units in use worldwide of my designs.
:
: As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their
alleged
: superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's
certain
: that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all
well
: and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to
sonic
: differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis.
:
so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because
they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use
'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-)
:
: ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
: as, in theory, they can't !
:
: There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth.

Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize.
:
: Now ask me something about audio electronics.
:
: Graham
:

Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded
in thinking this or that, why would he want to ?
Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ?
(Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given
reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where
you could contribute,
for sure)

Rudy

[Eeyore]

Andy Evans wrote:

Now ask me something about audio electronics. Graham

Why on earth would anyone want to ask you questions about audio
electronics? - You are a bigoted old fool who seems incapable of
digesting the slightest idea that didn't come out of whatever
electronics textbook you read in 1943.

If you mean I'm biased against idiotic tomfoolery with no remote scientific
basis - you're right.

Even in the 80s there was still much to be learnt about quality audio recording
and reproduction but you seem wedded to 1930s technology.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: "Eeyore" wrote in message
: :
: : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ?
: :
: silly question - a brand in itself: nothing.
:
: Thank goodness for that at least !
:
:
: it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences.
: so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're
: quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ?
:
: Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands
: of units in use worldwide of my designs.
:
: As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their
alleged
: superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's
certain
: that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all
well
: and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to
sonic
: differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis.
:
so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because
they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use
'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-)

In order to believe that one film cap can sound better than another you'd also have
to believe in a basis for that. Since there isn't a valid one, all you have left is
the audiophool religion which apparently allows anything someone allegedly heard to
trump science.

Besides, It totally stinks to high heaven of the marketing dept ! :~)

I've already said that there is a sound basis for preferring film caps over
bipolars btw and the close tolerance on value of the Mundorfs as standard also
means that unit to unit variation will be small which is certainly a desirable
thing.


: ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
: as, in theory, they can't !
:
: There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth.

Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize.

Now tell me how you calculate that lift capacity.

Heck, if a bumblebee "can't fly" because it wings are 'too small' what hope does a
helicopter have ? If you apply the 'wrong science' you'll get the wrong answer for
sure.


: Now ask me something about audio electronics.
:
: Graham
:

Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded
in thinking this or that, why would he want to ?
Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ?
(Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given
reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where
you could contribute,
for sure)

That depends on what performance criteria you're looking for.

For sheer longevity nothing really beats cermet or wirewound parts but cermet have
vastly greater resolution. Wirewounds have high rotational noise too.

For very low rotational noise combined with long lifetime - conductive plastic is
the clear leader. Vishay Sfernice are very good for example. Overall the best parts
for audio use IMHO.

At the lower end of the scale, a carbon wiper on a standard carbon track helps
prolong life and reduce rotational noise.

Graham

[Ruud Broens]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: "Eeyore" wrote in message
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : "Eeyore" wrote in message
: : :
: : : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ?
: : :
: : silly question - a brand in itself: nothing.
: :
: : Thank goodness for that at least !
: :
: :
: : it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences.
: : so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're
: : quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ?
: :
: : Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands
: : of units in use worldwide of my designs.
: :
: : As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with
their
: alleged
: : superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's
: certain
: : that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is
all
: well
: : and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to
: sonic
: : differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis.
: :
: so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because
: they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use
: 'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-)
:
: In order to believe that one film cap can sound better than another you'd also
have
: to believe in a basis for that. Since there isn't a valid one, all you have
left is
: the audiophool religion which apparently allows anything someone allegedly
heard to
: trump science.
:
: Besides, It totally stinks to high heaven of the marketing dept ! :~)
:
: I've already said that there is a sound basis for preferring film caps over
: bipolars btw and the close tolerance on value of the Mundorfs as standard also
: means that unit to unit variation will be small which is certainly a desirable
: thing.
:
This is still your belief that a (limited) understanding of the theoretical
aspects trumps the real-world perceived quality differences. Anyway,
you cannot proof from theory there is no perceivable difference, the
best you can hope for is stating that, according to what is currently
know about the subject at hand, it is highly unlikely that a difference
can be heard. problem being, you have to know a thing or two about
both theoretical physics and perceptive psychology, neither of which
seem to be your forte...

: : ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
: : as, in theory, they can't !
: :
: : There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth.
:
: Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize.
:
: Now tell me how you calculate that lift capacity.

the problems arise from modeling the way the wings flex during movement.
i don't think we want to pursue this further..
:
: Heck, if a bumblebee "can't fly" because it wings are 'too small' what hope
does a
: helicopter have ? If you apply the 'wrong science' you'll get the wrong answer
for
: sure.
:
:
: : Now ask me something about audio electronics.
: :
: : Graham
: :
:
: Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded
: in thinking this or that, why would he want to ?
: Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ?
: (Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given
: reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where
: you could contribute,
: for sure)
:
: That depends on what performance criteria you're looking for.
:
: For sheer longevity nothing really beats cermet or wirewound parts but cermet
have
: vastly greater resolution. Wirewounds have high rotational noise too.

ok, nice. i used a Bourns cermet 10 turns pot to set up an LM317T voltage,
but was surprised - and rather appaled - at the amount of noise some positions
on the trimmer gave - explenations ?

R.
:
: For very low rotational noise combined with long lifetime - conductive plastic
is
: the clear leader. Vishay Sfernice are very good for example. Overall the best
parts
: for audio use IMHO.
:
: At the lower end of the scale, a carbon wiper on a standard carbon track helps
: prolong life and reduce rotational noise.
:
: Graham
:

[Eeyore]

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: "Eeyore" wrote in message
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: :
: so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because
: they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use
: 'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-)
:
: In order to believe that one film cap can sound better than another you'd also
have
: to believe in a basis for that. Since there isn't a valid one, all you have
left is
: the audiophool religion which apparently allows anything someone allegedly
heard to
: trump science.
:
: Besides, It totally stinks to high heaven of the marketing dept ! :~)
:
: I've already said that there is a sound basis for preferring film caps over
: bipolars btw and the close tolerance on value of the Mundorfs as standard also
: means that unit to unit variation will be small which is certainly a desirable
: thing.
:
This is still your belief that a (limited) understanding of the theoretical
aspects trumps the real-world perceived quality differences.

What's limited about it ? Do please tell !


Anyway,
you cannot proof from theory there is no perceivable difference, the
best you can hope for is stating that, according to what is currently
know about the subject at hand, it is highly unlikely that a difference
can be heard. problem being, you have to know a thing or two about
both theoretical physics and perceptive psychology, neither of which
seem to be your forte..

Psychology probably is the reason for perceived differences in this regard notably
the wish to hear a desirable result in response to a wish to do so.

You could of course choose to dismiss all capacitor theory ( and measurements ) to
make the perceived sonic differences fit the facts if you like.

Better than that is to make some measurements though. In order for one type of
capacitor to sound different to another there simply has to be an electrical
difference in their properties.

I have in fact measured various types of plastic film caps and have not been able to
find any difference whatever bewtween them in audio circuitry with test equipment
capable of measuring effects less than 100dB down. This simply confirms that
electronic theory is indeed correct.

If you can hear something that more than 100dB down, you've a fine set of ears
indeed, but there's no reason to imagine that there's anything there anyway !

Let's suppose there *was* an effect say 110dB down that I couldn't measure. That
would be like that 'difference' being equivalent to the background noise in a very
good studio whilst in the close proximity to a jet engine at takeoff power !



: : ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
: : as, in theory, they can't !
: :
: : There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth.
:
: Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize.
:
: Now tell me how you calculate that lift capacity.

the problems arise from modeling the way the wings flex during movement.
i don't think we want to pursue this further..

Good.


: Heck, if a bumblebee "can't fly" because it wings are 'too small' what hope
does a
: helicopter have ? If you apply the 'wrong science' you'll get the wrong answer
for
: sure.
:
:
: : Now ask me something about audio electronics.
: :
: : Graham
: :
:
: Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded
: in thinking this or that, why would he want to ?
: Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ?
: (Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given
: reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where
: you could contribute,
: for sure)
:
: That depends on what performance criteria you're looking for.
:
: For sheer longevity nothing really beats cermet or wirewound parts but cermet
have
: vastly greater resolution. Wirewounds have high rotational noise too.

ok, nice. i used a Bourns cermet 10 turns pot to set up an LM317T voltage,
but was surprised - and rather appaled - at the amount of noise some positions
on the trimmer gave - explenations ?

The cermet track hasn't got a very smooth surface AIUI and that gives rise to the
rotational noise.

This is where conductive plastic scores over it. The surface is almost mirror smooth.

Incidentally, if you want an accurate trim but don't need it over a wide range I'd
use a ordinary single turn pot with 'end stop' resistors in series.

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


I've always been under the impression that one favorable result of very
large PS caps combined with modest coupling caps can be reduction of power
supply-related turn on, and turn-off thumps.


Thanks for admitting Arns that you don't own a decent amplifier, Arns.
Any decent amp has a DC-protection by means of a relay.

They're avaliable cheap from Velleman and many others as a kit.

You *do* still remember how to solder nicely, Arns? ;-)


LOL, LoT;'s etc. ;-)




Note: this can't be done in just software, but rest assured:
Velleman kits come with thorough, detailed instructions and many, many
pictures.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" said:


ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
as, in theory, they can't !


With sufficient thrust, pigs can fly just fine! ;-)


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Eeyore]

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Ruud Broens" said:

ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly -
as, in theory, they can't !

With sufficient thrust, pigs can fly just fine! ;-)

Try this one.....
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...5/bllcrtaa.gif

This is today's btw. I love it. One of the best I've seen in ages,
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...2/07/steve.jpg

Graham