"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

.....

**BIG difference. You can't run a diesel engine on gasoline. For all
intents and purposes, the amplifiers were the same as they came in. Except
they now work. In any case, I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. Do
you have a concept of what that means?


Yes, it means you fooled him, but
will give him his money back when and if he discovers your deceit.

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.

* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to parse
the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having
"sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If
my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the
manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
entirely happy with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back guarantee
is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence
what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with
roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc. was
pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?


Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.


I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd
probably sue you ass for fraud.

* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

Jon

So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?

Not hardly, even at the margins.

What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily
influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200
investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate
sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an
A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird
heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your
expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is
even more likely that one would expect differences given a
'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration.

And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge
characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not
even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them
away as 'because of the restoration'.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
ups.com

I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to
him, he would be unable to discern the difference....

Clyde does have has this pathological fear of bias-controlled listening
tests.

Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty
obvious. But if it is not fraud, it certainly treads on
the knife's edge of fraud.

More than anything else, I think he wants to be *right*.

Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea
what AUS$200 translates in off-the-shelf buying power
these days,

A little or a lot depending on how wisely you spend it. the The AUS$ is
worth a little less than the the US$. Sorta like Canadian dollars.

but speaking for myself, I would have told
the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix' that would give
him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid
for, but at a much higher price. If he did not ask you to
explain the difference, well and good. If he did, and you
did in accordance with his direct instructions, also well
and good.

This anecdote tells me that some people are more interested in the aura of
tubes than the actual sound of tubes.

But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception
(and that it is) at _any_ point in the future, you are
100% obligated to provide him with a repair up to his
full and initial expectations, and at no additional cost,
not merely refund his money.

You can state what you will, and that does not make it true. Most service
agreements limit the providers liability to the value of the work done.

By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.

Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip
pretty softly, solid-state amps do not. What what happens
if he changes the application and drives your kluge to
clipping?

First off, this may never happen, and secondly, the owner may never be able
to tell the difference. IME soft clipping is mostly hype.

Just a thought. You understand that you have
given him an infinite warranty against even his own
potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other
equipment real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

The warranty is limited to what the customer paid. Fair enough.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question
what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?

Isn't it true that there are already a goodly number of tubed power amps and
other equipment that will continue to work with one or more tubes pulled?

And, after all that, was it worth it?

A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-)

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message

in article , Trevor Wilson
at wrote on 12/22/05
4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or
AUS$200.00. He chose. He did not seem overly interested
in the minute detail, as long as the sound quality was
up to the standards he required. That was easy to
accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he
was getting back a SS amp instead of a tube amp?

Dooh!

That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter how you try to spin
it.

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Shame you don't "get" it.

I think that Trevor got *it* very well.

* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill
Clinton's trying to parse the meaning of "is," or denying
that having oral sex was actually having "sex." Why
can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible
position?

Show me where Treveor screwed up?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is
happy. And, just to remind you: I provided a WRITTEN
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If my client
was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the
amp to it's original condition, free of charge, or for
$800.00 serviced the amp the manner YOU feel is better.
I stress YOU feel, because the client was entirely happy
with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written
money-back guarantee is a great thing if you had told the
client what he was getting (and hence what you were
guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit
with roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and
leaving the tubes, etc. was pure deception IN THE ABSENCE
OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.

Right, it's nobody's business but Trevor's.

I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the
group and report how happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a
lawyer and he'd probably sue you ass for fraud.

Oh my, such dire predictions.

* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of
the man.

Integrity is well served by providing legitimate services for an honest
price.

All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not
always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern.

This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer
receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom
didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner
proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable
comments about the sound quality.

Tom's anecdote is true - I was there at the time.

This anecdote also produced loud wails from the partisans of expensive
electronics.

The truth can hurt, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:35:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not
always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern.

This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer
receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom
didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner
proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable
comments about the sound quality.

Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the
deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same.

dave weil said:

All the tubies

No, you may not inspect our "firehoses", Homoborg.

Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the
deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same.

Maybe so, but it wouldn't "prove" anything because tube amps are always
more expensive than comparably powered SS ones.

Now, about that "debating trade" seminar......

"Arny Krueger" said:


By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.


You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's
PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and
look, Windows XP is still running"?

Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair.


So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question
what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?


That's not the point, and you know it.

Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd be in our hair
all week long, and especially on Sunday.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**I gave my client two choices. AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. I promised him
that the cheaper choice would be at least as good and provided a money back
gurarantee. He agreed to the cheaper option.


I think you know quite well what beef some people have with your
actions, Trevor.

The fact that your customer is happy with what you've done, has
nothing to do with the fact that you *didn't tell him all* about the
nature of the conversion.


Well, at least you have Arny on your side on this.
But not on the grounds that you think, he merely uses you to further
pursue his agenda.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.

You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of
your client's PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he
never stresses his PC and look, Windows XP is still
running"?

Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement
for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a
Celeron might be the most logical replacement.

The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV.

Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it
because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the
markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)

Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair.

The shipping from the Netherlands would be a stopper.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
the amp still play? That *just* might get him to
question what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?

That's not the point, and you know it.

The point is that the client wanted a working amp for a reasonable price and
Trevor provided one with a good guarantee.

Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd
be in our hair all week long, and especially on Sunday.

I'm never in your hair, Sander. Let's just leave it at that.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement
for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a
Celeron might be the most logical replacement.


But not without asking/advising the customer first, hm?


The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV.


Agreed.


Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it
because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the
markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)


I wouldn't know, Arny, I'm not too familiar with either branche at the
moment.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Invincible Ignorance
Nailing Jello
Pounding Sand

No way you will get through. But you have learned whom not to believe
in any of his assertions, and who supports those assertions. Something
valuable in and of itself. Accept that as enough as that is all you
will get.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.


You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's
PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and
look, Windows XP is still running"?

**Think of it this way, Sander: I've provided a Pentium IV, in place of an
Z80 and guaranteed (with a 100% money back) that all his software will run
and the thing will not crash.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back
a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.


* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to
parse
the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having
"sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict.
If
my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp
the
manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
entirely happy with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back
guarantee
is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence
what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with
roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc.
was
pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

**Decpetion? Possibly. Fraud? No. The client got what he wanted.



Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.


I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report
how
happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd
probably sue you ass for fraud.

**A judge, actually.


* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

**In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow
up.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM:


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.


* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

**In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow
up.


Your definition of practicality is an ends-justifies-the-means ethic. The
problem is, I have grown up, and I don't approve of childish lies and overt
adult deception. If you develop a sense of ethics, you'll understand what I
mean. In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and
the rich man.

Jon

Jon Yaeger said:

In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and
the rich man.

Christ.

wrote in message
oups.com...
So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?

Not hardly, even at the margins.

What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily
influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200
investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate
sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an
A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird
heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your
expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is
even more likely that one would expect differences given a
'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration.

And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge
characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not
even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them
away as 'because of the restoration'.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-)



Here are some of Arny's satisfied clients:

http://www.mrugly.com/employeebios.html

Jon Yaeger wrote :

If you develop a sense of ethics


IMHO you are confusing ethics and deontology.

Ethic : the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual
or a social group

Deontology : the theory or study of moral obligation.

IMHO, in the first case your answer to Trevor is insulting and automatically
bans you from Usenet ethical references. ;-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

Clyde Slick said:

That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.

How about the two recordings we have of A. Krooger -- same? different?

Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM:


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Graham

Poopie said:

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Their value goes far beyond merely rattling the cages of society's
underlings. They are a proven 'borg-repellent. Oh wait, you wouldn't
know what that means, would you? Never mind, Poopie. Just don't go near
any of those nasty tube amps, and your BP will stay within organic
beings' parameters.

Arthur "Clyde Slick" Tsechmeister wrote :

That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.


This explains why Arthur believes that he is a good musician.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , Trevor Wilson
at wrote on 12/22/05
3:45 PM:

**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of
tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like
tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old
amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They
look and sound like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Score!!!!

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose.
He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the
sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to
accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back
a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which
looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim
that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They
look and sound like the originals.


well, he doesn't havea pair of tube amps anymore!

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Arthur "Clyde Slick" Tsechmeister wrote :

That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.


This explains why Arthur believes that he is a good musician.


I would argue with you, if you made any sense at all.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Dédé Jute a écrit :

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.


Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
McCarthy...

Shy?

paul packer a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Dédé Jute a écrit :


Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.


Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
McCarthy...


Shy?


Did he already phone to Trevor's neighbors ?



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.

Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:16:21 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.

Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.

And of course, the big test is, how willing he was to tell his
friend/customer The Judge exactly what he did.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each
OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had
never
sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.

I conceded this point already, you must not have seen it.

Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.
--

I think I'd probably be laughing about it for a lvery long time.

I think it also demonstrates the placebo effect.

Yes, on reflection, I do agree he should have said that it would only still
be a tube amp if teh more expensive repairs were done. Do we know that the
customer was really all that big a tubve fanatic? Probably the best thing
for Trevor to do is inform the customer and let him decide now what he would
like, keep things as they are or restore it to a functioning tube amp. He
has after all made enough money of the other repairs to eat the cost by now.
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
If the customer left thinking he still had a tube amp, yes it's fraud,
guarantee or not, although nice.

I think it's funny that he didin't know the difference, but it's still
fraud.

Hi John

*** Ian, what about SE "parafeed", i.e. using a DC blocking cap
with a
non-gapped OPT? Would one be trading one shortcoming for another?
Or could
it offer a net improvement?

So much for my attempt to characterise the necessary differences
between the two classes!

Using a cap and an unbiased ungapped OPT for SE to my mind adds too
much complexity and too many non-linear elements (I decided not to
build a prototype of my circlotron [*link below!] for exactly this
reason). But in the context of what I was trying to do here, then
the upshot is another choice based on perception, rather than an
absolute superiority.

Has there been a resurgence of this "parafeed SE" thing? I wouldn't
be surprised, given the improvements in capacitor technology.

My interest here was to try and get away from the idea of some kind
of contest, towards an approach to some kind of categorisation of
features. Rather than the fruitless argument about what is better,
it might be more useful to identify the necessary differences
between the various topologies in analytical terms. Then ppl can
make informed decisions based on their own preferences.

The competition thing is hype for marketing purposes, however much
some here want to deny it. In the market there are niches with
identifiable preferences. Whichever you aim your sales at defines
"better than". If you are making for yourself, "better than" is a
journey.

Hey...what's happened to Al?

cheers, Ian

http://www.ivesonaudio.pwp.blueyonde...lotronel84.gif

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Ian
Iveson at
wrote on 12/19/05 3:19 AM:

Andre Jute wrote [snip for brevity]

There are just three differences between SE and PP, and none are
worth fighting about.

First, a SE amp needs a gap in the OPT. In general, this results
in
lower primary inductance, and therefore curtailed bass, all other
things being equal. This is not just a matter of common practice,
because if the SE OPT were to equal the inductance of the PP, it
would be much bigger, and suffer in terms of primary capacitance,
leakage inductance, or both, thus curtailing the top end. Hence
the
difference here is fundamental. It is possible to use a gapped
OPT
for PP, so some advantages of the gap are transferable from one
topology to the other. One property of the SE OPT is necessarily
unique, however: it is biased into the most linear part of the BH
curve. Any advantages of zero gap belong to PP alone.


Second, the opposition of distortion and power supply products in
PP. Assuming both have perfect power supplies, this boils down to
a
matter of quantity v quality of distortion, and ultimately is a
matter of individual perception.

Third, a good PP amp will enter AB operation at the same point
that
an equally good SE amp begins to clip.

All the other stuff is about incidental, rather than fundamental,
difference. Without a budget, there can be no sensible argument.

cheers, Ian

in article , Ian Iveson at
wrote on 12/23/05 1:20 PM:

Hi John

*** Ian, what about SE "parafeed", i.e. using a DC blocking cap
with a
non-gapped OPT? Would one be trading one shortcoming for another?
Or could
it offer a net improvement?

So much for my attempt to characterise the necessary differences
between the two classes!

Using a cap and an unbiased ungapped OPT for SE to my mind adds too
much complexity and too many non-linear elements (I decided not to
build a prototype of my circlotron [*link below!] for exactly this
reason). But in the context of what I was trying to do here, then
the upshot is another choice based on perception, rather than an
absolute superiority.

Has there been a resurgence of this "parafeed SE" thing? I wouldn't
be surprised, given the improvements in capacitor technology.

My interest here was to try and get away from the idea of some kind
of contest, towards an approach to some kind of categorisation of
features. Rather than the fruitless argument about what is better,
it might be more useful to identify the necessary differences
between the various topologies in analytical terms. Then ppl can
make informed decisions based on their own preferences.

The competition thing is hype for marketing purposes, however much
some here want to deny it. In the market there are niches with
identifiable preferences. Whichever you aim your sales at defines
"better than". If you are making for yourself, "better than" is a
journey.

Hey...what's happened to Al?

cheers, Ian



Thanks, Ian.

I had bought some Magnequest iron to put together a 2A3 Parafeed amp but
realized I had too many projects & not the right speakers so I sold them.

Al hangs out on other groups like the Eico one on Yahoo. It's a different
crowd over there. I said hello and he ignored me. He seems to be fdoing
just fine.

Jon

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

**Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
Never had a day's trouble with it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

**Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
Never had a day's trouble with it.



Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?

A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .

; -)

Jon Yaeger a écrit :
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

**Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
Never had a day's trouble with it.




Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?

A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .

; -)

Here it's :

Q : do you know what the difference between hemorrhoid and a BMW. ?

A : only assholes have some...



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
(the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

**Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business,
wanted
to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft
top
Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the
Beemer.
Never had a day's trouble with it.



Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?

A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .

**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to
him.

BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
automobiles too.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson said:

BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know.

He could still be a prick, of course.