[TheOctavist]

Tube Rolling:-

Valves have certain specs, which all manufacturers of, say, an ECC83 adhere
to in terms of gain, bias sensitivity, mutual conductance etc. All
manufacturers have production spreads, so that a valve may have low gain,
another of the same type higher gain, but still within the acceptable
spread.

Is there any objectove evidence that a say, Mullard, ECC83 is any different
in spreads and performance than any other manufacturer's.

Is there any objective evidence that a say, Mullard, valve will sound any
different to another manufacturer's valve.

Is there any objective evidence that valve circuits are so sensitive to
changing valves unless it's clear that it's due to the valves being at
opposite ends of their production spreads.

How can one valve give better bass han another, given that all they're
doing is modulating DC, and the bass response is due to external components
anyway?

[Patrick Turner]

On Apr 16, 9:12*am, TheOctavist wrote:
Tube Rolling:-

Valves have certain specs, which all manufacturers of, say, an ECC83 adhere
to in terms of gain, bias sensitivity, mutual conductance etc. All
manufacturers have production spreads, so that a valve may have low gain,
another of the same type higher gain, but still within the acceptable
spread.

Is there any objectove evidence that a say, Mullard, ECC83 is any different
in spreads and performance than any other manufacturer's.

Is there any objective evidence that a say, Mullard, valve will sound any
different to another manufacturer's valve.

Is there any objective evidence that valve circuits are so sensitive to
changing valves unless it's clear that it's due to the valves being at
opposite ends of their production spreads.

How can one valve give better bass han another, given that all they're
doing is modulating DC, and the bass response is due to external components
anyway?

Your questions have never ever been answered fully because there are
too many variables involved - too many unknown unknowables.

The very same questions were asked about class A signal transistors
used in countless preamps before op-amps became popular and of course
the use of op-amps didn't stop people asking why type A gave better
bass than type B.

Often people will say big sound differences exist even when there is
30dB of NFB around the tube circuit and perhaps 55dB NFB around the
opamp circuit.

Very few technical measurements show brand A 12AX7 producing 1Vrms
will give "more bass" than brand B in the same circuit.
The measured frequency response usually shows a flat resonse for the
two brands although gains might be slightly different.
There may be very slightly more THD and IMD in brand B, so the HF junk
in the signal of B is higher than in A so with B the higher HF makes
you mind think there is less bass, even though the response of both A
and B are flat. A tube with slightly more microphony would also seem
to have less bass, even though it hasn't.

Usually 2H and 3H for brand A and B 12AX7 are very similar, but in a
well set up circuit making 1Vrms the THD 0.05%, with only 0.01%
being 3H and all other H which may have more differences. But I think
such low THD is inaudible and does not explain differences which
people claim to hear. A 12AX7 in µ-follower mode may have THD 0.01%
at 1Vrms. No loop FB either, but gain = 90x.

If shunt NFB is used to reduce gain to say 10 for a linestage then
expect THD 0.001%, and the FB tends to lessen differences between
any devices plugged in. People still make claims. Double blind tests
are seldom ever used. Rarely if ever do 4 audiophiles meet together
for blind testing where one dude is allowed to try to trick the others
who have secretly fill in ballot papers when they vote which tube
makes the best sound. All too often a group will say X sounds better
than Y, even though the tubes were not changed, but the guy running
the test has edged up the gain control for X by 1dB higher. I've done
this myself, and seen people fooled with my own eyes. But not often. I
like to keep my friends.
And I don't like losing friends over capacitor issues either.

Patrick Turner

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"TheOctavist aka a ****ing TROLL "


Is there any objectove evidence ....

** Define " evidence " - ****head.

What the hell are you expecting to see ??

****ing PhD theses on the matter ????

**** off and TROLL somewhere else

- you retarded puke.




.... Phil

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/16/11 06:10, Phil Allison so wittily quipped:
"TheOctavist aka a ****ing TROLL"


Is there any objectove evidence ....

** Define " evidence " - ****head.

What the hell are you expecting to see ??

****ing PhD theses on the matter ????

**** off and TROLL somewhere else

- you retarded puke.

same wit and wisdom as always I see.

I thought it was a LEGITIMATE question.

Patrick's answer was pretty good.

Or is being an ass-hat a form of entertainment for you?

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/15/11 16:12, TheOctavist so wittily quipped:
How can one valve give better bass han another, given that all they're
doing is modulating DC, and the bass response is due to external components
anyway?

I'll take this one on.

I suspect that they _MAY_ be claiming this based on higher peak current
handling capability of the tube (in the face of poor transformer
coupling at low frequencies or bad Z-matching or something similar) but
for the most part, using decent quality external components, I doubt
there's a difference. Your initial assessment is probably the most
correct, that bass response is due to external components.

[Patrick Turner]

On Apr 17, 1:21*pm, Big Bad Bob BigBadBob-at-mrp3-
wrote:
On 04/16/11 06:10, Phil Allison so wittily quipped:

"TheOctavist aka a ****ing TROLL"

Is there any objectove evidence ....

** Define *" evidence " *- *****head.

What the hell are you expecting to see ??

****ing PhD theses on the matter *????

* **** off and TROLL somewhere else

- * you retarded puke.

same wit and wisdom as always I see.

I thought it was a LEGITIMATE question.

Patrick's answer was pretty good.

Or is being an ass-hat a form of entertainment for you?

Could I dare ask, where is evidence for this and and what sort of
evidence would you accept as being objective.

We live in world where over about the last 400 years all the known
absolute truths have been destroyed one by one. The process was
deadly, and pity help those who presented evidence that the earth
moved around the sun. A good old boil in oil or being hung, drawn,
then quartered awaited scientific people who dared suggest the
Catholic Church was run by a bunch of ignoramae monstrositicae. Popes
defined the evidence, while daring scientists tried to suggest the
Church explained "how to get to heaven, but not how the heavens go."

Now we live in times where the spiritual bedrock guiding every
thought, word and deed has been confined to the dustbin of history as
ALL BULL****, along with very many scientific beliefs, eg, stomach
ulcers were *not* caused by worry and stress when thinking too much
about 12AX7, but by an easily curable virus. In a world where just
about every conceivable subject has had a thesis written about it, it
has become difficult for anyone at University to find an un-
thesisified topic to thesify to the satisfaction of the surrounding
teaching professors. Of course people are learning to ignore anyone
wise unless it leads to a quick buck, slimmer arse, getting a ****, or
getting a degree by ticking a few boxes with a mouse after reading
some re-gurgitated stuff on the Internet while ignoring old books.

Anyway, Psycho-Acoustic Perception of Replayed Audio Recordings
( PAPRAR) would be an impressive title for any budding intellectual
wannabe to tackle. Probably after 2 years work maybe 3 ppl might find
it of interest, but 12AX7 production methods are unlikely to change as
a result, IMHO.

Probably not many 12AX7 will exist in 2061. At the rate we are heading
towards a Greenical Correctness about all ****in things which lead to
the sightest amount of CO2 being generated, I don't like the future
survival chances for tube gear. By 2061, someone will have finally
discovered a way to duplicate "tube sound" using millions of well
trained digits on a 20 terrabyte HD and nobody will tell any
difference between analog and digital. Just after this realisation has
been made, tube factories will close. Then people will forget what
tube sound was, and forget whatever digitalia methodistica was used to
achieve "tube sound". The need to believe and the belief itself will
be judged ALL BULL****, just like the Imaculate Conception, and sound
quality will revert to lowest common denominator crap just like the
accountants wanted all along because it takes up less hard drive space
at energy hungry data centers which will have sprung up like mushrooms
and which will try to stop us reducing CO2 emissions. The modern
"Theory Of Whatever" is one most people are becomming very happy with
despite their increasing anxieties and use of anti-depressants.

Hopefully, Mr Allison has fallen asleep after reading all this
Hypothetica Crapitatia The OP certainly could be called a Troll,
IMHO, because ***MOUNTAINS*** of information have been written already
about such things.

But let's not spoil good oil by boiling a troll in it.

Patrick Turner.

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Big Bad Bob"
Phil Allison so wittily quipped:

"TheOctavist aka a ****ing TROLL"


Is there any objectove evidence ....

** Define " evidence " - ****head.

What the hell are you expecting to see ??

****ing PhD theses on the matter ????

**** off and TROLL somewhere else

- you retarded puke.

same wit and wisdom as always I see.

I thought it was a LEGITIMATE question.


** You cannot think.

Patrick's answer was pretty good.


** PT's reply was much the same as mine - just longer.

And the OP is a ****ing TROLL - you dopey ass !!!



..... Phil

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/17/11 02:25, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:

Probably not many 12AX7 will exist in 2061. At the rate we are heading
towards a Greenical Correctness about all ****in things which lead to
the sightest amount of CO2 being generated, I don't like the future
survival chances for tube gear.

yeah, unfortunately there's a lot of environmental FUD out there that
has led to "such policies". But I see hope: REAL science, and common
sense, and freedom, will eventually win over FUD.

And don't forget that many musicians really like the "vintage" tube
sound in their amplifiers, regardless. Lots of Marshall and Fender (and
other brand) amps out there with tubes in 'em.

By 2061, someone will have finally discovered a way to duplicate
"tube sound" using millions of well trained digits

digital sound processors already do. In fact, I think one of the
Cakewalk programs comes with a "tube amp" simulator. Even still, people
use "the real thing".

Just after this realisation has been made, tube factories will close.

Most likely, excessive concerns about environmental issues (particularly
waste from manufacturing) will do that LONG before there is a lack of
demand.

One other thing - post nuclear holocaust, tubes can be manufactured with
sand and scrap metal and a decent quality vacuum pump. So if the
infrastructure were totally destroyed, you could rebuild with tube tech
much more easily. And tubes are a bit LESS vulnerable to EMP.

Hopefully, Mr Allison has fallen asleep after reading all this
Hypothetica Crapitatia The OP certainly could be called a Troll,
IMHO, because ***MOUNTAINS*** of information have been written already
about such things.

otherwise we'll see pages of insults flooding the newsgroup

But let's not spoil good oil by boiling a troll in it.

heh, good one.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/17/11 04:57, Phil Allison so wittily quipped:
And the OP is a ****ing TROLL - you dopey ass !!!

grow a brain.

your definition of 'troll' is in accurate. asking a legitimate question
(even one easily answered by google) is NOT trolling. What you do _IS_
trolling. You are throwing ridiculous crap into the newsgroup in order
to solicit response.

And I am feeding you so that I can toy with you.

Go ahead and continue your responses. Eventually, when someone googles
for 'troll', your name will appear at the top of the list, along with
sufficient supporting evidence.

ad-hominem attacks are the debating equivalent of a monkey throwing its
own poo. Keep in mind that many monkeys who are the recipient of such
treatment (the 'renegade monkey') eventually become a tribal leader. So
you can continue behaving like a Howler if you like. I know where this
will eventually end up.

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Big Bad Boob"


** FOAD you stinking troll.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/18/11 03:10, Phil Allison so wittily quipped:
"Big Bad Boob"


** FOAD you stinking troll.


your vocabulary is too limited. Try a dictionary, or a thesaurus. My
'American' vocabulary exceeds yours, I'm sure. Needless to say, if you
get your rectal-cranial inversion issue solved, it might fix other
things as well, being what I might call your SECOND biggest problem, the
first being a lack of proper brain development.

[John-Del]

On Apr 18, 4:06*am, Big Bad Bob BigBadBob-at-mrp3-
wrote:


ad-hominem attacks are the debating equivalent of a monkey throwing its
own poo. *Keep in mind that many monkeys who are the recipient of such
treatment (the 'renegade monkey') eventually become a tribal leader. *So
you can continue behaving like a Howler if you like. *I know where this
will eventually end up.

LOL!

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/24/11 01:20, flipper so wittily quipped:

snip most

So, your 'example' "how to get to heaven, but not how the heavens go"
is specious as Galileo disagreed with you and it wasn't the Church who
argued both were inseparable. They were content to leave science to
science, philosophy to philosophers, and theology to theologians but
Galileo was not.

And that is why he got into trouble.

I've heard that some of Galileo's problems may have been due to his "in
your face"-ness towards the religious powers of the day, rather than
operating 'below the radar' (as we'd say nowadays). And they (the
religious authorities) probably deserved it. In any case, I think
history judges them harshly, and Galileo fairly, for the most part.

I'm thankful that it's at least a _little_ more fair in modern times.

A strange turn this thread has taken. perhaps a new topic is in order?

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/25/11 03:16, flipper so wittily quipped:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:16:23 -0700, Big Bad Bob
wrote:

On 04/24/11 01:20, flipper so wittily quipped:

snip most

So, your 'example' "how to get to heaven, but not how the heavens go"
is specious as Galileo disagreed with you and it wasn't the Church who
argued both were inseparable. They were content to leave science to
science, philosophy to philosophers, and theology to theologians but
Galileo was not.

And that is why he got into trouble.

I've heard that some of Galileo's problems may have been due to his "in
your face"-ness towards the religious powers of the day, rather than
operating 'below the radar' (as we'd say nowadays).

I already explained what his 'problems' were.

And they (the
religious authorities) probably deserved it.

Pardon me but that's the kind of logic 5 year olds use when they hurl
"you stink" at someone they don't like.

snip etc.

Uh, no. It's more like hurling truth in the face of arrogant elitists,
particularly when they are in positions of great power (where what they
say and decree carries actual weight and can even get you killed), and
they deserve the criticism they get whenever their power is being ABused
like this. So yeah, he was 'sticking it to _THE MAN_'. And their
response proves it: they forced Gallileo to officially recant his
non-earth-centric belief. An organized religion using political power
to control people, pr in this case how someone THINKS (aka 'thought
police'), deserves the criticism it gets.

Gallileo's "recanting" he
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...cantation.html

"I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center
of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the
world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way
whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after
it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy
Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new
doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its
favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I
have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of
heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the
center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center
and moves"

That's pretty clear, I think. Of course, there's no "thought police"
trying to stop ME from thinking. There WAS, however, for Gallileo.

The only reason Gallileo would have EVER written this is if the PENALTY
FOR NOT DOING SO was GREATER than the embarassment of it. Note the use
of "Inquisitors General" in the text. Michael Palin wasn't there to
torture him with the 'comfy chair' - it was NO JOKE what would be in
store for him without the 'recant', in 1633. Being named 'St. Gallileo'
would NOT have been a reasonable consolation prize (think Jean d'Arc).
'Nuff said.

I'll abandon any suspected myth in favor of this one single fact.
Please consider what I meant with my previous post to be consistent with
this.


A strange turn this thread has taken. perhaps a new topic is in order?

Patrick can't help proselytizing no matter what the original subject
was and I occasionally respond.

proselytizing? interesting way of putting it.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/26/11 02:47, flipper so wittily quipped:
It should also be noted that it wasn't the 'Church' who just up and
declared earth the center of the universe. That was accepted 'fact',
Aristotle said so, as did Plato (and later Ptolemy), long before
Christ was even born and ALL 'well educated' persons knew it, as well
as Aristotle's 'proof' that the heaviest object would necessarily be
at the center with the earth clearly being larger and heavier than
anything else. It was, at the time, irrefutable.

that's not really related to my point, but ok. I think you stated that
a couple of times before, or something very similar. Re-stating
something because I allegedly didn't see/read it isn't very convincing,
but whatever. I didn't respond before because I don't see its relevance
to my argument, which has to do with religion oppressing ideas and
people that oppose the 'status quo' through the use of force.

If you want 'hurling truth' then let's add it up. In Galileo's time
the great preponderance of evidence supported, hold on to your hat,
the geocentric model. In fact, just about the only thing the
heliocentric model had going for it was in simplifying some of the
calculations but the prevailing view was this was a mathematical
convenience rather than 'reality'. As for Galileo's 'truths' he
rejected Kepler's elliptical orbit, insisting orbits were circular,
and in great error claimed the tides were evidence of earth moving
around the sun. And while the *one* 'conclusion', earth is not the
center, might be argued as later shown to be true, some 200 years
later, his alleged 'evidence' is grievously wrong and his 'center',
the sun, is not.

Kepler's orbital calculations and incorrect use of tides as evidence
isn't really at issue, either (I find this part interesting, but not
relevant to my point). My argument simply had to do with what is
written in Galileo's 'recant', which was caused by the reaction of the
church authorities at that time to Galileo's scientific discovery, one
that had core elements that disagreed with them on a fundamental basis.

You can try to analyze what lead up to that, and that's fine, and maybe
it will explain SOME of it, but it does NOT explain why the church's
position of geocentricity, stated in writing, could not be opposed by
Galileo without threat to his life. The Inquisitors General _DID_
torture people to death for things _LIKE_ that back then. People came
to America to ESCAPE things like that.

My point is that it was ALL about CONTROLLING people (and 'thought
police', for that matter), to force people to go along with 'established
beliefs' and not question the AUTHORITY of the priests and cardinals and
the church itself [regardless of scientific proof to the contrary].
Back in the 60's, a lot of people questioned authority, and people
should CONTINUE questioning it today.

Had geocentricity vs heliocentricity been about truth, the 'Inquisitors
General' would NOT have gotten involved. These people were in place to
ensure that NOBODY dissented, not even for GOOD reasons. It was about
CONTROL. That's why they existed.

Btw, just try to get something that 'screwed up', especially flying in
the face of 'known facts' that have stood the test of time to the tune
of some 1500 years and conceived by the 'greatest minds of all time'
(in that case Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy) published in a modern
scientific journal and see how far you get past the 'censorship' of
"arrogant elitists."

Yeah, there's a definite 'political correctness' in many scientific
circles. In general, however, the scrutiny SHOULD be there.
Experiments should be repeated by others, calculations re-performed by
others, and checked over several times. Unfortunately this will envite
the ad-hominem attackers and arrogant elitists and others who
potentially have something to lose.

Things are not quite so different today as you imagine. For example,
let us say the official school board curriculum calls for the teaching
of evolution and a self appointed 'genius' decides to teach
intelligent design as 'truth' instead.

that would be incorrect. I.D. is a theory like evolution. I don't agree
with many aspects of either one, actually, and think that consciousness
itself may play a part in evolution (particularly during catastrophes,
where the most evolution appears to take place). But that's off-topic
so I'll stop now. Point being, I don't think either model is right,
that there may be a model that better describes this particular
scientific debate, and nobody has any idea what that is at the moment.
So both I.D. and evolution should remain in 'theory' status until
someone can do an experiment that others can repeat.

Nor was it just the 'Church' who used 'scripture' as 'evidence'.
Galileo himself did in support of the heliocentric model just as
proponents of the well established geocentric model did. Of course,
they also had the advantage of quoting Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and
pointing to a model that had worked for 1500 years, and still did.

I can't justify them doing this with anything OTHER than "status quo" in
mind. And it was STILL about CONTROL. They would not tolerate someone
to produce a theory that was in disagreement with theirs. They had to
get the Inquisitors General involved. _THAT_ is my point.


I was not, however, defending the Church's legal status, 'authority'.
or methodology. What I said was the myth is incorrect because the
Church did not object to 'science', per see, as long as it stayed in
it's place, but, rather, objected to the claim that 'observation'
could determine religious matters in the same manner it could the
'scientific'.

And they're still doing the "control the masses" thing by use of the
Inquisitors General, when someone disagrees with them.


(snip rest for brevity)

[Pt]

I decided that I wanted to know more about tubes so I bought a tube
tester then found a newsgroup dedicated to vacuum tubes and here I am
wondering what in the hell did I get in to?
WTF are you guys talking about?

Pt

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/26/11 23:13, flipper so wittily quipped:
The topic is the Galileo myth, portrayed as 'scientific truth' vs
'ignorant religion', and not just whatever you feel like making it.

I will accept your premise and assume that I was thinking of a different
topic.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 04/28/11 03:21, flipper so wittily quipped:

"A good old boil in oil or being hung, drawn, then quartered awaited
scientific people who dared suggest the Catholic Church was run by a
bunch of ignoramae monstrositicae. Popes defined the evidence, while
daring scientists tried to suggest the Church explained "how to get to
heaven, but not how the heavens go."

There's no evidence of people being boiled in oil for saying the earth
moved (tortured and/or killed for plenty of other things, just not
that one)

plenty of other things, yeah.


Excuse me for going more into it but I got interested and did
additional research so I thought I'd share.

perhaps a web page (or wikipedia page) on the subject? It would make
good reading for anyone else doing research, and a list of references
would add credibility.

It's also been a long time since I last tried, and a challenge, to
think 'Aristotelian'. I mean, besides the entirely different way of
'thinking' you also have to 'leave aside' a lot of things we 'know',
and so ingrained they're almost 'instinct', like gravity.

There's that one 'Stargate' episode where the advanced aliens become
refugees on earth, and Carter is explaining why she named the cat
'Shroedinger'. Goes into similar comparisons about Heisenberg and
quantum mechanics.

Fun, doncha think?

an excellent experiment in thought. I would expect this kind of thing
to be common among sci-fi authors.