I've just had a couple of enlightening but also depressing experiences.

1. I accepted a design commission for a bike to be sold through an
expensive department store. Bikes are essentially frame designs fitted
up with off-the shelf mechanicals from only three manufacturers, wheels
and handlebars and saddles from not all that many more makers, and
various bits and bobs from not a huge choice of suppliers. There are,
by way of comparison, probably at least four or five times as many
suppliers to the Ford Model A/Deuce hot rod market. For a bike to sell
at a thousand dollars retail, I discovered, when you're ordering only a
couple of containers-full (such bikes are sold ex-facory in Taiwan and
China by the containerload, typically around 140 bikes to a container)
to can have one or two special items, not three; the rest must be the
cheapest possible. The USD995 retail mark is say EUR800. That's not as
bad as it sounds, as Shimano's cheapest mechanicals is damned good
gear, and you can have the best Shimano hub gears and hub dynamos for
automatic lighting and still throw in shaft drive if you want it, and
still make the 995 retail cut if you take a standard frame. If you want
a different frame, you have to give up one of those desirable items or
raise the price. This accounts for why so many so-called
"custom-designed" bikes are nothing but decal-engineering. To make a
truly original frame design at anything like a reasonable price (a
grand for the complete bike looks good to me and to very experienced
marketers) you need to be certain of sales in the tens of thousands of
units. By way of comparison, Thorne's cheapest Rohloff-equipped touring
bike, which has a very thoughtfully specified set of frame parameters,
but which except for the Rohloff hub is specified at the cheapest
decent quality level to make a stunning price point, costs Stg1200 or
EUR1800.

2. I thought I'd design a cost-no-object bike for myself and stick the
customer for the development parts and services; he's known me a lotta
years and doesn't mind paying for the occasional wild idea as long as
he get first dibs at commercializing it when it shows promise. This
turned out to be not a very bright idea. When I finished the design, it
was pretty and exclusive: red nipples to the spokes on otherwise black
wheels, silver-brazed, lugged stainless steel frame half painted in my
favourite sunflower yellow with a dusted black for safety reflection,
lugs outlined in my house maroon, bits and bobs over which other
knowledgeable cyclists could oohahhh ectatically. Net cost, EUR5K+. For
a bike fundamentally not truly any better or more convenient or more
comfortable or more efficient or more durable than my Gazelle
Toulouse, which could be landed when it was current at my door in
Ireland for EUR879. It is depressing how good a product you can buy off
the shelf if you know which are the best shelves and you aren't a
fashion victim. The cost of being "different" is a depressing 600% and
there is always the risk that a custom unit of any kind will not be as
good as the best bought off the shelf: it takes only one incompetent in
the bunch of outside craftsmen you must trust to do handiwork you
cannot do yourself.

3. Then what about a truly radical bike frame? I have connections to
people who can cast anything, engrave anything, forge anything, press
anything (including by water-pressure from the inside). I know
engineers who will check my finite analysis of the stresses on the
frame down to the finest detail. The cost could be from a few hundred
(arts council supported castery for sculptors) to around a hundred
grand. I was particularly impressed with plastiform ali... Until I
discovered Biomega in Denmark already sells a bike in it from about
EUR2600 to 6K; I couldn't possibly build a singleton even for the
higher price; furthermore, the Biomega frames are just fitted up with
the same Shimano and SRAM and Rohloff parts I mentioned above. Right,
okay. At this point I concluded that I was like those people I despise
who come up to me at parties to ask if I think they should rather have
bought a Ferrari than the most expensive Mercedes coupe; they agonize
over it.

4. There's a lesson for tubies in this bike saga. The Chinese tube amps
that Keith G has been experiencing are clearly "container-load" types.
The basic ones are pretty good already -- any 300B amp is pretty good,
and some of the hysterical criticism of Keith's attitude and amps
started from an unrealistically high barrier because there is no point
whatsoever in judging a 300 buck amp by the standards of a 3000 buck
amp; the outcome is always an exercise in pure snobbery. Any change to
the basic specification costs proportionately more than the additional
quality of sound obtained. This is economic marginality at work, first
slowly and then faster and faster to the point where a big deal of
money has to be spent for a minuscule improvement in quality. A point
soon arrives where it becomes more attractive for the amp maker and
distributor to spend the money on cosmetics, which can give a big boost
in perceived value for relatively small expenditure (the reverse of the
marginality that applies to true quality). That barrier may already
have been reached in the Chinese amps. Higher up the scale, I have to
wonder if the Chinese will not decide to leave the expensive niche
markets, which have bigger unit profits but rather infrequently, to the
dumb roundeyes. But I suspect that the Chinese are so vibrant and so
hungry that somewhere some Chinese is already plotting to compete at
the top of the market. Since the major labour cost in an amp (given
mass-chassis production -- a huge cost in singletons and small runs) is
winding the transformer, and the rest of the parts are in any event
expensive relative to the wholesale price at the factory gate, I just
don't see them undercutting the top Western tube amp makers by huge
margins. It is an open question about how big their undercut *must* be
before on a luxury item people will buy the cheap no-name Chinese item
rather than the big-name Western item but I suspect a one-third
undercut won't do the business, that they will have to sell at half or
less of CJ or ARC prices -- for a similar quality of goods and warranty
and service. That won't leave too big a bowl of rice. Conclusion:
Better enjoy the Chinese amps you can get now because, far from
improving, they might be cheapened in the sound (while at the same time
being prettified) to increase margins.

Andre Jute
Economist, psychologist, tubie
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Crap from Andrew Jute McCoy snipped

Yeah, right. Even in Ireland, bicycles and _any other_ mechanical
consumer goods are design by mechanical engineers with actual degrees
and actual insurance, not lying poseurs and charlatans. And you can
damned well bet that before _anything_ actually gets sold to the public
the lawyers have their go at it as well.

Imagine... consider giving a bicycle to your loved one(s) that performs
as well as his amplifiers.... YIKES!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote:

Crap from Andrew Jute McCoy snipped

Yeah, right. Even in Ireland, bicycles and _any other_ mechanical
consumer goods are design by mechanical engineers with actual degrees
and actual insurance, not lying poseurs and charlatans. And you can
damned well bet that before _anything_ actually gets sold to the public
the lawyers have their go at it as well.

Imagine... consider giving a bicycle to your loved one(s) that performs
as well as his amplifiers.... YIKES!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

wrote:

Crap from Andrew Jute McCoy snipped

Yeah, right. Even in Ireland, bicycles and _any other_ mechanical
consumer goods are design by mechanical engineers with actual degrees
and actual insurance, not lying poseurs and charlatans. And you can
damned well bet that before _anything_ actually gets sold to the public
the lawyers have their go at it as well.

Imagine... consider giving a bicycle to your loved one(s) that performs
as well as his amplifiers.... YIKES!

You can't easily go wrong designing a bicycle, if that means choosing a frame,
wheels etc. from a manufacturer's catalogue, and having it built for you.
To get it wrong would require something really stupid such as specifying
stainless steel for the frame.
As for a "truly radical bike frame", bicycle design was perfected a century ago
and nothing different will be required until the design of the rider changes.
(Novelties such as indexed gears aren't fundamental but if Andre could invent
antilock brakes and an efficient CVT transmission, that would be nice.)

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

You can't easily go wrong designing a bicycle, if that means choosing a frame,
wheels etc. from a manufacturer's catalogue, and having it built for you.

"1. I accepted a design commission for a bike to be sold through an
expensive department store."

What I choose for myself from a list of options is much like how I
would choose a new car... There is no 'design' involved, just how I
want my Car, or my Pizza or my Cheesesteak... It's when I choose for
others that it gets interesting.

If Mr. McCoy has a job as an order-taker for a department store, (i.e.:
A Drone), this would make sense, but getting a 'design commission' is
hardly the same thing as being an order-taker. The former does require
qualifications that it simply does not have. The latter is the
functional equivalent of "do you want fries with that?", something well
within its skill-set.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
wrote:
You can't easily go wrong designing a bicycle, if that means choosing a
frame,
wheels etc. from a manufacturer's catalogue, and having it built for you.

A young girl died in Brisbane Australia approx 10 - 12 years ago when her
cheap imported bike became dangerously unstable at speed on a down hill
section of bitumen road. The University of Queensland undertook a review of
the bike design and came to the conclusion that the steering head angle in
conjunction with fork design led to the instability displayed at speed (the
design evidently became unstable at approx 35 - 40 Km/h).

The relationship between steering head angle and trail distance (distance
from where a line through the steering head will intersect the road to where
the tyre contacts the road) is very relevant for controllability. You should
not mix and match forks and frames if you don't know what you are doing.

Andre Jute wrote:

Why do you think stainless steel is "stupid"? It has all the
characteristics of the better bicycle formulations, including the
"feel", and is merely more difficult to cut, work and braze, but there
are specialists who do that. Reynolds is just about to bring out a new
set of bicycle tubes in stainless steel.

I'll wait until someone actually builds a frame from 953, and someone else
shows that it lasts, before I trust it. Good luck with your project.

A piccie of my Toulouse is he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20Bauhaus.html

Nice bike for a little old lady. Is it just the angle of the photo
or does it have an unusual amount of trail?

Perhaps it's been a while since you last looked into bikes, eh, Eiron?
I keep up. I just wish I could find a pair of brogues with Shimano cleats.
Apart from that, I have all the technology I need.

--
Eiron.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've just had a couple of enlightening but also depressing experiences.


snip bike stuff - not interested unless 350 single, 500 twin, 750 triple or
1,000cc four in line...



4. There's a lesson for tubies in this bike saga. The Chinese tube amps
that Keith G has been experiencing are clearly "container-load" types.
The basic ones are pretty good already -- any 300B amp is pretty good,
and some of the hysterical criticism of Keith's attitude and amps
started from an unrealistically high barrier because there is no point
whatsoever in judging a 300 buck amp by the standards of a 3000 buck
amp; the outcome is always an exercise in pure snobbery. Any change to
the basic specification costs proportionately more than the additional
quality of sound obtained. This is economic marginality at work, first
slowly and then faster and faster to the point where a big deal of
money has to be spent for a minuscule improvement in quality. A point
soon arrives where it becomes more attractive for the amp maker and
distributor to spend the money on cosmetics, which can give a big boost
in perceived value for relatively small expenditure (the reverse of the
marginality that applies to true quality). That barrier may already
have been reached in the Chinese amps.


"Bid me discourse, I will enchant thine ear"....?? ;-)

Jutius, I always enjoy your comments about the Chinese amps and agree with
just about all you say about them, but I would like to make the following
observation - the only truly hysterical criticism of these amps in general
(and SETs in particular) has come from our antipodean associates, otherwise
it has been more a reaction to the amps being 'valvular' than anything much
to do with their point of origin or price. (The Ostile Ozzies may well have
seen more duff stuff from the Chinese than we have, which would go some way
to explain their attitudes...??)

For me it was a simple dilemma - I wanted to hear a 300B SET (any 300B SET)
and at 300 quid a pop I am getting to do this (twice over), while at 3,000
quid a poke I would only be reading about them! (I really don't see myself
travelling great distances for a quick snatch of somebody else's silly
expensive amp or speakers, as has recently been suggested here - for one
thing, listening to kit in an environment other than one's own is a waste of
time, IMO....)

I have liked these amps from the off and they compare very well with my own
2A3 SET, which is reputed to have a fine sound (that's *help create* a fine
sound, for the pedants). I have never claimed them to be particularly any
good (how could I, I've heard no SET amps other than my own) - only very
good value for money! All I can say if a 'posh' amp really is that much
better, then I look forward to the day when I do get to hear one...!! But,
until that day, I'm sold on the cheap Chinese stuff!

Interestingly (lovely word - allows one to change the subject to anything
one wants), my parallel/contrast to the (perfectly reasonable, IMO) idea
that it would take a vast hike in spending on a SET to achieve only a modest
improvement in the sound quality is actually the other half of the *killer
combination* - the Firewood Horn speakers.

I had built several pairs of 'lesser' speakers (size, not sound quality)
when I built a pair of Jerichos and initially fitted the Fostex FE206E
fullrange (that's *widerange* for the pedants, once again) drivers. All who
came here to hear them raved about them, with one exception - the most
useful visit (by far) was from Serge who very politely said they were crap!
Actually, he didn't say that at all - he said they were 'crunchy' which was
effectively the same thing, AFAIAC....!!

Once this was pointed out I became quite aware of it and I briefly
considered correction network circuits (to flatten the FR curves) but went
instead for a pair of more expensive drivers. (I want components to work
together of their own free will, not be *forced* to work!) Anyway -
*Kaboom!!* the improvement was/is colossal - for approximately 30% more
money!!

Now, I am awaiting delivery of these little buggers:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...e=STRK:MEWN:IT

And anticipate that, for a lot more money (approx 250%) the resultant sound
will be even better, due probably to the special construction of these units
where the HF 'overspill' is effectively prevented from entering the pressure
chamber. Pro-rata better? - I'm not sure, but they will represent something
of an ultimate for me and I am really looking forward to hearing them.

*IF* the difference is a) positive and b) profound, I might then seek out a
'posh SET' to see if there is a similar hike in sound quality, but my guess
is there won't be - I firmly believe the amp merely needs to be *not broken*
to work in most setups, but that the speaker is all.

IMO a modest amp and super speakers will beat the 'other way round'
arrangement (the way most people go) every time! (The other major influence
on sound quality being the cartridge, naturally....!! ;-)



Higher up the scale, I have to
wonder if the Chinese will not decide to leave the expensive niche
markets, which have bigger unit profits but rather infrequently, to the
dumb roundeyes. But I suspect that the Chinese are so vibrant and so
hungry that somewhere some Chinese is already plotting to compete at
the top of the market. Since the major labour cost in an amp (given
mass-chassis production -- a huge cost in singletons and small runs) is
winding the transformer, and the rest of the parts are in any event
expensive relative to the wholesale price at the factory gate, I just
don't see them undercutting the top Western tube amp makers by huge
margins. It is an open question about how big their undercut *must* be
before on a luxury item people will buy the cheap no-name Chinese item
rather than the big-name Western item but I suspect a one-third
undercut won't do the business, that they will have to sell at half or
less of CJ or ARC prices -- for a similar quality of goods and warranty
and service. That won't leave too big a bowl of rice. Conclusion:
Better enjoy the Chinese amps you can get now because, far from
improving, they might be cheapened in the sound (while at the same time
being prettified) to increase margins.


As to the question of the reduction of 'price undercut' needed to allow
Chinese products to compete, I would say that, taking the one make Shanling
as a guideline, it's already started!! Economy of Scale in production costs
and the comparatively cheap labour will ensure the Chinese product will
remain viable for long enough to overcome remaining prejudices until theie
products can equla or supercede domestic Western product, much like the Jap
motorbikes from the 60s on.

Mind you, given that if you bang a stake into the ground and the Chinese
Peoples start to walk past it, it will be *never-ending* and factor in that
the Chinese Economy is growing fastest/biggest in the world, for us manky
Brits to believe the Chinese will even give a **** about the West in (say) 5
years time is a symptom of the arrogance that is reducing us to the level of
3rd rate banana republic!!

APR wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...
wrote:
You can't easily go wrong designing a bicycle, if that means choosing a
frame,
wheels etc. from a manufacturer's catalogue, and having it built for you.

A young girl died in Brisbane Australia approx 10 - 12 years ago when her
cheap imported bike became dangerously unstable at speed on a down hill
section of bitumen road. The University of Queensland undertook a review of
the bike design and came to the conclusion that the steering head angle in
conjunction with fork design led to the instability displayed at speed (the
design evidently became unstable at approx 35 - 40 Km/h).

The relationship between steering head angle and trail distance (distance
from where a line through the steering head will intersect the road to where
the tyre contacts the road) is very relevant for controllability. You should
not mix and match forks and frames if you don't know what you are doing.



APR wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
You can't easily go wrong designing a bicycle, if that means choosing a
frame,
wheels etc. from a manufacturer's catalogue, and having it built for you.

A young girl died in Brisbane Australia approx 10 - 12 years ago when her
cheap imported bike became dangerously unstable at speed on a down hill
section of bitumen road. The University of Queensland undertook a review of
the bike design and came to the conclusion that the steering head angle in
conjunction with fork design led to the instability displayed at speed (the
design evidently became unstable at approx 35 - 40 Km/h).

The relationship between steering head angle and trail distance (distance
from where a line through the steering head will intersect the road to where
the tyre contacts the road) is very relevant for controllability.

Specifically, trail distance is result of the relationship between head
angle, fork rake (or offset), and tyre diameter. Wheelbase and seat
tube angle also have effects on controllability, through weight
distribution and transfer. A good test of whether someone understands
these sometimes counterintuitive relationships is to ask him what
happens when a raked fork is turned back to front: does it increase or
decrease the trail? Fork material and design will also have a
resonance, and roads have their own frequencies, different in different
countries usually according to the size of trucks/number of axles
permitted; these can set up interference patterns evidenced as wheel
shimmy.

You should
not mix and match forks and frames if you don't know what you are doing.

Thanks for the well-meant warning but I've done suspensions and
steering before, even wrote a book about it. If you're interested in a
good read on bicycle dynamics, I can recommend:
David E. H. Jones, The Stability of the Bicycle, PHYSICS TODAY, APRIL
1970, pp34-40.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Thanks for the well-meant warning but I've done suspensions and
steering before, even wrote a book about it. If you're interested in a
good read on bicycle dynamics, I can recommend:
David E. H. Jones, The Stability of the Bicycle, PHYSICS TODAY, APRIL
1970, pp34-40.

Andre Jute


That's really great, Andre.

I guess I see the connection. The frame of a bicycle is tubular, no?

Thanks for insipid reference to crappy Chinese tube amps to try to make the
rest of your babble somehow relevant to rec.audio.tubes. It was painfully
transparent.

I've got an idea. Why don't you learn how to add a blog to your website.
That way, you can keep the throng of your admirers (including your
sockpuppets) enthralled and entertained with the minutiae of your life
including what you had for breakfast, how you prepared it, updates on bowel
movements, etc. And all of the other stuff that you find so fascinating.

Jono

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've just had a couple of enlightening but also depressing experiences.


snip bike stuff - not interested unless 350 single, 500 twin, 750 triple
or 1,000cc four in line...

**How about a 1,800cc twin?

http://www.suzukimotorcycles.com.au/...p?intNewsID=29

Check out the bore size.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



As to the question of the reduction of 'price undercut' needed to allow
Chinese products to compete, I would say that, taking the one make
Shanling as a guideline, it's already started!! Economy of Scale in
production costs and the comparatively cheap labour will ensure the
Chinese product will remain viable for long enough to overcome remaining
prejudices until theie products can equla or supercede domestic Western
product, much like the Jap motorbikes from the 60s on.

**Indeed. Shadling make a CD player, which retails in Australia for around
US$3,200.00. The FOB price is around US$600.00. Someone is making *a lot* of
money on this puppy. And it ain't the factory.


Mind you, given that if you bang a stake into the ground and the Chinese
Peoples start to walk past it, it will be *never-ending* and factor in
that the Chinese Economy is growing fastest/biggest in the world, for us
manky Brits to believe the Chinese will even give a **** about the West in
(say) 5 years time is a symptom of the arrogance that is reducing us to
the level of 3rd rate banana republic!!

**Yep. In 20 years, Pommy-land, Australia and the US will be the cheap
labour for China and India. Hey, maybe we can man call centres and get our
back. :-)


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Andrew Jute mcCoy Crap Clipped except:
Thanks for the well-meant warning but I've done suspensions and
steering before, even wrote a book about it.

It never ends, does it. This rests on the same bookshelf as its tomes
on vehicle design, yacht design, and the many other creations of its
fevered imagination.

Once again, just imagine putting yourself or your loved one(s) on a
bicycle "designed" by this particular accretion of unsupported
fantasies. Accept as a given that it will perform *exactly* as well as
its amps....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've just had a couple of enlightening but also depressing experiences.


snip bike stuff - not interested unless 350 single, 500 twin, 750 triple
or 1,000cc four in line...

**How about a 1,800cc twin?

http://www.suzukimotorcycles.com.au/...p?intNewsID=29

Check out the bore size.


Hmm, in a amps = motorbikes analogy it'a bit 'Krell' innit? Must say I like
the 'digitally controlled SET' bit - I was doing the very same thing myself
last week!!

The analogy continues thus:

A (Brit) 350 single, like a SET amp is the sweetest handling, most
pleasurable ride you'll ever have in the right setting - ideal for leafy
lanes in the dappled sunshine or a winding, single-lane moorland roadway
where the next vehicle is an hour away, but it's never going to impress
anybody who uses the motorways a lot....

Your Rotel SS amps are like a modern 500 twin - a dependable workhorse which
will never offer the utmost in excitement but should be good for about 110
mph this day and age. It'll get you from A to B ahead of the crowd with the
greatest reliability, isn't to heavy to manoeuvre and it is the epitome of
convenience at an affordable price, but it won't be long before you want
summat that's got a bit more going for it...

The 750 triple I was thinking of is specifically the '74 Triumph Trident I
gave to my son. No analogy immediately springs to mind...

1,000 cc bikes are like the 'mid-fi, high-end' stuff that thinks it's a bit
special (MF? Cyrus? Arcam? Roksan?) but, due to the situation in which they
are mostly used, are often outperformed by a 500 twin in real terms - the
only obvious advantage of the bigger bike being the slightly lower throttle
setting that will be used most of the time...

Another analogy, but between Chinese SETs and Brit SS offerings this time
springs to mind - when I used to do a lot of shooting (game - summat I
regret, now) I preferred (and used) a 16 bore Spanish sidelock AYA
double-barrelled shotgun to the more common English 12 bore boxlocks. There
were three distinct advantages in my book, which I don't suppose could even
be guessed at by anyone here....??

(Interestingly, for clays and some game at times, I mostly used Brownings
which, I believe, were 'American' made by the Japs....?? Miroku?)

(Interestingly, for clays and some game at times, I mostly used Brownings
which, I believe, were 'American' made by the Japs....?? Miroku?)

http://www.browning.com/faq/detail.asp?ID=90

Where Browning makes their firearms.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
ups.com...
(Interestingly, for clays and some game at times, I mostly used Brownings
which, I believe, were 'American' made by the Japs....?? Miroku?)

http://www.browning.com/faq/detail.asp?ID=90

Where Browning makes their firearms.



Yes, that brings it back a bit (been a while)....

I had an A1 with a straight-hand stock like a Winchester rifle which looked
the part but wasn't too nice to use, a B2G (I think it was) which was very
fancy (tulip forend) and felt *entirely* Japanese (didn't like it) and an
old C3 with cylinder/improved choking which was so effective and so
lovely-looking a wealthy jeweller friend worried away at me until I let him
have it for an 'offer I couldn't refuse'.....!!

Keith G wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've just had a couple of enlightening but also depressing experiences.


snip bike stuff - not interested unless 350 single, 500 twin, 750 triple
or 1,000cc four in line...

**How about a 1,800cc twin?

http://www.suzukimotorcycles.com.au/...p?intNewsID=29

Check out the bore size.

When someone does the obvious and builds a V-twin around a pair of
R-985 cylinders let me know. Until then I'll stick with my BMW.



Hmm, in a amps = motorbikes analogy it'a bit 'Krell' innit? Must say I like
the 'digitally controlled SET' bit - I was doing the very same thing myself
last week!!

The analogy continues thus:

A (Brit) 350 single, like a SET amp is the sweetest handling, most
pleasurable ride you'll ever have in the right setting - ideal for leafy
lanes in the dappled sunshine or a winding, single-lane moorland roadway
where the next vehicle is an hour away, but it's never going to impress
anybody who uses the motorways a lot....

Singles are nuts.

Your Rotel SS amps are like a modern 500 twin - a dependable workhorse which
will never offer the utmost in excitement but should be good for about 110
mph this day and age. It'll get you from A to B ahead of the crowd with the
greatest reliability, isn't to heavy to manoeuvre and it is the epitome of
convenience at an affordable price, but it won't be long before you want
summat that's got a bit more going for it...

Most twins I see are harleys. 883 is the smallest.

The 750 triple I was thinking of is specifically the '74 Triumph Trident I
gave to my son. No analogy immediately springs to mind...

Three is a bad number of cylinders for a four stroke. Yhe only triple
worth a **** was the one built around a Saab car engine.

1,000 cc bikes are like the 'mid-fi, high-end' stuff that thinks it's a bit
special (MF? Cyrus? Arcam? Roksan?) but, due to the situation in which they
are mostly used, are often outperformed by a 500 twin in real terms - the
only obvious advantage of the bigger bike being the slightly lower throttle
setting that will be used most of the time...

Another analogy, but between Chinese SETs and Brit SS offerings this time
springs to mind - when I used to do a lot of shooting (game - summat I
regret, now) I preferred (and used) a 16 bore Spanish sidelock AYA
double-barrelled shotgun to the more common English 12 bore boxlocks. There
were three distinct advantages in my book, which I don't suppose could even
be guessed at by anyone here....??

(Interestingly, for clays and some game at times, I mostly used Brownings
which, I believe, were 'American' made by the Japs....?? Miroku?)

Most Brownings were Liege, Belgium. A few were made in
ultra-hoplophobic Japan, I think the Citori.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Keith G wrote:



The analogy continues thus:

A (Brit) 350 single, like a SET amp is the sweetest handling, most
pleasurable ride you'll ever have in the right setting - ideal for leafy
lanes in the dappled sunshine or a winding, single-lane moorland roadway
where the next vehicle is an hour away, but it's never going to impress
anybody who uses the motorways a lot....

Singles are nuts.



Ah, never ridden a Velocette Venom then? Go see the 1961 entry he

http://www.velocetteowners.com/history/history.html

That's a *24 hour* 100mph *average* - anyone over in the US of Apple Pie
gotta Harley that'll hold together at that speed for that long? :-)



Your Rotel SS amps are like a modern 500 twin - a dependable workhorse
which
will never offer the utmost in excitement but should be good for about
110
mph this day and age. It'll get you from A to B ahead of the crowd with
the
greatest reliability, isn't to heavy to manoeuvre and it is the epitome
of
convenience at an affordable price, but it won't be long before you want
summat that's got a bit more going for it...

Most twins I see are harleys. 883 is the smallest.


And nifty little buggers for round town....



The 750 triple I was thinking of is specifically the '74 Triumph Trident
I
gave to my son. No analogy immediately springs to mind...

Three is a bad number of cylinders for a four stroke. Yhe only triple
worth a **** was the one built around a Saab car engine.


You might be right, my son's blown the Trident up.

Can't say I'm *too* sad about it - every year he gets older, he does seem to
be getting a little bit wiser and it'll fix some time in the future....???



(Interestingly, for clays and some game at times, I mostly used Brownings
which, I believe, were 'American' made by the Japs....?? Miroku?)

Most Brownings were Liege, Belgium. A few were made in
ultra-hoplophobic Japan, I think the Citori.


Unless I disremember - Mirokus (and I thought some of the later Brownings)
were built on a factory ship that sailed continuously from here to there and
only docked to load/offload and change production personnel
periodically....??

"Keith G" wrote


You might be right, my son's blown the Trident up.

Can't say I'm *too* sad about it - every year he gets older, he does seem
to be getting a little bit wiser and it'll fix some time in the
future....???


WTF, here he is (a few years back) with another very nice little *single*!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Andrew27.JPG

:-)

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Good output transformers in any substanntial quantity can be
made for under a hundred dollars each,

The actual cost depends on a lot of factors. Not all
audio transformers can be made on automated
equipment.

I bet Ned Carlson has maybe $20
in his Dyna outputs.

That'd be nice. But with US costs for steel, copper
and labor, only the C354 choke and the PAS power transformer
are even in that ballpark. Audio transformers, not
a chance.


--
Ned Carlson
SW side of Chicago, USA
www.tubezone.net

Ned Carlson wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Good output transformers in any substanntial quantity can be
made for under a hundred dollars each,

The actual cost depends on a lot of factors. Not all
audio transformers can be made on automated
equipment.

I bet Ned Carlson has maybe $20
in his Dyna outputs.

That'd be nice. But with US costs for steel, copper
and labor, only the C354 choke and the PAS power transformer
are even in that ballpark. Audio transformers, not
a chance.

Work backwards from the Hammond price to find out the economies of
production in a western country.

Just imagine if Hammond used a little better design. Cost would be maybe
$10 more
but the better interleaving and wasteless secondaries would be worth it.

Patrick Turner.



--
Ned Carlson
SW side of Chicago, USA
www.tubezone.net