Ozzy 2005 wrote:

The net allows folks to be utterly obscene, as rude and and arsolic as
humanly possible,
and folks either get used to that noise, kill file the offender, or
ignore them or give them a taste of their own medicine.
Those options are not always possible in the real world, and
there can be blood on the carpet easy.

Good points - I see what you mean - probably very right. Let me add not
being involved and just seeing some of these it's pretty darn right out
of control./

The world is out of *your* control.
It sure is out of my control.
I don't need things to be perfectly controlled at all times,
since I ain't a control fetishist.

So if it rains, or if the sun shines, its ok,
whatever happens just happens,
and thank Goodness for the occasional storm.

Any control we thought we had will end, and we are dead, gone,
expired, lost forever, no longer around, or needed.

Patrick Turner.

Andy Evans wrote:

There are people here with no interest whatsoever in valve/tube
audio whose sole purpose seems to be to disrupt our group,
ridicule the subject that interests us, and drag the level down
to that of a bar-room brawl. Whether or not we allow this to
happen is totally in our hands.

But it isn't in our hands. There is no moderator.
Ppl show no solidarity towards trolls and OT posters.


When you have to deal with people so far up their backsides it would
take a British Expeditionary Force 6 years to drag them out again,
there is only one way of dealing with the situation. Ignore them
completely - and I mean this in the most exact and absolute terms -
don't mention their names, don't partake in any conversations with
them, don't EVER reply to their posts. The only solution is 100% total
and absolute avoidance of anything they write - nothing less. Anyone
who fails to do this only has themselves to blame.

Pigs will fly when everyone decides to killfile, or ignore the same ppl.

Meanwhile, the very ppl who might be killfiled or ignored will still
post here, and since there is more than a few involved, they'll talk with
each other
anyway.

You must feel uneasy about the uncontrolled happenings in life.

No amount of appeals to the people who post here will change the
the situation, which afaiac is not too bad.

What appalls me is that there are high minded individuals who'd like to
silence 3 or 4 characters here, they have not the courage to spell their
names,
but they have SFA to contribute to the group.
Have they got dementia, and forgotten the difference between a cathode and
anode?
If they won't say much except say how they'd like to ban "certain people"
then they don't have anything to offer, and they can't expect those of us
who
post a lot to keep them pleasantly entertained while they doze off in
their lazy chairs.

I don't give a damn what over ppl say on the group, they are entitled to
while ever
there is no way to stop them, and I think censorship is plain stupid.

Patrick Turner.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:21:41 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Then we invented a
better technology. Live with it.

Surely you would not deny us freedom of choice?

I only deny you the freedom to make wrong-headed statements without
challenge.
--
Fair enough, but this takes us back to the psychologist in my own audio
group who thinks that perhaps some people can hear things that others
cannot. This may have much to do with the choices of equipment that
people make. Many (on this group outside it) claim that SS is grey or
bland. It well may be, as they hear it, and none of us can know what they
hear. We have already mentioned the differences between certain
instruments of the orchestra. Some amp/loudspeaker combinations
illustrate these better than others, while some people can hear them
while others cannot. So this is a question of ones level of perception.

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which I have
an
intimate acquaintance.

Cordially,

Iain

I don't give a damn what over ppl say on the group, they are entitled
to
while ever there is no way to stop them, and I think censorship is
plain stupid.

Hi Patrick. I'm not talking about censorship - this is an unmoderated
group. I'm talking about something quite different - self censorship.
Each person on the group has no control over the others. But what each
person can do is to NOT reply to any rude or aggressive posts, NOT
refer to the poster by name or in any other way and completely FREEZE
OUT those that wreck the group. Of course this is only an individual
choice, and it must be done 100% - no almosts or half measures. All I
can say is that it worked on UKRA for a while. One of the people who
was responible for posts of 900 length (which were mostly two people
calling each other idiots) left the group. Because of the vacuum this
created the other person came here for his sport, since he had nobody
to argue with him and thereby provide him with his daily dose of
grandiosity. Freeze out these people and they'll go away in the end.
I've seen it work, and over the years in other groups it's the ONLY
thing I've seen work.

Andy Evans wrote:

I don't give a damn what over ppl say on the group, they are entitled
to
while ever there is no way to stop them, and I think censorship is
plain stupid.

Hi Patrick. I'm not talking about censorship - this is an unmoderated
group. I'm talking about something quite different - self censorship.

Its a very old fashioned idea, self censorship.
There is a small army of ppl who who have no
perception of how they relate emotionally; all is mere rational.
Pigs will fly before they ever change.

I have given up expecting the world to be any different to what it is.


Each person on the group has no control over the others. But what each
person can do is to NOT reply to any rude or aggressive posts, NOT
refer to the poster by name or in any other way and completely FREEZE
OUT those that wreck the group.

Nobody can agree on what is objectionable, what is rude, what is
aggressive.

Of course this is only an individual
choice, and it must be done 100% - no almosts or half measures. All I
can say is that it worked on UKRA for a while. One of the people who
was responible for posts of 900 length (which were mostly two people
calling each other idiots) left the group. Because of the vacuum this
created the other person came here for his sport, since he had nobody
to argue with him and thereby provide him with his daily dose of
grandiosity. Freeze out these people and they'll go away in the end.
I've seen it work, and over the years in other groups it's the ONLY
thing I've seen work.

I am not badly affected by someone using every line in a 900 long post
that I am a POS.
I am still here, not bitter, not unhappy, and disagreable without malice
as i see fit.

There have been concerted serious and long running attempts to discredit
me in the past, but
I remain. I forgive as I go and forget and move on, and I try to realize
that
people are going to be as interesting and obnoxious as you get to know
them,
because not everything is wonderful about anyone.

I have never ever seen solidarity of opinion on who should/should not be
spoken to
at RAT.
And if someone talks to someone I may have had a problem with I do not
hold that against them.

I think I am liberated from the petty politics,
and as everyone here knows now, I see no reason to spend 900 lines telling
someone he's a fool.

I can only lead by example. I but I am no leader; this group has none, we
all lead each other.

Its March 2005, and the world glides around on its axis, and will be doing
it
for quite some time yet, and since nothing anyone says here will change
that,
I am not worried.

And although the world is so large, with 6 billions, this seems to be the
only
place on the Net where tubecraft is discussed publicly, without any
controls
apart from the examples set by everyone.
Its quite unique, and I am not worried by its demise, unless
too many get too offended too easily, and I find myself talking only to
myself,
or with an audience that hurls only brickbats.

Patrick Turner.

I have never ever seen solidarity of opinion on who should/should not
be
spoken to at RAT. PT

Maybe not. One option is to freeze off-topic posters, but that doesn't
really work because off topic posts can be entertaining, funny and
interesting. No - I come back to the situation where it appears
(without knowing the actual data) that a large majority of the ng users
are ****ed off with some half dozen or less who shout and insult their
way through posts. Now you make the interesting point that even if the
'coalition of the willing' (ahem) froze out this dirty half dozen, they
would still argue amongst themselves. I suppose if there is a critical
mass of insulters, they can get their sport by insulting each other so
you may be right. But it remains true that if the dirty half dozen were
frozen by everyone else, there would be less insulting going on from a
purely numerical perspective. The ng would then be a less interesting
place for the few who have a pathological need for self-aggrandisement,
and they might spend more time on the other ngs they subscribe to where
they get shown more attention. Some ngs have been extremely restrained
about feeding trolls, and have done very well. I won't give any
examples because I want them to carry on thriving, but you will
typically see troll threads with one post only - nobody replies. That's
the way to do it - freezing works, arguing doesn't. .

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:15:17 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:21:41 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Then we invented a
better technology. Live with it.

Surely you would not deny us freedom of choice?

I only deny you the freedom to make wrong-headed statements without
challenge.
--
Fair enough, but this takes us back to the psychologist in my own audio
group who thinks that perhaps some people can hear things that others
cannot.

No 'perhaps' about it, but *no one* has been able to demonstrate that
they can hear differences between good amplifiers when they don't
*know* which one is connected.

This may have much to do with the choices of equipment that
people make. Many (on this group outside it) claim that SS is grey or
bland. It well may be, as they hear it, and none of us can know what they
hear.

But we *can* verify whether *they* really can hear these claimed
differences.

We have already mentioned the differences between certain
instruments of the orchestra. Some amp/loudspeaker combinations
illustrate these better than others, while some people can hear them
while others cannot. So this is a question of ones level of perception.

See above - this is merely an unsubstantiated claim.

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which I have
an intimate acquaintance.

So you *claim*, but have you ever tried comparing it to say an
Audiolab 8000P, under level-matched double-blind conditions?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Patrick Turner wrote:

SS amps walk around like tramps in worn out clothes.
Anythin gets lost if you have large holes in the pockets.

Basis common sense, shish....

Patrick Turner..

I really wish I said that first.

Andre Jute

Iain M Churches wrote:

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high
quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better
than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which
I have
an intimate acquaintance.

Cordially,

Iain

"Music with which I have an intimate acquaintance."

This is the key question the silicon fanatics have to answer. Why is it
that to constant concertgoers, including performers themselves, "music
with which I/they/you have an intimate acquaintance" sounds wrong out
of blameless silicon and just right when produced by certain tubes?

Andre Jute

wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high
quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better
than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which
I have
an intimate acquaintance.

Cordially,

Iain

"Music with which I have an intimate acquaintance."

This is the key question the silicon fanatics have to answer. Why is it
that to constant concertgoers, including performers themselves, "music
with which I/they/you have an intimate acquaintance" sounds wrong out
of blameless silicon and just right when produced by certain tubes?

Andre Jute

Fair question indeed.
After years of trying to co-relate tube amp engineering
practices with the sound we hear, there is plenty to suggest that known
measurements don't explain all
we hear.

Certainly certain tubes produce audio magic, and amidst thd quantities
of below 0.03%, so it isn't just the thd/imd causing the sound change.
Some tubes are better than others, that's for sure, even though they are
the same type,
but made at different factories.
And yes, there are some tubes I have tried, and the sound wasn't too good,
but that's expected by keen tube ppl; just plug another in.


I am kept busy with ppl and their enjoyments with tubes,
and it is always a satisfying experience to optimise any design.

With SS, its not all that doable, you just hook it up, apply
as much NFB as possible, and watch the thd in the error signal,
and it that is half decent, it might sound passable, but the last
300 watt per channel amp I built last December took a
lot of mucking around to get it to behave.
If a transistor is changed in the circuit, no sound change is usually
heard.

Patrick Turner.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which I have
an intimate acquaintance.

So you *claim*, but have you ever tried comparing it to say an
Audiolab 8000P, under level-matched double-blind conditions?


Is this how everyday listening takes place?

As long as those tests don't resemble my daily listening routine, I
won't pay much attention to the outcome.
Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Take for instance an audio professional such as John Bowers, a
talented woodwind player who favoured silicon to demonstrate his B&W
speakers. One of his favourite demos was to play live on stage at
Hi-Fi shows, and and switch to a recording played through the
speakers, when the audience of interested audiophiles would not be
able to 'spot the join'. Demonstrations of the sonic accuracy of SS
don't come much clearer than that.................


Briggs and Walker did that in the '50s........with tube amps ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:44:13 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which I have
an intimate acquaintance.

So you *claim*, but have you ever tried comparing it to say an
Audiolab 8000P, under level-matched double-blind conditions?

Is this how everyday listening takes place?

No, but it's how honest comparisons take place.

As long as those tests don't resemble my daily listening routine, I
won't pay much attention to the outcome.

Your loss.

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.


For this to understand, you have to know my designing aim.
Which is: a tube amp has to do something different, else there's no
use in using tubes over SS.
Whether or not a tubed amp adds or subtracts content to or from the
signal, is only relevant in the designing stage.

When listening in the room, the only important factor is that it
sounds good to my ears.

Your definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds like a good SS
amp.
My definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds pleasant to me.

Once you understand/appreciate this distinction, all of a sudden
things become crystal clear ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.

For this to understand, you have to know my designing aim.
Which is: a tube amp has to do something different, else there's no
use in using tubes over SS.
Whether or not a tubed amp adds or subtracts content to or from the
signal, is only relevant in the designing stage.

When listening in the room, the only important factor is that it
sounds good to my ears.

Your definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds like a good SS
amp.
My definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds pleasant to me.

My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.

But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
also sound better with tubes compared to SS.

Its what propels tube amp sales.
Its the superior sonic outcome



Once you understand/appreciate this distinction, all of a sudden
things become crystal clear ;-)

There are many who are boneheadedly locked into the idea that
something with 20 dB less thd **must** sound better that a tube amp.
They should really likw Halcro amps because their thd is 0.0001%,
even at 200 watts.

These ppl don't listen to music, they try to listen to the amp,
and logic forbids acceptance of the illogical, the subjective, the
emotional,
let alone anything to do with psycho acoustics.
Its like as if they must have their wine conform to a certain mix of
chemicals
before they could drink it, and when they do, they like to
dwell on the taste of each chemical.

I never invite such bores to my parties.

Patrick Turner.




--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:29:10 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:44:13 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.

Double-blind testing for audio is actually one of the things
I'd most like to discuss. Would anyone else like to begin a new
thread?

I've had surprisingly little interest on rec.audio.pro, even
among folks who's opinions are otherwise broadly openminded.
Surprising. So I could use some feedback.

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.

For this to understand, you have to know my designing aim.
Which is: a tube amp has to do something different, else there's no
use in using tubes over SS.
Whether or not a tubed amp adds or subtracts content to or from the
signal, is only relevant in the designing stage.

When listening in the room, the only important factor is that it
sounds good to my ears.

Your definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds like a good SS
amp.
My definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds pleasant to me.

I would substitute the word right" fort the word "pleasant" in the abvove
sentence. Otherwise, I agree entirely.

My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.

This parallels my experienced exactly.
In fact when I work on commericials for radio and TV, I use an Amcron
SS amp, but for music recorded on location, I always take along my
tube amp and Tannoy Canterburys.

But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
also sound better with tubes compared to SS.

These are my findings also.


Its what propels tube amp sales.
Its the superior sonic outcome

Also, a large percentage of those who listen to
tube audio are professional musicians.



Once you understand/appreciate this distinction, all of a sudden
things become crystal clear ;-)

There are many who are boneheadedly locked into the idea that
something with 20 dB less thd **must** sound better that a tube amp.
They should really likw Halcro amps because their thd is 0.0001%,
even at 200 watts.

My SS Carver prof amp can do even better:-)
Someone compared the difference between the Carver and the old
Radford as looking at a print and then an oil painting of the same
subject.

These ppl don't listen to music, they try to listen to the amp,
and logic forbids acceptance of the illogical, the subjective, the
emotional,
let alone anything to do with psycho acoustics.
Its like as if they must have their wine conform to a certain mix of
chemicals
before they could drink it, and when they do, they like to
dwell on the taste of each chemical.

I never invite such bores to my parties.

Does that mean the rest of us *are* invited? :-))

Iain

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:29:10 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:44:13 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.

Double-blind testing for audio is actually one of the things
I'd most like to discuss. Would anyone else like to begin a new
thread?

I've had surprisingly little interest on rec.audio.pro, even
among folks who's opinions are otherwise broadly openminded.
Surprising. So I could use some feedback.

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck

Chris,

This is a good topic for a new thread. This one is at its end.

Iain

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:49:38 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
improvement or not.

Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
difference between good SS and tube amps.

For this to understand, you have to know my designing aim.
Which is: a tube amp has to do something different, else there's no
use in using tubes over SS.
Whether or not a tubed amp adds or subtracts content to or from the
signal, is only relevant in the designing stage.

When listening in the room, the only important factor is that it
sounds good to my ears.

Your definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds like a good SS
amp.
My definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds pleasant to me.

Actually, my definition is that it doesn't *have* any sound of its
own, hence good amps will all sound the same, regardless of their
active devices. Your definition is an 'easy listening' kludge.

My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.

But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
also sound better with tubes compared to SS.

Well, if they're buying tube amps, then *of course* that's what
they'll say. Duh...................

Thousands of other equally serious audiophiles and regular
concertgoers say different.

Its what propels tube amp sales.
Its the superior sonic outcome

Or the sweet smell of bull****.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:15:17 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high
quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which I
have
an intimate acquaintance.

So you *claim*,

No, I do not *claim* I state this to be as I find it.

but have you ever tried comparing it to say an
Audiolab 8000P, under level-matched double-blind conditions?

Does the 8000P have a balanced line input? If not, I cannot use it, or
compare it in a studio control room environment.

Most studios have Amcron, Carver or other high power SS amps, of good
specification. When I set the Radford up on an auxiliary monitor bus,
it brings the music to life at least for me. Many artists comment upon it.
But, as stated before, it may be that some people can hear things that
others cannot. I am happy to find myself in the former category.

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Take for instance an audio professional such as John Bowers, a
talented woodwind player who favoured silicon to demonstrate his B&W
speakers. One of his favourite demos was to play live on stage at
Hi-Fi shows, and and switch to a recording played through the
speakers, when the audience of interested audiophiles would not be
able to 'spot the join'. Demonstrations of the sonic accuracy of SS
don't come much clearer than that.................

Yes. I was fortunate enough to hear one of JB's clarinet demos.
You called him a woodwind player. Did you forget his instrument?

But, Henry Leak did exactly the same demonstration (although HL did
not actually play the clarinet himself) during his famous tour of Australia
in the 1950's. So what John Bowers was doing was nothing new, but
nevertheless impressive for those seeing and hearing the demonstration
for the first time.

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:49:38 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Actually, my definition is that it doesn't *have* any sound of its
own, hence good amps will all sound the same, regardless of their
active devices. Your definition is an 'easy listening' kludge.

What we are concerned here with the ability of a certain
amplifier/loudspeaker conbination to reproduce a recording in the
best possible way.

My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.

But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
also sound better with tubes compared to SS.

Well, if they're buying tube amps, then *of course* that's what
they'll say. Duh...................

Thousands of other equally serious audiophiles and regular
concertgoers say different.

Most listeners do not even realise that there is an alternative to
SS amplification, and are happy with the SS amp that their dealer
offers them. But at the serious end of the market, were tube
audio is well known, those who hear a good valve amp rarely go
back to SS. In fact I have never heard anyone say " I sold my tube amp
and bought an SS amp. It's much better!" I have often heard the statement
in reverse.

The three valve amps which I have, (two Radfords and one home brew)
are not available retail. My local audio dealer gives me 35-40% off
anything
I buy from his store, after people who have heard my system have gone to
him for a tube amp.

Its what propels tube amp sales.
Its the superior sonic outcome

Or the sweet smell of bull****.................

Stewart. Get yourself a CJ, or a vintage McIntosh, Radford, Kerr McCosh
Shirley Labs, Dynaco, and listen. Stop talking for just a moment,
and listen..............

Iain

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:52:30 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:15:17 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

I cannot know what you hear, but my personal choice is still a high
quality
valve amplifier (Radford STA100) simply because it sounds better than the
SS amplifiers I have compared it with while playing music with which I
have
an intimate acquaintance.

So you *claim*,

No, I do not *claim* I state this to be as I find it.

No, it's just a claim, since you claim it to be 'better', but that's
really just your personal opinion.

but have you ever tried comparing it to say an
Audiolab 8000P, under level-matched double-blind conditions?

Does the 8000P have a balanced line input? If not, I cannot use it, or
compare it in a studio control room environment.

It does not, but that's not a problem for anyone with the least
technical knowledge.

Most studios have Amcron, Carver or other high power SS amps, of good
specification. When I set the Radford up on an auxiliary monitor bus,
it brings the music to life at least for me. Many artists comment upon it.
But, as stated before, it may be that some people can hear things that
others cannot. I am happy to find myself in the former category.

More self-aggrandisement? Perhaps others hear things that *you*
cannot..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:16:00 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:49:38 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Actually, my definition is that it doesn't *have* any sound of its
own, hence good amps will all sound the same, regardless of their
active devices. Your definition is an 'easy listening' kludge.

What we are concerned here with the ability of a certain
amplifier/loudspeaker conbination to reproduce a recording in the
best possible way.

To any rational person, that means with no added sonic artifacts. Not
possible with a speaker, but certainly possible with an amplifier.
Much more difficult with a tube amplifier.

My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.

But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
also sound better with tubes compared to SS.

Well, if they're buying tube amps, then *of course* that's what
they'll say. Duh...................

Thousands of other equally serious audiophiles and regular
concertgoers say different.

Most listeners do not even realise that there is an alternative to
SS amplification, and are happy with the SS amp that their dealer
offers them. But at the serious end of the market, were tube
audio is well known, those who hear a good valve amp rarely go
back to SS. In fact I have never heard anyone say " I sold my tube amp
and bought an SS amp. It's much better!" I have often heard the statement
in reverse.

You've stated this bull**** before, and it remains utter bull****.
Literally *thousands* of serious audiophiles have progressed from tube
to SS - only a tiny minority have regressed.

The three valve amps which I have, (two Radfords and one home brew)
are not available retail. My local audio dealer gives me 35-40% off
anything
I buy from his store, after people who have heard my system have gone to
him for a tube amp.

Not exactly true - try Woodgate Electronics.

Its what propels tube amp sales.
Its the superior sonic outcome

Or the sweet smell of bull****.................

Stewart. Get yourself a CJ, or a vintage McIntosh, Radford, Kerr McCosh
Shirley Labs, Dynaco, and listen. Stop talking for just a moment,
and listen..............

I've been listening for forty years, and the first amp I built was a
single-ended valve design. I have progressed, you are still
posing...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:59:41 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Take for instance an audio professional such as John Bowers, a
talented woodwind player who favoured silicon to demonstrate his B&W
speakers. One of his favourite demos was to play live on stage at
Hi-Fi shows, and and switch to a recording played through the
speakers, when the audience of interested audiophiles would not be
able to 'spot the join'. Demonstrations of the sonic accuracy of SS
don't come much clearer than that.................

Yes. I was fortunate enough to hear one of JB's clarinet demos.
You called him a woodwind player. Did you forget his instrument?

He also played oboe and saxophone, but his preferred instrument was
certainly the clarinet.

But, Henry Leak did exactly the same demonstration (although HL did
not actually play the clarinet himself) during his famous tour of Australia
in the 1950's. So what John Bowers was doing was nothing new, but
nevertheless impressive for those seeing and hearing the demonstration
for the first time.

Quite so, and HL made excellent valve amps, with notably low
distortion (remember why it was called the Point One?), hence
indistinguishable from other good amps, valve or SS.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:49:38 +1100, Patrick Turner
: wrote:
:
: Sander deWaal wrote:
:
: Stewart Pinkerton said:
:
: Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
: different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
: improvement or not.
:
: Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
: difference between good SS and tube amps.
:
: For this to understand, you have to know my designing aim.
: Which is: a tube amp has to do something different, else there's no
: use in using tubes over SS.
: Whether or not a tubed amp adds or subtracts content to or from the
: signal, is only relevant in the designing stage.
:
: When listening in the room, the only important factor is that it
: sounds good to my ears.
:
: Your definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds like a good SS
: amp.
: My definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds pleasant to me.
:
: Actually, my definition is that it doesn't *have* any sound of its
: own, hence good amps will all sound the same, regardless of their
: active devices. Your definition is an 'easy listening' kludge.
:
: My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
: resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.
:
: But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
: also sound better with tubes compared to SS.
:
: Well, if they're buying tube amps, then *of course* that's what
: they'll say. Duh...................
:
: Thousands of other equally serious audiophiles and regular
: concertgoers say different.
:
: Its what propels tube amp sales.
: Its the superior sonic outcome
:
: Or the sweet smell of bull****.................
: --- ... ---
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Well, as long as you're talking bull****..
Here we go, _again_, Pinkerton, you *do not listen to an amplifier*,
you listen to the *sound produced by a connected speaker* (we hope,
hate to think of possible contraptions you might hook up 'for pleasure':-)

Actually taken any measurements, as coming from the speaker, instead
of voltages when a load resistor is used to measure the SS 'goodness' ??
Don't think so, mr. P. ;-)

So SS is blameless, Pinky? Well, if they're buying SS amps, then *of course*
that's what they'll say. Duh...................

cheeers,
Rudy

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:48:42 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Well, as long as you're talking bull****..
Here we go, _again_, Pinkerton, you *do not listen to an amplifier*,
you listen to the *sound produced by a connected speaker* (we hope,
hate to think of possible contraptions you might hook up 'for pleasure':-)

Indeed so, but *good* amplifiers are able to drive any speaker.

Actually taken any measurements, as coming from the speaker, instead
of voltages when a load resistor is used to measure the SS 'goodness' ??
Don't think so, mr. P. ;-)

Actually, back here in the real world, when I'm evaluating a new
design, I *always* measure at the speaker terminals, at a nominal 10
volts rms output.

So SS is blameless, Pinky? Well, if they're buying SS amps, then *of course*
that's what they'll say. Duh...................

Please show your evidence that *all* good amps are *not* blameless,
regardless of tube or SS active devices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:48:42 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: .. .
:
: Well, as long as you're talking bull****..
: Here we go, _again_, Pinkerton, you *do not listen to an amplifier*,
: you listen to the *sound produced by a connected speaker* (we hope,
: hate to think of possible contraptions you might hook up 'for pleasure':-)
:
: Indeed so, but *good* amplifiers are able to drive any speaker.
:
: Actually taken any measurements, as coming from the speaker, instead
: of voltages when a load resistor is used to measure the SS 'goodness' ??
: Don't think so, mr. P. ;-)
:
: Actually, back here in the real world, when I'm evaluating a new
: design, I *always* measure at the speaker terminals, at a nominal 10
: volts rms output.
:
measuring at the *input* of your speakers will tell us exactly, what ??
tsk, tsk..


: So SS is blameless, Pinky? Well, if they're buying SS amps, then *of course*
: that's what they'll say. Duh...................
:
: Please show your evidence that *all* good amps are *not* blameless,
: regardless of tube or SS active devices.
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

your convoluted 'logic' is running circles AND proving exactly nada, SP ;-)
Rudy

Iain M Churches wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:49:38 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Actually, my definition is that it doesn't *have* any sound of its
own, hence good amps will all sound the same, regardless of their
active devices. Your definition is an 'easy listening' kludge.

What we are concerned here with the ability of a certain
amplifier/loudspeaker conbination to reproduce a recording in the
best possible way.

My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.

But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
also sound better with tubes compared to SS.

Well, if they're buying tube amps, then *of course* that's what
they'll say. Duh...................

Thousands of other equally serious audiophiles and regular
concertgoers say different.

Most listeners do not even realise that there is an alternative to
SS amplification, and are happy with the SS amp that their dealer
offers them. But at the serious end of the market, were tube
audio is well known, those who hear a good valve amp rarely go
back to SS. In fact I have never heard anyone say " I sold my tube amp
and bought an SS amp. It's much better!" I have often heard the statement
in reverse.

The three valve amps which I have, (two Radfords and one home brew)
are not available retail. My local audio dealer gives me 35-40% off
anything
I buy from his store, after people who have heard my system have gone to
him for a tube amp.

Its what propels tube amp sales.
Its the superior sonic outcome

Or the sweet smell of bull****.................

Stewart. Get yourself a CJ, or a vintage McIntosh, Radford, Kerr McCosh
Shirley Labs, Dynaco, and listen. Stop talking for just a moment,
and listen..............

Yes, but there's a solid state mass of concrete between his ears.....

Patrick Turner.



Iain

Ruud Broens wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:49:38 +1100, Patrick Turner
: wrote:
:
: Sander deWaal wrote:
:
: Stewart Pinkerton said:
:
: Of course, blind tests can be a useful tool to determine whether using
: different components or designs in a (tube) amp is actually an
: improvement or not.
:
: Please explain how this differs from determining whether there is any
: difference between good SS and tube amps.
:
: For this to understand, you have to know my designing aim.
: Which is: a tube amp has to do something different, else there's no
: use in using tubes over SS.
: Whether or not a tubed amp adds or subtracts content to or from the
: signal, is only relevant in the designing stage.
:
: When listening in the room, the only important factor is that it
: sounds good to my ears.
:
: Your definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds like a good SS
: amp.
: My definition of a good tube amp is that it sounds pleasant to me.
:
: Actually, my definition is that it doesn't *have* any sound of its
: own, hence good amps will all sound the same, regardless of their
: active devices. Your definition is an 'easy listening' kludge.
:
: My clients tell me their tube amps allow sound that more closely
: resembles what they hear at a concert, with no electronics present.
:
: But they all also say that studio recordings never able to be heard live
: also sound better with tubes compared to SS.
:
: Well, if they're buying tube amps, then *of course* that's what
: they'll say. Duh...................
:
: Thousands of other equally serious audiophiles and regular
: concertgoers say different.
:
: Its what propels tube amp sales.
: Its the superior sonic outcome
:
: Or the sweet smell of bull****.................
: --- ... ---
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Well, as long as you're talking bull****..
Here we go, _again_, Pinkerton, you *do not listen to an amplifier*,
you listen to the *sound produced by a connected speaker* (we hope,
hate to think of possible contraptions you might hook up 'for pleasure':-)

Actually taken any measurements, as coming from the speaker, instead
of voltages when a load resistor is used to measure the SS 'goodness' ??
Don't think so, mr. P. ;-)

So SS is blameless, Pinky? Well, if they're buying SS amps, then *of course*
that's what they'll say. Duh...................

cheeers,
Rudy

The proportion of owners of tubed gear
in audio clubs world wide is high, and far higher than the general population
who are not so discerning about their equipments.

Patrick Turner.

Choky wrote:

Hi Choky- Where have you been? Must be a busy guy!

Cheers, John Stewart

John,
I think Choky is the moderator for a group or two. Also, I beg to differ
with your subject line. There is still plenty of good people left, like
yourself, for instance. However, you should IMO, contribute more interesting
technical posts and threads while accentuating the positive, not the
negative. I'm not trying to be Pollyannaish, and realize that RAT is not
without its bumps in the road, but overall, where are you going to find
better?
Cordially,
west

"John Stewart" wrote in message
...
Choky wrote:

Hi Choky- Where have you been? Must be a busy guy!

Cheers, John Stewart

west wrote:

John,
I think Choky is the moderator for a group or two. Also, I beg to differ
with your subject line.

I had not seen anything from Choky for a while. So I searched back into the NG &
found his last post which happened to use this subject line. Then I just used
that for the query. Perhaps I should have started a new thread!

Cheers, John Stewart

There is still plenty of good people left, like
yourself, for instance. However, you should IMO, contribute more interesting
technical posts and threads while accentuating the positive, not the
negative. I'm not trying to be Pollyannaish, and realize that RAT is not
without its bumps in the road, but overall, where are you going to find
better?
Cordially,
west

"John Stewart" wrote in message
...
Choky wrote:

Hi Choky- Where have you been? Must be a busy guy!

Cheers, John Stewart

west wrote:

John,
I think Choky is the moderator for a group or two. Also, I beg to differ
with your subject line.

I had not seen anything from Choky for a while. So I searched back into the NG &

found his last post which happened to use this subject line. Then I just used
that for the query. Perhaps I should have started a new thread!

BTW, I haven't seen a post from Patrick T this past weekend either. Where is Ian
Iveson? RAT has been quieter than usual!

Cheers, John Stewart

There is still plenty of good people left, like
yourself, for instance. However, you should IMO, contribute more interesting
technical posts and threads while accentuating the positive, not the
negative. I'm not trying to be Pollyannaish, and realize that RAT is not
without its bumps in the road, but overall, where are you going to find
better?
Cordially,
west

"John Stewart" wrote in message
...
Choky wrote:

Hi Choky- Where have you been? Must be a busy guy!

Cheers, John Stewart

"John Stewart" wrote

I had not seen anything from Choky for a while.

Happier where he is. I think he is well, and wish him good fortune.

BTW, I haven't seen a post from Patrick T this past weekend
either.

He mounts occasional forays into other places, including
alt.guitar.amps and antipodean mêlées, but invariably ends up forced
to mount a frantic Dunkirk / Saigon embassy-style retreat before
arriving back here, trailing smoke.

Where is Ian Iveson?

Not the foggiest notion, as usual.

RAT has been quieter than usual!

I was hoping to stir up some movement on SMPS, but was too slow to
keep it going. Perhaps I should try microprocessor controlled bias?

cheers :-)

Ian

Ian Iveson wrote:
I was hoping to stir up some movement on SMPS, but was too slow to
keep it going. Perhaps I should try microprocessor controlled bias?

cheers :-)

Ian



I think it's be a step in the right direction Ian, also there are
some interesting micros that would be suited to a micro controlled
SMPS such as the Zilog Z8 Encore or maybe the Atmel AVR's. It'd be
nice to have a SMPS that would tell you why it's shut down via RS-232.
Or a valve amp for that reason.

Regards
Mark Harriss