Vacuum Tubes - Are They Warmer Sounding?

[[email protected]]

"In a word: YES...

"The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
or generate..."

Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 11:03*am, wrote:
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
> Continued:http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

I don't need my amp adding anything to the content. I just want to
hear what was recorded. The fatal flaw in your comment is
"generate". Why should the amp be generating content? A solid state
amp can pass any original harmonic content within human range that is
on the source just as well as a tube amp.

[Dave]

> wrote in message
...
On May 28, 11:03 am, wrote:
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
> Continued:http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>
>I don't need my amp adding anything to the content. I just want to
>hear what was recorded. The fatal flaw in your comment is
>"generate". Why should the amp be generating content? A solid state
>amp can pass any original harmonic content within human range that is
>on the source just as well as a tube amp.

Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound. It's a personal preference, akin
to one's choice of speakers. Me, I like both, and have two systems, one
with a tubed amp and one with a solid state.

I will say that tubes sound better to me when being overdriven than solid
state... the distortion they produce seems to be less objectionable to my
subjective ears than that horrible SS noise. Not that that's a reason to
choose one over the other...

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 11:42*am, "Dave" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On May 28, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
> > "In a word: YES...
>
> > "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> > or generate..."
>
> > Continued:http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>
> >I don't need my amp adding anything to the content. *I just want to
> >hear what was recorded. *The fatal flaw in your comment is
> >"generate". *Why should the amp be generating content? *A solid state
> >amp can pass any original harmonic content within human range that is
> >on the source just as well as a tube amp.
>
> Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound. *It's a personal preference, akin
> to one's choice of speakers. *Me, I like both, and have two systems, one
> with a tubed amp and one with a solid state.
>
> I will say that tubes sound better to me when being overdriven than solid
> state... the distortion they produce seems to be less objectionable to my
> subjective ears than that horrible SS noise. *Not that that's a reason to
> choose one over the other...

Warm? Can you quantify it? I think not.

The tube overdrive distortion is intentionally used sometimes by
electric guitar musicians. Someone decided to expand that and make it
a reason to prefer tube amps over solid state. If you're playing an
electric guitar then sure. But if you're playing recorded music then
no, do not overdrive your amp.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

Well ... if you actually LIKE added distortion !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Dave wrote:

> Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound.

Actually only a miniscule number of people have ever heard it.

Graham

rec.audio.opinion deleted because all you get there are trolls.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

wrote:
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes


There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is triodes alone
that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes generate odd
harmonics just as much as transistors do.

Second the amount of distortion is level dependent. The output stages of
an amp create by far the most distortion. Any push pull amp output stage
will, by definition cancel most of the even order harmonics and leave
many nasty odd harmonics in the output - no better in that respect than
a transistor amp.

So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
triode SET.

Cheers

Ian

[Peter Wieck]

On May 28, 11:03*am, wrote:
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
> Continued:http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

Um, this is a troll. And firmly rooted in received wisdom and blind
faith.

As such, no opinions will be made or changed by it, it serves no
useful purpose, and comment upon it merely gives the Original Poster
the attention he/she wants anyway.

Those who prefer tubes will continue to prefer them. Those who enjoy
tubes as another aspect of the Audio Hobby will continue to do so...
and so forth.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Eeyore]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "Dave" wrote
> >
> > I will say that tubes sound better to me when being overdriven than solid
> > state... the distortion they produce seems to be less objectionable to my
> > subjective ears than that horrible SS noise. Not that that's a reason to
> > choose one over the other...
> It seems possible to avoid that dilemma. I have never experienced audible
> distortion due to overdriving a SS amplifier, because I do not overdrive
> them.

Not difficult to achieve either given the simplicity with which SS amps can be
made very high power with no practical likelihood of clipping.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
> triode SET.

Or a SS Mosfet design.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

> wrote ...
>On May 28, 11:03 am, wrote:
>> "In a word: YES...
>>
>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
>> or generate..."
>>
>> Continued:http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>
>I don't need my amp adding anything to the content. I just
> want to hear what was recorded. The fatal flaw in your
> comment is "generate". Why should the amp be generating
> content? A solid state amp can pass any original harmonic
> content within human range that is on the source just as well
> as a tube amp.

It was posted by a Google/Gmail troll/spammer who
probably doesn't know a vacuum tube from his left
elbow and isn't likely to return to read any responses.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> "In a word: YES...

> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
> device can pass or generate..."

There is no question that tubed power amps are inferior when it comes to
passing harmonic content. They are just too nonlinear and just too limited
in terms of power bandwidth to compare with more modern alternatives.

As far as the generation of harmonic content goes, it is unclear why
maximizing harmonic content would even be desirable in a component of a high
fidelity system. Furthermore, if versatile and powerful harmonic content
generation were desired, then the tools of choice would be from the digital
domain.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
message
> wrote:
>> "In a word: YES...
>>
>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
>> device can pass or generate..."
>>
>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>
>
> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is
> triodes alone that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic
> distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics just as much
> as transistors do.

It is a myth that triodes generate only even harmonics. In fact, tubes have
basically exponential response, which leads to the generation of a wide
variety of orders of distortion, both odd and even.

[Tzortzakakis Dimitrios[_2_]]

? > ?????? ??? ??????
...
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
No idea, never heard one. I find though, vacuum tube circuits fascinating.
For my thesis, I constructed an AM transmitter with an 6C4 for oscillator,
and a 807 for final stage, class C of course, complete with antenna,
resonating circuit, modulation transformer and 50 W solid state amplifier.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

[RapidRonnie]

On May 28, 2:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > "In a word: YES...
> > "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
> > device can pass or generate..."
>
> There is no question that tubed power amps are inferior when it comes to
> passing harmonic content. They are just too nonlinear and just too limited
> in terms of power bandwidth to compare with more modern alternatives.
>
> As far as the generation of harmonic content goes, it is unclear why
> maximizing harmonic content would even be desirable in a component of a high
> fidelity system. Furthermore, if versatile and powerful harmonic content
> generation were desired, then the tools of choice would be from the digital
> domain.

Properly designed tube amplifiers have entirely satisfactory bandpass
and distortion characteristics. Passing frequencies above 35-50 kHz is
very undesireable in an audio amplifier. Ideally a shallow taper from
about 25 kHz and a drop at 50 or so is desireable.

Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the 100-300 kHz
range. That is not a feature, it's a bug. The output transformer of a
tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme HF response.

[RapidRonnie]

>
> 3. Compared to solid state, tube amps are a pain in the ass. They hum, hiss,
> burble, and motorboat, either out of the box, or many years before a SS amp
> would be vulnerable to aging components.


Nonsense. Solid state amps fail hard and take speakers with them all
the time. Tube ones rarely do. They are easier for the hobbyist to
troubleshoot.

[Arny Krueger]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message

>> 3. Compared to solid state, tube amps are a pain in the
>> ass. They hum, hiss, burble, and motorboat, either out
>> of the box, or many years before a SS amp would be
>> vulnerable to aging components.

> Nonsense. Solid state amps fail hard and take speakers
> with them all the time.

And tubed amps never ever fried speakers? Surely you jest!

Whenever you start talking about accidents, you have to consider the number
of tubed amps versus the number of SS amps. At this point, tubed amps
probably make up less than 0.1% of all amplifiers in use.

> Tube ones rarely do.

One reason - tubed amps are themselves quite rare.

> They are easier for the hobbyist to troubleshoot.

Those of us who lived through the bad old days of tubes, know that SS amps
are tremendously more reliable.

[Arny Krueger]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message

> On May 28, 2:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> "In a word: YES...
>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
>>> device can pass or generate..."
>>
>> There is no question that tubed power amps are inferior
>> when it comes to passing harmonic content. They are
>> just too nonlinear and just too limited in terms of
>> power bandwidth to compare with more modern
>> alternatives.

>> As far as the generation of harmonic content goes, it is
>> unclear why maximizing harmonic content would even be
>> desirable in a component of a high fidelity system.
>> Furthermore, if versatile and powerful harmonic content
>> generation were desired, then the tools of choice would
>> be from the digital domain.

> Properly designed tube amplifiers have entirely
> satisfactory bandpass and distortion characteristics.

Well, if you say that for a far higher price and considerably greater
inconvenience, it is possible to have a tubed amp with good performance, I'd
have to agree.


> Passing frequencies above 35-50 kHz is very undesireable
> in an audio amplifier. Ideally a shallow taper from about
> 25 kHz and a drop at 50 or so is desirable.

If you include the effects of real-world speaker loads, most tubed amps have
audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of their far higher source
impedance.

Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad performance of tubed
amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy ones do rather more
poorly in the bass.


> Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the
> 100-300 kHz range.

That's not typical. Everybody knows that ultrasonic response is an open door
for problems with EMI, etc. Most SS amps have artificially sacrificed high
frequency response to enhance their usability.

> That is not a feature, it's a bug. The
> output transformer of a tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme
> HF response.

Throttling the HF response of a SS amp only takes one or two penny-cost
capacitors.

But I will give the majority of tubed amps a nod of sorts for their inferior
power bandwidth below 30 Hz.

[RapidRonnie]

>
> >> 3. Compared to solid state, tube amps are a pain in the
> >> ass. They hum, hiss, burble, and motorboat, either out
> >> of the box, or many years before a SS amp would be
> >> vulnerable to aging components.
> > Nonsense. Solid state amps fail hard and take speakers
> > with them all the time.
>
> And tubed amps never ever fried speakers? Surely you jest!

It's happened but not to me.

>
> Whenever you start talking about accidents, you have to consider the number
> of tubed amps versus the number of SS amps. At this point, tubed amps
> probably make up less than 0.1% of all amplifiers in use.

If even that many, but when you consider the percent overall as
restricted to serious hobbyists it's 25% or so.

>
> > Tube ones rarely do.
>
> One reason - tubed amps are themselves quite rare.

No, among _high end hobbyists_ they are fairly common.

>
> > They are easier for the hobbyist to troubleshoot.
>
> Those of us who lived through the bad old days of tubes, know that SS amps
> are tremendously more reliable.

Those of us living in the good new days of tubes have no trouble
keeping them running with some good basic technicianship and the
appropriate tools. We don't need curvetracers, constant current bias
supplies or milling machines to keep them going.

[RapidRonnie]

>
> If you include the effects of real-world speaker loads, most tubed amps have
> audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of their far higher source
> impedance.
>
> Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad performance of tubed
> amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy ones do rather more
> poorly in the bass.

All tube amps are expensive and heavy these days. No one is
advocating them for subwoofer drivers.

Any good push pull 6L6 or 6550 power amp will drive a classic
Klipsch, Altec or JBL setup to higher bass SPLs than any normal person
can tolerate. Headbangers wanting more should move out of town so as
not to disturb the rest of us.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."

**Nonsense. Valves are inherently high frequency devices. As such, they are
easily capable of passing or generating higher order harmonics. There are
more problems with your nonsensical statement. These include:

* The TOPOLOGY can be far more important than the devices used, WRT high
order harmonic generation.
* The use of triodes or pentodes can affect sound quality most profoundly.
* The presence of an output transformer will affect high order harmonic
generation to a greater degree than the type of output device used.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message


>> Those of us who lived through the bad old days of tubes,
>> know that SS amps are tremendously more reliable.

> Those of us living in the good new days of tubes have no
> trouble keeping them running with some good basic
> technicianship and the appropriate tools.

Plan B - use SS amps which generally just run and run and run.

> We don't need curvetracers,

Never did, for SS.

> constant current bias supplies

Don't make sense for tubes since their properties are a moving target.

> or milling machines

?????????????/

> to keep them going.

If you call what the typical tubed amp does, "going".

[jamesgangnc]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> If you include the effects of real-world speaker loads, most tubed amps
>> have
>> audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of their far higher
>> source
>> impedance.
>>
>> Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad performance of tubed
>> amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy ones do rather more
>> poorly in the bass.
>
> All tube amps are expensive and heavy these days. No one is
> advocating them for subwoofer drivers.
>
> Any good push pull 6L6 or 6550 power amp will drive a classic
> Klipsch, Altec or JBL setup to higher bass SPLs than any normal person
> can tolerate. Headbangers wanting more should move out of town so as
> not to disturb the rest of us.

Tubes are inherently bad devices to drive a low impedance load where as
solid state is perfectly happy being coupled directly to a speaker. You
can't make a tube current amp and that's what you need for audio.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
>
>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
>> triode SET.
>
> Or a SS Mosfet design.
>
> Graham
>

Yes, they have a very similar transfer function to triodes.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

flipper wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 17:34:05 +0100, Ian Thompson-Bell
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>
>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
>>> or generate..."
>>>
>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>
>> There is a lot missing from this article.
>
> Yes, as well as full of 'opinion'. There's not a single measurement in
> it.
>
>> First, it is triodes alone
>> that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion.
>
> No, you're confusing SE with PP.
>

No, I was being inaccurate! I should have said triodes generate a larger
proportion of second harmonic compared to higher ones than either
pentodes of BJTs.

>> Pentodes generate odd
>> harmonics just as much as transistors do.
>
> No and it's misleading to speak of simply 'odd' harmonics. It's the
> higher order harmonics that are harsh and then there's the issue of
> the harmonic mix.

Hmm, the ratio of 3rd (and higher odd harmonics) to 2nd harmonic
distortion in pentodes is greater than in triodes because of the
different transfer function.

>
> All of which smacks a bit of voo-doo because, according to
> measurements, they're all below 'audible' and so, in theory, should be
> of no consequence. But then, and again according to measurements, THD
> that's 'inaudible' (or at least unoffensive) in a tube amp offends
> like nails on a blackboard in SS amps so an SS amp *must* have lower
> THD figures to be tolerable.
>

The danger here of course is that measuring THD alone is not sufficient.

>> Second the amount of distortion is level dependent. The output stages of
>> an amp create by far the most distortion. Any push pull amp output stage
>> will, by definition cancel most of the even order harmonics
>
> Which includes triodes.

Indeed.

>
>> and leave
>> many nasty odd harmonics in the output - no better in that respect than
>> a transistor amp.
>
> No.

Which bit is not correct the whole or just the latter part?

>
>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
>> triode SET.
>
> Judging from the rest you apparently mean "even harmonics" but what
> does "mainly" mean?

Yes, mixing my odds and evens again.

>
Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
> message
>> wrote:
>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>
>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
>>> device can pass or generate..."
>>>
>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>
>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is
>> triodes alone that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic
>> distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics just as much
>> as transistors do.
>
> It is a myth that triodes generate only even harmonics. In fact, tubes have
> basically exponential response, which leads to the generation of a wide
> variety of orders of distortion, both odd and even.
>
>

No, pentodes have an exponential transfer function like BJTs do, but
triodes have a simpler ^3/2 transfer function which produces a different
harmonic content.

Cheers

Ian

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> 3. Compared to solid state, tube amps are a pain in the ass. They hum,
>> hiss,
>> burble, and motorboat, either out of the box, or many years before a SS
>> amp
>> would be vulnerable to aging components.
>
>
> Nonsense. Solid state amps fail hard.

**Some do, but if you install a distortion producing, phase shifting output
transformer between output devices and load (like most valve amps) then the
problem is solved.

and take speakers with them all
> the time.

**Incorrect. Many solid state amps employ sophisticated protection systems
to prevent this from happening. Then, of course, one could employ an output
transformer.

> Tube ones rarely do.

**Largely because they have a distortion producing, phase shifting output
transformer, between load and output devices.

They are easier for the hobbyist to
> troubleshoot.

**That much may well be true, depending on the topology. Fortunately for
hobbyists, solid state amps tend to be vastly more reliable.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> "In a word: YES...
>>
>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
>> or generate..."
>>
>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>
>
> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is triodes alone that
> generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics
> just as much as transistors do.

**So much nonsense, so little time to correct it. Why this myth continues to
be perpetrated is a complete mystery. The TOPOLOGY dictates what type of
harmonics are generated, not the devices. Push pull eliminates even order
distortion products. Valve or solid state.

>
> Second the amount of distortion is level dependent. The output stages of
> an amp create by far the most distortion. Any push pull amp output stage
> will, by definition cancel most of the even order harmonics and leave many
> nasty odd harmonics in the output - no better in that respect than a
> transistor amp.

**Nonsense.

>
> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
> triode SET.

**Nonsense. Where you do you get this nonsense from?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Norman M. Schwartz]

RapidRonnie wrote:
>> 3. Compared to solid state, tube amps are a pain in the ass. They
>> hum, hiss, burble, and motorboat, either out of the box, or many
>> years before a SS amp would be vulnerable to aging components.
>
>
> Nonsense. Solid state amps fail hard and take speakers with them all
> the time. Tube ones rarely do. They are easier for the hobbyist to
> troubleshoot.

Good tubes, their matched pairs, etc. are expensive and not easy to find.
Useful individual tube life is a variable. Many listeners are constantly
concerned, listening for signs of their wear, buy and stock replacement
tubes, spend their listening time listening to the tubes, comparing the
sound of various tubes, their manufacturer, and then very model of a "6550"
etc, etc.) rather than the music. Most often tube amps generate more heat,
than their SS counterparts, and _may_ require the use of noise producing
fans and extensive ventilation. One shouldn't choose to stack other
equipment above them, and eventually self-destruct because of the heat they
generate. Caged or uncaged their heat is a threat to pets and young
children.In the end analysis their characteristic sound has to be a mix of
the nature of the tubes employed and the amp itself.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
...
> On May 28, 2:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> > "In a word: YES...
>> > "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
>> > device can pass or generate..."
>>
>> There is no question that tubed power amps are inferior when it comes to
>> passing harmonic content. They are just too nonlinear and just too
>> limited
>> in terms of power bandwidth to compare with more modern alternatives.
>>
>> As far as the generation of harmonic content goes, it is unclear why
>> maximizing harmonic content would even be desirable in a component of a
>> high
>> fidelity system. Furthermore, if versatile and powerful harmonic content
>> generation were desired, then the tools of choice would be from the
>> digital
>> domain.
>
> Properly designed tube amplifiers have entirely satisfactory bandpass
> and distortion characteristics. Passing frequencies above 35-50 kHz is
> very undesireable in an audio amplifier. Ideally a shallow taper from
> about 25 kHz and a drop at 50 or so is desireable.

**Bull****. Such a poor frequency response, will lead to a severely and
audibly compromised phase response. The human ear is very sensitive to phase
problems. A linear frequency response, which leads to a close to 0 degree
phase shift at 20kHz is desirable.

>
> Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the 100-300 kHz
> range. That is not a feature, it's a bug. The output transformer of a
> tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme HF response.

**Bull****. The output transformer damages the frequency response of valve
amps. Valves are inherently high frequency devices.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
> >
> >> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
> >> triode SET.
> >
> > Or a SS Mosfet design.
>
> Yes, they have a very similar transfer function to triodes.

I've designed a few over the years. The last one was ultra-low THD (0.003% @ 1
kHz) but an Audio Precision test set was able to see it and it appeared for all
practical purposes to be near as dammit pure second harmonic. For whatever
reasons it also sounded utterly lovely.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:01:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in message
...
>>> wrote:
>>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>>
>>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
>>>> or generate..."
>>>>
>>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is triodes alone
>>> that
>>> generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes generate odd
>>> harmonics
>>> just as much as transistors do.
>>
>>**So much nonsense, so little time to correct it. Why this myth continues
>>to
>>be perpetrated is a complete mystery. The TOPOLOGY dictates what type of
>>harmonics are generated, not the devices.
>
> Well, you're half right. They both dictate the harmonics.

**I am 100% correct. Topology is the factor. Not the devices. Of course,
various devices DO contribute different distortion amounts. For instance:

* At low bias currents, pentodes add large amounts of distortion.
* At low bias current, triodes add smaller amounts of distortion.
* At low bias currents, MOSFETs add very large amounts of distortion.
* At low bias currents, BJTs add smaller amounts of distortion.

>
>> Push pull eliminates even order
>>distortion products. Valve or solid state.
>
> But does nothing for the odd orders, which are dictated by the
> devices.

**Sure. ALL amplifiying devices add odd order distortion. At moderate bias
currents, the approximate order is (from best to worst):

BJTs
Triodes
Pentodes
MOSFETs

At high bias currents, the order shifts somewhat to:

BJTs
MOSFETs
Triodes
Pentodes

It is the TOPOLOGY which dominates the issue of distortion production,
however. Depending on the amount of feedback employed, the devices used
makes little difference.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>> message
>>> wrote:
>>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>>
>>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
>>>> device can pass or generate..."
>>>>
>>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>>
>>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is
>>> triodes alone that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic
>>> distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics just as much
>>> as transistors do.
>>
>> It is a myth that triodes generate only even harmonics.
>> In fact, tubes have basically exponential response,
>> which leads to the generation of a wide variety of
>> orders of distortion, both odd and even.

> No, pentodes have an exponential transfer function like
> BJTs do, but triodes have a simpler ^3/2 transfer
> function which produces a different harmonic content.

In my book, what you call ^3/2 transfer function is just another flavor of
exponential.

A ^3/2 transfer function can be read as the square root of cubed, which is
nothing like pure even order or pure second order.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
message
> wrote:

> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
> output will be a triode SET.

No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something symmetrical, like
push-pull.

[Mr.T]

"Dave" > wrote in message
news:z3f%j.232$i74.144@edtnps91...
> I will say that tubes sound better to me when being overdriven than solid
> state... the distortion they produce seems to be less objectionable to my
> subjective ears than that horrible SS noise.

And of course a tube amp is likely to be overdriven, generally being of
relatively low power output, whereas a solid state amp should never need to
be overdriven in the first place, with large power outputs available at
relatively low cost. (or extremely low cost when compared to most tube
amps!)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> > Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound.
>
> Actually only a miniscule number of people have ever heard it.

Maybe a small number of *young* people perhaps. The number of older people
who have heard tube equipment is hardly "miniscule"!

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:56:14 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"flipper" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:01:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can
>>>>>> pass
>>>>>> or generate..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is triodes alone
>>>>> that
>>>>> generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes generate odd
>>>>> harmonics
>>>>> just as much as transistors do.
>>>>
>>>>**So much nonsense, so little time to correct it. Why this myth
>>>>continues
>>>>to
>>>>be perpetrated is a complete mystery. The TOPOLOGY dictates what type
>>>>of
>>>>harmonics are generated, not the devices.
>>>
>>> Well, you're half right. They both dictate the harmonics.
>>
>>**I am 100% correct.
>
> No, you're not.
>
>> Topology is the factor.
>
> It's one factor.

**It is, by far, the major factor. It swamps any influences by the output
devices. Take away global NFB, for instance, and differences between devices
is more readily apparent.

>
>> Not the devices.
>
> B.S.

**Keep dissagreeing all you wish. You'll still be wrong.

>
>> Of course,
>>various devices DO contribute different distortion amounts.
>
> And different harmonic distributions as well.

**All of which is swamped by topology differences.


>
>> For instance:
>>
>>* At low bias currents, pentodes add large amounts of distortion.
>>* At low bias current, triodes add smaller amounts of distortion.
>>* At low bias currents, MOSFETs add very large amounts of distortion.
>>* At low bias currents, BJTs add smaller amounts of distortion.
>>
>>>
>>>> Push pull eliminates even order
>>>>distortion products. Valve or solid state.
>>>
>>> But does nothing for the odd orders, which are dictated by the
>>> devices.
>>
>>**Sure. ALL amplifiying devices add odd order distortion.
>
> Yes, but with different distributions.

**All of which is swamped by different topologies.

>
>> At moderate bias
>>currents, the approximate order is (from best to worst):
>>
>>BJTs
>>Triodes
>>Pentodes
>>MOSFETs
>>
>>At high bias currents, the order shifts somewhat to:
>>
>>BJTs
>>MOSFETs
>>Triodes
>>Pentodes
>
> Except for BJTs being the worst of the lot under all conditions that's
> not too terribly screwed up.

**Wrong. Modern BJTs are, by far, the most linear output devices available.
Look at the Hfe vs. Ic curve of this device:

http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/toshiba/3228.pdf

A VERY linear (low distortion) device over a very wide range of currents.
It's PNP complement is similarly low distortion.

>
>
>>It is the TOPOLOGY which dominates the issue of distortion production,
>>however.
>
> Wrong.

**Don't be silly. Compare SE to PP. Compare zero global NFB to high global
NFB topologies.

>
>> Depending on the amount of feedback employed, the devices used
>>makes little difference.
>
> Also wrong.

**Here's where I get to say: PROVE IT.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[jakdedert]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
<snip>
> It seems possible to avoid that dilemma. I have never experienced audible
> distortion due to overdriving a SS amplifier, because I do not overdrive
> them.
>
Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! You've NEVER heard
distortion...in your life? Never heard an overdriven car stereo, or AM
radio? Never wanted to get 'just a little more' out of a system and
went a little too far before you backed off? Never been surprised by
unexpectedly loud passage in a piece, which drove your system into
clipping? Ever?

Right....

jak
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
>
>

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>>>
>>>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the
>>>>> device can pass or generate..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is
>>>> triodes alone that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic
>>>> distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics just as much
>>>> as transistors do.
>>> It is a myth that triodes generate only even harmonics.
>>> In fact, tubes have basically exponential response,
>>> which leads to the generation of a wide variety of
>>> orders of distortion, both odd and even.
>
>> No, pentodes have an exponential transfer function like
>> BJTs do, but triodes have a simpler ^3/2 transfer
>> function which produces a different harmonic content.
>
> In my book, what you call ^3/2 transfer function is just another flavor of
> exponential.
>

I sujggest you get a better book.

> A ^3/2 transfer function can be read as the square root of cubed, which is
> nothing like pure even order or pure second order.
>

A simple expansion shows that the even order terms dominate. See any
book on tubes for details.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
> message
>> wrote:
>
>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
>> output will be a triode SET.
>
> No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something symmetrical, like
> push-pull.
>
>

NO, PP CANCELS odd harmonics.

Cheers

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
> message
>> wrote:
>
>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
>> output will be a triode SET.
>
> No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something symmetrical, like
> push-pull.
>
>

Sorry, I meant even harmonics and my prior reply to this post was BS.

CHeers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"jakdedert" > wrote in message


> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> <snip>
>> It seems possible to avoid that dilemma. I have never
>> experienced audible distortion due to overdriving a SS
>> amplifier, because I do not overdrive them.

> Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! You've NEVER heard
> distortion...in your life? Never
> heard an overdriven car stereo, or AM radio? Never
> wanted to get 'just a little more' out of a system and
> went a little too far before you backed off? Never been
> surprised by unexpectedly loud passage in a piece, which
> drove your system into clipping? Ever?

That's an excluded middle argument.

Of course we've all heard overdriven amps. I sure have, and for the first 20
or so years of my life, they all had vacuum tubes.

A good quality tubed amp with loop feedback makes nice looking square waves
when overdriven, pretty much like a good SS amp does today.

The relevant point is that good clean SS power is relatively inexpensive and
reliable. High power from a SS amp is way under $0.50 per watt. In the days
of tubes, $1.00 per watt was an unachievable goal for quality power. Today,
that same tubed amp costs 6-10 times or more as much.

In order to have 300 wpc from a tubed amp, you need to have a lot of output
tubes which increases the cost of service pretty dramatically, because high
performance tubed amps need fresh tubes to keep their performance high. Then
you need a very expensive, large and heavy output transformer. Finally, the
power transformer needs to be larger because tubes are less efficient.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>> message
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that
>>>>>> the device can pass or generate..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>>>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is
>>>>> triodes alone that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic
>>>>> distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics just as
>>>>> much as transistors do.

>>>> It is a myth that triodes generate only even harmonics.
>>>> In fact, tubes have basically exponential response,
>>>> which leads to the generation of a wide variety of
>>>> orders of distortion, both odd and even.

>>> No, pentodes have an exponential transfer function like
>>> BJTs do, but triodes have a simpler ^3/2 transfer
>>> function which produces a different harmonic content.

>> In my book, what you call ^3/2 transfer function is
>> just another flavor of exponential.

> I sujggest you get a better book.

Sue me for having a better general knowlege of math.

I also suggest you stop confusing "less odd harmonic" with "no odd
harmonic".

>> A ^3/2 transfer function can be read as the square root
>> of cubed, which is nothing like pure even order or pure
>> second order.

> A simple expansion shows that the even order terms
> dominate. See any book on tubes for details.

The same book says that there are significant odd-order terms. Maybe not
quite as big, but still there and audibly significant.

Furthermore, running tubes in either a balanced configuration (often done in
line level tubes amps used for audio production) or push-pull configuration
(done in any decent power amp) cancels out the even ordered terms very
nicely. Thus, the remaining odd-order terms are far more significant.

Bottom line is that most real-world tubed amps put out plenty of odd-order
distortion, no matter what kind of word games that the tubed amp bigots try
to play.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:56:14 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:01:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "In a word: YES...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that
>>>>>> the device can pass or generate..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it
>>>>> is triodes alone that
>>>>> generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes
>>>>> generate odd harmonics
>>>>> just as much as transistors do.
>>>>
>>>> **So much nonsense, so little time to correct it. Why
>>>> this myth continues to
>>>> be perpetrated is a complete mystery. The TOPOLOGY
>>>> dictates what type of harmonics are generated, not the
>>>> devices.
>>>
>>> Well, you're half right. They both dictate the
>>> harmonics.
>>
>> **I am 100% correct.
>
> No, you're not.
>
>> Topology is the factor.
>
> It's one factor.
>
>> Not the devices.
>
> B.S.
>
>> Of course,
>> various devices DO contribute different distortion
>> amounts.
>
> And different harmonic distributions as well.
>
>> For instance:
>>
>> * At low bias currents, pentodes add large amounts of
>> distortion.
>> * At low bias current, triodes add smaller amounts of
>> distortion.
>> * At low bias currents, MOSFETs add very large amounts
>> of distortion.
>> * At low bias currents, BJTs add smaller amounts of
>> distortion.
>>
>>>
>>>> Push pull eliminates even order
>>>> distortion products. Valve or solid state.
>>>
>>> But does nothing for the odd orders, which are dictated
>>> by the devices.
>>
>> **Sure. ALL amplifying devices add odd order distortion.

> Yes, but with different distributions.

So what?

With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the loop
hindering the proper use of loop feedback. It is far more economically
feasible to have large open loop gain. Thus despite all the intuitively
attractive but completely wrong-headed hand-waving arguments against loop
feedback, SS amps are able to use more of it. The net result is that SS amps
are far more linear, particularly at the ends of the audible range.

We've already had one tubie admit that even the best tubed amps make very
suboptimal subwoofer amps. Less-expensive tubes amps such as the classic
Dyna 70 and the amplifier sections of the better tubed receivers start
crapping out below 100 Hz which is well into the normal audible range for
even bookshelf speakers.


>> At moderate bias
>> currents, the approximate order is (from best to worst):
>>
>> BJTs
>> Triodes
>> Pentodes
>> MOSFETs
>>
>> At high bias currents, the order shifts somewhat to:
>>
>> BJTs
>> MOSFETs
>> Triodes
>> Pentodes
>
> Except for BJTs being the worst of the lot under all
> conditions that's not too terribly screwed up.

It doesn't matter. Device linearity doesn't matter nearly as much as the
final performance of the finished product. One of the strong advantages of
SS is the ability to economically cascade stages to get higher open-loop
gain with low enough phase shift to provide superior stability margins at
all relevant frequencies.

>> It is the TOPOLOGY which dominates the issue of
>> distortion production, however.
>
> Wrong.

Just saying it without supporting evidence is just meaningless posturing.

>> Depending on the amount of feedback employed, the
>> devices used
>> makes little difference.

> Also wrong.

Just saying it without supporting evidence is just meaningless posturing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>> message
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
>>> output will be a triode SET.
>>
>> No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something
>> symmetrical, like push-pull.


> NO, PP CANCELS odd harmonics.

A totally false statement that any second-year engineering student would
recognize as being false.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>> message
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
>>> output will be a triode SET.
>>
>> No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something
>> symmetrical, like push-pull.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, I meant even harmonics and my prior reply to this
> post was BS.

Well, now having corrected yourself - deal with the issue that I raised.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 28, 11:48*pm, jakdedert > wrote:

> Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! *

Um... get with the program. This thread is a cross-posted unabashed
troll covering well-plowed, entirely exhausted ground without even a
scintilla of revealing, even useful information.

Is it any surprise that it brings out the crap-peddlers and bull****
artists? Those preaching revealed religion and those espousing their
closely-held-beliefs? The pretenders and the poseurs?

I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most brutish of
brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer level - and I find it
quite easy to drive either to clipping on certain passages at not-
quite-headbanging volume. Those who do not understand the power-curve
will _never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that a 60-
watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp... Draw your own
conclusions.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message


> I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most
> brutish of brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer
> level - and I find it quite easy to drive either to
> clipping on certain passages at not- quite-headbanging
> volume.

First off, the restriction of "consumer level" is artificial. It is
well-known that if you are serious about amplifier power, you slip the surly
bonds of mere household appliances.

By modern standards, either is little more than a peanut-whistle.

Especially the Citation 16. It's only a little more powerful than the amps
in a modern $79 stereo receiver.

The most powerful amp produced at the consumer level that I could find with
a short search was rated at 960 watts into 8 ohm loads.


> Those who do not understand the power-curve will
> _never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that
> a 60- watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp...


It is twice as powerful, but not twice as loud.

As we both know, twice as loud as a 30 watt amp takes about 300 watts. If
you want some serious amplifier power to play around with, you leave the
world of household appliances behind. A couple of Behringer EP2500s running
bridged into 4 ohm speakers gives you 1300 wpc. Now, you're talking the
beginnings of serious amplifier power.

> Draw your own conclusions.

I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to artificially narrow the
field, and that even in that narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot
to be desired.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>> Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound.
>>
>> Actually only a miniscule number of people have ever
>> heard it.
>
> Maybe a small number of *young* people perhaps. The
> number of older people who have heard tube equipment is
> hardly "miniscule"!

Agreed - I suffered for about 20 years in tubed-only audio purgatory. Then
I got a serious dose of tube aversion therapy by being made responsible for
the 24/7 operation of pieces of military gear with about 400 tubes each.
That gear used advanced tube technology that is rarely used in audio to this
day. A bit ironic that said gear was designed to use the legendary 300B for
more like its intended use - a DC voltage regulator. By the time I got
there, the 300Bs had been replaced by solid-state plug-in modules.

To complete the story, The role of 5 major pieces from the days of tubes,
each a truck-trailer sized tubed military radar, two of which had their own
dedicated 45 Kw generators, has been replaced by a SS little something that
sits on the tailgate of a Hummer, has over 5 times the range and handles
about 100 times more concurrent targets.

[jamesgangnc]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:12:51 -0400, "jamesgangnc" >
> wrote:
>
>>"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you include the effects of real-world speaker loads, most tubed amps
>>>> have
>>>> audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of their far higher
>>>> source
>>>> impedance.
>>>>
>>>> Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad performance of
>>>> tubed
>>>> amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy ones do rather
>>>> more
>>>> poorly in the bass.
>>>
>>> All tube amps are expensive and heavy these days. No one is
>>> advocating them for subwoofer drivers.
>>>
>>> Any good push pull 6L6 or 6550 power amp will drive a classic
>>> Klipsch, Altec or JBL setup to higher bass SPLs than any normal person
>>> can tolerate. Headbangers wanting more should move out of town so as
>>> not to disturb the rest of us.
>>
>>Tubes are inherently bad devices to drive a low impedance load where as
>>solid state is perfectly happy being coupled directly to a speaker. You
>>can't make a tube current amp and that's what you need for audio.
>>
>
> The output of a 'tube' *is* current. It's 'input' is voltage. In this
> respect they're like MOSFETs (or, rather, vice versa), both being
> transconductance devices.
>
> You could also make 'high current' tubes but the heater (and plate
> dissipation) requirements would be excessive and it's more efficient
> to take advantage of the high voltage operation to transformer
> multiply the current.
>
> Solid state devices aren't ideal either.
Don't say "you could but". The "but" is why you can't. And the output
transformer is half the problem with tube amps. Transformers are not clean
and it's impossible to make one behave consistently at both 20hz and 20khz.
Plus they are expensive. Extremely expensive if you want to run a lot of
watts through one. There is no "advantage" to the output transformer. The
transformer doesn't "improve" the amp. It's simply not possible to build a
tube amp without one. Where as a solid state amp can be designed to couple
directly to the load. The advantage of that circuit is obvious.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> wrote:
>>>> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
>>>> output will be a triode SET.
>>> No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something
>>> symmetrical, like push-pull.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry, I meant even harmonics and my prior reply to this
>> post was BS.
>
> Well, now having corrected yourself - deal with the issue that I raised.
>
>


Which was?

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
>
> > > Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound.
> >
> > Actually only a miniscule number of people have ever heard it.
>
> Maybe a small number of *young* people perhaps.

Probably most under 40 y.o.


> The number of older people who have heard tube equipment is hardly
> "miniscule"!

Good riddance in most cases, given the average quality of what was on offer to
the general masses.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the loop
> hindering the proper use of loop feedback.

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"jamesgangnc" > wrote in message
m

> Don't say "you could but". The "but" is why you can't. And the output
> transformer is half the problem with tube
> amps.

Probably more than half of the performance problems with tubed amps is due
to the type of transformer that they require.

It is possible to build a transformer that has good response from 20-20 KHz
and maybe an octave or two on either side with acceptably low distortion,
but doing so with the required impedance levels and permissible costs is the
sticky point.

> Transformers are not clean and it's impossible to
> make one behave consistently at both 20 Hz and 20 kHz.

Can't knock all transformers, because there are transformers that perform
well-20-20K and extended both up and down. The ones I've seen that were
that good didn't handle high power levels. Secondly, McIntosh used to put
OPTs on their SS amps, and it didn't seem to hinder the amp's performance.
However they were a design that couldn't be retrofitted to your typical
tubed amp.

> Plus they are expensive.

The good ones are expensive, big time!

> Extremely expensive if you want to
> run a lot of watts through one.

Agreed.

> There is no "advantage" to the output transformer.

Not these days. Back in the early days of SS transformers were an expensive
solution to the limited voltage ratings of available devices, and they did
provide some short-circuit protection. However, high voltage SS devices
haven't been a problem for several decades.

> The transformer doesn't "improve" the amp.

Agreed.

> It's simply not possible to build a tube amp without one.

I wouldn't go that far. Futterman's ghost is still apparent. Whether it is
possible to build a practical tubed amp without an OPT is a different
question. Futterman's amps still managed to be heavy and expensive, OPT or
not.

> Whereas a solid state amp can be designed to couple directly to the load.

Agreed.

> The advantage of that circuit is obvious.

Agreed,

[Peter Wieck]

On May 29, 7:10*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most
> > brutish of brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer
> > level - and I find it quite easy to drive either to
> > clipping on certain passages at not- quite-headbanging
> > volume.
>
> First off, the restriction of "consumer level" is artificial. It is
> well-known that if you are serious about amplifier power, you slip the surly
> bonds of mere household appliances.
>
> By modern standards, either is little more than a peanut-whistle.
>
> Especially the Citation 16. *It's only a little more powerful than the amps
> in a modern $79 stereo receiver.
>
> The most powerful amp produced at the consumer level that I could find with
> a short search was rated at 960 watts into 8 ohm loads.
>
> > *Those who do not understand the power-curve will
> > _never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that
> > a 60- watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp...
>
> It is twice as powerful, but not twice as loud.
>
> As we both know, twice as loud as a 30 watt amp takes about 300 watts. *If
> you want some serious amplifier power to play around with, you leave the
> world of household appliances behind. *A couple of Behringer EP2500s running
> bridged into 4 ohm speakers gives you 1300 wpc. Now, you're talking the
> beginnings of serious amplifier power.
>
> > Draw your own conclusions.
>
> I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to artificially narrow the
> field, and that even in that narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot
> to be desired.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

Thank you for fitting right in to its intent, Arny.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[jakdedert]

Peter Wieck wrote:
> On May 28, 11:48 pm, jakdedert > wrote:
>
>> Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off!
>
> Um... get with the program. This thread is a cross-posted unabashed
> troll covering well-plowed, entirely exhausted ground without even a
> scintilla of revealing, even useful information.
>
> Is it any surprise that it brings out the crap-peddlers and bull****
> artists? Those preaching revealed religion and those espousing their
> closely-held-beliefs? The pretenders and the poseurs?
>
> I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most brutish of
> brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer level - and I find it
> quite easy to drive either to clipping on certain passages at not-
> quite-headbanging volume. Those who do not understand the power-curve
> will _never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that a 60-
> watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp... Draw your own
> conclusions.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Yeah, well....

I kept out of the thread for the most part. Sometimes I can't resist
calling BS when I see it. I'll go back to my hole now.

jak

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > "In a word: YES...
> >
> > "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> > or generate..."
> >
> > Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
>
> There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is triodes alone
> that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes generate odd
> harmonics just as much as transistors do.
>
> Second the amount of distortion is level dependent. The output stages of
> an amp create by far the most distortion. Any push pull amp output stage
> will, by definition cancel most of the even order harmonics and leave
> many nasty odd harmonics in the output - no better in that respect than
> a transistor amp.

Yes, but the PP tube amp can easily have 0.03% THD at 1 watt levels
for excellent listening where THD/IMD is below audibility.

So how then is the distortion responsible for the different sound of an
amp?

>
> So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
> triode SET.

Your'e wrong, SE triode amps have THD comprising nearly all 2H almost up
to clipping.

3H, 5H, 7H, 9H are at extremely low levels at ordinary listening levels.

The kind of IMD produced in amplifiers is MUCH more important than the
THD itself.

The IMD produced in an SET is more benign than that produced in an amp
with a similar quantity of 3H, which would have to be a PP amp.

And don't forget, the amount of distortion is NFB dependant as well as
level dependant, and cancellation dependant.
And the PSU filtering needs to be good for good sound,
and the amount of class A needs to be high.....

Patrick Turner.



>
> Cheers
>
> Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

>> I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to
>> artificially narrow the field, and that even in that
>> narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot to be
>> desired.
>
> See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".

Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter. You're not in this for
the sharing of opinions, but rather you chafe at the thought of a spirited
exchange. It is your way or the highway! :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:32:42 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
> > wrote:
>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:12:51 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you include the effects of real-world speaker
>>>>>> loads, most tubed amps have
>>>>>> audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of
>>>>>> their far higher source
>>>>>> impedance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad
>>>>>> performance of tubed
>>>>>> amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy
>>>>>> ones do rather more
>>>>>> poorly in the bass.
>>>>>
>>>>> All tube amps are expensive and heavy these days. No
>>>>> one is advocating them for subwoofer drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any good push pull 6L6 or 6550 power amp will drive a
>>>>> classic Klipsch, Altec or JBL setup to higher bass
>>>>> SPLs than any normal person can tolerate.
>>>>> Headbangers wanting more should move out of town so
>>>>> as not to disturb the rest of us.
>>>>
>>>> Tubes are inherently bad devices to drive a low
>>>> impedance load where as solid state is perfectly happy
>>>> being coupled directly to a speaker. You can't make a
>>>> tube current amp and that's what you need for audio.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The output of a 'tube' *is* current. It's 'input' is
>>> voltage. In this respect they're like MOSFETs (or,
>>> rather, vice versa), both being transconductance
>>> devices.
>>>
>>> You could also make 'high current' tubes but the heater
>>> (and plate dissipation) requirements would be excessive
>>> and it's more efficient to take advantage of the high
>>> voltage operation to transformer multiply the current.
>>>
>>> Solid state devices aren't ideal either.
>>
>> Don't say "you could but". The "but" is why you can't.
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that one solution
> being more convenient means the other(s) "can't" be done
> but it isn't so.
>
>> And the output
>> transformer is half the problem with tube amps.
>> Transformers are not clean and it's impossible to make
>> one behave consistently at both 20hz and 20khz.
>
> Good transformers are not "impossible."
>
>> Plus they are expensive. Extremely expensive if you
>> want to run a lot of watts through one.
>
> Well, good ones are, yes. Depending on how one defines
> "extremely."
>
>> There is no "advantage" to the output transformer.
>
> Sure there is. For one, they're a convenient solution to
> tube PP output stages.
>
> As a side note, output transformers were common in early
> solid state designs as well and there are still some
> esoterics that believe in them, like this one.
>
> http://www.audiophonics.com/audiophonics-zeus75.html
>
>> The
>> transformer doesn't "improve" the amp. It's simply not
>> possible to build a tube amp without one.
>
> Sure you can. They're called OTL (Output TransformerLess)
>
> Here's a 100W OTL
>
> http://www.1212designs.com/OTL_Stereo_Amp/default.htm
>
> Didn't pick it as being 'the best', or anything else. It
> just happened to conveniently come up on a google.
>
>> Where as a solid state amp can be designed to couple
>> directly to the load. The advantage of that circuit is
>> obvious.
>
> There's no doubt that solid state is 'cheap', and
> astronomically so.
>
> I do think that sometimes lends itself to an
> intellectually sloppy design approach where any problem
> is attacked by simply sprinkling more sand over it and I
> enjoy the challenge of getting the most from the least.
>
> And then there are those who believe there is an audible
> virtue to simplicity.

In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is a paragon of
simplicity.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg ****s on another Kroopologist.

> > See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.
>
> That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".

Don't forget to gargle, Turdbucket.

> Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter. You're not in this for
> the sharing of opinions, but rather you chafe at the thought of a spirited
> exchange. It is your way or the highway! :-(

Towering hypocrisy aside, Mr. ****, why are you dumping on Worthless
Wiecky? He's one of the few posters left who are willing to side with your
loathsome self against the Normals. Do you really disdain him as much as
you do, say, duh-Mikey McBugeater?

[Peter Wieck]

On May 29, 1:21*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
> >> I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to
> >> artificially narrow the field, and that even in that
> >> narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot to be
> >> desired.
>
> > See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.
>
> That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".
>
> Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter. *You're not in this for
> the sharing of opinions, but rather *you chafe at the thought of a spirited
> exchange. It is your way or the highway! :-(

"Spirited exchange"?

Give me a break.

a) nothing but 'revealed religion' is exchanged.
b) no opinions will be altered, even by a single degree.
c) the same tired crap will be repeated ad-nauseum, cross-posted to
attract the entire coterie of idiots, fools, puppets and other
assorted scum.

As, for absolute proof of this, it brought you and the commander
together.

Need there be anything more?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

> On May 29, 1:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>>>> I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to
>>>> artificially narrow the field, and that even in that
>>>> narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot to be
>>>> desired.
>>
>>> See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.
>>
>> That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".
>>
>> Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter.
>> You're not in this for the sharing of opinions, but
>> rather you chafe at the thought of a spirited exchange.
>> It is your way or the highway! :-(
>
> "Spirited exchange"?
>
> Give me a break.
>
> a) nothing but 'revealed religion' is exchanged.

That's your story Peter. My story is that I corrected any number of
misconceptions, many rooted in the "revealed religion" that seems to
afflicts tube bigots. One biggie was the claim that push-pull operation
cancels odd-order distortion.


> b) no opinions will be altered, even by a single degree.

That would be autobiographical on your part. However, looking at the track
record of iconoclasm by tube bigots on Usenet, it is indeed unlikely that
any of them will learn much.

> c) the same tired crap will be repeated ad-nauseum,
> cross-posted to attract the entire coterie of idiots,
> fools, puppets and other assorted scum.

Good example of that being the OP.

> As, for absolute proof of this, it brought you and the
> commander together.

I believe that it was a person that brought us together, not a concept.

A cessation of self-righteousness posturing.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the
>> loop
>> hindering the proper use of loop feedback.
>
> At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

**Well, _we_ know that, but, it seems, may valve amp proponents still think
that the 2N3055 is the best that BJTs can offer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:32:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>

>>> And then there are those who believe there is an audible
>>> virtue to simplicity.

Since that is untrue at the performance level, this virtue is strictly in
the eye, not the ear of the beholder.

>> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is
>> a paragon of simplicity.

> You're making a joke, right? Like, if I wrap a black box
> around a nuclear missile then it magically becomes
> 'simple' because we don't look inside.

> LOL good one.

What you don't seem to realize is how much that same principle also applies
to the vacuum tube.

For example consider the major component of a vacuum tube by volume - the
vacuum. 100 years before the invention of the vacuum tube, volume production
of components with that kind of a vacuum inside of them was not even thought
about, let alone a standard production line process.

[Mr.T]

"jakdedert" > wrote in message
...
> Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! You've NEVER heard
> distortion...in your life? Never heard an overdriven car stereo, or AM
> radio? Never wanted to get 'just a little more' out of a system and
> went a little too far before you backed off? Never been surprised by
> unexpectedly loud passage in a piece, which drove your system into
> clipping?

And ***NEVER*** thought the solution was a vacuum tube amp!
Good luck trying to find a tube car radio these days! :-)
They never came within 20-30dB of what you can cleanly get out of a modern
solid state car amplifier if you really need it!
Modern tube HiFi amps don't either when compared to similarly priced solid
state ones.

MrT

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>A couple of Behringer EP2500s running
> bridged into 4 ohm speakers gives you 1300 wpc. Now, you're talking the
> beginnings of serious amplifier power.

And run them into some K-Horns (or even better, JBL Hatfield's) for some
serious SPL right :-)

MrT.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>We've already had one tubie admit that even the best tubed amps make very
>suboptimal subwoofer amps.

Whoa!

Wouldn't that be something along the lines of "even the best putters
make very sub-optimal drivers"?

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

>"Eeyore" wrote:
>>
>> At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !
>
>**Well, _we_ know that, but, it seems, may valve amp proponents still think
>that the 2N3055 is the best that BJTs can offer.

So what are some good amps in the 250W (8 ohms) 400W (4 ohms) range?

[dizzy]

RapidRonnie wrote:

> Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the 100-300 kHz
>range. That is not a feature, it's a bug. The output transformer of a
>tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme HF response.

Whoa! That's almost as good of a troll as the OP! Congrats!

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is a paragon of
> simplicity.

**Not really. It is an exceedingly complex device, which happens to be
simple to use. It is disingenuous to call such devices "simple".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >"Eeyore" wrote:
> >>
> >> At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !
> >
> >**Well, _we_ know that, but, it seems, may valve amp proponents still think
> >that the 2N3055 is the best that BJTs can offer.
>
> So what are some good amps in the 250W (8 ohms) 400W (4 ohms) range?

Define 'good'. There are very few truly bad SS amps any more. Computer sound
boxes excluded.

Graham

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

> RapidRonnie wrote:
>
> > Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the 100-300 kHz
> >range. That is not a feature, it's a bug. The output transformer of a
> >tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme HF response.
>
> Whoa! That's almost as good of a troll as the OP! Congrats!

It's certainly pretty whacky !

Graham

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

> And 100 years before the invention of silicon transistors volume
> production of silicon with that kind of purity was not even thought
> of, let alone a standard production line process, either. BFD.

The first demand for really high purity silicon was in the 1940s for point
contact diodes to be used in radar receivers' detector front end.

Du Pont's offering was the best at that time to the extent that the UK ended up
importing it too.

Graham

[[email protected]]

>
> > It's simply not possible to build a tube amp without one.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. Futterman's ghost is still apparent. Whether it is
> possible to build a practical tubed amp without an OPT is a different
> question. Futterman's amps still managed to be heavy and expensive, OPT or
> not.


OTL tube amps would have been commercially successful had vacuum tube
types been designed specifically for that service and had higher
impedance speakers become common. The Russians built low mu, high
current tubes which are used in OTL amps now that would be entirely
successful if the tubes were optimized for totem pole audio service
(the 6S33, which isn't, is used commonly by DIYers and high end
boutique vendors alike).

Had solid state never been common we'd have Tungar rectifiers and
largish transmitting tube-appearing devices driving 50, 150, 300 or
600 ohm speakers in hi fi saloons today.

And let's not forget: Futterman's quixotic achievements with OTL tube
amps made the modern comp-symm and earlier quasi-comp solid state
output sections thinkable, much as Philbrick's tube and early solid
state op amp modules made Widlar's IC op amp a marketable concept.

[[email protected]]

>
> What you don't seem to realize is how much that same principle also applies
> to the vacuum tube.
>
> For example consider the major component of a vacuum tube by volume - the
> vacuum.

Yes, but not by mass!

[[email protected]]

> >vacuum. 100 years before the invention of the vacuum tube, volume production
> >of components with that kind of a vacuum inside of them was not even thought
> >about, let alone a standard production line process.
>
> And 100 years before the invention of silicon transistors volume
> production of silicon with that kind of purity was not even thought
> of, let alone a standard production line process, either. BFD.
>
> But go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot some more because
> integrated circuit manufacture is an astronomically more complex
> process than assembling tube components and from that aspect they're
> anything but "a paragon of simplicity."

It's more complex in terms of physics and chemistry but not in terms
of manual skill. Tube manufacture takes skilled workers and lots of
expensive tooling, as expensive to build from scratch as a non-leading-
edge semiconductor fab. To build a tube facility from scratch-no old
tooling-to produce even a humble 12AX7 or 6L6 would cost in the tens
of millions. You'd have to hire and train from scratch a lot of
workers.

There were probably 25 skill groups in a tube plant, none of which
are dispensible. The most skilled position was probably grid lathe
mechanic. Just try to find a grid lathe mechanic, or for that matter
a grid lathe today. Or even a manual for one. Litton was the primary
manufacturer, and Richardson has bought up almost all of them in
existence. They'll destroy every one before selling any, unless you
buy a whole working tube plant for a few million from them.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> > With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the
loop
> > hindering the proper use of loop feedback.
>
> At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

"Now", as in the last 35 years or more?

MrT.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
>
> > > With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the
> > > loop hindering the proper use of loop feedback.
> >
> > At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !
>
> "Now", as in the last 35 years or more?

If you were prepared to pay the premium, I recall some Sanken devices back
around 1980 with fTs of around 10MHz, possibly 20 even ? It's a while back
you know !

20-40MHz is quite routine now at everyday commercial prices.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> > The number of older people who have heard tube equipment is hardly
> > "miniscule"!
>
> Good riddance in most cases, given the average quality of what was on
offer to
> the general masses.

No argument from me!
And they haven't improved much either considering the enormous price
increase for tube gear. That's what happens when you have a very small
market.
The "ultimate" sound system for some people though is still a wax cylinder
and acoustic horn :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> > > At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz
!
> >
> > "Now", as in the last 35 years or more?
>
> If you were prepared to pay the premium, I recall some Sanken devices back
> around 1980 with fTs of around 10MHz, possibly 20 even ? It's a while
back
> you know !

I know. I was using output transistors with ft at or above 1MHz in the early
seventies, as were many commercial amps.

> 20-40MHz is quite routine now at everyday commercial prices.

It's basically no longer an issue. Output devices are usually selected for
many other considerations.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Mr.T" wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>
>> > > With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside
>> > > the
>> > > loop hindering the proper use of loop feedback.
>> >
>> > At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz
>> > !
>>
>> "Now", as in the last 35 years or more?
>
> If you were prepared to pay the premium, I recall some Sanken devices back
> around 1980 with fTs of around 10MHz, possibly 20 even ? It's a while
> back
> you know !

**A Japanese company called 'Hi-Rel' manufactured a range of triple-diffused
power transistors back in 1975. They possessed an fT in excess of 20MHz (for
PNP and NPN devices) and were commendably linear to boot. They were rated
for 20 Amps. Part numbers: ED203 and EB203. The most interesting thing about
these devices, was the fact that they were released soon after Motorola
claimed that triple diffused NPN/PNP, high power complements were not
possible to manufacture and that Epitaxial Base devices were the only
sensible ones for people to use.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Mr.T]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> > Tube manufacture takes skilled workers
>
> I think you'd find it takes considerable 'skill' to run IC fab
> equipment but just, perhaps, not as much manual dexterity. And, beyond
> that, the 'complexity' of automation allows using fewer humans by
> replicating, not to mention exceeding, their skills so you can have
> incredibly complex processes with hardly a human in sight.

Not to mention the fact that IF tube production was done in sufficient
volume these days, it could EASILY be done completely by robotic
manufacture.
(Alternatively in some Chinese sweat shop at low cost)
Imagine if ordinary light bulbs were still made by hand blowing glass, hand
winding filaments and hand assembly in Western countries. They'd be
expensive too, big deal!

MrT.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 2:27 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> Imagine if ordinary light bulbs were still made by
> hand blowing glass, hand winding filaments and
> hand assembly in Western countries. They'd be
> expensive too!

And, being very expensive, they'd undoubtedly
sound MUCH better, much warmer!

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:32:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>>> And then there are those who believe there is an
>>>>> audible virtue to simplicity.
>>
>> Since that is untrue at the performance level, this
>> virtue is strictly in the eye, not the ear of the
>> beholder.
>
> I'm sure they would say the same thing about your opinion.
>
>>
>>>> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is
>>>> a paragon of simplicity.
>>
>>> You're making a joke, right? Like, if I wrap a black box
>>> around a nuclear missile then it magically becomes
>>> 'simple' because we don't look inside.
>>
>>> LOL good one.
>>
>> What you don't seem to realize is how much that same
>> principle also applies to the vacuum tube.

> No, the 'components' of a tube are what make the 'device'


A truism.

> and I didn't bring up silicon purity, junction diffusion,
> or anything else in the 'making' of transistors.

So you still don't see the connection. :-(


> A 'tube' with two triodes inside the envelope is two
> devices and a microprocessor die with half a million
> transistors has half a million transistors.

It's just a matter of scale - the concept is the same.

> And in neither case does wrapping a glass, or plastic, envelope
> around them alter that fact.

Never said it did. you missed the point.

>> For example consider the major component of a vacuum
>> tube by volume

> Why would I when it's utterly irrelevant to the issue?

It's only irrelevant because you can't see the connection.

> Which was the simplicity of a thing, in this case the
> circuit topology of an audio power amplifier, and not how
> easy or difficult it is to make them.

What you ignore is the relatively high degree of integration of the
components in a tubed amp, as compared to what went before. Before tubes
also we had ways of doing the same thing that were also in some sense
simpler.

A tube is very complex compared to the technology that went before it, just
as a power amp IC is very complex compared to the tube that went before it.

>> - the
>> vacuum. 100 years before the invention of the vacuum
>> tube, volume production of components with that kind of
>> a vacuum inside of them was not even thought about, let
>> alone a standard production line process.

> And 100 years before the invention of silicon transistors
> volume production of silicon with that kind of purity was
> not even thought of, let alone a standard production line
> process, either.

From the human standpoint, complexity is based on the things that humans can
see and touch. In power amps, those are called discrete components.

A very good SS power amplifier in the 15-40 wpc range can be built with just
7 discrete parts per channel plus power supply. Just check any LM 3875
application note or "gain clone" web site.

A tubed amp with equal or better technical performance is probably mission
impossible, but amplifiers like the Dyna ST35, ST70, Mark II, III etc are
close enough for home audio hobbyist work. I count 24 parts per channel
plus power supply for a ST-70.

Obviously the LM3875 power amp wins the simplicity race with 7 discrete
parts per channel, as compared to 24.


> But go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot some more
> because integrated circuit manufacture is an
> astronomically more complex process than assembling tube
> components and from that aspect they're anything but "a
> paragon of simplicity."

I don't know of any home constructor who is building and evacuating his own
tubes, and I don't know of any home constructor who is masking and diffusing
his own chips. IOW, we have a draw. I suspect that either chips or tubes
could be made by someone with the resources of a well-equipped university
laboratory.


In terms complexity based on what matters to humans, which is discrete
parts, the SS/Chip amp is the obvious winner, and by a factor of more than 3
to 1. In terms of performance, the Chip-based amp is the winner, mostly
because it doesn't have an output transformer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is
>> a paragon of simplicity.
>
> **Not really. It is an exceedingly complex device, which
> happens to be simple to use. It is disingenuous to call
> such devices "simple".

In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts count, not to mention the
fact that all of the parts are readily available, a single-chip amplifier
has unequalled simplicity. Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce,
but they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:56:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>> wrote
>> in message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is
>>>> a paragon of simplicity.
>>>
>>> **Not really. It is an exceedingly complex device, which
>>> happens to be simple to use. It is disingenuous to call
>>> such devices "simple".
>>
>> In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts count,
>
> We're not talking about the human fallacy of thinking
> something is 'simple' because it's "out of sight, out of
> mind" hidden inside a black box nor are we talking about
> 'ease of use' either because it's wrapped inside a black
> box with 11 pins sticking out or fully assembled with
> RCA, speaker, and power cord connections.

It's not a fallacy. If it is a fallacy, then it was a fallacy for tubes.

> 'Easy to use'
> doesn't have a damn thing to do with amplifier quality or
> else audiophiles would all be sporting 1960s Japanese 10
> transistor pocket radios.

Irrelevant.

> Don't need to 'connect'
> anything to those. WOW, must be a terrific amp inside.

Nonsense.

>> not to mention the
>> fact that all of the parts are readily available, a
>> single-chip amplifier has unequalled simplicity.
>> Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce, but
>> they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

> It is complex to produce, which was also not an issue
> till you shot yourself in the foot diverting into the
> B.S. of 'previously unheard of' vacuum technology

It is no BS Flipper. Your mistake is that you have confused a complex
technology that you seem to favor, with a simple technology.

> The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand,
> was circuit complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether
> or not you can handle soldering more than 11 pins or go
> blind dead and dumb hiding the thing inside black boxes.

I have yet to see a cogent discussion of this topic from you, Flipper. If
you want to say "All I can see is tubes" over and over again which is what
you've been saying by implication, fine.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 30, 12:27*pm, flipper > wrote:

> The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand, was circuit
> complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether or not you can handle
> soldering more than 11 pins or go blind dead and dumb hiding the thing
> inside black boxes.


Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own and terms other
than those he defines himself. When dealing with that sort of
individual, the only valid response is none after that condition is
established. He is on a crusade to bust myths - in other words, he is
preaching his exclusive brand of revealed religion against that of
others.

By continuing the argument you are accepting his terms as worth the
effort. Are you quite sure that they are?

Unless you are also requiring others believe as you do and share your
precise brand of revealed religion, you will understand that for those
for whom tubes are an enjoyable hobby and just one more aspect of the
audio hobby in general, Arny is a pathetic fool that really wants
nothing more than to take everybody's ball home so they can't play
without his permission and approval - which, as it happens - is the
failure of other preachers as well if not so obviously.

So, let the religionists battle it out, hopefully away from here, and
let the rest of us get on with enjoying ourselves, and tubes, and
their foibles good and bad.

As I have tried to convey several times - the initial post was a
troll, and now 107 posts later it remains a troll with all the usual
popes, imams and shamans taking their usual rigid, singlular and
exclusive positions. The OP is sitting back laughing at what he has
wrought with so little effort.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Worthless Wiecky has an epiphany.

> Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
> deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own

Well, this is quite something. Another Kroopologist bites the big one.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message


> Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance
> and complete deafness/blindness to any arguments other
> than his own and terms other than those he defines
> himself.

Yeah Peter, you're so much smarter than I am. Looking at this thread we can
see the form your alleged smartness takes - little but personal attacks and
propaganda. I've been distracted by low-tech ankle-biters such as your self,
but left to my own I've contributed more than my share of solid,
generally-recognized technlogy.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 30, 4:00*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Worthless Wiecky has an epiphany.
>
> > Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
> > deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own
>
> Well, this is quite something. Another Kroopologist bites the big one.

As it happens, "commander", I would take a dozen Arnys over a bit of
false-front dead pond scum such as your puppet-master. At least Arny
is 'real' if utterly without value or interest. You don't even take on
that much reality.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On May 30, 6:35*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> but left to my own I've contributed more than my share of solid,
> generally-recognized technlogy.

That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly without
imagination, and utterly without creativity. I believe we might all
agree on at least tha much.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Worthless Wiecky hocks up a big ol' hairball.

> > Worthless Wiecky has an epiphany.
> >
> > > Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
> > > deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own
> >
> > Well, this is quite something. Another Kroopologist bites the big one.
>
> As it happens, "commander", I would take a dozen Arnys over a bit of
> false-front dead pond scum such as your puppet-master.

Sorry, out of the question. I fired him ages ago. Now it's just me and the
rest of the Normals.

> At least Arny is 'real' if utterly without value or interest.

I think Mr. **** interests you intensely. You're the one who can't stop
correcting his mistakes.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Wiecky disses TurdBorg.

> That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly without
> imagination, and utterly without creativity. I believe we might all
> agree on at least tha much.

I can agree with you on that, Worthless. By way of enlightening those who
may be unfamiliar with the full breadth and depth of Mr. ****'s oeuvre,
I'll share one of the strangest things Turdy has ever said. Arnii believes
that if one can examine an electronic device and, using schematics if
desired, figure out its operation, one has "equal" knowledge and skill to
the device's designer. It's on this basis that the Krooborg has dared to
insult and demean a long list of Real Audio Guys.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
...
> On May 30, 2:27 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> > Imagine if ordinary light bulbs were still made by
> > hand blowing glass, hand winding filaments and
> > hand assembly in Western countries. They'd be
> > expensive too!
>
> And, being very expensive, they'd undoubtedly
> sound MUCH better, much warmer!

Well I guess they do LOOK much warmer at least, and undoubtedly some people
would pay extravagant prices, if everyone else was using CFL's.

May happen yet :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance
> > and complete deafness/blindness to any arguments other
> > than his own and terms other than those he defines
> > himself.
>
> Yeah Peter, you're so much smarter than I am. Looking at this thread we
can
> see the form your alleged smartness takes - little but personal attacks
and
> propaganda. I've been distracted by low-tech ankle-biters such as your
self,
> but left to my own I've contributed more than my share of solid,
> generally-recognized technlogy.


It's amazing how people who contribute mainly personal insults, can be so
self righteous.
I don't agree with you on this one Arny, but at least I think your record is
far better than many here.
Those who only contribute personal attacks should check their own record on
Google groups before making a complete hypocrite out of themselves IMO.
(Like THAT will ever stop them though :-)

MrT.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , George M. Middius at
wrote on 5/30/08 9:24 PM:

>
>
> Wiecky disses TurdBorg.
>
>> That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly without
>> imagination, and utterly without creativity. I believe we might all
>> agree on at least tha much.
>
> I can agree with you on that, Worthless. By way of enlightening those who
> may be unfamiliar with the full breadth and depth of Mr. ****'s oeuvre,
> I'll share one of the strangest things Turdy has ever said. Arnii believes
> that if one can examine an electronic device and, using schematics if
> desired, figure out its operation, one has "equal" knowledge and skill to
> the device's designer. It's on this basis that the Krooborg has dared to
> insult and demean a long list of Real Audio Guys.
>
>
>
How absolutely captivating, George! How utterly insightful!!

Yawn . . . . . . . . . .

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

> On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> but left to my own I've contributed more than my share
>> of solid, generally-recognized technology.
>
> That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly
> without imagination, and utterly without creativity. I
> believe we might all agree on at least that much.

Well, that explains it all Peter. You find solid generally-recognized
technology to be dull. Hence, your fascination with vacuous,
generally-useless technology.

[Mr.T]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> And what I said is there are those who believe there is audible merit
> to circuit simplicity. I believe it's oft stated as "the best
> amplifier is a wire with gain."

But many people still argue over the relative merits of wire types.
So you still need to specify EXACTLY what wire
type/brand/construction/conductor/insulation etc, "with gain" !
:-)

Personally if I can't hear a problem, or measure one, I don't give a rats
how the result was obtained.
When "simplicity" means more expensive, more maintenance, and less
performance, count me out.

MrT.

[PhattyMo[_2_]]

wrote:
> "In a word: YES...

Of course,that's what the heater is for!! :-p

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 14:24:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:56:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>>> wrote
>>>> in message
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier
>>>>>> is a paragon of simplicity.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Not really. It is an exceedingly complex device,
>>>>> which happens to be simple to use. It is disingenuous
>>>>> to call such devices "simple".
>>>>
>>>> In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts
>>>> count,
>>>
>>> We're not talking about the human fallacy of thinking
>>> something is 'simple' because it's "out of sight, out of
>>> mind" hidden inside a black box nor are we talking about
>>> 'ease of use' either because it's wrapped inside a black
>>> box with 11 pins sticking out or fully assembled with
>>> RCA, speaker, and power cord connections.
>>
>> It's not a fallacy.
>
> Arny, surely there must be a few brain cells left in your
> head so try waking a couple of them up.

Inability to create a cogent argument noted.

> Putting a complex thing inside a box doesn't magically
> make it 'simple'. It's a fallacy.

What you don't get Flipper is that the same thing happened with tubes, about
a century ago.

>> If it is a fallacy, then it was a fallacy for tubes.

> If anyone had been stupid enough to think putting a
> complex tube device inside a box magically made it
> 'simple' then, yes, it would be a fallacy for them too.

You seem to have indicted yourself quite nicely, Flipper.

Tubes are incredibly complex in the cosmic scheme of things. To you, simple
seems to mean things that you understand well enough for them to be
"intuitive" to you. But, the common meaning of "intuitive" for most people
is that they already know it. IOW, where you to be trained in modern
technology, chips would seem simple to you. The problem is not the
complexity of chips, but rather your inability to keep up with modern
technology.

>>> 'Easy to use'
>>> doesn't have a damn thing to do with amplifier quality
>>> or else audiophiles would all be sporting 1960s
>>> Japanese 10 transistor pocket radios.

>> Irrelevant.

> Amplifier quality was the topic.and don't try to tell me
> otherwise because I *wrote* it and know exactly what I
> said and meant.

Flipper, we already know that you define "good sound quality" as anything
that some tubed amp of questionable lineage and performance level happens to
spew upon a hapless loudspeaker.

The more enlightened of us define "good sound quality" as the amplified
signal being indistinguishable from the source signal.

>
>>> Don't need to 'connect'
>>> anything to those. WOW, must be a terrific amp inside.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Of course it is but then that's was your nonsensical
> 'point' about 'simple'. Maybe we're making progress since
> you now recognize it for the "nonsense" is it.

No Flipper I'm being consistent and positive and modern. You've already
criticized yourself more harshly than I ever would.

>>>> not to mention the
>>>> fact that all of the parts are readily available, a
>>>> single-chip amplifier has unequalled simplicity.
>>>> Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce, but
>>>> they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

>>> It is complex to produce, which was also not an issue
>>> till you shot yourself in the foot diverting into the
>>> B.S. of 'previously unheard of' vacuum technology

>> It is no BS Flipper. Your mistake is that you have
>> confused a complex technology that you seem to favor,
>> with a simple technology.

> No, the problem is you're utterly clueless about what the
> subject even is and, as a result, babble B.S. gibberish.

Inability to provide a cogent argument noted.

>>> The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand,
>>> was circuit complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether
>>> or not you can handle soldering more than 11 pins or go
>>> blind dead and dumb hiding the thing inside black boxes.

>> I have yet to see a cogent discussion of this topic from
>> you, Flipper.

> You haven't seen a damn thing except paranoid visions
> dancing among the sleeping brain cells in your head.

How charming of you, Flipper. BTW, does the nym "Flipper" related to a
behavior trait of flipping people off when you can't grasp the higher forms
of reason? Or does it relate to a tendency to flip-flop your position?

>> If
>> you want to say "All I can see is tubes" over and over
>> again which is what you've been saying by implication,
>> fine.

> You, no doubt, saw 'tubes' in the MOSFET amp I posted a link to.

Flipper, I suspect that your advocacy of MOSFET amps comes from some
romantic ideas about them being more "tube like" because MOSFETs are like
tubes, field effect devices. The irony here is that some single-chip power
amps which you have already expressed your undying hatred are also
MOSFET-based.

> And what I said is there are those who believe there is
> audible merit to circuit simplicity.

Which I have just deconstructed in this thread for being what it is - a
statement of bias not reliable perception.

> I believe it's oft stated as "the best amplifier is a wire with gain."

Agreed. But that criteria indicts the majority of tubed amplifiers, because
they can't pass a straight-wire bypass test with a real-world loudspeaker
load.

> At least that's what the MOSFET amp site said.

The idea of a good amp being like a straight wire with gain goes back to no
later than the 1950s. In the 1960s Julian Hirsch mentioned the same idea in
Stereo Review. I believe that was before MOSFET audio amps became generally
available.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Wieck
> > wrote:
>

>> Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance
>> and complete deafness/blindness to any arguments other
>> than his own and terms other than those he defines
>> himself. When dealing with that sort of individual, the
>> only valid response is none after that condition is
>> established. He is on a crusade to bust myths - in other
>> words, he is preaching his exclusive brand of revealed
>> religion against that of others.

Hmm don't you see dialog like this on afternoon TV soap operas?

>> Unless you are also requiring others believe as you do
>> and share your precise brand of revealed religion, you
>> will understand that for those for whom tubes are an
>> enjoyable hobby and just one more aspect of the audio
>> hobby in general,

What I know is that tubies have a lot of cherished notions that don't stand
up to informed technical investigation. The OP for this thread was a small
collection of those notions.

>> Arny is a pathetic fool that really
>> wants nothing more than to take everybody's ball home so
>> they can't play without his permission and approval -
>> which, as it happens - is the failure of other preachers
>> as well if not so obviously.

Notice the prerequisite personal attack. If you try to inform some people
about the weaknesses of their cherished beliefs, one receives this sort of
response from many of them.

>> So, let the religionists battle it out, hopefully away
>> from here, and let the rest of us get on with enjoying
>> ourselves, and tubes, and their foibles good and bad.
>
> I haven't tried to 'convince' anyone of tube amp merits,
> or the lack thereof.

Nahh, you just told us a number of tubie fairy tales.

> All I did was say there are those
> who believe there's audible merit to circuit simplicity.

The first bogus idea is that circuit simplicity can even have audible merit.
It's a mixture of irrelevant modes - one being circuit design, another being
sound quality. It has long been known that many approaches to the best
possible sound quality, such as OTL tubed power amps, can involve anything
but simple circuits and low parts count. However, it is also known that
simply throwing parts at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it better.
Therefore it is easy for most of us to see that circuit simplicity and
audible merit are irrelevant.

I then pointed out that with classic tubes, a power amp with decent
performance will require about 21 discrete parts, some of them being quite
large, heavy, awkward, hard-to-obtain, and expensive. I found that a
superior alternative can built using one little piece of readily-available
silicon, together with about 6 other inexpensive, readily obtainable parts.
So, even if the stated thesis was relevant, it would still be an effective
critique of tube bigotry.

> I didn't even say 'tube' and there's plenty of folks with
> that philosophy designing 'simple' SS amps, one of which
> I posted a link to.

I've already shown that the concept of simplicity correlating or being a
cause of sound quality is bogus, whether for tubes or SS.


>Arny's so hair on fire hell bent to save the world
> from the 'tube threat' that he barely even sees what's
> written, much less understand it.

Nahh, I'm not saving the world, I'm just tying a few tube bigots up in knots
using their own outdated preferences and false claims.


> The hair on fire SS bigot pontificating about 'tube
> bigots' makes for comic relief, though.

True the idea that people would be so emotionally involved with tubes that
they would resort to libel and childish nattering is quite comic.

[JANA]

In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add to the sound.
They are accurate, but there is a difference in the way the sound is
heard for a number of reasons.

The tube amplifier uses an output transformer. Some tube amplifiers also
use a driver transformer. Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.
Very high end output transformers will still have some effect on the
sound. The tube amplifier is higher in THD, but at odd harmonics. When
the tube amplifier is over driven, the clipping is not as harsh as on a
tube amplifier. These are the main reasons why musicians like tube
amplifier and say they sound better. Solid state amplifiers generally
have slightly less internal phase delay than tube amplifiers.

Solid state amplifiers generally have no output transformers or driver
transformers. Transistors and especially IC's in general have a faster
response than tubes. The slew rate on the solid state amplifier is much
faster, and it is possible to achieve lower distortion. Because of this,
the solid state amplifier is said to have a harsher sound. In actual
fact, a good solid state amplifier is very accurate compared to a tube
amplifier.

Basic description about slew rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate

A more advanced explanation about slew rate:
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~bme080/lecture_notes/SlewRateNotes.pdf

Tutorial About Slew Rate:
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Slew_Rate/SlewRate.htm

Tube amplifiers also tend to have a lower damping factor than solid
state amplifiers. This will effect more of the accuracy or distortions
in the low frequency response. High damping factor will mean that there
is better compliance for controlling the speakers.

As for myself, my preference is a MOSFET amplifier. The performance
characteristics are much like a tube amplifier, except that it has the
slew rate and damping factor of the solid state amplifier.


--

JANA
_____


> wrote in message
...
On May 28, 11:03 am, wrote:
> "In a word: YES...
>
> "The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
> or generate..."
>
> Continued:http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

I don't need my amp adding anything to the content. I just want to
hear what was recorded. The fatal flaw in your comment is
"generate". Why should the amp be generating content? A solid state
amp can pass any original harmonic content within human range that is
on the source just as well as a tube amp.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"JANA" > wrote in message
rvecommunications...
> In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add to the sound.
> They are accurate, but there is a difference in the way the sound is
> heard for a number of reasons.
>
> The tube amplifier uses an output transformer.

**Most do. Some do not.

Some tube amplifiers also
> use a driver transformer. Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.
> Very high end output transformers will still have some effect on the
> sound. The tube amplifier is higher in THD, but at odd harmonics.

**Not necessrily. It depends on the topology and what the designer intends.

When
> the tube amplifier is over driven, the clipping is not as harsh as on a
> tube amplifier.

**I presume you mean: "....not as harsh as on a transistor amplifier."
That statement is completely incorrect. It depends on the topology and what
the designer intends. Solid state amplifier can and have been designed to
clip 'gently'.

These are the main reasons why musicians like tube
> amplifier and say they sound better.

**Nope. Musicians like SOME tube amps because they:
* May be designed to clip more gracefully than most SS designs.
* May be designed to possess enormous 'headroom'.
* Generally do not current limit in an unpleasant fashion (like SOME SS
designs).
* Have a name on the front which has good 'street cred'.

Solid state amplifiers generally
> have slightly less internal phase delay than tube amplifiers.

**Huh?

>
> Solid state amplifiers generally have no output transformers or driver
> transformers.

**Usually, but there is no reason why they cannot be so manufactured. It's
just not necessary to do so.

Transistors and especially IC's in general have a faster
> response than tubes.

**Absolute nonsense. And, moreover, the frequency response of the devices is
simply not an issue. It is (AGAIN!) the topology which dictates frequency
response.

The slew rate on the solid state amplifier is much
> faster, and it is possible to achieve lower distortion.

**Nonsense.

Because of this,
> the solid state amplifier is said to have a harsher sound.

**Nonsense. SOME SS amps sound harsher, due to poor implementation of
topology. The devices used are not the issue. How they're used, may well be.

In actual
> fact, a good solid state amplifier is very accurate compared to a tube
> amplifier.

**Usually, but not always.

>
> Basic description about slew rate:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate
>
> A more advanced explanation about slew rate:
> http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~bme080/lecture_notes/SlewRateNotes.pdf
>
> Tutorial About Slew Rate:
> http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Slew_Rate/SlewRate.htm
>
> Tube amplifiers also tend to have a lower damping factor than solid
> state amplifiers.

**Due to that pesky output transformer.

This will effect more of the accuracy or distortions
> in the low frequency response. High damping factor will mean that there
> is better compliance for controlling the speakers.
>
> As for myself, my preference is a MOSFET amplifier. The performance
> characteristics are much like a tube amplifier, except that it has the
> slew rate and damping factor of the solid state amplifier.

**Your preference is duly noted. And discarded. MOSFETs deliver around ten
times the distortion of a good BJT or Triode. They are, unless operated at
significant Class A levels and/or with lots of global NFB, highly flawed
devices.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"JANA" > wrote in message
rvecommunications

> In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add
> to the sound. They are accurate,

Then we impose basic logic - all accurate amplifiers sound the same.

> but there is a
> difference in the way the sound is heard for a number of
> reasons.

The differences come when the amplifiers are not accurate. This is borne out
by the discussion below:

> The tube amplifier uses an output transformer. Some tube
> amplifiers also use a driver transformer.

Some solid state amps used driver transformers. Interestingly enough, the
solid state amps that used driver transformers did not suffer many of the
faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

Some solid state amps used output autotransformers, and again they did not
suffer many of the faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

> Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.

It appears that slew rate and rise time are being confused here. Output
transformers can impose a rise time limitation due to lack of high frequency
response. But this is not the same as a slew rate limitation. Slew rate
limiting imposes a lack of high frequency response that increases with
increasing signal level. A normal treble roll-off is independent of power
level. Treble roll-offs due to transformers are usually independent of power
level.

> Very high end output
> transformers will still have some effect on the sound.

It appears that tubed amplifiers with very good parts and designs can be
sonically accurate, similar to how good SS amps are. Therefore none of their
components will be having an effect on the sound. Either this statement
about output transformers still having some effect on the sound is
incorrect, or the author's opening statement that "...a good vacuum tube
amplifier does not add to the sound." is incorrect. I think he started out
right and went wrong.

> The tube amplifier is higher in THD, but at odd
> harmonics.

Just plain wrong. The balance of odd and even harmonics in an amplifier are
up to the designer. An amplifier with an unbalanced or single-ended design
will ultimately tend strongly towards producing even harmonics. An
amplifier with an balanced or push-pull design will ultimately tend strongly
towards producing odd harmonics because its basic design tends to cancel out
even harmonics. Tubes, transistors or whatever active device you might have,
these are very strong effects.

> When the tube amplifier is over driven, the
> clipping is not as harsh as on a tube amplifier.

Again, just plain wrong. The clipping behavior of an amplifier has a lot to
do with inverse feedback. The more inverse feedback, the sharper the
clipping. Back in the days when tubes were all we had, we could make very
nicely clipped square waves whenever we wanted to, using amplifiers that had
lots of inverse feedback.

A tubed amp with lots of inverse feedback will clip very nice and sharply.
And in fact, sharp clean clipping is the best alternative in most cases.
This is because sharp clipping yields the cleanest sound as long as you
don't clip the amp. With SS the ready alternative to sharp clipping is to
simply get a more power amplifier, or turn the volume down a little.

With gradual clipping, you have an amp that is a little dirty well below
maximum power. With sharp clipping you have an amp that is easier to get
clean sound out of - just turn it down a little.

> These are the main reasons why musicians like tube amplifier
> and say they sound better.

Musical instrument amps and high fidelity amps are two vastly different sets
of requirements. Anybody who tries to apply musical instrument technology to
high fidelity amps is badly confused.

> Solid state amplifiers
> generally have slightly less internal phase delay than
> tube amplifiers.

Generally not true. When you look at solid state maps with no output
transformers and compare them to tubed amps with output transformers which
is the usual case, the SS amp's high frequency advantage comes primarily
from the absence of an output transformer. So its not the absence of tubes
that gives the SS amp its great potential for good high frequency response,
it is the absence of an output transformer. Most SS audio amps have high
frequency response that is intentionally rolled-off to avoid problems with
EMI, etc.

> Solid state amplifiers generally have no output
> transformers or driver transformers.

Agreed, and the major benefit comes from getting rid of the OPT. However,
tubed amps that lack OPTs have been built and other than parts count and
attendant reliability problems, they can be very good, but at a high price.

> Transistors and
> especially IC's in general have a faster response than
> tubes.

That's why UHF TV stations have tubed RF amplifiers. In the audio range, the
best estimate is that either tubes or transistors as devices have more than
enough high frequency response and are fast enough.

> The slew rate on the solid state amplifier is much
> faster, and it is possible to achieve lower distortion.

Two irrelevant clauses tied together to make up a misconception. Slew rate
isn't a problem with tubes, after all we had tubed oscilloscopes that
produced very nice square waves up into the MHz. In power amps the limit to
high frequency response is the OPT. But even with OPTs, a very good OPT does
not limit the HF response of the amp in a way that is necessarily audible.

SS amps are easier to build with low distortion because of the well-known
trade-off between gain and distortion. The usual methodology for building a
low distortion amplifier, whether tubed or SS, is to build a very good low
distortion, high gain amplifier, and trade off the gain for low distortion
with loop feedback. It's simply cheaper and easier to build good high gain
amplifiers with SS than tubes. Thus, SS amps more commonly have very low
distortion.

> Because of this, the solid state amplifier is said to
> have a harsher sound.

What sort of bass-ackwards logic equates harsher sound with low distortion?
This is just plain nuts.

> In actual fact, a good solid state
> amplifier is very accurate compared to a tube amplifier.

Both tubed and SS amplifiers can be built that are sonically accurate. IOW,
you have a SS amp and a tubed amp that are each very accurate and
good-sounding, and impossible to distinguish based on their Sonics. Thing
is, the good-sounding SS amp can easily to be a very practical thing, and
readily available. The tubed amp is going to be larger, heavier, less
reliable, and far more expensive.

The silliness is obsessing over amplifiers. Amplifiers are a solved problem.
The problem is speakers and rooms. The best use of amplifier technology is
to trade it off for better sounding speakers and rooms.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 5:34 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "JANA" > wrote in message
>
> rvecommunications
>
> > In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add
> > to the sound. They are accurate,
>
> Then we impose basic logic - all accurate amplifiers sound the same.
>
> > but there is a
> > difference in the way the sound is heard for a number of
> > reasons.
>
> The differences come when the amplifiers are not accurate. This is borne out
> by the discussion below:
>
> > The tube amplifier uses an output transformer. Some tube
> > amplifiers also use a driver transformer.
>
> Some solid state amps used driver transformers. Interestingly enough, the
> solid state amps that used driver transformers did not suffer many of the
> faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.
>
> Some solid state amps used output autotransformers, and again they did not
> suffer many of the faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

SS amps sometimes used full OPTs and they had the same problems.
Altec's SS models using a 28 volt battery for standby power did. They
do not like to be run into an open load either. But, they make
surprisingly good guitar amps when used with a good tube pre. See
below.

>
> > Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.
>
> It appears that slew rate and rise time are being confused here. Output
> transformers can impose a rise time limitation due to lack of high frequency
> response. But this is not the same as a slew rate limitation. Slew rate
> limiting imposes a lack of high frequency response that increases with
> increasing signal level. A normal treble roll-off is independent of power
> level. Treble roll-offs due to transformers are usually independent of power
> level.

> > When the tube amplifier is over driven, the
> > clipping is not as harsh as on a tube amplifier.
>
> Again, just plain wrong. The clipping behavior of an amplifier has a lot to
> do with inverse feedback. The more inverse feedback, the sharper the
> clipping. Back in the days when tubes were all we had, we could make very
> nicely clipped square waves whenever we wanted to, using amplifiers that had
> lots of inverse feedback.

The OPT fortunately inhibits the sharpness of clipping in most tube
amps. Tube amp clipping is much less likely to tear up tweeters than
is solid state amp clipping. You don't have the smoked tweeters from
underpowered amp clipping with 30-100 watt tube amps you do with
100-200 watt SS amps on many very inefficient speakers today even
though the tube amps clip more than the solid state ones do. many
home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated sustained square wave power
handling capacity of nil.
>
> A tubed amp with lots of inverse feedback will clip very nice and sharply.
> And in fact, sharp clean clipping is the best alternative in most cases.
> This is because sharp clipping yields the cleanest sound as long as you
> don't clip the amp. With SS the ready alternative to sharp clipping is to
> simply get a more power amplifier, or turn the volume down a little.
>
> With gradual clipping, you have an amp that is a little dirty well below
> maximum power. With sharp clipping you have an amp that is easier to get
> clean sound out of - just turn it down a little.
>
> > These are the main reasons why musicians like tube amplifier
> > and say they sound better.
>
> Musical instrument amps and high fidelity amps are two vastly different sets
> of requirements. Anybody who tries to apply musical instrument technology to
> high fidelity amps is badly confused.


Substitute "electric guitar amplifiers for use by rock players (and
others wanting a rockish sound) " for "musical instrument amplifier"
and yoou have a correct statement. Acoustic guitar, steel guitar, and
many bass guitar applications as well as most keyboard and other
combo amp users want amplification without modification. Hi fi
amplifiers or PA amplifiers work best for this except for form factor.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jun 1, 5:34 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "JANA" > wrote in message

>>> When the tube amplifier is over driven, the
>>> clipping is not as harsh as on a tube amplifier.
>>
>> Again, just plain wrong. The clipping behavior of an
>> amplifier has a lot to do with inverse feedback. The
>> more inverse feedback, the sharper the clipping. Back in
>> the days when tubes were all we had, we could make very
>> nicely clipped square waves whenever we wanted to, using
>> amplifiers that had lots of inverse feedback.
>
> The OPT fortunately inhibits the sharpness of clipping in
> most tube amps.

I doubt that a casual glance at a scope trace would allow most people to
sort SS and tubed amps. In fact most good tubed amps produce very nice
sharp-edged square waves.

> Tube amp clipping is much less likely to
> tear up tweeters than is solid state amp clipping.

That whole line of thinking - that clipping necessarily add high frequency
information to music, has been debunked many times.

> You
> don't have the smoked tweeters from underpowered amp
> clipping with 30-100 watt tube amps you do with 100-200
> watt SS amps on many very inefficient speakers today even
> though the tube amps clip more than the solid state ones
> do.

The reason for that has nothing to do with tubes versus transistors. The
first order effect is that a 200 wpc amp has more than 6 times more power
than a 30 wpc amp. The first order effect predominates.

> many home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated
> sustained square wave power handling capacity of nil.

That would be a problem for speaker designers to solve. The good news is
that the problem has been solved many times.

[Mr.T]

"JANA" > wrote in message
rvecommunications...
> In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add to the sound.
> They are accurate, but there is a difference in the way the sound is
> heard for a number of reasons.
<snip>

.... Then goes on to contradict himself and explain why many tube amplifiers
might NOT in fact be accurate!
(some of which is actually true)

Having a bet either way? Or simply pointing out (not very clearly), that
most valve amps are not in fact accurate and therefore not to be considered
"GOOD vacuum tube amplifiers" by most people?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
...
> many home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated sustained square wave
> power handling capacity of nil.

What a completely unqualified, nonsensical statement!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > many home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated
> > sustained square wave power handling capacity of nil.
>
> That would be a problem for speaker designers to solve. The good news is
> that the problem has been solved many times.

Every time in fact!
Never seen a functioning speaker that couldn't handle any square wave at
*some* power level!

MrT.