60 Years of high Fidelity: The Williamson Amplifier

[Bret L]

This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
Williamson amplifier in the United States. It was first described in
Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
advertised the most in that magazine.

The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
affair necessitating a protection relay.

Since Americans generally did not entertain winding their own output
transformers, soon a race was on amongst the manufacturers to make a
more and more suitable unit, and each purported to supply some extra,
magic mojo with their unit. More relevantly, many had various taps on
the secondary not originally intended for ultra-linear operation, but
suitable for it, and soon many Williamsons were operating ultralinear
and with a considerably lower plate load and a beefier power supply,
upping power output in true Yankee mechanic fashion.

The Williamson had many flaws, seen from today's perspective. For its
weight and build cost its power output is unimpressive, and it trades
low distortion for stability. It is not unconditionally stable and
indeed often went into oscillation with electrostatic speakers. Being
cathode biased, it has a relatively high quiescent power draw. Like a
Ferrari with a Lampredi long block V12 or a Westland Lysander, its
ills are fixable but at the cost of its basic nature. A stable fixed-
bias Williamson is hardly a Williamson, and a Lysander with a P&W
under the cowl loses part of its essential charm, as does a
Superamerica with a Columbo short block V12 or a Lampredi with its
water pump cavity blocked off and a Chrysler unit in a Porchev
housing glommed off to the side.

By 1955, the British were no longer competitive in the high fidelity
amplifier business in terms of metrics: the Radford and Kerr-McCosh
had no serious market share at home and none abroad. Marantz,
McIntosh, and Harmon Kardon totally dominated the high end and Dyna
the low, with Fisher and Scott offering consumer friendly upscale
units for the mainstream buyer. The Germans, the Dutch (Philips) , the
Scandinavians and of course the rest of the Anglosphere never even got
to the starting gate. It wasn't until the solid state era that the US
manufacturers lost absolute, unchallenged domination.

[Patrick Turner]

Bret L wrote:
>
> This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
> Williamson amplifier in the United States. It was first described in
> Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
> at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
> by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
> transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
> transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
> 16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
> series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
> covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
> variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
> advertised the most in that magazine.

Yeah, the american makers' response to Willy's ideas was "how do we dumb
down this too-hard-to-wind tranny and make a profit?"


> The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> affair necessitating a protection relay.

Protection relay?

I never seen any mass made tube amp with a with any active protection
whatsovever.

The audio industry attitude has been and continues to be, "let the
punters blow up their amps soon so they will buy another."

You'd think someone would have invented a nice little circuit using one
IC would indicate if the load value fell below 2 ohms even for an
instant and then turn off the amp completely until somone fixes the
shorted speaker or lead or other problem.


>
> Since Americans generally did not entertain winding their own output
> transformers, soon a race was on amongst the manufacturers to make a
> more and more suitable unit, and each purported to supply some extra,
> magic mojo with their unit. More relevantly, many had various taps on
> the secondary not originally intended for ultra-linear operation, but
> suitable for it, and soon many Williamsons were operating ultralinear
> and with a considerably lower plate load and a beefier power supply,
> upping power output in true Yankee mechanic fashion.

More power, more distortion, and generally worse performance in high
class AB with a low class A % were the way the americans travelled.

You couldn't sell low powered amps to the yanks. It was no use trying to
sell a Morris car to a yank.

Yanks liked everything big and preferebly huge, and certainly bigger
than their frinds.


>
> The Williamson had many flaws, seen from today's perspective. For its
> weight and build cost its power output is unimpressive, and it trades
> low distortion for stability. It is not unconditionally stable and
> indeed often went into oscillation with electrostatic speakers. Being
> cathode biased, it has a relatively high quiescent power draw. Like a
> Ferrari with a Lampredi long block V12 or a Westland Lysander, its
> ills are fixable but at the cost of its basic nature. A stable fixed-
> bias Williamson is hardly a Williamson, and a Lysander with a P&W
> under the cowl loses part of its essential charm, as does a
> Superamerica with a Columbo short block V12 or a Lampredi with its
> water pump cavity blocked off and a Chrysler unit in a Porchev
> housing glommed off to the side.
>
> By 1955, the British were no longer competitive in the high fidelity
> amplifier business in terms of metrics: the Radford and Kerr-McCosh
> had no serious market share at home and none abroad. Marantz,
> McIntosh, and Harmon Kardon totally dominated the high end and Dyna
> the low, with Fisher and Scott offering consumer friendly upscale
> units for the mainstream buyer. The Germans, the Dutch (Philips) , the
> Scandinavians and of course the rest of the Anglosphere never even got
> to the starting gate. It wasn't until the solid state era that the US
> manufacturers lost absolute, unchallenged domination.

Ah, you forgot trade tarriffs and import barriers.

In Oz, hardly anyone bought anything american because it always was so
damned expensive. Ralf Nader pointed out that american motor vehicles
were no safer than the ones we made here, albeit under companies run as
offshhots to GM in america, such as Holden. Hardly anyone made any money
selling Oz made amps to other Oz ppl because those with any money bought
british brands such as Leak or Quad.

Many audio ppl made their own amps using 807 and 6SN7 from ex-army
surplus stores and OPT, PT and chokes from local makers; A&R in
Melbourne, Fergeson in Sydney. None were Partridge quality, so the
extremely small number of audiophiles in Oz which was a very un-cultured
place in 1955 had trouble making stable tube amplifiers of any kind. The
Mullard 510 and 520 became more popular than Williamsons.

The Williamson was just one of several designs one could build onself,
and AFAIK, there was NEVER a perfectly created commercial replica of the
Willy circuit including the exact details of the OPT with all its
windings which allowed wasteless arrangement of secondaries.

Williamson was the most laughed at bloke in the audio industry. But
never in public of course. Most makers hated having to be forced to make
their products perform better because it always meant increased
production costs, higher shipping weight, and more reluctant customers,
and greater difficulty convincing anyone that the greater weight and
heat of a class A amp with a decent low loss OPT was going to give
better music than some lightweight under-engeneered POS that was the
lowest common denominator which 95% of people always bought.

In this present era, there is preponderance of utter crap in the market
place with a variety of so called high end which mainly consists of
class AB amps with a maximum of class AB with a tiny portion of class A.
None have active protection against a failing tube.
None have an octal plug and socket with two positions to allow two load
matches of 4 and 8 ohms without the wasteful simple taps down a winding.
NFB has been a despicable thing to use in atube amp for about 15 years
now. Unless you were DeParavicini, who used a shirt and trouserload full
of it around a nearly class B amp such as the EAR509 POS.
I think makers don't mind if THD is 5 times what the Willy amp made for
the same SPL. It must be remembered that in 1955, speakers had very
light cones and voicecoils and power handling ability. 95dB/W was
typical. So 16W was plenty for 99% of people who hadn't learnt to become
greedy, and ehose middle class income hadnt climbed high enough to fund
the extravagances of gadgetry as well as fund having the baby boomer
generation to raise. There was no Pill in 1955, and home life meant kids
everywhere. Hi-Fi? most folks wondered WTF that was....

The sources for music were also attrociously un-fi in 1955, so there was
no real reason for 0.1% THD at 16W......

Nearly all the people I ever knew in the 1950s might have had a very
crummy radiogram with a lone 6V6 output tube. We rolled on the floor
laughing at the Goon Show, and nobody cared a hoot about hi-fi. There
was 4 kHz of BW, and the people on radio or those who sang had voices
which could be easily understood. No we have hi-fi gear to reproduce the
most appalling speaking or singing voices and much noise masquerading as
music. While most of the world gladly got rid of these early horrid
"lounge-room entertainment gadgets", when TV came in here in 1956, audio
went even further out of people's minds, and when everything went solid
state it got even worse, until the laws on import duties were changed to
allow foreign products in from mainly Japan.
But even in 1964 you could buy a local made stereo radiogram with a pair
of SE EL84 output tubes operationg in pentode mode with only 3 dB of
GNFB.
I still have the chassis from the one my mum bought then. Its now much
modified, and nothing liike as terible and attrocious as the Kriesler it
used to be. I have a few Radiola chassis for mono sound from AM radio
and a crystal mono pu.
The Deluxe radiogram from which the best chassis came from had a
frightful TT which stripped kHz off the BW of any record played each
time you played it. The main audio amp had a pair of 6V6 in PP pentode
in a slightly W style of circuit. The BW in radio was 3kHz only.
It wasn't deluxe at all, but the same old crap the local industry had
been cranking out for the 20 years after 1938.

Nothing designed between 1947 and 1957 for the consuming public
including the Willy amp was really the best way to make something.

I have worked on enough american designed and made amps to know that my
father didn't miss anything by not buying something electronic made in
the USA.

However, in the 1950s he did buy a Willys Jeep Stationwagon which
probably had a Willys Jeep WW2 chassis under what was a large wagon
which could seat 6, and us 3 kids and mum could be all driven to a
holiday destination up in the Blue Mountains for a week in school
holidays.
It was quite primitive compared to today's SUV. But my dad was vet who
would have got paid very well and he knew many local people including
other profesionals who owned the places where we were taken to for
holidays such as the shack up at Oberon on the Duckmaloy river which was
full of trout. So he'd fix a doctor's dog and we'd get the use of the
doctor's shack for a week out of the trout fishing season. He and I
would work fixing the track leading up to the shack as part of the deal.

My father once told us at dinner of a guy whose dog he'd been to visit.
He spoke reverently of the amp the guy had made with a 4 x 807 and for
long playing vinyl records *in stereo*. That guy was the only one I ever
learnt had a hi-fi system. My dad had zero sense of rythym or music
though and his taste was anything but eclectic which was queer because
he'd married my mum who had played the piano very well. There was never
a piano in the house and I don't know why she mainly gave up music. I
often think many people just chuck away one of the best parts of their
personality to marry a good looking but bad tempered and inconsistant
man. But of course often it is that a very imperfect man appeals to a
woman's inner and uncontrolable drive to breed. So it was in 1944 or
therabouts. He took a very dim view when I learnt to play a guitar, and
wanted to spend time with friends to listen to records. Like many
fathers, he had no better suggestions to make in an un-threatening way.
After I left home at 20, I began a good career but it took me 7 years
before I bought a hi-fi system, and it made social life and wooing a
wife easier and more enjoyable. But she had a frightful temper, and
flounced off......and she didn't like hi-fi or musuc much at all.

When people talk of Williamsons, I wonder how many people concieved
progeny with such wondrous melodia in the background?

I wonder too how many divorces were caused by a man bringing a
Williamson into the house?

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Patrick Turner > wrote:

> Bret L wrote:
> >
> > This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
> > Williamson amplifier in the United States. It was first described in
> > Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
> > at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
> > by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
> > transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
> > transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
> > 16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
> > series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
> > covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
> > variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
> > advertised the most in that magazine.
>
> Yeah, the american makers' response to Willy's ideas was "how do we dumb
> down this too-hard-to-wind tranny and make a profit?"

Looked to me like the British amp makers had pretty much the same
attitude.

> > The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > affair necessitating a protection relay.
>
> Protection relay?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Patrick Turner > wrote:

> Bret L wrote:
> >
> > This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
> > Williamson amplifier in the United States. It was first described in
> > Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
> > at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
> > by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
> > transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
> > transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
> > 16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
> > series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
> > covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
> > variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
> > advertised the most in that magazine.
>
> Yeah, the american makers' response to Willy's ideas was "how do we dumb
> down this too-hard-to-wind tranny and make a profit?"

Looked to me like the British amp makers had pretty much the same
attitude.

> > The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > affair necessitating a protection relay.
>
> Protection relay?

With bias supplied by batteries or tube rectifiers as specified above a
protection relay is almost a necessity.

> I never seen any mass made tube amp with a with any active protection
> whatsovever.

"mass made" amplifiers for home use mostly used selenium bias rectifiers
which were relatively reliable eliminating the need for a protection
relay. You will find protection relays used in some higher power audio
amplifiers designed for commercial and industrial applications,
especially those using vacuum tube bias rectifiers.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

You're wanking away ignorantly as usual, Bratzi. Among other points, I
had a Ferrari briefly before going back to the more reliable Maserati,
and you're as usual dead wrong on all the major points. But that's off-
topic here.

On Jul 5, 1:50*am, Bret L > wrote: *

I'll leave the rest of the on-topic stuff, also wrong but snipped for
bandwidth, for those with more patience to straighten out, but this is
pure unadulterated guano:

> *By 1955, the British were no longer competitive in the high fidelity
> amplifier business in terms of metrics: the Radford and Kerr-McCosh
> had no serious market share at home and none abroad. Marantz,
> McIntosh, *and Harmon Kardon totally dominated the high end and Dyna
> the low, with Fisher and Scott offering consumer friendly upscale
> units for the mainstream buyer. The Germans, the Dutch (Philips) , the
> Scandinavians and of course the rest of the Anglosphere never even got
> to the starting gate. It wasn't until the solid state era that the US
> manufacturers lost absolute, unchallenged domination.

Pure vampire bat-****. You want to read a little history before you
try writing it, Ludwig. For instance, Mr Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale
relates how in 1955 he and Mr Leak and others at the audio show in New
York prepared themselves for life after bankruptcy -- but not because
of anything any American did. They were worried because Mr Peter
Walker chose New York to give the first public demonstration of his
electrostatic speaker, and left everyone under the impression it
wouldn't cost too much more than a big cone driver in a box.

Get the facts first, Bratzi, before you open your mouth, and you won't
be embarrassed every time you open it.

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

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 6, 3:32*pm, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bret L wrote:
>
> > > *This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
> > > Williamson amplifier *in the United States. It was first described in
> > > Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
> > > at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
> > > by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
> > > transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
> > > transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
> > > 16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
> > > series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
> > > covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
> > > variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
> > > advertised the most in that magazine.
>
> > Yeah, the american makers' response to Willy's ideas was "how do we dumb
> > down this too-hard-to-wind tranny and make a profit?"
>
> Looked to me like the British amp makers had pretty much the same
> attitude.
>
> > > *The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > > revolution. *The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > > affair necessitating a protection relay.
>
> > Protection relay?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

The thing that Patrick wrote that really rang a bell with me was that
real high-fidelity was an even smaller niche then than it is today.

I remember that the first time I heard what was described as "high
fidelity" a huge radiogram about seven feet long was carried into the
school hall and a soulful old boy who was a poet (the heartier
teachers made no secret of keeping their backs to the wall!) gave a
little talk and a demonstration, mostly of stereo effects like
footfalls and a train passing from left to right.

My family didn't have a radiogram; we went to concerts instead and
knew what real music sounded like. This gave me the perspective that
whatever (we now know horrid rubbish) drivers were in the gramophone
demoed in the school hall didn't do too well with the treble. I don't
remember that it fell short on the bass, but overblown bass is a
relatively recent audiophile perversion.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

[Dr. Barry L. Ornitz]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message
...
> "mass made" amplifiers for home use mostly used selenium bias
> rectifiers
> which were relatively reliable eliminating the need for a protection
> relay.

And besides, selenium rectifiers let you know they were overloaded by
their smell - rotting onions and garlic (odor threshold 0.0002 mg/m^3).
Selenium dioxide is rather toxic too.

[Bret L]

>
> > The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > affair necessitating a protection relay.
>
> Protection relay?
>
> I never seen any mass made tube amp with a with any active protection
> whatsovever.

The old theater amps that were fixed bias in the 40s had them.
>
> The audio industry attitude has been and continues to be, "let the
> punters blow up their amps soon so they will buy another."
>
> You'd think someone would have invented a nice little circuit using one
> IC would indicate if the load value fell below 2 ohms even for an
> instant and then turn off the amp completely until somone fixes the
> shorted speaker or lead or other problem.
>
>
>
> > Since Americans generally did not entertain winding their own output
> > transformers, soon a race was on amongst the manufacturers to make a
> > more and more suitable unit, and each purported to supply some extra,
> > magic mojo with their unit. More relevantly, many had various taps on
> > the secondary not originally intended for ultra-linear operation, but
> > suitable for it, and soon many Williamsons were operating ultralinear
> > and with a considerably lower plate load and a beefier power supply,
> > upping power output in true Yankee mechanic fashion.
>
> More power, more distortion, and generally worse performance in high
> class AB with a low class A % were the way the americans travelled.
>
> You couldn't sell low powered amps to the yanks. It was no use trying to
> sell a Morris car to a yank.

As I write this there is a 50s or 60s Morris Minor, right hand drive,
parked in the parking lot outside the window. Next to it is the
owner's wife's Chevy powered XJ12. What are the ODDS? The downstairs
office is owned by an old Brit car freak. On the other side of the
lot is a new Smart car, about the size of a golf cart.

I just bought a 68 Ford LTD, four door, with a fresh EFI five liter
and AOD. That's my idea of a good car. Gas is the cheapest thing I put
in it.

>
> Yanks liked everything big and preferebly huge, and certainly bigger
> than their frinds.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Williamson had many flaws, seen from today's perspective. For its
> > weight and build cost its power output is unimpressive, and it trades
> > low distortion for stability. It is not unconditionally stable and
> > indeed often went into oscillation with electrostatic speakers. Being
> > cathode biased, it has a relatively high quiescent power draw. Like a
> > Ferrari with a Lampredi long block V12 or a Westland Lysander, its
> > ills are fixable but at the cost of its basic nature. A stable fixed-
> > bias Williamson is hardly a Williamson, and a Lysander with a P&W
> > under the cowl loses part of its essential charm, as does a
> > Superamerica with a Columbo short block V12 or a Lampredi with its
> > water pump cavity blocked off and a Chrysler unit in a Porchev
> > housing glommed off to the side.
>
> > By 1955, the British were no longer competitive in the high fidelity
> > amplifier business in terms of metrics: the Radford and Kerr-McCosh
> > had no serious market share at home and none abroad. Marantz,
> > McIntosh, and Harmon Kardon totally dominated the high end and Dyna
> > the low, with Fisher and Scott offering consumer friendly upscale
> > units for the mainstream buyer. The Germans, the Dutch (Philips) , the
> > Scandinavians and of course the rest of the Anglosphere never even got
> > to the starting gate. It wasn't until the solid state era that the US
> > manufacturers lost absolute, unchallenged domination.
>
> Ah, you forgot trade tarriffs and import barriers.
>
> In Oz, hardly anyone bought anything american because it always was so
> damned expensive. Ralf Nader pointed out that american motor vehicles
> were no safer than the ones we made here, albeit under companies run as
> offshhots to GM in america, such as Holden. Hardly anyone made any money
> selling Oz made amps to other Oz ppl because those with any money bought
> british brands such as Leak or Quad.

>
> Many audio ppl made their own amps using 807 and 6SN7 from ex-army
> surplus stores and OPT, PT and chokes from local makers; A&R in
> Melbourne, Fergeson in Sydney. None were Partridge quality, so the
> extremely small number of audiophiles in Oz which was a very un-cultured
> place in 1955 had trouble making stable tube amplifiers of any kind. The
> Mullard 510 and 520 became more popular than Williamsons.

Australia, and New Zealand, DID NOT MATTER, there weren't enough
people in those countries and of those that were they were as you say
yourself were not willing to pay for the good stuff. in the history
of vintage tube audio, only two nations really mattered, although the
Germans and the Dutch (Philips) had some interesting stuff, and even
the Finns had a really interesting design. German audio was not
readily available in the US for various reasons, one of which is that
a real cocksucker named Steven Temmer got the Telefunken franchise in
the US and ****ed the pro market over hard and fast.. Siemens and
Telefunken had some great tech but we never saw it and neither did the
Brits AFAIK. It's a real shame as the EL 156 would have let McIntosh
build an honest 100+ wpc amp with two tubes essentially in the
receiving tube class-no bright filaments, plate caps or really high B
+.

Again, AUSTRALIA DID NOT MATTER and so far STILL DOES NOT. Not for
audio. There is an interesting company making pianos there though.
>
> The Williamson was just one of several designs one could build onself,
> and AFAIK, there was NEVER a perfectly created commercial replica of the
> Willy circuit including the exact details of the OPT with all its
> windings which allowed wasteless arrangement of secondaries.

Both British and American commercial winders built MUCH BETTER
transformers than the Willy paper design. Even backwoods transformer
shops realized that much simpler designs could be better. It's
possible the Germans made excellent ones too but they did not market
them as a standalone product, and no other country mattered. Even
Italy, which had something of an electronics industry, wasn't a
player.

[Bret L]

On Jul 6, 8:34 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> You're wanking away ignorantly as usual, Bratzi. Among other points, I
> had a Ferrari briefly before going back to the more reliable Maserati,
> and you're as usual dead wrong on all the major points. But that's off-
> topic here.
>
All the Italian exotics were basically reliable mechanically. It was
the mastic in the bodywork, the useless Italian electrics, and the
sometimes dodgy plumbing that gave trouble mostly. The Lampredi
engine Ferraris had engine troubles internally, but they were very
few-95% of Ferraris had the Colombo engine which was a scaled down
Packard Twin Six lower end with overhead cam heads.

Lampredi originally wanted to go all the way and scale down the
Packard RR Merlin replete with fork and blade rods, but Enzo wasn't
having that. The eventual Lampredi is a mutt-part prewar car Packard,
part PT Packard, and part 1710 Allison.
>
> Pure vampire bat-****. You want to read a little history before you
> try writing it, Ludwig. For instance, Mr Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale
> relates how in 1955 he and Mr Leak and others at the audio show in New
> York prepared themselves for life after bankruptcy -- but not because
> of anything any American did. They were worried because Mr Peter
> Walker chose New York to give the first public demonstration of his
> electrostatic speaker, and left everyone under the impression it
> wouldn't cost too much more than a big cone driver in a box.

The early Quad electrostats were priced well below the top JBL and
Altec home offerings, which then sold well enough.

[Alex]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
> Nearly all the people I ever knew in the 1950s might have had a very
> crummy radiogram with a lone 6V6 output tube. We rolled on the floor
> laughing at the Goon Show, and nobody cared a hoot about hi-fi. There
> was 4 kHz of BW, and the people on radio or those who sang had voices
> which could be easily understood. No we have hi-fi gear to reproduce the
> most appalling speaking or singing voices and much noise masquerading as
> music. While most of the world gladly got rid of these early horrid
> "lounge-room entertainment gadgets", when TV came in here in 1956, audio
> went even further out of people's minds, and when everything went solid
> state it got even worse, until the laws on import duties were changed to
> allow foreign products in from mainly Japan.

I am not an expert in the tube amps, but closely observe vintage Oz radios
for sale on the e-bay.
I found that the Oz radios from 30's to early 60's are extremely primitive
and electrically boooooooooooooooring. 6A8G-6U7G-6B8G-6V6G-5Y3 , then
6AN7A-6N8-6N8-6M5-6X4 and later 6BE6-6BA6-6AV6-6AQ5-6X4 was pretty much the
limit of imagination of Oz engineers. Almost none of the Oz radios have a
tuning indicator, very few have an RF stage (6-th valve). Wiring is messy,
STC and Kriesler are the messiest ones.

In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of that era were more
advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE
output (5W), some had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would have a
separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7 1-st audio stage, as
well as variable IF bandwidth for distant/local reception. Output
transformers were on average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance
did not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz radios 350...500
ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass response can be expected from those
undernourished trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
rubbish common in OZ radios.

Regards,
Alex

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 7, 3:47*am, Bret L > wrote:

>
> *I just bought a 68 Ford LTD, four door, with a fresh EFI five liter
> and AOD. That's my idea of a good car. Gas is the cheapest thing I put
> in it.
>

Does that include your MM blow-up doll?

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Alex" > wrote:

> In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of that era were more
> advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE
> output (5W), some had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would have a
> separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7 1-st audio stage, as
> well as variable IF bandwidth for distant/local reception. Output
> transformers were on average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance
> did not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz radios 350...500
> ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass response can be expected from those
> undernourished trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> rubbish common in OZ radios.

This is at least the second recent mention of "wirewound trimcaps" here
in recent weeks. I never heard of "wirewound trimcaps" before, can
anyone describe them for me, or point me to a picture of one?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[[email protected]]

On Jul 6, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:

> My family didn't have a radiogram; we went to concerts instead and
> knew what real music sounded like.

Unlikely. Unless you mean the local band concerts at the park
pavilion. The brute fact of the matter is that unless one was city-
folk (either banker or working class) concerts in the sense as usually
meant were not the norm in South Africa. Well.... perhaps Andre was of
the 'Bankers' Class" but given his general rudeness and absolute
crudeness despite being able to turn a phrase - that is quite
unlikely.

> This gave me the perspective that
> whatever (we now know horrid rubbish) drivers were in the gramophone
> demoed in the school hall didn't do too well with the treble. I don't
> remember that it fell short on the bass, but overblown bass is a
> relatively recent audiophile perversion.

Actually, speakers even remotely capable of achieving something
resembling the full spectrum of concert-music are relatively recent
phenomena - starting around the 60s or so. And speakers that can do so
without twice their own weight in power to drive them are only a few
amongst those. What they are not, most definitely, are single-
conventional-full-range drivers. Those are entirely incapable of
reasonable bass excepting heroic and extreme measures - and if those
are taken - entirely capable of decent treble. So, what those
advocates spew is the "overblown" bass myth and then designate
actually capable speakers (and electronics) as "perverse".

Andre is nothing else if not perverse in his own right and so perhaps
might be able to recognize it on the hoof. Unlikely but possible.

Peter Wieck
On vacation in Sheboygan, WI

[[email protected]]

On Jul 6, 8:34*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> You're wanking away ignorantly as usual, Bratzi. Among other points, I
> had a Ferrari briefly before going back to the more reliable Maserati,

From Hasbro and/or Lindberg Plastics.

Peter Wieck
Vacationing in Sheboygan, WI

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 7, 8:57*am, Bret L > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:34 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:> You're wanking away ignorantly as usual, Bratzi. Among other points, I
> > had a Ferrari briefly before going back to the more reliable Maserati,
> > and you're as usual dead wrong on all the major points. But that's off-
> > topic here.
>
> *All the Italian exotics were basically reliable mechanically.

Which Ferrari did you have, Ludwig, and for how long, and what went
wrong with it in that time?

Below Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin was a
Rolls-Royce design, you blithering moron! I can't be bothered to sort
out the rest of such arrogant American-centric crap from this thick
redneck.

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


>It was
> the mastic in the bodywork, the useless Italian electrics, *and the
> sometimes dodgy plumbing that gave trouble mostly. *
>The Lampredi
> engine Ferraris had engine troubles internally, but they were very
> few-95% of Ferraris had the Colombo engine which was a scaled down
> Packard Twin Six lower end with overhead cam heads.
>
> *Lampredi originally wanted to go all the way and scale down the
> Packard RR Merlin *replete with fork and blade rods, but Enzo wasn't
> having that. *The eventual Lampredi is a mutt-part prewar car Packard,
> part PT Packard, and part 1710 Allison.
>
>
>
> > Pure vampire bat-****. You want to read a little history before you
> > try writing it, Ludwig. For instance, Mr Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale
> > relates how in 1955 he and Mr Leak and others at the audio show in New
> > York prepared themselves for life after bankruptcy -- but not because
> > of anything any American did. They were worried because Mr Peter
> > Walker chose New York to give the first public demonstration of his
> > electrostatic speaker, and left everyone under the impression it
> > wouldn't cost too much more than a big cone driver in a box.
>
> *The early Quad electrostats were priced well below the top JBL and
> Altec *home offerings, which then sold well enough.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 6:39*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
> was a Rolls-Royce design...

Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
the engine to power the P51 Mustang.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 8, 12:13*am, wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:39*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> > copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
> > was a Rolls-Royce design...
>
> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce licensed the engine
to Packard doesn't make it a "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to
claim; it remains forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a copyright thief who
in the past has claimed that my copyright material belonged to him by
right of repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

[Alex]

On Jul 8, 5:18*am, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"Alex" > wrote:
> > In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of that era were more
> > advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE
> > output (5W), some had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would have a
> > separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7 1-st audio stage, as
> > well as variable IF bandwidth for distant/local reception. Output
> > transformers were on average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance
> > did not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz radios 350....500
> > ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass response can be expected from those
> > undernourished trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> > rubbish common in OZ radios.
>
> This is at least the second recent mention of "wirewound trimcaps" here
> in recent weeks. *I never heard of "wirewound trimcaps" before, can
> anyone describe them for me, or point me to a picture of one?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns

Wirewound trimcap is like that:
On a straight piece of enamelled wire of about 200mm long and 1.5mm in
diameter, a layer of 0.2mm wire is wound. Obviously, there is
capacitance between the core wire (which is "hot", connected to a LC
tank) and the outer layer (which is "cold", typically grounded). By
carefully unwinding the outer layer, turn by turn, you progressively
reduce the capacitance, thus trimming your LC tank.
When you reach a desired tuning, you should stop unwinding and then
cut the excess of the unwound thin wire.
But what if you want to go back and increase capacitance? It is
extremely awkward, because wounding back the loose wire will not be
neat, and the capacitance will not be stable. If you have cut the
wire, then going back is impossible at all.

Such wirewound trimcaps were extremely cheap and basically one-time-
trimmable rubbish. In Oz radios such were commonplace, especially in
STC brand.

More respectable manufacturers, such as Philips used "concentric
tubes" air type ( I do not know a better term to describe them),
others used ceramic or, on rare occasions, mica compression trimcaps.
With those you can realign your radio as many times as you wish.

Regards,
Alex

[Alex]

On Jul 8, 10:11*am, Alex > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 5:18*am, John Byrns > wrote:
>
> Wirewound trimcap is like that:
> On a straight piece of enamelled wire of about 200mm long and 1.5mm in
> diameter, a layer of 0.2mm wire is wound.

CORRECTION:

20mm long

[KeithR]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>>
>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
>>> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
>>> was a Rolls-Royce design...
>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
>> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
>> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce licensed the engine
> to Packard doesn't make it a "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to
> claim; it remains forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a copyright thief who
> in the past has claimed that my copyright material belonged to him by
> right of repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Andre's books at
> http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
>
The P51 was originally developed to an RAF requirement. It was fitted
with a Packard engine which gave so-so performance especially at high
altitude. The British fitted a Merlin in place of the Packard and
immediately got another 50mph out of it and improved high altitude
performance. Later, when the USAAF ordered the P51, Packard licenced the
Merlin from Rolls Royce and this engine was fitted to all subsequent
models.

[Bret L]

>
> Below Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin was a
> Rolls-Royce design, you blithering moron! I can't be bothered to sort
> out the rest of such arrogant American-centric crap from this thick
> redneck.

Dumber than a fence post, you are.

The RR Merlin was indeed a Rolls Royce and therefore British design,
as were a long line of engines before and a few (piston) designs
thereafter. BUT as every knowledgeable person knows, the early and
late Marks of Merlin were as different as a 1955 small block Chevy is
from an LS-1, even more so. The early Merlin was very troublesome and
its design had several quirks that did things like gas out the pilots
of Spitfires with glycol vapors, plus it was very labor intensive to
make. Packard in the US was licensed to build it and instead of
copying it built a much BETTER version that had far reduced build time
and was more reliable. RR incorporated Packard features and vice versa
as the war went on, and the last Merlins RR built were arguably the
best of all, but those were postwar.

Packard vastly improved their engines and those of Rolls, as any
expert will tell you.

How did RR pay Packard back for the development which Packard shared
with RR unstintingly and for free? Well, when the US government sought
to order a run of 600 or so more Merlins, RR pulled Packard's license.
This may well not have been the doing of RR, because a socialist
government in at that time had imposed the export-or-die mantra on
British manufacturers, and it was thought the US Government would just
buy them from RR directly. Well, what happened was that they went
with a ******* engine-a 1710 Allison with a Merlin blower-which they
bought new despite the availablity of thousands of Merlins and
Allisons in crates and on assorted airframes which had a cash value of
just over their weight in scrap.

Packard was told that the US Government would simply allow them to
build them without license but packard refused as they felt this waa
improper. Losing the Merlin contract meant, though, that Packard was
out of the running for any further defense work-which was a serious
blow and contributed to their demise.

Jute, you are really quite ignorant of any history whatever, and it
shows more and more. You should learn to quit when you are ahead.

[Bret L]

On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> > copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
> > was a Rolls-Royce design...
>
> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>

The Schneider Cup engine-the "R"- was a methanol burning, castor oil
lubricated engine of 36 liters-6" bore by 6.6" stroke which was
much more similar to the later Griffon than the Merlin. RR also built
a fair number of other V12 aero engines, plus, such oddities as the
Exe. They were beautifully built, all of them, but the
productionizing (irrelevant with the R engine but very much so with
the Merlin) was poor. Actually, that was the case with most of
Britain's war materiel, excellent quality but made at a fearful
price of time and effort. What both the Germans and the AMericans
were better at was being able to make something to be built in high
volume and with minimal labor. The Germans were addicted to
workmanship requirements and further their factories were destroyed
relentlessly. What the US had was a lot of factories and personnel of
reasonable basic ability,, not really worried about being bombed, and
a fairly long tradition of engineer-to-build without the classically
trained tradesmen German and British products had.

From a human cost effort the British war production effort was
probably more heroic, more remarkable than that of the US, because of
the considerable advantages of not being bombed, having unlimited
materials (most of them), and so forth. The Brits made a lot of
Spitfires, Mosquitoes, and heavy bombers and they involved a lot of
labor. But in terms of numbers the US totally dominated: we were
cranking them out faster than they could be shot down and on a
radically more time effective basis. I think a Mustang took roughly a
third of the man (or woman) hours a Spitfire did, and the Mustang was
as fast on a -9A Packard Merlin as a Spitfire was on a Griffon, also
carried more ordnance further .

The Brits elected a socialist government and endured half a decade of
drab misery, whereas the US had its greatest material success in that
same time period. Today, multiculturalism and diversity and self-
abasement have pretty well destroyed both countries: Britain being
ahead of us in the long dark slide, and, if the recent success of
Messrs. Griffin and Co. are any indication, maybe ahead of us in the
fix as well.

[Bret L]

On Jul 7, 6:36 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> > > copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
> > > was a Rolls-Royce design...
>
> > Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
> > did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
> > the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce licensed the engine
> to Packard doesn't make it a "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to
> claim; it remains forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a copyright thief who
> in the past has claimed that my copyright material belonged to him by
> right of repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.

Packard took the basic design and reengineered the whole thing from a
tooling and construction standpoint, and made many things
interchangeable that had been fit-on-assembly previously. They made
their own patterns and core boxes from scratch and changed materials
and harmonized many dimensions. What had taken dozens of fitters days
to tweak and cobble now went together in minutes without stoning or
filing. In the field it meant that individual parts could be swapped
where before RR had had complete assemblies rotated and shipped to
depots.

Packard had built their own aero engines and marine engines as well
as luxury car engines-the V-12 PT boat engine had originally been
intended for dirigibles. They were a first class engineering firm in
their own right but they agreed to build someone else's engine for
patriotic reasons only. RR incorporated a great deal of Packard back
into their engines, which is why late RR Merlins have much
interchangeability with Packard engines. This is all well
documented .

The last word is to be had here by builders of Unlimited air racing
aircraft engines. The preferred combination today is a mix of Packard
and late, postwar RR transport engine parts-they are making roughly
three and a half times the power the WWII engines did, on gasoline,
and at a RPM not that much higher . The propeller and its gearing
enforce the RPM limit and the lower ends are taking a beating far
beyond what the designers would have thought possible. By contrast,
in auto racing, the huge increase in specific power has come with
large RPM increases as well. Even in the 70s, a DFV Cosworth-an engine
of whose size would have been thought capable of perhaps 6500 rpm in
WWII-was turning, what, 10,500 rpm?

[KeithR]

Bret L wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>>
>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
>>> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
>>> was a Rolls-Royce design...
>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
>> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
>> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>>
>
> The Schneider Cup engine-the "R"- was a methanol burning, castor oil
> lubricated engine of 36 liters-6" bore by 6.6" stroke which was
> much more similar to the later Griffon than the Merlin. RR also built
> a fair number of other V12 aero engines, plus, such oddities as the
> Exe. They were beautifully built, all of them, but the
> productionizing (irrelevant with the R engine but very much so with
> the Merlin) was poor. Actually, that was the case with most of
> Britain's war materiel, excellent quality but made at a fearful
> price of time and effort. What both the Germans and the AMericans
> were better at was being able to make something to be built in high
> volume and with minimal labor. The Germans were addicted to
> workmanship requirements and further their factories were destroyed
> relentlessly. What the US had was a lot of factories and personnel of
> reasonable basic ability,, not really worried about being bombed, and
> a fairly long tradition of engineer-to-build without the classically
> trained tradesmen German and British products had.

The Packard is a form fit and function equivalent to the Merlin. At
least that is what I was told by the guys at the Hamilton War Birds
Museum in Canada who restored one of the only two flying Lancasters
left. They used Packards due to lower cost and higher availability, and
didn't consider it diminished the authenticity of the restoration.

Interesting discussion but not particularly relevant to tube audio though

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret L" > wrote in message

> On Jul 7, 6:36 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari
>>>> engines are copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the
>>>> Merlin engine; Merlin was a Rolls-Royce design...
>>
>>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine.
>>> But RR did eventually license the Merlin to Packard,
>>> who manufactured the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>>
>>> John Atkinson
>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce
>> licensed the engine to Packard doesn't make it a
>> "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to claim; it remains
>> forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
>> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a
>> copyright thief who in the past has claimed that my
>> copyright material belonged to him by right of repeated
>> theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>
> Packard took the basic design and reengineered the whole
> thing from a tooling and construction standpoint, and
> made many things interchangeable that had been
> fit-on-assembly previously. They made their own patterns
> and core boxes from scratch and changed materials and
> harmonized many dimensions. What had taken dozens of
> fitters days to tweak and cobble now went together in
> minutes without stoning or filing. In the field it meant
> that individual parts could be swapped where before RR
> had had complete assemblies rotated and shipped to
> depots.

My father was part of the Packard effort to reproduce the Rolls-Royce Merlin
engine in the US. His accounts of how it was done agree with Mr. Ludwig's
statements, above. They started with RR blue prints of just the engine, and
re-engineered the design, tolerances and production methods in accordance
with U.S engineering practice, which was more advanced when it came to
volume production of precision engines.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret L" > wrote in message

> On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, wrote:


> What both the Germans and the Americans were
> better at was being able to make something to be built
> in high volume and with minimal labor. The Germans were
> addicted to workmanship requirements and further their
> factories were destroyed relentlessly.

Germans in particular had an undesirable tendency towards hypercriticalism
and unecessary craftsmanship for the sake of craftsmanship. This reduced
their productivity and caused them to take even good ideas well beyond the
point of diminishing returns.

> What the US had
> was a lot of factories and personnel of reasonable basic
> ability,, not really worried about being bombed, and a
> fairly long tradition of engineer-to-build without the
> classically trained tradesmen German and British products
> had.

The U.S. had large numbers of classically trained tradesmen and engineers
from Germany and Great Britain and the rest of Europe, who emigrated to the
US to escape the mess that Europe had long been, both before the 2 world
wars, and after.

The persecution of Jews in Europe including Great Britain worked to the
advantage of the US.

Furthermore, the absence of an iron-clad class structure in the US allowed
many undereducated and underemployed people who were farmers and common
laborers in Europe, to exploit their potential in the US and become highly
productive craftsman and professionals.

[Arny Krueger]

"keithr" > wrote in message


> Interesting discussion but not particularly relevant to
> tube audio though

Actually, the WW2 era was the heyday of the tube, and it has pretty much
been downhill for tubes since no later than about 10 years after the second
war.

[KeithR]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "keithr" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Interesting discussion but not particularly relevant to
>> tube audio though
>
> Actually, the WW2 era was the heyday of the tube, and it has pretty much
> been downhill for tubes since no later than about 10 years after the second
> war.
>
>
Quite true but somewhat irrelevant, AFAIK the Merlin aero-engine had no
vacuum tubes in it (it did have valves, in fact quite a lot of them) and
I speak from some experience as the air cadet squadron that I was in as
a teenager had it's very own Merlin nicely sectioned so that you could
see all the insides.

[KeithR]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bret L" > wrote in message
>
>> On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, wrote:
>
>
>> What both the Germans and the Americans were
>> better at was being able to make something to be built
>> in high volume and with minimal labor. The Germans were
>> addicted to workmanship requirements and further their
>> factories were destroyed relentlessly.
>
> Germans in particular had an undesirable tendency towards hypercriticalism
> and unecessary craftsmanship for the sake of craftsmanship. This reduced
> their productivity and caused them to take even good ideas well beyond the
> point of diminishing returns.
>
>> What the US had
>> was a lot of factories and personnel of reasonable basic
>> ability,, not really worried about being bombed, and a
>> fairly long tradition of engineer-to-build without the
>> classically trained tradesmen German and British products
>> had.
>
> The U.S. had large numbers of classically trained tradesmen and engineers
> from Germany and Great Britain and the rest of Europe, who emigrated to the
> US to escape the mess that Europe had long been, both before the 2 world
> wars, and after.
>
> The persecution of Jews in Europe including Great Britain worked to the
> advantage of the US.
>
> Furthermore, the absence of an iron-clad class structure in the US allowed
> many undereducated and underemployed people who were farmers and common
> laborers in Europe, to exploit their potential in the US and become highly
> productive craftsman and professionals.

If you want to look at the production of rough and ready but usable
armaments in WWII then Russia beat the US hands down.

[John Byrns]

In article
>,
Alex > wrote:

> On Jul 8, 10:11*am, Alex > wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 5:18*am, John Byrns > wrote:
> >
> > Wirewound trimcap is like that:
> > On a straight piece of enamelled wire of about 200mm long and 1.5mm in
> > diameter, a layer of 0.2mm wire is wound.
>
> CORRECTION:
>
> 20mm long

I thought 8" seemed a little long, I was trying to visualize a radio
with several 8" wire wound trim caps in it.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Jul 6, 8:34*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > You're wanking away ignorantly as usual, Bratzi. Among other points, I
> > had a Ferrari briefly before going back to the more reliable Maserati,
>
> From Hasbro and/or Lindberg Plastics.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Vacationing in Sheboygan, WI

Hi Peter,

I was vacationing in Sheboygan, WI over the holiday weekend, where were
you staying? If I knew you were around I would have invited you down to
the cabin.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Bret L]

On Jul 8, 8:01*am, keithr > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Bret L" > wrote in message
>
> >> On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, wrote:
>
> >> What both the Germans and the Americans were
> >> better at was being able to make something to be built
> >> in high volume and with minimal labor. The Germans were
> >> addicted to workmanship requirements and further their
> >> factories were destroyed relentlessly.
>
> > Germans in particular had an undesirable tendency towards hypercriticalism
> > and unecessary craftsmanship for the sake of craftsmanship. This reduced
> > their productivity and caused them to take even good ideas well beyond the
> > point of diminishing returns.
>
> >> What the US had
> >> was a lot of factories and personnel of reasonable basic
> >> ability,, not really worried about being bombed, and a
> >> fairly long tradition of engineer-to-build without the
> >> classically trained tradesmen German and British products
> >> had.
>
> > The U.S. had large numbers of *classically trained tradesmen and engineers
> > from Germany and Great Britain and the rest of Europe, who emigrated to the
> > US to escape the mess that Europe had long been, both before the 2 world
> > wars, and after.
>
> > The persecution of Jews in Europe including Great Britain worked to the
> > advantage of the US.
>
> > Furthermore, the absence of an iron-clad class structure in the US allowed
> > many undereducated and underemployed people who were farmers and common
> > laborers in Europe, to exploit their potential in the US and become highly
> > productive craftsman and professionals.
>
> If you want to look at the production of rough and ready but usable
> armaments in WWII then Russia beat the US hands down.

Yes, but they were nasty. I personally had the duty about twenty
years ago of destroying about half of a container load of Russian/
Soviet WWII weapons which a gun dealer had ordered. Those rifles which
were so badly made or 'repaired' they couldn't be reworked and sold,
along with a large number of illegal Title II "Stalin Guitars" they
had neither asked nor paid for, had to be dismantled and cut up with
an oxyacetylene torch. I didn't shed any tears over it. I did however
keep a few of the barrels, which a friend made into muzzleloading
squirrel rifles.

[Bret L]

On Jul 8, 7:20*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "keithr" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Interesting discussion but not particularly relevant to
> > tube audio though
>
> Actually, the WW2 era was the heyday of the tube, and it has pretty much
> been downhill for tubes since no later than about 10 years after the second
> war.

The heyday of the tube was probably the postwar period until about
1965, because that's when the really interesting types were developed.
Solid state didn't do everything the tube did functionally until the
end of the sixties, Tek was still building tube scopes until almost
the end of the 60s, and aircraft radars and DMEs still had tubes until
the 70s.

Of course transistors started showing up here and there around 1955
and by 1963 or so it was clear that the long term future for the
vacuum tube as a mass market item was dim. But in 1945, a first rate
tube designer still had another twenty years of safe career, as did a
grid lathe mechanic or a glass sealing machine setup person.

[Bret L]

> Quite true but somewhat irrelevant, AFAIK the Merlin aero-engine had no
> vacuum tubes in it (it did have valves, in fact quite a lot of them)

48 of them to be exact.

[Bret L]

On Jul 8, 7:19*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Bret L" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, wrote:
> > What both the Germans and the Americans were
> > better at was being able to make something to be built
> > in high volume and with minimal labor. The Germans were
> > addicted to workmanship requirements and further their
> > factories were destroyed relentlessly.
>
> Germans in particular had an undesirable tendency towards hypercriticalism
> and unecessary craftsmanship for the sake of craftsmanship. This reduced
> their productivity and caused them to take even good ideas well beyond the
> point of diminishing returns.

Yes. Their mines used a case hardened weight that stuck in place and
caused the mine not to detonate, and Brit bomb experts realized that
had they left it alone it would have worked flawlessly. The DB601
engine used a diesel style direct injection system that was ruinously
expensive to build (and Mercedes used it in their cars later also
quite unnecessarily, except arguably in the W 196) and there are many
other examples that can be found.

The Luger pistol, mechanically fascinating but not terribly reliable
in a firefight, is another obvious example. Even the Poles were smart
enough to simply copy what worked best, their Radom being a 9mm M1911
clone.
>
> > What the US had
> > was a lot of factories and personnel of reasonable basic
> > ability,, not really worried about being bombed, and a
> > fairly long tradition of engineer-to-build without the
> > classically trained tradesmen German and British products
> > had.
>
> The U.S. had large numbers of *classically trained tradesmen and engineers
> from Germany and Great Britain and the rest of Europe, who emigrated to the
> US to escape the mess that Europe had long been, both before the 2 world
> wars, and after.

Yes. It's equally true that many of those people abandoned their
trade for small business or went to work on the assembly line when
they got here.

One of my old phart cronies, now long deceased, was the son of a
British immigrant who had been a journeyman toolmaker in Britain. At
that time it was a five year apprenticeship. When he came over he was
offered a job for more money working for the water company as what we
would call a meter reader than the machine shops would pay, and he
spent 40 years with the utility without ever picking up his tools. He
ordered his son to take his tool chest to a pawn shop and trade it for
a radio in the 40s. From the son's description of the tool set it
would be worth a fortune even today.

My own grandfather was a German trained gunmaker who went to work for
National Cash Register as a mere assembler and left to start an
insurance agency after ten years. He never touched a tool or a gun in
this country. He forbade my father from having anything to do with
metalwork, guns, or learning German-there was no future in that at
all.
>
> The persecution of Jews in Europe including Great Britain worked to the
> advantage of the US.

As Henry Kissinger said, any people which is persecuted for centuries
is doing something wrong.
Or, being persecuted is part and parcel of their group strategy.

>
> Furthermore, the absence of an iron-clad class structure in the US allowed
> many undereducated and underemployed people who were farmers and common
> laborers in Europe, to exploit their potential in the US and become highly
> productive craftsman and professionals.

Partly true. What the US allowed was a shuffling of the class order.
No society can function without a clear pecking order, it's just that
in Europe the old one had become ossified so that the top had decayed
and some of the then underclass had evolved upward. A shuffling was
needed, as it is today in the US. Steve Sailer writes of this a lot,
and correctly. The elites in America today are the Wall Street types
and they have become stupid, a reshuffling is inevitable.

[Bret L]

On Jul 7, 11:29*pm, keithr > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> >>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> >>> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
> >>> was a Rolls-Royce design...
> >> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
> >> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
> >> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
>
> > Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce licensed the engine
> > to Packard doesn't make it a "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to
> > claim; it remains forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
> > rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a copyright thief who
> > in the past has claimed that my copyright material belonged to him by
> > right of repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > *Visit Andre's books at
> > *http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
>
> The P51 was originally developed to an RAF requirement. It was fitted
> with a Packard engine which gave so-so performance especially at high
> altitude.

No, it was an Allison. The Allison had a much simpler supercharger,
because it was intended to be used in conjunction with a turbo. The
ONLY advantage RR had over Allison was a more sophisticated two stage
two speed supercharger. RR doctrine was that turbos were bad because
the energy they used was better employed as thrust from the engine
gases. While they did get some thrust recovery, the P-51 got even more
thrust from the radiator heat. OTOH the Mustang suffered what was then
a total loss damage from being landed gear up whereas the Spitfire was
flying (albeit with a different engine and prop) the next day.

A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about half the
manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire. Arguably the Spitfire
was prettier.

[Bret L]

On Jul 8, 7:10*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Bret L" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 6:36 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari
> >>>> engines are copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the
> >>>> Merlin engine; Merlin was a Rolls-Royce design...
>
> >>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine.
> >>> But RR did eventually license the Merlin to Packard,
> >>> who manufactured the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>
> >>> John Atkinson
> >>> Editor, Stereophile
>
> >> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce
> >> licensed the engine to Packard doesn't make it a
> >> "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to claim; it remains
> >> forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
> >> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a
> >> copyright thief who in the past has claimed that my
> >> copyright material belonged to him by right of repeated
> >> theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>
> > Packard took the basic design and reengineered the whole
> > thing from a tooling *and construction standpoint, and
> > made many things interchangeable that had been
> > fit-on-assembly previously. *They made their own patterns
> > and core boxes from scratch and changed materials and
> > harmonized many dimensions. *What had taken dozens of
> > fitters days to tweak and cobble now went together in
> > minutes without stoning or filing. *In the field it meant
> > that individual parts could be swapped where before RR
> > had had complete assemblies rotated and shipped to
> > depots.
>
> My father was part of the Packard effort to reproduce the Rolls-Royce Merlin
> engine in the US. *His accounts of how it was done agree with Mr. Ludwig's
> statements, above. *They started with RR blue prints of just the engine, and
> re-engineered the design, tolerances and production methods in accordance
> with U.S engineering practice, which was more advanced when it came to
> volume production of precision engines.

Packard was a first rate company with a superior engineering nd
manufacturing force. And the Merlin effort was really their finest
hour, because it's harder to do that with someone else's design than
to design your own in most cases. RR was also first rate, but volume
production was not their thing at all.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 2:17*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> *A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about *half the
> manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire. Arguably the Spitfire
> was prettier.

It's worth reading Len Deighton's novel "Fighter," in
which he goes into the different manufacturing costs
in detail. He laments the phasing out of the Republic
P47 in favor of the very much cheaper Mustang,
which had a significantly worse record of killing pilots
in accidents.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[sortech]

Alex wrote:
> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nearly all the people I ever knew in the 1950s might have had a very
>> crummy radiogram with a lone 6V6 output tube. We rolled on the floor
>> laughing at the Goon Show, and nobody cared a hoot about hi-fi. There
>> was 4 kHz of BW, and the people on radio or those who sang had voices
>> which could be easily understood. No we have hi-fi gear to reproduce the
>> most appalling speaking or singing voices and much noise masquerading as
>> music. While most of the world gladly got rid of these early horrid
>> "lounge-room entertainment gadgets", when TV came in here in 1956, audio
>> went even further out of people's minds, and when everything went solid
>> state it got even worse, until the laws on import duties were changed to
>> allow foreign products in from mainly Japan.
>
> I am not an expert in the tube amps, but closely observe vintage Oz radios
> for sale on the e-bay.
> I found that the Oz radios from 30's to early 60's are extremely primitive
> and electrically boooooooooooooooring. 6A8G-6U7G-6B8G-6V6G-5Y3 , then
> 6AN7A-6N8-6N8-6M5-6X4 and later 6BE6-6BA6-6AV6-6AQ5-6X4 was pretty much the
> limit of imagination of Oz engineers. Almost none of the Oz radios have a
> tuning indicator, very few have an RF stage (6-th valve). Wiring is messy,
> STC and Kriesler are the messiest ones.
>
> In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of that era were more
> advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE
> output (5W), some had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would have a
> separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7 1-st audio stage, as
> well as variable IF bandwidth for distant/local reception. Output
> transformers were on average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance
> did not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz radios 350...500
> ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass response can be expected from those
> undernourished trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> rubbish common in OZ radios.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
These old Russian radios sound most advanced indeed. Does this mean that
the 6L6GC tube I got with an amp recently, labeled made in the USSR, are
great tubes?

Cheers
Eric

[Arny Krueger]

"Alex" > wrote in message


> I am not an expert in the tube amps, but closely observe
> vintage Oz radios for sale on the e-bay.
> I found that the Oz radios from 30's to early 60's are
> extremely primitive and electrically
> boooooooooooooooring. 6A8G-6U7G-6B8G-6V6G-5Y3 , then
> 6AN7A-6N8-6N8-6M5-6X4 and later 6BE6-6BA6-6AV6-6AQ5-6X4
> was pretty much the limit of imagination of Oz engineers.
> Almost none of the Oz radios have a tuning indicator,
> very few have an RF stage (6-th valve). Wiring is messy,
> STC and Kriesler are the messiest ones.

> In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of
> that era were more advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G
> magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE output (5W), some
> had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would have
> a separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7
> 1-st audio stage, as well as variable IF bandwidth for
> distant/local reception. Output transformers were on
> average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance did
> not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz
> radios 350...500 ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass
> response can be expected from those undernourished
> trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> rubbish common in OZ radios.

All of the above sounds very high tech compared to the usual USA AM radio
receiver of those days.

The rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5", being first the
late-1930s octal-tubed:

12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining oscillator and mixer
functions)
12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio amplifier)
50L6 (beam pentode, power output)
35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)

and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:

12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio amplifier)
50C5 (beam pentode, power output)
35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply

The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus limiting B+ to
about 150 volts) , and one side of the chassis was randomly connected to
either the hot or neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
not polarized. The output transformer was miniscule, and the 4" speaker was
egregious. Needless to say, there was no tuning indicator.

When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but the basic recipie
was essentially unchanged. Eventually, even most B&W and then color TV sets
were based on this kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jul 8, 2:17 pm, Bret L > wrote:

>> A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about
>> half the manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire.
>> Arguably the Spitfire was prettier.

> It's worth reading Len Deighton's novel "Fighter," in
> which he goes into the different manufacturing costs
> in detail. He laments the phasing out of the Republic
> P47 in favor of the very much cheaper Mustang,
> which had a significantly worse record of killing pilots
> in accidents.

A ludicrous comparison given all of the other differences that were
involved. Note the absence of any kind of fair comparison and no relevent
statisics from an independent source.

It would appear that Mr. Atkinson has now taken his inability to do fair
comparisons of audio equipment to the air. :-(

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
> > Bret L wrote:
> > >
> > > This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
> > > Williamson amplifier in the United States. It was first described in
> > > Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
> > > at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
> > > by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
> > > transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
> > > transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
> > > 16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
> > > series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
> > > covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
> > > variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
> > > advertised the most in that magazine.
> >
> > Yeah, the american makers' response to Willy's ideas was "how do we dumb
> > down this too-hard-to-wind tranny and make a profit?"
>
> Looked to me like the British amp makers had pretty much the same
> attitude.
>
> > > The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > > revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > > affair necessitating a protection relay.
> >
> > Protection relay?
>
> With bias supplied by batteries or tube rectifiers as specified above a
> protection relay is almost a necessity.

I've never seen a mass made tube amp with batteries for bias. Batteries
go flat or leak all over the place and cost more than other means of
biasing, so no batteries were ever approved by the company bean counter.
>
> > I never seen any mass made tube amp with a with any active protection
> > whatsovever.
>
> "mass made" amplifiers for home use mostly used selenium bias rectifiers
> which were relatively reliable eliminating the need for a protection
> relay. You will find protection relays used in some higher power audio
> amplifiers designed for commercial and industrial applications,
> especially those using vacuum tube bias rectifiers.

Sure, selenium rectifiers were used *when* they became supposedly more
reliable than a tube rectifier. They saw service in radios first.

But all the tube amps mass made in the past used tube diodes. And for
the bias.

As soon as the **silicon** rectifier with a high reverse peak voltage
rating became available then the tube rectifiers were retired
immediately.
And in amps by McIntosh, they immediately used a voltage double type of
supply because the Si diodes still gave bettwr regulation than the full
wave with CT winding and two diodes. And the voltage doubler needed 1/4
of the transformer turns using much thicker wire so the PT became
cheaper. The bean counters had a party the day Si diodes were found to
be reliable.

But of course there was still never any active protection in mass made
amps. And with Si rectifiers, when a tube begins to die by conducting
much more Idc than usual, the Idc increase isn't enough to make a fuse
blow at first because invariably high value caps and high fuse values
have been used withthe Si diodes. Maybe a OPT primary winding begins to
cook causing a shorted turn, so when an owner plugs in a new tube later
he finds the music is bleedin awful, so he's up for a big repair bill.

Active sensing of cathode current would have saved the owner from such
dreadful pain, but in a stereo amp with 4 output tubes you'd need 4
diodes and some sort of device which **latches** on to turn off the amp.
Afaik, there was no cheap easy way this could be done in 1955.
Latching relays with a botton to unlatch them may have been devised, and
maybe you could use a tube as the turn on element to work the relay from
a bias supply, or B+ perhaps.
Today I use sensitive gate SCR, C106D, and 4 x Si diodes and a relay
operating off a 12V auxilliary. Its very cheap and has saved the bacon
many times....

Patrick Turner.

>
> --
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[KeithR]

Bret L wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:29 pm, keithr > wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>>>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
>>>>> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
>>>>> was a Rolls-Royce design...
>>>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
>>>> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
>>>> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>>>> John Atkinson
>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce licensed the engine
>>> to Packard doesn't make it a "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to
>>> claim; it remains forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
>>> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a copyright thief who
>>> in the past has claimed that my copyright material belonged to him by
>>> right of repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Visit Andre's books at
>>> http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
>> The P51 was originally developed to an RAF requirement. It was fitted
>> with a Packard engine which gave so-so performance especially at high
>> altitude.
>
> No, it was an Allison.

Sorry, you are correct, somehow I got Packards on the brain, and of
course it was Allison who went on to build the copy Merlins

The Allison had a much simpler supercharger,
> because it was intended to be used in conjunction with a turbo. The
> ONLY advantage RR had over Allison was a more sophisticated two stage
> two speed supercharger. RR doctrine was that turbos were bad because
> the energy they used was better employed as thrust from the engine
> gases. While they did get some thrust recovery,

Looking at the Spit's exhausts, I would seriously doubt that they got much

the P-51 got even more
> thrust from the radiator heat. OTOH the Mustang suffered what was then
> a total loss damage from being landed gear up whereas the Spitfire was
> flying (albeit with a different engine and prop) the next day.

Yes the P-51 was probably the most famous exponent of the Meredith
effect but it was hardly the only one. The BF-109 also used the effect,
and even the Spit's radiator would have given some effect. Then, of
course there is the claim that radial engines utilised the effect even
more than the P-51

> A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about half the
> manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire. Arguably the Spitfire
> was prettier.

It was also a significantly earlier design.

[KeithR]

Bret L wrote:
> On Jul 8, 7:10 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Bret L" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 6:36 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari
>>>>>> engines are copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the
>>>>>> Merlin engine; Merlin was a Rolls-Royce design...
>>>>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine.
>>>>> But RR did eventually license the Merlin to Packard,
>>>>> who manufactured the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce
>>>> licensed the engine to Packard doesn't make it a
>>>> "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to claim; it remains
>>>> forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
>>>> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a
>>>> copyright thief who in the past has claimed that my
>>>> copyright material belonged to him by right of repeated
>>>> theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>>> Packard took the basic design and reengineered the whole
>>> thing from a tooling and construction standpoint, and
>>> made many things interchangeable that had been
>>> fit-on-assembly previously. They made their own patterns
>>> and core boxes from scratch and changed materials and
>>> harmonized many dimensions. What had taken dozens of
>>> fitters days to tweak and cobble now went together in
>>> minutes without stoning or filing. In the field it meant
>>> that individual parts could be swapped where before RR
>>> had had complete assemblies rotated and shipped to
>>> depots.
>> My father was part of the Packard effort to reproduce the Rolls-Royce Merlin
>> engine in the US. His accounts of how it was done agree with Mr. Ludwig's
>> statements, above. They started with RR blue prints of just the engine, and
>> re-engineered the design, tolerances and production methods in accordance
>> with U.S engineering practice, which was more advanced when it came to
>> volume production of precision engines.
>
> Packard was a first rate company with a superior engineering nd
> manufacturing force. And the Merlin effort was really their finest
> hour, because it's harder to do that with someone else's design than
> to design your own in most cases. RR was also first rate, but volume
> production was not their thing at all.

The figures are, I believe:

Rolls Royce: 82117
Ford (UK): 30478
Packard: 55523

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 8, 5:29 am, keithr > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> >>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari engines are
> >>> copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the Merlin engine; Merlin
> >>> was a Rolls-Royce design...
> >> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning engine. But RR
> >> did eventually license the Merlin to Packard, who manufactured
> >> the engine to power the P51 Mustang.
>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
>
> > Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce licensed the engine
> > to Packard doesn't make it a "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to
> > claim; it remains forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
> > rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a copyright thief who
> > in the past has claimed that my copyright material belonged to him by
> > right of repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Visit Andre's books at
> > http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
>
> The P51 was originally developed to an RAF requirement. It was fitted
> with a Packard engine which gave so-so performance especially at high
> altitude.

That was an Allison engine and the only reason it gave so-so
performance is that it was fitted without the forced induction for
which it had been designed. I had some of those Allison 1710 for power
boat racing and, used as intended by the designers, they were superb,
virtually indestructible engines. But then I generally like honest,
sturdy American engines more than their perhaps better bred European
counterparts, which are often too tricky for their own good. (Yeah, I
know, it sounds hypocritical, all those old Bentley chassis I tuned
into sports cars, the years of driving European cars. But, honestly,
one of my favourite touring cars of all time was the mid-60s Ford LTD,
same as the execrable Ludwig has just bought, and one of my favourite
fast cross-continental wheels was the Australian Ford GTHO, which was
an American Falcon hotrodded by Ford's Australian branch office.)

>The British fitted a Merlin in place of the Packard and
> immediately got another 50mph out of it and improved high altitude
> performance. Later, when the USAAF ordered the P51, Packard licenced the
> Merlin from Rolls Royce and this engine was fitted to all subsequent
> models.

The genesis of the P51 is an interesting example of American can-do --
count the number of days between the British asking whether the
Americans could build the Corsair and the Americans saying no, we can
design a better plane, and the day the first prototype P51 flew.

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

[Patrick Turner]

Bret L wrote:
>
> >
> > > The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > > revolution. The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > > affair necessitating a protection relay.
> >
> > Protection relay?
> >
> > I never seen any mass made tube amp with a with any active protection
> > whatsovever.
>
> The old theater amps that were fixed bias in the 40s had them.
> >
> > The audio industry attitude has been and continues to be, "let the
> > punters blow up their amps soon so they will buy another."
> >
> > You'd think someone would have invented a nice little circuit using one
> > IC would indicate if the load value fell below 2 ohms even for an
> > instant and then turn off the amp completely until somone fixes the
> > shorted speaker or lead or other problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Since Americans generally did not entertain winding their own output
> > > transformers, soon a race was on amongst the manufacturers to make a
> > > more and more suitable unit, and each purported to supply some extra,
> > > magic mojo with their unit. More relevantly, many had various taps on
> > > the secondary not originally intended for ultra-linear operation, but
> > > suitable for it, and soon many Williamsons were operating ultralinear
> > > and with a considerably lower plate load and a beefier power supply,
> > > upping power output in true Yankee mechanic fashion.
> >
> > More power, more distortion, and generally worse performance in high
> > class AB with a low class A % were the way the americans travelled.
> >
> > You couldn't sell low powered amps to the yanks. It was no use trying to
> > sell a Morris car to a yank.
>
> As I write this there is a 50s or 60s Morris Minor, right hand drive,
> parked in the parking lot outside the window. Next to it is the
> owner's wife's Chevy powered XJ12. What are the ODDS? The downstairs
> office is owned by an old Brit car freak. On the other side of the
> lot is a new Smart car, about the size of a golf cart.
>
> I just bought a 68 Ford LTD, four door, with a fresh EFI five liter
> and AOD. That's my idea of a good car. Gas is the cheapest thing I put
> in it.
>
> >
> > Yanks liked everything big and preferebly huge, and certainly bigger
> > than their frinds.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Williamson had many flaws, seen from today's perspective. For its
> > > weight and build cost its power output is unimpressive, and it trades
> > > low distortion for stability. It is not unconditionally stable and
> > > indeed often went into oscillation with electrostatic speakers. Being
> > > cathode biased, it has a relatively high quiescent power draw. Like a
> > > Ferrari with a Lampredi long block V12 or a Westland Lysander, its
> > > ills are fixable but at the cost of its basic nature. A stable fixed-
> > > bias Williamson is hardly a Williamson, and a Lysander with a P&W
> > > under the cowl loses part of its essential charm, as does a
> > > Superamerica with a Columbo short block V12 or a Lampredi with its
> > > water pump cavity blocked off and a Chrysler unit in a Porchev
> > > housing glommed off to the side.
> >
> > > By 1955, the British were no longer competitive in the high fidelity
> > > amplifier business in terms of metrics: the Radford and Kerr-McCosh
> > > had no serious market share at home and none abroad. Marantz,
> > > McIntosh, and Harmon Kardon totally dominated the high end and Dyna
> > > the low, with Fisher and Scott offering consumer friendly upscale
> > > units for the mainstream buyer. The Germans, the Dutch (Philips) , the
> > > Scandinavians and of course the rest of the Anglosphere never even got
> > > to the starting gate. It wasn't until the solid state era that the US
> > > manufacturers lost absolute, unchallenged domination.
> >
> > Ah, you forgot trade tarriffs and import barriers.
> >
> > In Oz, hardly anyone bought anything american because it always was so
> > damned expensive. Ralf Nader pointed out that american motor vehicles
> > were no safer than the ones we made here, albeit under companies run as
> > offshhots to GM in america, such as Holden. Hardly anyone made any money
> > selling Oz made amps to other Oz ppl because those with any money bought
> > british brands such as Leak or Quad.
>
> >
> > Many audio ppl made their own amps using 807 and 6SN7 from ex-army
> > surplus stores and OPT, PT and chokes from local makers; A&R in
> > Melbourne, Fergeson in Sydney. None were Partridge quality, so the
> > extremely small number of audiophiles in Oz which was a very un-cultured
> > place in 1955 had trouble making stable tube amplifiers of any kind. The
> > Mullard 510 and 520 became more popular than Williamsons.
>
> Australia, and New Zealand, DID NOT MATTER, there weren't enough
> people in those countries and of those that were they were as you say
> yourself were not willing to pay for the good stuff. in the history
> of vintage tube audio, only two nations really mattered, although the
> Germans and the Dutch (Philips) had some interesting stuff, and even
> the Finns had a really interesting design. German audio was not
> readily available in the US for various reasons, one of which is that
> a real cocksucker named Steven Temmer got the Telefunken franchise in
> the US and ****ed the pro market over hard and fast.. Siemens and
> Telefunken had some great tech but we never saw it and neither did the
> Brits AFAIK. It's a real shame as the EL 156 would have let McIntosh
> build an honest 100+ wpc amp with two tubes essentially in the
> receiving tube class-no bright filaments, plate caps or really high B
> +.
>
> Again, AUSTRALIA DID NOT MATTER and so far STILL DOES NOT. Not for
> audio. There is an interesting company making pianos there though.
> >
> > The Williamson was just one of several designs one could build onself,
> > and AFAIK, there was NEVER a perfectly created commercial replica of the
> > Willy circuit including the exact details of the OPT with all its
> > windings which allowed wasteless arrangement of secondaries.
>
> Both British and American commercial winders built MUCH BETTER
> transformers than the Willy paper design. Even backwoods transformer
> shops realized that much simpler designs could be better. It's
> possible the Germans made excellent ones too but they did not market
> them as a standalone product, and no other country mattered. Even
> Italy, which had something of an electronics industry, wasn't a player.

Gee, I thought Australia DID ****IN MATTER A LOT in the bygone days in a
different world after 1939 to about now.
The US wasn't about to let Oz go to the japs because it had very big
business interests here. In fact the US has done well out of Oz, and it
wouldn't like to lose it; it'd be like losing a state of the Union. But
your'e about right about how US exporters often thought about Oz, too
much trouble to export to and not enough sales. Now its very hard to
find anything worth buying in the shops with a made in the USA sticker.
Maybe its different now. I don't buy much od any damn thing from anyone,
so what would I know?

But I could buy a Jolida, made by joint venture US-China team. No
thankyou, I don't wanna buy one. I seen the re-issue McI amps in the
shops here and no thanks, I don't want one. I've repaired too many US
mades to ever want one.

I see ZERO evidence that any mass made amplifiers included OPT like the
one Willy designed. Quad and Leak and Dynaco and all the rest used
inferior OPT. Maybe there were better designs available from dedicated
tranny makers but their product rarely found their way into anything
mass made. There was a local OP tranny winding industry in Oz many years
ago and you could always buy a pair of good OPT off the shelf for a home
amp but that all died in about 1965. The top range of OPT from locals
Fergeson and A&R were very good, but hardly anyone bought them; the
market was microscopic, and those that bought for their home amps were
mainly poor, and too poor to afford the best.
Needless to say the local products were much cheaper than anything
imported from the US or Europe, UK. No freight costs either.
In 1955, you could always have had your amplifiers hand made by someone
just like how people have their amps made by coming to me and ordering
one. The hand made amps comprise about
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the total amp market.
Nobody remembers the hand makers of 1955, and they won't remember me
when I'm gone.

One could say the McIntosh OPT was a masterpiece, but I wouldn't. Its
just one hellova complex design. GE put out a book on 17 amp designs
form 5 to 1,100W and in the book they describe good techniques for
minimising leakage inductance with shunt capacitance so there was no
need for bifilar or trifilar windings.

The McI OPT has wires wound close with 470V voltage difference. Anyway,
there are easier ways to get the same result, and you don't have the Pd
between adjacent turns, so the alternative to McI is better.
Williamson started a ball rolling though and made ppl aware of the
benefits of wide OPT bandwidth, and made then aware of how to get those
benefits. Every other maker kept their fukkin secrets mainly to
themselves.

I find it very easy to make an OPT give Fsat at 15Hz at full PO and
200kHz of HF. You just use lots of interleaving. You keep the insulation
thickness between P and S rather high, you use many more turns per volt
than everyone else does except Williamson, and you use far more Afe than
anyone else, and losses are then below 5%.

A lot of my website deals with OPT BW, and OPT losses and how to
optimise designs. I merely carry the torch further for luminaries like
Williamson and Baxandal.

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 9, 10:40*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:17 pm, Bret L > wrote:
> >> A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about
> >> half the manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire.
> >> Arguably the Spitfire was prettier.
> > It's worth reading Len Deighton's novel "Fighter," in
> > which he goes into the different manufacturing costs
> > in detail. He laments the phasing out of the Republic
> > P47 in favor of the very much cheaper Mustang,
> > which had a significantly worse record of killing pilots
> > in accidents.
>
> A ludicrous comparison given all of the other differences that were
> involved. Note the absence of any kind of fair comparison and no relevent
> statisics from an independent source.

What are "statisics", Arny. Do you mean "statistics"?

As for Len Deighton, who used to live down the road here on the
Carbery Coast, he leaves you for dead as a researcher, but then
everyone does. However, in this case it is particularly stupid of you
to spout your usual spite, Krueger, because Deighton is known world-
wide to be an extremely thorough and detailed researcher of military
history, a widely admired writer of both fiction and non-fiction on
the subject.

> It would appear that Mr. Atkinson has now taken his inability to do fair
> comparisons of audio equipment to the air. :-(

It is obvious that Arny Krueger, as usual, has an unhealthy obsession
with someone who once put him down spectacularly, and in public, and
at Mr Krueger's own masochistic invitation.

Andre Jute
Independent observer

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 5:40*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:17 pm, Bret L > wrote:
> >> A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about
> >> half the manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire.
> >> Arguably the Spitfire was prettier.
> > It's worth reading Len Deighton's novel "Fighter," in
> > which he goes into the different manufacturing costs
> > in detail. He laments the phasing out of the Republic
> > P47 in favor of the very much cheaper Mustang,
> > which had a significantly worse record of killing pilots
> > in accidents.
>
> A ludicrous comparison given all of the other differences
> that were involved.

The comparison is valid given that the prime role for
both designs was the long-range escort for the 8th
Air Force daylight bombing missions to Germany.

> Note the absence of any kind of fair comparison and
> no relevent [sic] statisics from an independent source.

I referred to Len Deighton's comments, in his novel
"Fighter," which , like the companion "Bomber," includes
a great deal of factual information. I would have thought
that Deighton _was_ an "independent source."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Patrick Turner]

Alex wrote:
>
> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nearly all the people I ever knew in the 1950s might have had a very
> > crummy radiogram with a lone 6V6 output tube. We rolled on the floor
> > laughing at the Goon Show, and nobody cared a hoot about hi-fi. There
> > was 4 kHz of BW, and the people on radio or those who sang had voices
> > which could be easily understood. No we have hi-fi gear to reproduce the
> > most appalling speaking or singing voices and much noise masquerading as
> > music. While most of the world gladly got rid of these early horrid
> > "lounge-room entertainment gadgets", when TV came in here in 1956, audio
> > went even further out of people's minds, and when everything went solid
> > state it got even worse, until the laws on import duties were changed to
> > allow foreign products in from mainly Japan.
>
> I am not an expert in the tube amps, but closely observe vintage Oz radios
> for sale on the e-bay.
> I found that the Oz radios from 30's to early 60's are extremely primitive
> and electrically boooooooooooooooring. 6A8G-6U7G-6B8G-6V6G-5Y3 , then
> 6AN7A-6N8-6N8-6M5-6X4 and later 6BE6-6BA6-6AV6-6AQ5-6X4 was pretty much the
> limit of imagination of Oz engineers. Almost none of the Oz radios have a
> tuning indicator, very few have an RF stage (6-th valve). Wiring is messy,
> STC and Kriesler are the messiest ones.

I agree entirely, but the makers were mainly dealing with poor people.
But deluxe radios were made with the above tube line ups but with tuning
indicators and better speakers and cabinets.
These comprised a small % of sales, and are the most collectable.

In East Germany, there was a Trabant motor car. The car for poor folks
made by poor folks.

But the Grundig radios from West Germany also were very messy. also very
pricey.

>
> In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of that era were more
> advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE
> output (5W), some had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages.

Yes, but the tube radios for Russia were made by a centralist communist
government who wanted its people to hear the socialist propaganda.

The people of Russia paid dearly indirectly for the radio experience.

Here we had makers having to make a profit, and compete againsteach
other and imports.

But we got piles of propaganda too that the bosses of industry all
wanted us to hear. It was incessant and infuriatingly boring
advertising, with the most stupid brainless pop music played between
advertisements.


Those would have a
> separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7 1-st audio stage, as
> well as variable IF bandwidth for distant/local reception. Output
> transformers were on average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance
> did not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz radios 350...500
> ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass response can be expected from those
> undernourished trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> rubbish common in OZ radios.

Yes, you may well wax lyrical about the wonders of Russian radios.

if you wanted deluxe in Oz, you could have deluxe, you just paid through
the nose. The top range Radiola AM radios include all the features of
the best Russian radios.

But of course we didn't get FM here until about 1972, and we never had
long wave, so our radios were nice and simple and easy to fix when they
broke. Ever tried servicing a big old Grundig with FM and long wave? Its
a damned nightmare.

When FM finally got here, it was all mainly done by the cheap Japanese
tuners full of chips fior hi-fi, and with an am section that was lousy,
and had only 3 tiny bjts.

The whole Oz radio and TV industry was basically abolished in favour of
imports.

I don't recall ever seeing one single Russian import though.

Maybe mainly everyone in Russia DID NOT have a really nice radio, unless
you were maybe a very good comrade and a member of the Party.
Maybe not enough radios were made in Russia to have enough to export
either.

There was once the Communist Party of Australia. Members went to Russia
on visits to see how the paradise of socialists operated.

They came back rather dismayed.

Then hardly anyone voted for them at Oz elections. They opposed cheap
imports because it cost the jobs of Oz workers. They believed in a
Utopia that was always going to remain a dream. The "commos" as we
called them were pretty tame though, and harmless. They drank and ****ed
each other's wives a bit too much, and talked a lotta bull**** but we
didn't line them up to be shot. We knew the value of tolerance and
democracy. Quite a few got into trade union rep positions and caused
mahem, but at least they had the guts to take on the real arsoles of big
business. Someone had to do it and fight for the workers rights and
wages. I'm glad we had commos. Nothing like societal diversity to
maintain a balance. And without too many pools of blood and screams late
at night.

But the workers mainly preferred the cheap Japanese products, and left
wing socialists had to accept the fact that workers wanted cheap goods
and would pay for them willingly despite the result of putting local
comrades out of a job, and keeping asian workers enslaved. OK, you loose
a job. So damn what. You get another. You stop winding Kriesler OPTs one
day and go down the road to wind power trannies for Water Authority
control units. In 1960, if you couldn't get a job you had to be deaf,
dumb, and blind.

In the 1950s and 60s Oz had exremely low unemployment rates. And if a
man wanted to he could change jobs 4 times a year. If he didn't smoke or
drink, and didn't have too many roots and father too many kids, he could
live like a king with the best of radios. He could buy a house at a
reasonable price and support his dependant wife and pay off the house on
a bricklayers wage, or a transformer winder's wage which were about the
same money. His life under capitalism offered far better quality than
in Russia, the UK, Germany, and most othere nations.
The doctors and dentists were lousy and expensive though. Life
expectancy was much lower than now.

Now ppl's houses are full of asian made gadgets. It always takes 2 wages
to survive and buy a house. And just as well there is the Pill because
ppl can't afford to have more than 1.4 children, and they can't start
breeding until 30+.

Somewhere amoungst their pile of domestic crap there might be a radio,
but radio listening is likely to soon become extinct.

Don't ask me how a digital radio works. Don't ask me to service one. I
am pig ignorant.

Patrick Turner.



>
> Regards,
> Alex

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 9, 11:39*am, keithr > wrote:
> Bret L wrote:

> > RR was also first rate, but volume
> > production was not their thing at all.
>
> The figures are, I believe:
>
> Rolls Royce: 82117
> Ford (UK): * 30478
> Packard: * * 55523

I would normally say you lost the point 86 to 82, Keith, on the
assumption that if the fiercely protective Rolls-Royce produced less
than half of total production of their own design, then it should be
clear that "volume production was not their thing at all". But in
wartime, any port in a storm, the rules change. It seems to me that if
under such huge pressure RR still produced half of all engines made to
that design, they had the production down pretty much pat.

Andre Jute
Plain common sense costs nothing except application

[Alex]

"sortech" > wrote in message
...
> Alex wrote:
> > "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Nearly all the people I ever knew in the 1950s might have had a very
> >> crummy radiogram with a lone 6V6 output tube. We rolled on the floor
> >> laughing at the Goon Show, and nobody cared a hoot about hi-fi. There
> >> was 4 kHz of BW, and the people on radio or those who sang had voices
> >> which could be easily understood. No we have hi-fi gear to reproduce
the
> >> most appalling speaking or singing voices and much noise masquerading
as
> >> music. While most of the world gladly got rid of these early horrid
> >> "lounge-room entertainment gadgets", when TV came in here in 1956,
audio
> >> went even further out of people's minds, and when everything went solid
> >> state it got even worse, until the laws on import duties were changed
to
> >> allow foreign products in from mainly Japan.
> >
> > I am not an expert in the tube amps, but closely observe vintage Oz
radios
> > for sale on the e-bay.
> > I found that the Oz radios from 30's to early 60's are extremely
primitive
> > and electrically boooooooooooooooring. 6A8G-6U7G-6B8G-6V6G-5Y3 , then
> > 6AN7A-6N8-6N8-6M5-6X4 and later 6BE6-6BA6-6AV6-6AQ5-6X4 was pretty much
the
> > limit of imagination of Oz engineers. Almost none of the Oz radios have
a
> > tuning indicator, very few have an RF stage (6-th valve). Wiring is
messy,
> > STC and Kriesler are the messiest ones.
> >
> > In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of that era were
more
> > advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G magic eye, 30% of radios had
6L6GT SE
> > output (5W), some had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would
have a
> > separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7 1-st audio stage,
as
> > well as variable IF bandwidth for distant/local reception. Output
> > transformers were on average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary
resistance
> > did not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz radios
350...500
> > ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass response can be expected from
those
> > undernourished trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> > rubbish common in OZ radios.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alex
> >
> >
> These old Russian radios sound most advanced indeed. Does this mean that
> the 6L6GC tube I got with an amp recently, labeled made in the USSR, are
> great tubes?
>
> Cheers
> Eric

Now Russians label the tubes according to the American or European
designating system.
In those old days Russian tubes had their own numbers in Cyrillic. For
example, 6L6GT is 6?3?, 6V6GT is 6?6?, 6SQ7 is 6?2, etc.

[Alex]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Alex" > wrote in message
>
> The rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5", being first the
> late-1930s octal-tubed:
>
> 12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining oscillator and mixer
> functions)
> 12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> 12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio
amplifier)
> 50L6 (beam pentode, power output)
> 35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)
>
> and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:
>
> 12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
> 12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> 12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio
amplifier)
> 50C5 (beam pentode, power output)
> 35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply
>
> The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus limiting B+ to
> about 150 volts) , and one side of the chassis was randomly connected to
> either the hot or neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
> not polarized. The output transformer was miniscule, and the 4" speaker
was
> egregious. Needless to say, there was no tuning indicator.
>
> When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but the basic recipie
> was essentially unchanged. Eventually, even most B&W and then color TV
sets
> were based on this kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.

Series heater connection has never taken root in Russia. Though mains was
not polarised, a power transformer was always used. (6.3V tubes were common,
12.6V - very rare). And a fuse. (Such luxury as a fuse was never found in
Aussie radios.)

[KeithR]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:39 am, keithr > wrote:
>> Bret L wrote:
>
>>> RR was also first rate, but volume
>>> production was not their thing at all.
>> The figures are, I believe:
>>
>> Rolls Royce: 82117
>> Ford (UK): 30478
>> Packard: 55523
>
> I would normally say you lost the point 86 to 82, Keith, on the
> assumption that if the fiercely protective Rolls-Royce produced less
> than half of total production of their own design, then it should be
> clear that "volume production was not their thing at all". But in
> wartime, any port in a storm, the rules change. It seems to me that if
> under such huge pressure RR still produced half of all engines made to
> that design, they had the production down pretty much pat.
>
> Andre Jute
> Plain common sense costs nothing except application

The point was that that RR produced more Merlins than anybody despite
"volume production was not their thing at all.", although it has to be
said that they produced them over a longer period than the other
manufacturers.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message


>> The rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5",
>> being first the late-1930s octal-tubed:
>>
>> 12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining
>> oscillator and mixer functions)
>> 12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
>> 12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and
>> first audio amplifier) 50L6 (beam pentode, power output)
>> 35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)
>>
>> and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:
>>
>> 12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
>> 12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
>> 12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and
>> first audio amplifier) 50C5 (beam pentode, power output)
>> 35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply

>> The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus
>> limiting B+ to about 150 volts) , and one side of the
>> chassis was randomly connected to either the hot or
>> neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
>> not polarized. The output transformer was miniscule,
>> and the 4" speaker was egregious. Needless to say, there
>> was no tuning indicator.

>> When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but
>> the basic recipie was essentially unchanged. Eventually,
>> even most B&W and then color TV sets were based on this
>> kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.

> Which meant that the vast majority of people could afford
> them.

True, there was nothing wrong with the market penetration that this
cheap-and-dirty equipment achieved.

> The "All American 5' wasn't the 'dirtiest', though. The
> NAZI era 'peoples radio' used a whopping 3 tubes,
> including rectifier.

> http://www.antiqueradio.org/VolksempfaengerVE301dyn.htm


Regrettably, no schematic. Reading between the lines, I suspect it used some
kind of regenerative circuit.

> And the even cheaper DKE 38
>
> http://www.antiqueradio.org/KleinempfaengerDKE38.htm

> with a 'reed' speaker.

> Tell me again about the 'egregious' AA5 speaker.

Yes, that reed speaker (I presume the reed replaced the spider) had to be a
real hoot (no pun intended). ;-)

The AA5 4 inch permanent magnet speaker had no highs, no lows, and it wasn't
even Bose! ;-)

Prior to the second war, field coil speakers were more common, and at least
that added a filter choke to the power supply. Of course, the poorly
filtered DC in the speaker field coil caused some hum of its own, so the
better sets of the day had a hum-bucker coil.

Avoiding speaker treble response improved the audible SNR by attenuating
whistles and cross channel-noise. Without the treble roll-off this cheap
crap would have been even harder on the ears given the sloppy bandpass of
the single IF stage.

Avoiding bass response made the hum from the el-cheapo power supply less
audible.

Some *deluxe* sets had a built-in LF second-harmonic generation circuit to
give the perception of low bass due to a well-known property of the human
ear.

Making the speaker highly efficient (at the expense of Xmax) made it loud
given the meager power output of the electronics. It also made it
nonlinear, particularly at low frequencies. Of course attenuating low
frequencies make the cheap cabinet less likely to resonate and buzz.

> The American design swapped 'more tubes' for the power transformer.

I don't see that. There would have been a rectifier tube, power transformer
or not.

There were *upgraded* versions of the AA5 that were sold in rural
communities. They either had a second IF stage or a TRF amplifier before the
mixer, or both. My rural cousins had them.

[Alex]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I don't recall ever seeing one single Russian import though.

There was a cheap Russian radio for poor folks: Moskvitch. Four valves:
6SA7-6B8M (reflex IF/AF)-6V6GT-6X5GT. I saw one solds on Oz e-bay for A$202!

But it was not popular. Those who could afford bought more decent radios.
Those who could not listened to propaganda via a wired "translation": Every
flat in every house in a big city would have an audio network (30V) and
"translation" speakers were common, comprising a volume control, an audio
stepdown transformer, and a speaker.

Long waves were used for broadcasting in Russia because of good range. One
powerful station would cover a radius of hundreds kilometers. Every village
could listen to propaganda and music.

In Kamchatka for example, one station used two neighbouring mountains to
support the LW antenna. Imagine one station covering both NSW and ACT!

Alex

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Jul 9, 5:40 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2:17 pm, Bret L > wrote:
>>>> A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about
>>>> half the manufacturing labor to build as did a
>>>> Spitfire. Arguably the Spitfire was prettier.
>>> It's worth reading Len Deighton's novel "Fighter," in
>>> which he goes into the different manufacturing costs
>>> in detail. He laments the phasing out of the Republic
>>> P47 in favor of the very much cheaper Mustang,
>>> which had a significantly worse record of killing pilots
>>> in accidents.

>> A ludicrous comparison given all of the other differences
>> that were involved.

> The comparison is valid given that the prime role for
> both designs was the long-range escort for the 8th
> Air Force daylight bombing missions to Germany.

The comparison is invalid given that the war was not static. Mr. Atkinson's
ignorance of the dynamics of war and the roles of these airplanes is
demonstrated by his claim that they were primarily long-range escort planes.



The fact is that both the P47 and the Mustang served in both ground
attack/support and escort roles. Wikipedia says:

"The P-47 was effective in air combat but proved especially adept at ground
attack. "

and:

(from the Wikipedia article about the P51 Mustang)

"Beginning in late February 1944, 8th Air Force fighter units began
systematic strafing attacks on German airfields that picked up in frequency
and intensity throughout the spring, with the objective of gaining air
supremacy over the Normandy battlefield. In general, these were conducted by
units returning from escort missions, but beginning in March, many groups
also were assigned airfield attacks instead of bomber support. On 15 April,
VIII FC began Operation Jackpot, attacks on specific Luftwaffe fighter
airfields, and on 21 May, these attacks were expanded to include railways,
locomotives, and rolling stock used by the Germans to transport materiel and
troops, in missions dubbed "Chattanooga".[37]
The fact is that the initial P-51s that were delivered were incompetent as
high altitude bomber escorts due to the limitations of their engines. They
were thus initially used in ground attack and ground support roles. Just
because the engines were upgraded didn't mean that their ground support role
went away.

The P47 was a very robust, heavy, but aerodynamically inefficient airplane.
It was the vastly increased aerodynamic competence of the P51 that made it
suitable for far more long-range missions. With long range comes greater
risk. Of course John, your analysis if it could be even called an analysis,
does not include this important factor.

Wars have this nasty tendency to "heat up". Thus there were more casualties
per sortie as the war progressed and the fighting became more desperate.
This abated for the allies after they achieved air supremacy, of course.
However by then, the war was mostly in the past.


>> Note the absence of any kind of fair comparison and
>> no relevant [sic] statistics from an independent source.

> I referred to Len Deighton's comments, in his novel
> "Fighter," which , like the companion "Bomber," includes
> a great deal of factual information. I would have thought
> that Deighton _was_ an "independent source."


As usual John, you are fact-challenged and are only reciting anecdotes from
a single, very narrow source. Your arrogant sloppiness in your day job
seems to be dominating even your reading for relaxation.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alex" > wrote in message


> Series heater connection has never taken root in Russia.
> Though mains was not polarised, a power transformer was
> always used. (6.3V tubes were common,
> 12.6V - very rare). And a fuse. (Such luxury as a fuse
> was never found in Aussie radios.)

Series connection of heaters is more technically challenging in localities
where the normal power line voltage is 220+ volts as compared to the 120
volt norm in the US.

[Arny Krueger]

"keithr" > wrote in message

> Bret L wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 11:29 pm, keithr > wrote:
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 7, 6:39 pm, Andre Jute >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Ludwig claims among other inanities that Ferrari
>>>>>> engines are copies of Packard engines. Ditto for the
>>>>>> Merlin engine; Merlin was a Rolls-Royce design...
>>>>> Yes it was, based on the Schneider Cup-winning
>>>>> engine. But RR did eventually license the Merlin to
>>>>> Packard, who manufactured the engine to power the P51
>>>>> Mustang. John Atkinson
>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>> Yes, I know all that, John. But that Rolls-Royce
>>>> licensed the engine to Packard doesn't make it a
>>>> "Packard design" as Ludwig tries to claim; it remains
>>>> forever a Rolls-Royce design. Ludwig, besides making
>>>> rather large claims of this ludicrous nature, is a
>>>> copyright thief who in the past has claimed that my
>>>> copyright material belonged to him by right of
>>>> repeated theft. He is a perfect stranger to logic. Andre Jute
>>>> Visit Andre's books at
>>>> http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

>>> The P51 was originally developed to an RAF requirement.

Right, it was a Kelly Johnson hurry-up project, concept to flying prototype
in maybe 120 days.

Ironically, North American Aviation was unable to interest the American Army
Air Force in the P51 until after it was upgraded and proven by the British.

>>> It was fitted with a Packard engine which gave so-so
>>> performance especially at high altitude.

>> No, it was an Allison.

Agreed, the initial P51 engine was an Allison which limited the airframe's
performance, particularly with regard to altitude.

> Sorry, you are correct, somehow I got Packards on the
> brain, and of course it was Allison who went on to build
> the copy Merlins

No, Allison was a division of General Motors, while Packard who copied the
Merlin was a completely independent and even competitive enterprise.
Packard competed with the the upper end of the Cadillac division of GM.
Packard were in the high end, high personal service, high performance end of
the car market.

I'm intimately familiar with the difference between the two because I know
where their factories were. My father bailed from Packard just before they
went broke in the early 50s, to work for General Motors for the rest of his
life.

AFAIK Allison never produced an engine that could compete head-to-head with
the Merlin. Allison has been part of Rolls Royce since 1995.

[Arny Krueger]

"keithr" > wrote in message


> The point was that that RR produced more Merlins than
> anybody despite "volume production was not their thing at
> all.",

I think it depends on what your standards are. By European standards, Rolls
could do mass production. By US standards, they were shall we say, limited.

> although it has to be said that they produced them
> over a longer period than the other manufacturers.

That's a very relavant point.

The first production run of Mustang engines took place in 1935.

The first run of Packard copies took place in late 1941. That gives Rolls
Royes a 6 year head start.

AFAIK, Packard's volume production of this engine stopped at the end of the
war, late 1945. They quickly returned to building high end automobiles.

I suspect that Rolls Royce did not stop producing this engine so abruptly.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "flipper" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> The rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5",
> >> being first the late-1930s octal-tubed:
> >>
> >> 12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining
> >> oscillator and mixer functions)
> >> 12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> >> 12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and
> >> first audio amplifier) 50L6 (beam pentode, power output)
> >> 35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)
> >>
> >> and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:
> >>
> >> 12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
> >> 12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> >> 12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and
> >> first audio amplifier) 50C5 (beam pentode, power output)
> >> 35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply
>
> >> The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus
> >> limiting B+ to about 150 volts) , and one side of the
> >> chassis was randomly connected to either the hot or
> >> neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
> >> not polarized. The output transformer was miniscule,
> >> and the 4" speaker was egregious. Needless to say, there
> >> was no tuning indicator.
>
> >> When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but
> >> the basic recipie was essentially unchanged. Eventually,
> >> even most B&W and then color TV sets were based on this
> >> kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.
>
> > Which meant that the vast majority of people could afford
> > them.
>
> True, there was nothing wrong with the market penetration that this
> cheap-and-dirty equipment achieved.
>
> > The "All American 5' wasn't the 'dirtiest', though. The
> > NAZI era 'peoples radio' used a whopping 3 tubes,
> > including rectifier.
>
> > http://www.antiqueradio.org/VolksempfaengerVE301dyn.htm
>
>
> Regrettably, no schematic. Reading between the lines, I suspect it used some
> kind of regenerative circuit.

Look down towards the bottom of the page, there is a schematic there.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message

> In article
> >, "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> The rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5",
>>>> being first the late-1930s octal-tubed:
>>>>
>>>> 12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining
>>>> oscillator and mixer functions)
>>>> 12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
>>>> 12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and
>>>> first audio amplifier) 50L6 (beam pentode, power
>>>> output) 35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)
>>>>
>>>> and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:
>>>>
>>>> 12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
>>>> 12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
>>>> 12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and
>>>> first audio amplifier) 50C5 (beam pentode, power
>>>> output) 35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply
>>
>>>> The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line
>>>> (thus limiting B+ to about 150 volts) , and one side
>>>> of the chassis was randomly connected to either the
>>>> hot or neutral side of the power line since the power
>>>> plug was not polarized. The output transformer was
>>>> miniscule, and the 4" speaker was egregious. Needless
>>>> to say, there was no tuning indicator.
>>
>>>> When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added,
>>>> but the basic recipie was essentially unchanged.
>>>> Eventually, even most B&W and then color TV sets were
>>>> based on this kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.
>>
>>> Which meant that the vast majority of people could
>>> afford them.
>>
>> True, there was nothing wrong with the market
>> penetration that this cheap-and-dirty equipment achieved.
>>
>>> The "All American 5' wasn't the 'dirtiest', though. The
>>> NAZI era 'peoples radio' used a whopping 3 tubes,
>>> including rectifier.
>>
>>> http://www.antiqueradio.org/VolksempfaengerVE301dyn.htm
>
>> Regrettably, no schematic. Reading between the lines, I
>> suspect it used some kind of regenerative circuit.

> Look down towards the bottom of the page, there is a
> schematic there.

Natch, a regenerative circuit.

I seriously doubt that this one met FCC Part 15...

[Bret L]

On Jul 8, 7:21*pm, wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:17*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > *A Mustang took about the same materials cost and about *half the
> > manufacturing labor to build as did a Spitfire. Arguably the Spitfire
> > was prettier.
>
> It's worth reading Len Deighton's novel "Fighter," in
> which he goes into the different manufacturing costs
> in detail. He laments the phasing out of the Republic
> P47 in favor of the very much cheaper Mustang,
> which had a significantly worse record of killing pilots
> in accidents.

There are ten times as many Mustangs flying today, although almost
twice as many Jugs were built. One reason is that the US military used
the Mustang as late as 1955, it having been extensively used in Korea,
whereas the P-47 was gotten rid of after WWII as was the P-38. The
P-47 used the desireable R-2800 which was in airline service, so the
parts were valuable, whereas Packard Merlins were new in crate for
just over scrap. But I think the big difference was just that in the
50s and early 60s a lot of people wanted Mustangs and so a lot were
saved.

The Mustang was and is a very desireable warbird and it was very
popular with USAFR and ANG pilots who flew it very late in its career
as well.(I think there were ANG outfits that managed to keep them as
late as 1955, this having been made feasible because the A model
Sabres had fatigue problems and were dispatched like cordwood after
Korea, as were all the straightwing F-84s) Foreign air forces flew it
extensively as well. My father actually worked for North American
Aviation postwar and later sold metalworking and corrosion control
products. He had some dealings with Latin air forces which operated
the Mustang.

The Thunderbolt was renowned, as were most all Republic aircraft, for
toughness and ability to take battle damage. and pilot protection. The
Mustang was well designed too but it was a smaller, lighter aircraft
and it had some peculiarities such as, the belly scoop mounted
radiators-there are three, for oil, coolant, and intercooler coolant.
It could not be ditched without flipping over, for instance.

In the late 50s and early 60s the Mustang was "civilianized" by
companies like Cavalier with spiffy paint schemes, permanent tip
tanks, extended canopies, plush cockpits and the like. Fully outfitted
such an airplane could be had for a little more than a new Beech
Bonanza, and in fact there were FBOs that rented them out as one would
a Cessna. Based on that (the crash rate wasn't freakishly high) I'd
say the P-51 wasn't all that tough to fly. The Jug wasn't either,
although there were virtually none left by even 1950: that there are
even twenty left today is because of inefficiency in the scrap-out
process.

As for efficiency as a war machine, I'd say the Jug could carry a
bigger bombload and was perhaps better for low level strafing and
bombing, but for air to air combat the Mustang was unexcelled
particularly in the ETO. The P-47 was capable of taking a lot more
battle damage and getting you hiome, but the Mustang had to be a
better tool for bagging 109s and 190s if that was what you were there
for in the first place.

[Bret L]

On Jul 9, 4:35*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Alex" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am not an expert in the tube amps, but closely observe
> > vintage Oz radios for sale on the e-bay.
> > I found that the Oz radios from 30's to early 60's are
> > extremely primitive and electrically
> > boooooooooooooooring. 6A8G-6U7G-6B8G-6V6G-5Y3 , then
> > 6AN7A-6N8-6N8-6M5-6X4 and later 6BE6-6BA6-6AV6-6AQ5-6X4
> > was pretty much the limit of imagination of Oz engineers.
> > Almost none of the Oz radios have a tuning indicator,
> > very few have an RF stage (6-th valve). Wiring is messy,
> > STC and Kriesler are the messiest ones.
> > In comparison, even Russian radios (I am a Russian) of
> > that era were more advanced. Almost all models had a 6E5G
> > magic eye, 30% of radios had 6L6GT SE output (5W), some
> > had push-pull ultralinear 2x6L6 stages. Those would have
> > a separate bass/treble tone control and a dedicated 6SJ7
> > 1-st audio stage, as well as variable IF bandwidth for
> > distant/local reception. Output transformers were on
> > average twice heavier than in Oz. Primary resistance did
> > not normally exceed 250 Ohm with 15...20H, while in Oz
> > radios 350...500 ohm and 8...10H was a norm. (What bass
> > response can be expected from those undernourished
> > trannies?) Ceramic trimcaps were used, not the wirewound
> > rubbish common in OZ radios.
>
> All of the above sounds very high tech compared to the usual USA AM radio
> receiver of those days.
>
> The *rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5", *being first the
> late-1930s octal-tubed:
>
> 12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining oscillator and mixer
> functions)
> 12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> 12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio amplifier)
> 50L6 (beam pentode, power output)
> 35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)
>
> and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:
>
> 12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
> 12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> 12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio amplifier)
> 50C5 (beam pentode, power output)
> 35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply
>
> The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus limiting B+ to
> about 150 volts) , and one side of the chassis was randomly connected to
> either the hot or neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
> not polarized. *The output transformer was miniscule, and the 4" speaker was
> egregious. Needless to say, there was no tuning indicator.
>
> When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but the basic recipie
> was essentially unchanged. Eventually, even most *B&W and then color TV sets
> were based on this kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.

Before WWII the AA5 was called a "midget radio" and better sets were
made with proper power transformers except for those specifically sold
as AC-DC-domestic DC in apartments was in many cities until the JFK/MM
era, sometimes Nixon, and in the trolley car days 25 Hz was not
unknown either. After WWII TV and hi-fi (sic) made radio a secondary
concern so pure domestic radios went to AC-DC heater strings very
extensively. Some of these sets like the Zenith K-725 are desireable
today.

It has to be said that when excellent RF parts and design were used,
the AA5 was capable of very remarkable performance. Even the vaunted
GE Superadio would not outperform many good ones.

[Bret L]

On Jul 9, 4:45*am, Patrick Turner > wrote:
> John Byrns wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
> > > Bret L wrote:
>
> > > > *This month marks, approximately, the 60th anniversary of the
> > > > Williamson amplifier *in the United States. It was first described in
> > > > Wireless World magazine in the UK in 1947, but little notice was taken
> > > > at first by the American hobbyist-or professional. However, requests
> > > > by amateurs and pros alike for a factory wound variant of the output
> > > > transformer described in the article eventually provoked the American
> > > > transformer companies to make a suitable unit, with American style
> > > > 16/8/4 ohm output taps rather than the British style of multiple
> > > > series parallel jumpers, and soon the various poopular magazines were
> > > > covering the US versions, each magazine promoting one or another
> > > > variant according to, one suspects, which transformer company
> > > > advertised the most in that magazine.
>
> > > Yeah, the american makers' response to Willy's ideas was "how do we dumb
> > > down this too-hard-to-wind tranny and make a profit?"
>
> > Looked to me like the British amp makers had pretty much the same
> > attitude.
>
> > > > *The Williamson was a revolution more in thought than in initial
> > > > results. American ' fidelity nuts' were building prewar designs
> > > > without feedback, primarily, and with triodes of low amplification
> > > > factor. Like the first F1 Lotus race car entered at Indianapolis, it
> > > > made a mediocre showing-but how it did it precipitated a technical
> > > > revolution. *The Williamson did away with coupling transformers and
> > > > was built from low cost parts, save only the output transformer. It
> > > > needed no bias supply which then meant batteries or a tube rectified
> > > > affair necessitating a protection relay.
>
> > > Protection relay?
>
> > With bias supplied by batteries or tube rectifiers as specified above a
> > protection relay is almost a necessity.
>
> I've never seen a mass made tube amp with batteries for bias. Batteries
> go flat or leak all over the place and cost more than other means of
> biasing, so no batteries were ever approved by the company bean counter.
>
>
>
> > > I never seen any mass made tube amp with a with any active protection
> > > whatsovever.

Several non-WE theater and PA amps made prewar did. They sometimes
used Mallory bias cells, other times regular big radio B batteries as
made by Burgess.

Of course, these were sold to independent movie houses, churches and
whatnot and probably never on any small, insignificant island markets,
so you wouldn't.

Just as I, living in a country where cricket is unheard of, never see
cricket bats around....I do see soccer balls because soccer is a
popular sport-for 11 year olds.

[Bret L]

>
> >The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus limiting B+ to
> >about 150 volts) , and one side of the chassis was randomly connected to
> >either the hot or neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
> >not polarized. *The output transformer was miniscule, and the 4" speaker was
> >egregious. Needless to say, there was no tuning indicator.
>
> >When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but the basic recipie
> >was essentially unchanged. Eventually, even most *B&W and then color TV sets
> >were based on this kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.
>
> Which meant that the vast majority of people could afford them.

By 1960, anyone who wanted one could afford a TV set of considerable
size (for the time). Series heater string AC-DC operation shaved cost
and meant there was no PT to fail. We always had Zeniths in my house
growing up and from the tube layouts I saw in the books which my
mother saved I think most had a power transformer.
>
> The "All American 5' wasn't the 'dirtiest', though. The NAZI era
> 'peoples radio' used a whopping 3 tubes, including rectifier.
>
> http://www.antiqueradio.org/VolksempfaengerVE301dyn.htm
>
> And the even cheaper DKE 38
>
> http://www.antiqueradio.org/KleinempfaengerDKE38.htm
>
> with a 'reed' speaker.
>
> Tell me again about the 'egregious' AA5 speaker.
>
> The American design swapped 'more tubes' for the power transformer.
>
> Of course, there was also the 'All American 6' and other designs.

The most reliable antique radio in existence is the National SW-3. It
has three tubes, but it has neither a power supply nor an audio power
stage. It was often used with a combination power supply and power
amplifier which had another three or four tubes. It is a regen set and
requires a skilled operator, but is stable enough to copy SSB on the
ham bands.

By contrast immediately prior to WWII some radio consoles grew to
colossal size with up to 35 tubes. TV killed that market and serious
radio became the domain of communications receivers and hi-fi tuners.

[Bret L]

>
> Gee, I thought Australia DID ****IN MATTER A LOT in the bygone days in a
> different world after 1939 to about now.
> The US wasn't about to let Oz go to the japs because it had very big
> business interests here. In fact the US has done well out of Oz, and it
> wouldn't like to lose it; it'd be like losing a state of the Union. But
> your'e about right about how US exporters often thought about Oz, too
> much trouble to export to and not enough sales. Now its very hard to
> find anything worth buying in the shops with a made in the USA sticker.
> Maybe its different now. I don't buy much od any damn thing from anyone,
> so what would I know?
>

Strategically Australia was important from a military standpoint, but
not from a hi-fi equipment one. They never were a significant consumer
or producer of hi-fi.That's what i was talking about.

If we are talking hi-fi, then we must look elsewhere.

As far as transformer quality, the best output transformers were not
used in mass marketed products but sold as standalone products. They
were bought by hobbyists and also by companies building bespoke
equipment for the wealthy and commercial installations.

Some commercial amps had great transformers. Fairchild and Marantz
and later Harmon Kardon, in the US, and Radford in the UK.

The Willy design from the article was not nearly as good as the top
Partridge nor the top Peerless 20-20 plus, UTC Linear Standard, or
Freed products.

The Acrosound and early Dyna transformers were quite good. By the
ST70 they had cheapened them very substantially. I have heard that
one big concern with the Dyna was shaving weight to keep post down on
the kit, as they were just under a certain break in shipping cost.

When we talk about Peerless it is important to differentiate the
20-20 Plus and 20-20 designs which were excellent from the OEM designs
which were merely good.

[Bret L]

On Jul 9, 7:15*am, "Alex" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Alex" > wrote in message
>
> > The *rule were radios composed of the "All-American 5", *being first the
> > late-1930s octal-tubed:
>
> > 12SA7 (a pentagrid converter, or heptode, combining oscillator and mixer
> > functions)
> > 12SK7 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> > 12SQ7 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio
> amplifier)
> > 50L6 (beam pentode, power output)
> > 35Z5 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply)
>
> > and then the eraly-1950s minature tube version:
>
> > 12BE6 (pentagrid converter)
> > 12BA6 (pentode, IF amplifier)
> > 12AV6 (triode and dual diode, used for detection and first audio
> amplifier)
> > 50C5 (beam pentode, power output)
> > 35W4 (half-wave rectifier for B+ supply
>
> > The B+ was half-wave rectified from the power line (thus limiting B+ to
> > about 150 volts) , and one side of the chassis was randomly connected to
> > either the hot or neutral side of the power line since the power plug was
> > not polarized. *The output transformer was miniscule, and the 4" speaker
> was
> > egregious. Needless to say, there was no tuning indicator.
>
> > When FM became popular, a few more tubes were added, but the basic recipie
> > was essentially unchanged. Eventually, even most *B&W and then color TV
> sets
> > were based on this kind of cheap-and-dirty technology.
>
> Series heater connection has never taken root in Russia. Though mains was
> not polarised, a power transformer was always used. (6.3V tubes were common,
> 12.6V - very rare). And a fuse. (Such luxury as a fuse was never found in
> Aussie radios.)

An interesting corollary is that Russian cameras always had excellent
optics but ill-fitting mechanicals.

Radios and later TVs, though never really cheap, were still
relatively subsidized because the Sovs wanted their people to have
clear access not only to propaganda but also classical music and other
art considered uplifting by Soviet doctrine.

Getting caught listening to such foreign broadcasts as you could get
was a no-no. In the time of Stalin it got you shot.

I'm sure Party membership conferred additional benefits. When my
father visited GUM there were ornate radios there, but the foreign
currency shop had Japanese ones which seemed to be in much
demand.maybe the local ones weren't all that.

[Bret L]

>
> AFAIK Allison never produced an engine that could compete head-to-head with
> the Merlin. *Allison has been part of Rolls Royce since 1995.

They very certainly did. The late F-82 Twin Mustang reverted to
Allison power because RR refused to license further Packard production
and politics demanded new US production of engines. The core Allison
engine was fully the equal of the Merlin and superior in some
respects, but it did not have the altitude capability without
turbocharging and the Mustang airframe was not, unlike the P-38,
capable of taking the turbos of the day, huge standalone affairs the
size and weight of a turbojet engine. So the last dash numbers of
Allisons had in essence a Merlin two stage two speed blower section
and they had every bit the altitude performance of any Merlin and
indeed rivalled the early Griffon.

Now you might ask, Why were we building Twin Mustangs instead of
using the P-38 which already existed, to do the same job? Well, we had
already destroyed almost all the P-38s, and Lockheed wasn't about to
build any more. Not with the F-104 on the drawing board. A P-38 with
the long known problems that design had properly fixed-by 1942 they
knew it was a great design with some fixable but flagrant flaws, like
slow and large gear doors that made a single engine takeoff impossible
except under ideal conditions-would have been a really impressive
aircraft. One could argue the same of the 104, but that's another
matter.

BTW, Allison Gas turbine was bought by RR, but the entirely separate
Allison Transmission is still GM property AFAIK-unlike Detroit Diesel
and EMD.

[Bret L]

>
> AFAIK, Packard's volume production of this engine stopped at the end of the
> war, late 1945. They quickly returned to building high end automobiles.
>
> I suspect that Rolls Royce did not stop producing this engine so abruptly.

They made Merlins as late as, I think, 1955 for the Canadian DC-4
variant and for the air forces operating Lancaster variants. There
were also the V12 Meteor and V8 Meteorite, tank and other vehicle
applications having significant commonality with the Merlin. Most of
the time when you read of a Merlin engined car or truck, it's really a
Meteor. You couldn't really drive anything but a LSR car with the
Merlin supercharger active, as any normal throttle position change as
in driving a car would blow the supercharger drive line up.

Packard's mechanical design skills were fully the equal of RR,
although their cars did not have the exalted price and status
especially after the war. Where prewar the Twin Six V-12 had been at
the apex of car engineering status, postwar they had a competent but
dull lineup of straight 8s and V8s. In my opinion they underpriced
themselves out of the business-if they had retained the V12 and stayed
above Cadillac and Lincoln they might have made it. Packard DID
design their own automatic transmission, which RR never did, and the
RR V-8 was really largely a copy of an Oldsmobile engine-like Bugattis
and Millers, certain parts interchange.