"SET dogma maximizes distortion" -- Arnie Krueger Lie No 51291

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

"A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

Andre Jute

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute wrote :


> "A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
> alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

LOL !!!
Sorry I laugh but that's true...
Even for the guy who wrote :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>
> Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
with *more* distortion ?

Enquiring minds need to know.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >
> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>
> Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
> with *more* distortion ?
>
> Enquiring minds need to know.
>
> Graham

You want *me* to make your case, Poopster? No, no, no, that's not how
debate works all all. Krueger makes the claim, then it is up to Krueger
and his busy little elves like you to prove it when it is challenged.

Andre Jute

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>
> Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

**Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
page/section numbers, let me know.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Bret Ludwig]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >
> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?

In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion, but in
practice it's unsuccessful because the cure is far worse than the
disease.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > > the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>> >
>> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>>
>> Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
>> with *more* distortion ?
>>
>> Enquiring minds need to know.
>>
>> Graham
>
> You want *me* to make your case, Poopster?

Obviously Jute you know nothing about how arguments work. Your silence makes
Graham's case. Your immediate obfuscation made Graham's case. By not
providing an immediate cogent answer, you made Graham's case.

In short Jute: Y-O-U L-O-S-E!

Thanks for playing.

Can the next contestant come up to play?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>> >
>> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>
> In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,

Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean make
one up!

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >> >
> >> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
> >
> > In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,
>
> Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean make
> one up!

SET advocates believe all phase splitters are imperfect and so
eliminating them eliminates asymetric drive issues, also that push-pull
transformer cores are magnetized and unmagnetized on each cycle.
However, even if that's so the core magnetization is ten times worse,
making sufficient primary inductance impossible for good LF response if
HF response is not to be killed off.

It should be noted out of fairness in the case of a deliberately
restricted bandpass amplifier, perhaps one for a treble driver, single
ended can provide better results than at first it would appear. The
Audio Anthology provides the example of a treble SET for a horn driver
that provides 4 watts, and by limiting power protects the driver since
it will handle at least three times that in square wave power at 50%,
symmetrical duty cycle.

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> > >
> > > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
> >
> > Can you think of another topology (other than one using class C maybe )
> > with *more* distortion ?
> >
> > Enquiring minds need to know.
> >
> > Graham
>
> You want *me* to make your case, Poopster?

Actually I asked for a comment on distortion levels vs amplifier topologies.

It's not a 'case' at all. It's about comparing things.

> No, no, no, that's not how debate works all all.

Yes it is actually. Maybe you didn't get it ?

> Krueger makes the claim, then it is up to Krueger
> and his busy little elves like you to prove it when it is challenged.

A.K. made no claim as far as I can see in this thread.

In fact it was you who started it as a supposed denial of A.K's comment in an
entirely different thread.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Your immediate obfuscation made Graham's case

I *love* that word.

To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A
great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore

for the uninitiated............


It *so hits the spot* ! It sums up Jootie Boy's tactics to a Tee perfectly.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >
> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>
> **Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
> Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
> page/section numbers, let me know.

Thank goodness for real design engineers !

I wonder who actually 'ghost writes' the techy bits on Joot's site ?
Clearly Andrew isn't up to the task. Making quasi-technical verbiage is his
style as opposed to anything of substance.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

Poopie Bear has been perving Andre Jute's netsite again:

> I wonder who actually 'ghost writes' the techy bits on Joot's site ?

Poor old Poop can't find anything to criticize, so he issues an empty
smear.

> Clearly Andrew isn't up to the task. Making quasi-technical verbiage is his
> style as opposed to anything of substance.

Except that on my netsite, as he just told us, this hypocrite found
"technical bits" incontestably so competent that he thinks I must have
hired an engineer to ghost them for me.

What a spiteful, vacuous little man you are--

> Graham

--without a surname.

Every word on my netsite Jute on Amps not specifically identified as
written by a guest was written by me, including the technical articles.

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

Enjoy.

Andre Jute

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 16 Dec 2005 19:37:58 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>> >
>> > In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,
>>
>> Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean make
>> one up!
>
> SET advocates believe all phase splitters are imperfect and so
>eliminating them eliminates asymetric drive issues, also that push-pull
>transformer cores are magnetized and unmagnetized on each cycle.
>However, even if that's so the core magnetization is ten times worse,
>making sufficient primary inductance impossible for good LF response if
>HF response is not to be killed off.
>
> It should be noted out of fairness in the case of a deliberately
>restricted bandpass amplifier, perhaps one for a treble driver, single
>ended can provide better results than at first it would appear. The
>Audio Anthology provides the example of a treble SET for a horn driver
>that provides 4 watts, and by limiting power protects the driver since
>it will handle at least three times that in square wave power at 50%,
>symmetrical duty cycle.

Of course, the above problems don't occur in a *solid state* SE amp
such as the Nelson Pass Zen or my own KISASS - but that's not a
recommendation for either in any absolute sense. You see, the fact
that SET lovers *believe* that there's something mysteriously 'wrong'
with phase splitters doesn't make it so.

1) It's certainly possible to make a push-pull amplifier with complete
symmetry, tubed or SS.

2) SET amps are *extremely* assymetric by nature, so that argument
kinda falls on its face at the first hurdle.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Andre Jute]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >
> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>
> **Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
> Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
> page/section numbers, let me know.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Andre Jute
If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs --
Rudyard Kipling

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>> >
>> > In theory SET dogma reduces a certain type of distortion,
>>
>> Name that distortion. BTW, in case there's any confusion, I don't mean
>> make
>> one up!
>
> SET advocates believe all phase splitters are imperfect and so
> eliminating them eliminates asymetric drive issues,

Asymmetric drive - small problem
Asymmetric output stage - large problem

Typical toob bigot logic - exchange a small problem for a large problem!

> also that push-pull
> transformer cores are magnetized and unmagnetized on each cycle.

Only a problem to people who don't believe in soft magnetic materials.

> However, even if that's so the core magnetization is ten times worse,
> making sufficient primary inductance impossible for good LF response if
> HF response is not to be killed off.

Typical toob bigot logic - exchange a small problem for a large problem!

> It should be noted out of fairness in the case of a deliberately
> restricted bandpass amplifier, perhaps one for a treble driver, single
> ended can provide better results than at first it would appear.

IOW, instead of being an utter unmitigated disaster, its merely a disaster?

> The Audio Anthology provides the example of a treble SET for a horn
> driver
> that provides 4 watts, and by limiting power protects the driver since
> it will handle at least three times that in square wave power at 50%,
> symmetrical duty cycle.

Sounds like a good job for a $1.00 (or less) IC.

[Andre Jute]

Now that Krueger and his gang of thugs have worn each other out with
mutual masturbation about how they've won this argument before it
started, I have made a fresh thread actually to start the debate. To
anyone who made a contribution here in perfect goodwill, I can only
say, all is not what it seems. See the thread "PART TWO "SET dogma
maximizes distortion" -- Arnie Krueger Lie No 51291" for an
explanation.

Andre Jute
Cool, calm and very, very collected

Andre Jute wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>
> Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>
> "A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
> alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore
>
> Andre Jute

[paul packer]

On 17 Dec 2005 01:01:38 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:


>Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
>perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

Eh? Phil decent? Andre, where have you been?

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>> >
>> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
>>
>> **Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
>> Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
>> page/section numbers, let me know.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
> Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
> like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
> Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.

**Then I suggest you read the following sections, VERY CAREFULLY:

Section 13.1
Section 13.2
Section 13.4 (Not entirely necessary for this discussion)
Section 13.5 (note the following words on page 574: "Push-pull operation
tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the grid bias or plate
supply voltage.")
Section 13.6 (Not strictly for discussion, because they speak of non-Triode
amplifiers)


> Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim

**I am responding to what YOU wrote. If Mr Krueger wrote something
different, then you'll need to post a clarification.

> carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
> numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
> not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
> fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
> trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.

**I have enjoyed some robust argeuments with Mr Ludwig. Some of his ideas
are completely nutty. On the issue of SE(T) amplifiers, however, we are in
agreement.

> Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
> perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.

**I am quite happy to discuss the merits of various amplifier technologies.
Patrick, for instance, steadfastly refuses to address the following points I
made about SE(T) amplifiers:

---
* ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.

* ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.

* SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.

* SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of hum and noise than PP amps.

* SE amps have a lower damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.

---


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Andre Jute]

Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this in a thread already
so contaminated with Krueger's deceit. I have lifted your post and
started an entirely new thread "SET v. PP, the big fight tonight". See
you all there. -- Andre Jute

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >> >
> >> > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ****?
> >>
> >> **Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
> >> Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
> >> page/section numbers, let me know.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Trevor Wilson
> >> www.rageaudio.com.au
> >
> > Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
> > like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
> > Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
>
> **Then I suggest you read the following sections, VERY CAREFULLY:
>
> Section 13.1
> Section 13.2
> Section 13.4 (Not entirely necessary for this discussion)
> Section 13.5 (note the following words on page 574: "Push-pull operation
> tends always to reduce the effects of hum in either the grid bias or plate
> supply voltage.")
> Section 13.6 (Not strictly for discussion, because they speak of non-Triode
> amplifiers)
>
>
> > Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
>
> **I am responding to what YOU wrote. If Mr Krueger wrote something
> different, then you'll need to post a clarification.
>
> > carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
> > numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
> > not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
> > fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
> > trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
>
> **I have enjoyed some robust argeuments with Mr Ludwig. Some of his ideas
> are completely nutty. On the issue of SE(T) amplifiers, however, we are in
> agreement.
>
> > Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
> > perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.
>
> **I am quite happy to discuss the merits of various amplifier technologies.
> Patrick, for instance, steadfastly refuses to address the following points I
> made about SE(T) amplifiers:
>
> ---
> * ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
> automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
> approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
> supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.
>
> * ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
> near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
> Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
> be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.
>
> * SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.
>
> * SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of hum and noise than PP amps.
>
> * SE amps have a lower damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
> to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.
>
> ---
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this

**Of course you don't. You take the Patrick Turner approach to discussions
about SE(T) amplifiers.

IE: Don't discuss the obvious problems.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Andre Jute]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this
>
> **Of course you don't. You take the Patrick Turner approach to discussions
> about SE(T) amplifiers.
>
> IE: Don't discuss the obvious problems.
>

You clearly didn't finish reading my message before you started foaming
at the mouth. Try reading to the end this time before you soil your
trousers:

Thanks, Trevor. I have no taste for discussing this in a thread already

so contaminated with Krueger's deceit. I have lifted your post and
started an entirely new thread "SET v. PP, the big fight tonight". See
you all there. -- Andre Jute

I have long since posted my responses and am waiting for you to discuss
them courteously. If you shoot from the hip like this, you will get no
further with me than you did with Patrick, who is hugely more tolerant
of blustering fools than I am.