Andre Jute wrote:

The muzak mangler and fat DJ Graham Stevenson aka Poopie sent this
attempt at humour:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency

I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
the poor who have no choice but solid state.

Lovely !

I guess you don't realise that *power levels* have *NOTHING WHATEVER* to do with frequency response abberations caused by a SET's highish output impedance.

Once again you have despicably cut the context in your attempt to score
a dishonest point, or it may just be that that you are totally ignorant
of tube electronics or deficient in understanding plain English.

Yes I do cut to the point. I'm not interested in your interminable off-topic rambling. The point above was specific and related to frequency response. You
answered by means of an 'in-line' reply. It was therefore so trimmed.

I note that in your 'big fight' post you have made the same error of suggesting that power levels are somehow connected with frequency response yet again.

Worse still is thus utter cretinous **** that follows !

"There is no problem making an SE amp as flat as necessary even without NFB. You just choose sensitive speakers and then load up the impedance on the plate until
its response is flat "

Utter garbage through and through.

There is *NO* relationship between speaker sensitivity and flat frequency response whatever.

You clearly don't know the first damn thing about the reflected impedance on the primary. It's not constant you moron ! It's a factor of the load - not some
fixed value on a transformer datasheet. A speaker's *nominal impedance* is indeed *nominal*. For a single 8 ohm driver it likely varies from ~ 5 ohms to 100
ohms across the audio band.

You are a posturing know-nothing jerk-off with an overdevolped attention seeking personality. Your knowledge of electronics is shockingly abysmal. No wonder you
come to bizarre conclusions.


Graham

The shinbone is attached to the kneebone and the kneebone is attached
to the ... If you choose sensitive speakers, then you don't need to hog
the tube out to maximum power, then you can operate it over a short
more linear transfer curve, then it is flatter than the tube you needed
to load with half the impedance to get twice the power to drive the
less sensitive speaker. The difficulties with the
tube-transformer-speaker interface is the same in both cases, except
one amp is intrinsically flatter before the speaker replaces the test
load. That is a connection between power and flatness. It is very
simple, Poopie, but if you resist the simplicity of genius out of a
desire to look like an expert, what can I do with such a fool? Is this
short enough for your attention span?

Andre Jute
Pooperscooper

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

The muzak mangler and fat DJ Graham Stevenson aka Poopie sent this
attempt at humour:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency

I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
the poor who have no choice but solid state.

Lovely !

I guess you don't realise that *power levels* have *NOTHING WHATEVER* to do with frequency response abberations caused by a SET's highish output impedance.

Once again you have despicably cut the context in your attempt to score
a dishonest point, or it may just be that that you are totally ignorant
of tube electronics or deficient in understanding plain English.

Yes I do cut to the point. I'm not interested in your interminable off-topic rambling. The point above was specific and related to frequency response. You
answered by means of an 'in-line' reply. It was therefore so trimmed.

I note that in your 'big fight' post you have made the same error of suggesting that power levels are somehow connected with frequency response yet again.

Worse still is thus utter cretinous **** that follows !

"There is no problem making an SE amp as flat as necessary even without NFB. You just choose sensitive speakers and then load up the impedance on the plate until
its response is flat "

Utter garbage through and through.

There is *NO* relationship between speaker sensitivity and flat frequency response whatever.

You clearly don't know the first damn thing about the reflected impedance on the primary. It's not constant you moron ! It's a factor of the load - not some
fixed value on a transformer datasheet. A speaker's *nominal impedance* is indeed *nominal*. For a single 8 ohm driver it likely varies from ~ 5 ohms to 100
ohms across the audio band.

You are a posturing know-nothing jerk-off with an overdevolped attention seeking personality. Your knowledge of electronics is shockingly abysmal. No wonder you
come to bizarre conclusions.


Graham

Andre Jute wrote:

The shinbone is attached to the kneebone and the kneebone is attached
to the ... If you choose sensitive speakers, then you don't need to hog
the tube out to maximum power, then you can operate it over a short
more linear transfer curve, then it is flatter than the tube you needed
to load with half the impedance to get twice the power to drive the
less sensitive speaker.

Oh - you're talking about the *transfer characteristic* ! Yes I know all that. Trade off between max power and what I prefer to call *linearity* as just about any
design engineer does. The term *flatness* is invariably used to refer to frequency response.

So why did you reply in this vein when Arny was talking about a flat *frequency response* ?

They are 2 different things you know !

The difficulties with the
tube-transformer-speaker interface is the same in both cases, except
one amp is intrinsically flatter before the speaker replaces the test
load. That is a connection between power and flatness. It is very
simple, Poopie, but if you resist the simplicity of genius out of a
desire to look like an expert, what can I do with such a fool? Is this
short enough for your attention span?

Why not address yourself to the issue of *frequency response* that both Arny and I ( and Trevor Wilson in another post ) have been badgering you about ?

I know that the transfer characteristic isn't' flat' or more accurately to say *linear*. The non-linearity ( where it's not 'flat' by your terminology ) is what leads
to distortion.

So. How about it ? How about frequency response ? Too tricky for you. Not keen on complex numbers and their modulus ?

Graham

What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
artificial misunderstandings to increase his own exposure where he is
not wanted, flings abuse on the base of those fake misunderstandings,
then does not apologize when his stupidity is exposed.

Unsigned out of contempt

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

The shinbone is attached to the kneebone and the kneebone is attached
to the ... If you choose sensitive speakers, then you don't need to hog
the tube out to maximum power, then you can operate it over a short
more linear transfer curve, then it is flatter than the tube you needed
to load with half the impedance to get twice the power to drive the
less sensitive speaker.

Oh - you're talking about the *transfer characteristic* ! Yes I know all that. Trade off between max power and what I prefer to call *linearity* as just about any
design engineer does. The term *flatness* is invariably used to refer to frequency response.

So why did you reply in this vein when Arny was talking about a flat *frequency response* ?

They are 2 different things you know !

The difficulties with the
tube-transformer-speaker interface is the same in both cases, except
one amp is intrinsically flatter before the speaker replaces the test
load. That is a connection between power and flatness. It is very
simple, Poopie, but if you resist the simplicity of genius out of a
desire to look like an expert, what can I do with such a fool? Is this
short enough for your attention span?

Why not address yourself to the issue of *frequency response* that both Arny and I ( and Trevor Wilson in another post ) have been badgering you about ?

I know that the transfer characteristic isn't' flat' or more accurately to say *linear*. The non-linearity ( where it's not 'flat' by your terminology ) is what leads
to distortion.

So. How about it ? How about frequency response ? Too tricky for you. Not keen on complex numbers and their modulus ?

Graham

Andre Jute wrote:

What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
artificial misunderstandings

Maybe if you learnt how to use the *right words* to describe things there would be no misunderstanding. Oh - but of course you're technically challenged and never
previously had to use the right words to describe those things you barely understand - have you ?

You charlatan, impostor and buffoon-like idiot wordsmith.

'Flatness' is a stupid word to describe the transfer characterisitc. It's *not* flat. It's a slope. That's why we talk about slope impedance / resistance. Well... real
electronic designers do anyway.

Graham

Graham Poopie Stevenson, a fat DJ, wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
artificial misunderstandings

Maybe if you learnt how to use the *right words* to describe things there would be no misunderstanding.

No, no, no, Poopie. I'm the professional writer here, including of
technical books, including within the technical books some on
engineering. The convention is that when *you* misuse a word, you're an
idiot but when a "good writer" (that's a formal definition, check the
preface to the Complete Oxford) like me misuses a word, I thereby gives
the word a new meaning; furthermore, when *you* invent a new word,
you're too slack or illiterate to use a thesaurus but when a good
writer like me invents a new word it is an artistic act and the
dictionaries put it first in their supplements and then in their main
sections after a decent interval for the mouthfoamers to abuse me as a
neologist. Here's one I invented to immortalize a helpful lady at
several publishers and my London literary representatives: "alindavan
-- an artist's friend at court". Full lists on request,

Oh - but of course you're technically challenged and never
previously had to use the right words to describe those things you barely understand - have you ?

Gee, Poopie, all you had to do was ask and I woulda dumbed down the
language to jumped-up poly "engineer"-speak just for you. But then the
other guys woulda kicked me to death for the insult of addressing them
in pidgin just so you can understand. Can't win 'em all.

Chris Hornbeck has already explained to you that, far from barely
understanding, I included all the parameters necessary under the
conditions pertaining to the thread in which my text appeared and
considered them properly. Here is his letter again:

****
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:01:39 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

"There is no problem making an SE amp as flat as necessary even without NFB. You just choose sensitive speakers and then load up the impedance on the plate until
its response is flat "

Utter garbage through and through.

There is *NO* relationship between speaker sensitivity and flat frequency response whatever.
Chris Hornbeck replies:
Andre's point goes to the dominant mechanism of frequency
response limitation in valve amplifiers, the interaction
of valve source impedance and load impedance at the valves'
plates. Some parasitic reactances matter here, but all
are thought of as a single design issue among folks who
do it regularly.

Distortion, frequency response and speaker damping are all
traded off against ultimate power output and "efficiency".

You doubtless know all this stuff when spelled out, but
haven't been around here to know the conventions of r.a.t
language. It's *not* without precedent...

And definitely not "garbage". Totally un-called for.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

****

You charlatan, impostor and buffoon-like idiot wordsmith.

Miaooooo-ooo-oo-o-w....

How can I be charlatan when Chris has just demonstrated that I know
what I am talking about? The rest of your abuse isn't precise enough
for me to extract a singular meaning (ask a literate friend to explain
the technical term to you).

'Flatness' is a stupid word to describe the transfer characterisitc. It's *not* flat. It's a slope.

A slope is only a flat horizontal line turned to an angle. Either can
have frequencies dancing along its length, which what we're really
discussing. Open your mind, Poopie, listen to the music of my words.
Don't resist now, open your mind, let the knowledge flow.

That's why we talk about slope impedance / resistance. Well... real
electronic designers do anyway.

Sure we do, Poopie. But we do it behind your back so as not to
encourage a useless, unimaginative and ignorant gatecrasher.

Graham

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

On 19 Dec 2005 06:23:23 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Graham Poopie Stevenson, a fat DJ, wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
artificial misunderstandings

Maybe if you learnt how to use the *right words* to describe things there would be no misunderstanding.

No, no, no, Poopie. I'm the professional writer here, including of
technical books, including within the technical books some on
engineering. The convention is that when *you* misuse a word, you're an
idiot but when a "good writer" (that's a formal definition, check the
preface to the Complete Oxford) like me misuses a word, I thereby gives
the word a new meaning;

There really is no end to your arrogance and self-deceit, is there?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 19 Dec 2005 02:10:57 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
artificial misunderstandings to increase his own exposure where he is
not wanted, flings abuse on the base of those fake misunderstandings,
then does not apologize when his stupidity is exposed.

Another perfect example of projection from RAT's resident sociopath.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering