| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ROTFLOL!
Courtesy of Eric Barbour, the 6L6.
"If you ever fnd yourself being harassed by a techie who insists upon criticizing you for your interest in vacuum tubes, there is an easy answer. He can be silenced with a simple question. Ask him if any early type integrated circuits will still be manufactured and used in new products in, say, the year 2030. If he's honest, the answer will be "no". Then tell him that the frst-ever beam power tube is still selling in the millions today, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete.....after 60 years. That should get rid of him. " -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Courtesy of Eric Barbour, the 6L6. "If you ever fnd yourself being harassed by a techie who insists upon criticizing you for your interest in vacuum tubes, there is an easy answer. He can be silenced with a simple question. Ask him if any early type integrated circuits will still be manufactured and used in new products in, say, the year 2030. If he's honest, the answer will be "no". Then tell him that the frst-ever beam power tube is still selling in the millions today, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete.....after 60 years. That should get rid of him. " -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." The truth usually prevails, despite the efforts of agenda-driven bigots to hide it. And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Bruce J. Richman |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
Courtesy of Eric Barbour, the 6L6. "If you ever fnd yourself being harassed by a techie who insists upon criticizing you for your interest in vacuum tubes, there is an easy answer. He can be silenced with a simple question. Ask him if any early type integrated circuits will still be manufactured and used in new products in, say, the year 2030. If he's honest, the answer will be "no". Then tell him that the frst-ever beam power tube is still selling in the millions today, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete.....after 60 years. That should get rid of him. " Look in the driveway, and note the make and model of your car. What guarantee do you have that you will be able to get origiional manfacturer parts for it in 2030? Look in your hand and note make and model of your cell phone. What guarantee do you have that you will be able to get origiional manfacturer parts for it in 2030? Look in your house and note make and model of your television and PC. What guarantee do you have that you will be able to get origiional manfacturer parts for them in 2030? Obviously, you need to run right out and trade any of the above items that fail this test for the vacuum tube equivalents. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:05:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Sander deWaal" wrote in message Courtesy of Eric Barbour, the 6L6. "If you ever fnd yourself being harassed by a techie who insists upon criticizing you for your interest in vacuum tubes, there is an easy answer. He can be silenced with a simple question. Ask him if any early type integrated circuits will still be manufactured and used in new products in, say, the year 2030. If he's honest, the answer will be "no". Then tell him that the frst-ever beam power tube is still selling in the millions today, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete.....after 60 years. That should get rid of him. " Look in the driveway, and note the make and model of your car. What guarantee do you have that you will be able to get origiional manfacturer parts for it in 2030? Look in your hand and note make and model of your cell phone. What guarantee do you have that you will be able to get origiional manfacturer parts for it in 2030? Look in your house and note make and model of your television and PC. What guarantee do you have that you will be able to get origiional manfacturer parts for them in 2030? Obviously, you need to run right out and trade any of the above items that fail this test for the vacuum tube equivalents. I love it when cut 'n paste goes bad... |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in
: Sander deWaal wrote: And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Bruce J. Richman http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/sto...H/Sep2203a.htm "... the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, [was] pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003. In all scores from the audience whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius." r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Rich.Andrews" wrote: (Bruce J. Richman) wrote in : Sander deWaal wrote: And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Bruce J. Richman http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/sto...H/Sep2203a.htm "... the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, [was] pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003. In all scores from the audience whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius." Ah, Nagyvary. Isn't he the A&M prof who researched those ancient violins in order to recreate their construction methods? The "improvement" in this ccontext would be to turn away from "modern technology"! Stephen |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich Andrews wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote: And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Bruce J. Richman http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/sto...H/Sep2203a.htm "... the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, [was] pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003. In all scores from the audience whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius." r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. The above quotation, devoid of any mention of experimental controls to prevent listener bias, does not prove anything. At most, it says that one audience sample, of nonspecified sample size, with no description of any experimental controls or scientic methodology, yielded a set of results favorable to "data dredgers", perhaps who like to trash older technology. I seriously doubt that Itzhak Perlman and other professional violin virtuosos will abandon their instruments for the "one experiment under questional controls" result of a modern violin. Also an audience that considers themselves "trained musicians" is a very vague description of dubious meaning. More precisely, for example, I was trained to play clarinet and also tenor saxophone when I was a youngster by a member of the Boston Pops Orchestra woodwind section (my family had connections to the Boston Symphony Orchestra). I was "trained" well enough to be able to make some money playing in dance bands when I was in college. So, one could say, I was a "trained musician". But, I was certainly no Pete Fountain, Benny Goodman, Eddie Daniels, etc. And even as a young trained musician, I could certainly tell the difference sonically between my teacher's "older" Paris-edition Selmer B-flat clarinet or his Buffet clarinet, and the more "modern", but much less refined (or expensive) clarinet that I played. There are reasons that, across product categories, even on eBay and other web sites, "newer is not always better" or more highly valued. And people don't spend extra money just for nostalgia or snob appeal. BTW, Rich, did the account you cited mention whether the test in question was double-blind ? If not, there are many who would dismiss it out of hand on those grounds alone, as you know  .Bruce J. Richman |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stephen wrote:
In article , "Rich.Andrews" wrote: (Bruce J. Richman) wrote in : Sander deWaal wrote: And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Bruce J. Richman http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/sto...H/Sep2203a.htm "... the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, [was] pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003. In all scores from the audience whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius." Ah, Nagyvary. Isn't he the A&M prof who researched those ancient violins in order to recreate their construction methods? The "improvement" in this ccontext would be to turn away from "modern technology"! Stephen I'm sure that over several centuries, various scientists have tried to replicate the wood, aging, construction, and/or other variables that go towards producing the unique Stradivarius sound. If it were that easy to produce clones, I seriously doubt that Stradavarius and other prized string instruments would continue to be prized for their unique qualities. Besides, did you say the professor was an Aggie? Being a UT graduate, I can't help more than one guffaw. (Resisting the temptation to tell Aggie jokes). Bruce J. Richman |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: Courtesy of Eric Barbour, the 6L6. "If you ever fnd yourself being harassed by a techie who insists upon criticizing you for your interest in vacuum tubes, there is an easy answer. He can be silenced with a simple question. Ask him if any early type integrated circuits will still be manufactured and used in new products in, say, the year 2030. If he's honest, the answer will be "no". Then tell him that the frst-ever beam power tube is still selling in the millions today, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete.....after 60 years. That should get rid of him. " Well.. the 741 op-amp still seems to be going after 30+ yrs. 2N3055 etc. There's a difference however. The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue maufacturing. I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. Graham. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote: Courtesy of Eric Barbour, the 6L6. "If you ever fnd yourself being harassed by a techie who insists upon criticizing you for your interest in vacuum tubes, there is an easy answer. He can be silenced with a simple question. Ask him if any early type integrated circuits will still be manufactured and used in new products in, say, the year 2030. If he's honest, the answer will be "no". Then tell him that the frst-ever beam power tube is still selling in the millions today, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete.....after 60 years. That should get rid of him. " Well.. the 741 op-amp still seems to be going after 30+ yrs. 2N3055 etc. There's a difference however. The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve but yet, audiophiles continue to appreciate and embrace these tubes by buying millions of them today. Is this difference you speak of above then reason enough not to silence techies from continuously harassing ppl who cherish vacuum tubes? Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue manufacturing. You got your self encase in clouds way up there in the ozone layer seemingly carried away with the word "improve". If SS/semiconductor are so improve, won't you come down and tell why ppl cuddle the tubes buying millions after 60 yrs. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. But thats according to you with your favorite "improve" partially paired with "old" products. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? Graham. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote: The truth usually prevails, despite the efforts of agenda-driven bigots to hide it. And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Improve, no, but equal it - theyu're amazingly close now, thanks to computers and advanced coatings. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote: Ah, Nagyvary. Isn't he the A&M prof who researched those ancient violins in order to recreate their construction methods? The "improvement" in this ccontext would be to turn away from "modern technology"! He did. See, Violins are pretty well understood and easy to make in a proper shop. What's not easy is the curing and shellac/coatings on the finish - it's what gives the violin the unique sound it has. Age also helps, some. New wood isn't as good as old. The problem is that the great master Stratavarius never passed on his secret formula for his coating/finish. So, Nagyvary spent years researching and re-creating a simmilar solution using materials that he could obtain today. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joseph Oberlander" a ιcrit dans le message
news: ... Bruce J. Richman wrote: The truth usually prevails, despite the efforts of agenda-driven bigots to hide it. You don't understand Joe, the most important in Richman' message is above. The rest doesn't really care. And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Improve, no, but equal it - theyu're amazingly close now, thanks to computers and advanced coatings. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... I was "trained" well enough to be able to make some money playing in dance bands when I was in college. So, one could say, I was a "trained musician". But, I was certainly no Pete Fountain, Benny Goodman, Eddie Daniels, etc. And even as a young trained musician, I could certainly tell the difference sonically between my teacher's "older" Paris-edition Selmer B-flat clarinet or his Buffet clarinet, and the more "modern", but much less refined (or expensive) clarinet that I played. I still have my 1958 Buffet Crampon, Evette Schaffer Bb. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. It's still around in its original form because it doesn't require any improvement. Also, that somethjing is incapable of being improved may be because it has reached its state of perfection. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message
om Pooh Bear wrote: The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. Agreed. You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve but yet, audiophiles continue to appreciate and embrace these tubes by buying millions of them today. Turntablists whose interests are making music far less so than reproducing music, have created a short-term bulge in the sales of turntables. Similarly, guitarists whose interests are making clearly music and not reproducing music, have created a long-term but declining market share for tubed MI equipment. Therefore, while we know that tubes are widely sold as specialty items primarily for rock musicans, we know far less about the sales of tubes to audiophiles. In the Detroit area there are any number of music stores selling tubed guitar amps. AFAIK there is only one small hole-in-the-wall audio store that sells tubed equipment. It does not exclusively sell tubed equipment and I don't know what proportion of its miniscule sales are tubed equipment. Is this difference you speak of above then reason enough not to silence techies from continuously harassing ppl who cherish vacuum tubes? Ironically, it seems to be the people who cherish tubes who are the major harassers around here. For example, we a certain Dr Richman, arguably currently the largest source of vile, harassing, off-topic posts on RAO, who is a tube advocate. Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue manufacturing. Exactly. It would be interesting to see an objective comparison of the 6L6 tube to one of the more modern tube designs such as the 6C33. If the 6C33 is a better device, then why hasn't it driven the 6L6 off the market like improved semiconductor designs have driven legacy semiconductors off the market? Does this mean that the tube market is not about improved performance? You got your self encase in clouds way up there in the ozone layer seemingly carried away with the word "improve". If SS/semiconductor are so improve, won't you come down and tell why ppl cuddle the tubes buying millions after 60 yrs. Same reason people cuddle an old tobacco pipe or an old walking-stick. Sentimentality. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? In terms of amplifiers for high fidelity reproduction there have been no sound quality improvements in them since the latter days of tubes. All that has happened since the best tubed amps became sonically transparent is that amplifiers in general have gotten more reliable, common, smaller, cheaper, efficient, adaptable, etc. I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. But thats according to you with your favorite "improve" partially paired with "old" products. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? (1) Sales to a different market than high fidelity audio (2) Sentimentality |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rich.Andrews" said:
"... the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, [was] pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003. In all scores from the audience whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius." I've heard it whispered that those violins were treated with snake-oil. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue maufacturing. 2SK135/ 2SJ50 for instance? :-) I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. Like the above MOSFETs, for instance. Confucius say: "What's good, is good". -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote: Stephen wrote: In article , "Rich.Andrews" wrote: (Bruce J. Richman) wrote in : Sander deWaal wrote: And virtuoso violinists who can afford them (e.g. Itzhak Perlman) still play violins that were created centuries ago by skilled artisans. Isn't it amazing that all the "modern technology" has not been able to "improve" the product:? LOL !!!! Bruce J. Richman http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/sto...H/Sep2203a.htm "... the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, [was] pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003. In all scores from the audience whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius." Ah, Nagyvary. Isn't he the A&M prof who researched those ancient violins in order to recreate their construction methods? The "improvement" in this ccontext would be to turn away from "modern technology"! I'm sure that over several centuries, various scientists have tried to replicate the wood, aging, construction, and/or other variables that go towards producing the unique Stradivarius sound. If it were that easy to produce clones, I seriously doubt that Stradavarius and other prized string instruments would continue to be prized for their unique qualities. Besides, did you say the professor was an Aggie? Being a UT graduate, I can't help more than one guffaw. (Resisting the temptation to tell Aggie jokes). Yes, that's my recollection! I can see more than one side to the violin making "problem" in that there are still luthiers making high-quality instruments comparable to the old Italians. Compare that to the piano situation, with commodity instruments on the low end, and variations on the Steinway on the high end, when the old instruments were, of necessity, one of a kind and hand-crafted. Stephen PS "I can fix that!" |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger lies, as usual:
"JBorg" wrote in message . com Pooh Bear wrote: The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. Agreed. You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve but yet, audiophiles continue to appreciate and embrace these tubes by buying millions of them today. Turntablists whose interests are making music far less so than reproducing music, have created a short-term bulge in the sales of turntables. Similarly, guitarists whose interests are making clearly music and not reproducing music, have created a long-term but declining market share for tubed MI equipment. Therefore, while we know that tubes are widely sold as specialty items primarily for rock musicans, we know far less about the sales of tubes to audiophiles. In the Detroit area there are any number of music stores selling tubed guitar amps. AFAIK there is only one small hole-in-the-wall audio store that sells tubed equipment. It does not exclusively sell tubed equipment and I don't know what proportion of its miniscule sales are tubed equipment. Is this difference you speak of above then reason enough not to silence techies from continuously harassing ppl who cherish vacuum tubes? Ironically, it seems to be the people who cherish tubes who are the major harassers around here. For example, we a certain Dr Richman, arguably currently the largest source of vile, harassing, off-topic posts on RAO, who is a tube advocate. The above claims, by pathological liar Krueger, are indicative of his delusional state of mind. The Google record clearly indicates that Krueger is RAO's most widely despised and scorned poster because of his chronic, unprovoked smear campaigns against others. The above blatant set of lies, is just one example of his 7 year history of libel, pathological lying, and smear campaigns directed against many RAO posters. Readers are all encouraged to read the classic RAO thread entitled, "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience", in which Krueger's numerous failures to engage in normal behavior with others is detailed. Notice the number of targeted individuals that he has harassed, insulted, and lied about in his lengthy history of unprovoked personal attacks against others on RAO. Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue manufacturing. Exactly. It would be interesting to see an objective comparison of the 6L6 tube to one of the more modern tube designs such as the 6C33. If the 6C33 is a better device, then why hasn't it driven the 6L6 off the market like improved semiconductor designs have driven legacy semiconductors off the market? Does this mean that the tube market is not about improved performance? You got your self encase in clouds way up there in the ozone layer seemingly carried away with the word "improve". If SS/semiconductor are so improve, won't you come down and tell why ppl cuddle the tubes buying millions after 60 yrs. Same reason people cuddle an old tobacco pipe or an old walking-stick. Sentimentality. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? In terms of amplifiers for high fidelity reproduction there have been no sound quality improvements in them since the latter days of tubes. All that has happened since the best tubed amps became sonically transparent is that amplifiers in general have gotten more reliable, common, smaller, cheaper, efficient, adaptable, etc. I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. But thats according to you with your favorite "improve" partially paired with "old" products. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? (1) Sales to a different market than high fidelity audio (2) Sentimentality The above anti-tube propaganda which Krueger has been spewing for many years is just another vehicle by which he manages to insult people while attempting to disguise it as being "on-topic". Nobody with any sense falls for his old, tired act. He does not have the ability to disagree with the preferenes of others without engaging in ad hominem attacks against them. This is very well known to all of us that have been smeared by this pathological liar. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Wheeler wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 8/27/2004 4:19 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message .com Pooh Bear wrote: The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. Agreed. You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve but yet, audiophiles continue to appreciate and embrace these tubes by buying millions of them today. Turntablists whose interests are making music far less so than reproducing music, have created a short-term bulge in the sales of turntables. That doesn't account for sales in the high end. Similarly, guitarists whose interests are making clearly music and not reproducing music, have created a long-term but declining market share for tubed MI equipment. As opposed to the musicians who buy amps in the interest of reproducing music? Is there some bizarre dichotomy in the guitar amp world? Therefore, while we know that tubes are widely sold as specialty items primarily for rock musicans, we know far less about the sales of tubes to audiophiles. Nah, you know little about it but these sales are hardly a secret to those who wish to find out. In the Detroit area there are any number of music stores selling tubed guitar amps. AFAIK there is only one small hole-in-the-wall audio store that sells tubed equipment. It does not exclusively sell tubed equipment and I don't know what proportion of its miniscule sales are tubed equipment. Sorry to hear that High end audio retail is in such a state of disrepair in Detroit. Yet another reason not to live there. Is this difference you speak of above then reason enough not to silence techies from continuously harassing ppl who cherish vacuum tubes? Ironically, it seems to be the people who cherish tubes who are the major harassers around here. That would be a rather highly biased opinion. For example, we a certain Dr Richman, arguably currently the largest source of vile, harassing, off-topic posts on RAO, who is a tube advocate. Yes, your position is quite arguable. It's not only arguable, it's indicative of his delusional, paranoid belief system. As usual, he's lying to himself, and attempting to deceive others. Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue manufacturing. Exactly. It would be interesting to see an objective comparison of the 6L6 tube to one of the more modern tube designs such as the 6C33. If the 6C33 is a better device, then why hasn't it driven the 6L6 off the market like improved semiconductor designs have driven legacy semiconductors off the market? Does this mean that the tube market is not about improved performance? No it doesn't mean that. You got your self encase in clouds way up there in the ozone layer seemingly carried away with the word "improve". If SS/semiconductor are so improve, won't you come down and tell why ppl cuddle the tubes buying millions after 60 yrs. Same reason people cuddle an old tobacco pipe or an old walking-stick. Sentimentality. No, it isn't the same reason. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? In terms of amplifiers for high fidelity reproduction there have been no sound quality improvements in them since the latter days of tubes. All that has happened since the best tubed amps became sonically transparent is that amplifiers in general have gotten more reliable, common, smaller, cheaper, efficient, adaptable, etc. OSAF I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. But thats according to you with your favorite "improve" partially paired with "old" products. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? (1) Sales to a different market than high fidelity audio (2) Sentimentality Bruce J. Richman |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Art wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... I was "trained" well enough to be able to make some money playing in dance bands when I was in college. So, one could say, I was a "trained musician". But, I was certainly no Pete Fountain, Benny Goodman, Eddie Daniels, etc. And even as a young trained musician, I could certainly tell the difference sonically between my teacher's "older" Paris-edition Selmer B-flat clarinet or his Buffet clarinet, and the more "modern", but much less refined (or expensive) clarinet that I played. I still have my 1958 Buffet Crampon, Evette Schaffer Bb. A very nice clarinet indeed. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger lies, as usual: "JBorg" wrote in message .com Pooh Bear wrote: The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. Agreed. You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve but yet, audiophiles continue to appreciate and embrace these tubes by buying millions of them today. Turntablists whose interests are making music far less so than reproducing music, have created a short-term bulge in the sales of turntables. Similarly, guitarists whose interests are making clearly music and not reproducing music, have created a long-term but declining market share for tubed MI equipment. Therefore, while we know that tubes are widely sold as specialty items primarily for rock musicans, we know far less about the sales of tubes to audiophiles. In the Detroit area there are any number of music stores selling tubed guitar amps. AFAIK there is only one small hole-in-the-wall audio store that sells tubed equipment. It does not exclusively sell tubed equipment and I don't know what proportion of its miniscule sales are tubed equipment. Is this difference you speak of above then reason enough not to silence techies from continuously harassing ppl who cherish vacuum tubes? Ironically, it seems to be the people who cherish tubes who are the major harassers around here. For example, we a certain Dr Richman, arguably currently the largest source of vile, harassing, off-topic posts on RAO, who is a tube advocate. The above claims, by pathological liar Krueger, are indicative of his delusional state of mind. The Google record clearly indicates that Krueger is RAO's most widely despised and scorned poster because of his chronic, unprovoked smear campaigns against others. The above blatant set of lies, is just one example of his 7 year history of libel, pathological lying, and smear campaigns directed against many RAO posters. Readers are all encouraged to read the classic RAO thread entitled, "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience", in which Krueger's numerous failures to engage in normal behavior with others is detailed. Notice the number of targeted individuals that he has harassed, insulted, and lied about in his lengthy history of unprovoked personal attacks against others on RAO. Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue manufacturing. Exactly. It would be interesting to see an objective comparison of the 6L6 tube to one of the more modern tube designs such as the 6C33. If the 6C33 is a better device, then why hasn't it driven the 6L6 off the market like improved semiconductor designs have driven legacy semiconductors off the market? Does this mean that the tube market is not about improved performance? You got your self encase in clouds way up there in the ozone layer seemingly carried away with the word "improve". If SS/semiconductor are so improve, won't you come down and tell why ppl cuddle the tubes buying millions after 60 yrs. Same reason people cuddle an old tobacco pipe or an old walking-stick. Sentimentality. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? In terms of amplifiers for high fidelity reproduction there have been no sound quality improvements in them since the latter days of tubes. All that has happened since the best tubed amps became sonically transparent is that amplifiers in general have gotten more reliable, common, smaller, cheaper, efficient, adaptable, etc. I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. But thats according to you with your favorite "improve" partially paired with "old" products. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? (1) Sales to a different market than high fidelity audio (2) Sentimentality The above anti-tube propaganda which Krueger has been spewing for many years is just another vehicle by which he manages to insult people while attempting to disguise it as being "on-topic". Nobody with any sense falls for his old, tired act. He does not have the ability to disagree with the preferenes of others without engaging in ad hominem attacks against them. This is very well known to all of us that have been smeared by this pathological liar. Bruce J. Richman Limited psychologist Bruce J. Richman : I am not interested in flame wars. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lionel wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" a ιcrit dans le message news: ... Bruce J. Richman wrote: The truth usually prevails, despite the efforts of agenda-driven bigots to hide it. You don't understand Joe, the most important in Richman' message is above. The rest doesn't really care. Sorry - I thought that was normal human nature to deny the future in favor of holding onto their past. Note how people get all gushy about old Mustangs. A new Accord V6 will out-everything it on a test-track - there's just no contest which actually drives better. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote: Joseph Oberlander said: The problem is that the great master Stratavarius never passed on his secret formula for his coating/finish. So, Nagyvary spent years researching and re-creating a simmilar solution using materials that he could obtain today. Suppose the secret ingredient, lost to the ages, was Floobydust. What're you going to do about that, huh? A: Advanced polymers. It's actually surprizing what a simple $8 can of wood finish will do these days compared to the older methods. They've already figured out how to make better pianos than ever before(wasn't true 20 years ago) - thanks to computers and research. Violins can't be far behind. Actually, I have a personal story about that. I knew a friend in College who was a professional musician. He played jazz flute(tm) and had at least a dozen insturments, including a solid gold Haynes - supposedly the best made for the last few decades. His new Yamaha 500 series "beater" with a special-order headjoint ($500 extra) beat the stuffing out of it. I played both as well - there was no contest. He was understandably in awe of the advances in technology and precision of the Yamaha, as it cost him at the time a paltry $1800 - a mere fraction of the Haynes. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Lionel wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" a ιcrit dans le message news: ... Bruce J. Richman wrote: The truth usually prevails, despite the efforts of agenda-driven bigots to hide it. You don't understand Joe, the most important in Richman' message is above. The rest doesn't really care. Sorry - I thought that was normal human nature to deny the future in favor of holding onto their past. Note how people get all gushy about old Mustangs. A new Accord V6 will out-everything it on a test-track - there's just no contest which actually drives better. Joseph, doesn't it strike you as highly abnormal how Lionel keeps trying quite pathetically to drag my name into posts? In addition, I'm surprised you can even wade through his incoherence. I'd suggest you ignore his idiotic and quite irrelevant comments about others. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote: Lionel wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" a ιcrit dans le message news: ... Bruce J. Richman wrote: The truth usually prevails, despite the efforts of agenda-driven bigots to hide it. You don't understand Joe, the most important in Richman' message is above. The rest doesn't really care. Sorry - I thought that was normal human nature to deny the future in favor of holding onto their past. Note how people get all gushy about old Mustangs. A new Accord V6 will out-everything it on a test-track - there's just no contest which actually drives better. Joseph, doesn't it strike you as highly abnormal how Lionel keeps trying quite pathetically to drag my name into posts? In addition, I'm surprised you can even wade through his incoherence. I'd suggest you ignore his idiotic and quite irrelevant comments about others. This sounds like an ultimatum Joe. Oh I forgot you are also jewish... Be careful Lionel(le) is the greatest French anti-semiste. He his the personal friend of Yasser Arafat and he seems to have family links with Ussama Bin Laden... ....He is the fourth angular point of the evil triangle ! Bruce J. Richman Limited psychologist Hey doc, you forget to call me Lionelle... You should decide now if I am a boy or if I am a girl. Oh I see, you don't know how to make the difference... The boy has a penis and the girl a vagina. In a "normal" (sorry George) sexual relation the penis of the boy is introduced in the girl's vagina. Instead of focusing only on psychology, you should have learnt a little bit of morphology. I note that our Limited psychologist is really very very angry... ....I suspect that in fact I am not really in his killfile. :-) |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
JBorg wrote: You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve You got it the wrong way round. The 6L6 cannot be meaningfully improved because the sciencce of thermionics hasn't changed since it was designed. Hence it it 'stuck in a time warp'. Not "it is stuck and in time warp therefore it can't be improved" as your trying to suggest I said. In your criticism you have reversed the cause and effect I referred to. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? Semiconductors are being continually improved due to advances in solid state physics. In short - the answer is 'because we can'. That doesn't make older products *wrong* but it does make it a little easier to design 'good circuits' ( trying to keep it simple here ) with the latest parts. Graham |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. It's still around in its original form because it doesn't require any improvement. Also, that somethjing is incapable of being improved may be because it has reached its state of perfection. I'm sure that some desirable scope for improvement must exist - gm linearity perhaps. The laws of physics ( specifically thermionics ) dictate the performance however. Graham |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: Pooh Bear said: Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue maufacturing. 2SK135/ 2SJ50 for instance? :-) I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. Like the above MOSFETs, for instance. I am puzzled why Hitachi dropped those devices. Low demand maybe ? They continued to make equivalents in TO-3P. It's also suggested that Hitachi didn't want to keep making metal can devices. You can still get equivalents in metal can from Semelab and Exicon though. Nice devices. Graham |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
(JBorg) said: In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? The only "improvement" in solid state is to make them cheaper and cheaper, not better. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? They're bought mostly by guitar players, note. When Mullard announced it was pulling out of valve manufacturing, Marshall ( noted manufacturer of guitar amps ) ended up 'stockpiling' hugely to meet their ongoing requirements. The guitar amp industry does indeed use *lots* of valves. Graham |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
You can still get equivalents in metal can from Semelab and Exicon though. Nice devices. I've used them. I like the TO3s better heat conductivity. Those buggers sound best HOT! -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
The guitar amp industry does indeed use *lots* of valves. Not to mention replacements. Though geetah players are notorious for valve abuse, I rarely see totally worn out valves. I've had customers asking for old pulls because "they sound so good". Meaning loose screen grids being microphonic! Geetah blokes.......gotta like 'em :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal said:
You can still get equivalents in metal can from Semelab and Exicon though. Nice devices. I've used them. I like the TO3s better heat conductivity. Those buggers sound best HOT! OOOPS! Pushed "send' too fast. I mean I've used the plastic equivalents J192/K1038 (or something, too lazy to look it up). No experience with TO3 devices from Semelab or Exicon. I'll have to take a look into them. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 8/27/2004 4:19 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message om Pooh Bear wrote: The 6L6 ( or whatever ) is still around in its original form since it isn't capable of being significantly improved. It's stuck in a time warp so to speak. Agreed. You believed that SS op-amp seems to be going strong after 30 yrs while 6L6 tubes, otoh, are stuck in this "time warp" and so cannot be significantly improve but yet, audiophiles continue to appreciate and embrace these tubes by buying millions of them today. Turntablists whose interests are making music far less so than reproducing music, have created a short-term bulge in the sales of turntables. That doesn't account for sales in the high end. I'll believe that as soon as you produce audited, high-end only sales figures. I still remember the US Rega distributor when he was dancing in the street because he was selling more than two dozen turntables a month. Similarly, guitarists whose interests are making clearly music and not reproducing music, have created a long-term but declining market share for tubed MI equipment. As opposed to the musicians who buy amps in the interest of reproducing music? Is there some bizarre dichotomy in the guitar amp world? Thanks for demonstrating your support for people who base their home audio systems on guitar amps. Therefore, while we know that tubes are widely sold as specialty items primarily for rock musicans, we know far less about the sales of tubes to audiophiles. Nah, you know little about it but these sales are hardly a secret to those who wish to find out. I'll believe that as soon as you produce audited, high-end only sales figures. In the Detroit area there are any number of music stores selling tubed guitar amps. AFAIK there is only one small hole-in-the-wall audio store that sells tubed equipment. It does not exclusively sell tubed equipment and I don't know what proportion of its miniscule sales are tubed equipment. Sorry to hear that High end audio retail is in such a state of disrepair in Detroit. Yet another reason not to live there. I'll believe that as soon as you produce audited, high-end only sales figures. Is this difference you speak of above then reason enough not to silence techies from continuously harassing ppl who cherish vacuum tubes? Ironically, it seems to be the people who cherish tubes who are the major harassers around here. That would be a rather highly biased opinion. Google is my friend, and Dr. Richman is my ally in this quest. For example, we a certain Dr Richman, arguably currently the largest source of vile, harassing, off-topic posts on RAO, who is a tube advocate. Yes, your position is quite arguable. Google is my friend. Modern semiconductors are being improved all the time. The consequent low demand for old ones makes them uneconomic to continue manufacturing. Exactly. It would be interesting to see an objective comparison of the 6L6 tube to one of the more modern tube designs such as the 6C33. If the 6C33 is a better device, then why hasn't it driven the 6L6 off the market like improved semiconductor designs have driven legacy semiconductors off the market? Does this mean that the tube market is not about improved performance? No it doesn't mean that. Prove it, heck just provide a convincing argument. You got your self encase in clouds way up there in the ozone layer seemingly carried away with the word "improve". If SS/semiconductor are so improve, won't you come down and tell why ppl cuddle the tubes buying millions after 60 yrs. Same reason people cuddle an old tobacco pipe or an old walking-stick. Sentimentality. No, it isn't the same reason. Prove it, heck just provide a convincing argument. In terms of audio sound, if semiconductor are being improve all the time to make them sound better, why are they being improve all the time to make them sound better? In terms of amplifiers for high fidelity reproduction there have been no sound quality improvements in them since the latter days of tubes. All that has happened since the best tubed amps became sonically transparent is that amplifiers in general have gotten more reliable, common, smaller, cheaper, efficient, adaptable, etc. OSAF Vain attemp to dismiss a killer factual argument noted. I'm afraid your premise falls at the first hurdle - unless you like unimprovable old products. But thats according to you with your favorite "improve" partially paired with "old" products. How do you account for those buying tubes by millions after 60 yrs? (1) Sales to a different market than high fidelity audio (2) Sentimentality Note that Scott has zero rebuttal of any kind for this statement. |
Linear Mode
