Arny Krueger wrote: snip

It is true that cheap-ass tubed equipment is far more technically
deficient
than some of the expensive stuff. There's no reason why a
price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and accurate when that
high
price is invested in a technically sophisticated way.


That's exactly what I said. If you are willing to spend money either
tubes or solid state may be used to build good amplifiers. Good solid
state ones IMO aren't cheap either. They need (IMO) big heat sinks and
quiet low impedance power supplies.


From a scientific point of view, I'll allow that I might be
deluded.
So I'll just leave science out of it and say that it's a matter of
taste. Some like chiantis; others chablis. Their subtleties are
really incomparable.

When I see tubophiles obsesse over some the the butt-cheap tubed gear
I used
to sell at Lafayette, I have to smile. That stuff sounded like crap
on the
first day of its life. Lafayette had some good stuff, but the volume
sales
were in bottom-priced crap.

The offensiveness of the "crap" was at least more pleasant sounding to
the ear in the opinion of most listeners than the offensiveness of much
solid state gear-much of it high dollar. The Dyna ST70 and some Heath
and Eico gear with decent OPTs will provide the hobbyist with a
platform to build a reasonable tube amp if he is so inclined (if you're
willing to run just one channel of the ST70 or replace the power
transformer or, best, build a choke filtered outboard power supply.)

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote: snip

It is true that cheap-ass tubed equipment is far more technically
deficient than some of the expensive stuff. There's no reason why a
price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and accurate when that
high price is invested in a technically sophisticated way.

That's exactly what I said. If you are willing to spend money either
tubes or solid state may be used to build good amplifiers.

You get far more performance for the money with SS. The cost of a audibly
clean SS amp is far less than one that is tubed.

Good solid state ones IMO aren't cheap either.

OK, your opinions tend toward the fantastic.

They need (IMO) big heat sinks and quiet low impedance power supplies.

Heat sinks and power transformers are cheap compared to either good output
transfomers or enough tubes to eliminate the need for an output transformer.

Then there's the size and lack of reliability.

From a scientific point of view, I'll allow that I might be deluded.
So I'll just leave science out of it and say that it's a matter of
taste. Some like chiantis; others chablis. Their subtleties are
really incomparable.

When I see tubophiles obsesse over some the the butt-cheap tubed
gear I used to sell at Lafayette, I have to smile. That stuff
sounded like crap on the
first day of its life. Lafayette had some good stuff, but the volume
sales were in bottom-priced crap.

The offensiveness of the "crap" was at least more pleasant sounding to
the ear in the opinion of most listeners than the offensiveness of
much solid state gear-much of it high dollar.

Most listeners dumped tubes as soon as practically possible, or before.

The Dyna ST70 and some
Heath and Eico gear with decent OPTs will provide the hobbyist with a
platform to build a reasonable tube amp if he is so inclined (if
you're willing to run just one channel of the ST70 or replace the
power transformer or, best, build a choke filtered outboard power
supply.)

Most tube experts will tell you that the even the best Dyna, Heath and Eico
output transformers were not up to the standards of McIntosh or the better
Acrosounds.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote: snip

It is true that cheap-ass tubed equipment is far more technically
deficient
than some of the expensive stuff. There's no reason why a
price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and accurate when that
high
price is invested in a technically sophisticated way.


That's exactly what I said. If you are willing to spend money either
tubes or solid state may be used to build good amplifiers. Good solid
state ones IMO aren't cheap either. They need (IMO) big heat sinks and
quiet low impedance power supplies.

Partly true.
A price-no-object tubed amp can sound as good in many ways. That does not
mean they are equivalent.
But output transformer saturation leads to an inherent high-pass filter that
cannot be eliminated, unless on goes with something like the Futerman OTL
design.
It is not possible, with a practical level of effort, to equal the amperage
and damping factor of an excellent solid state design.
That said, I have seen a Krohn-Hite vacuum tube laborator amplifier that was
flat from about 1 Hz to 10 mHz.
The caveat is that the Krohn-Hite was this flat only at the 1 watt level. At
higher levels, the inherent storage capacity of the output transformer
constricted the bandwidth. All tube amplifiers suffer from this at more than
low power levels.

Solid state amplifiers slow down a little when driven toward the supply
rails, but the corresponding bandwidth reduction is fractional compared to
tube amplifiers.

Tubes are high impedance devices. Speakers are low impedance devices. Making
the two work together requires the output transformer, which introduces
artifacts from the hysteresis of the iron core. Some people regard this as
beneficial to the sound. There is no point in arguing with a personal
preference. However, I, personally, have not heard a tube amplifier as
pleasing to my ear as the best solid state equipment.

I would not dispute that some tube equipment sounds better than some solid
state equipment.

Tonight, I'll be comparing Sonic Frontiers to an Acoustat TNT-200

Yes, OPTs have inherent insertion loss, and highpass filtering, and
limit achievable damping factors. It's my guess/opinion that that's
OK...a nice smooth rolloff over 20 kHz or so is okay with me. And I
think too much damping factor is probably not that great anyway even
though theory says it is. If you were driving voice coils directly
rather than through crossovers it would be more important.

If wideband low frequency magnetics were a mass market item the cost
would come way down, in the same way that a large car automatic
transmission is more complex than the reduction gearcase for a small
gas turbine, although the latter is many times the price. Indeed, the
whole engine would be cheap-if not as cheap as say a smallblock Chevy
and 700R4, certainly not twenty times the price-if manufactured in
quantity with competitive pressures forcing the profit down. Most of
the price of small aircraft gas turbines and the more expensive OPTs
sold to the hobby constructor market is pure profit. Volume is
relatively low, however.

I'm sure that the best 40-60 year old magnetics designs would be
rapidly superceded if there were a percieved need and market. As well,
superior vacuum tubes would be developed if a mass market existed.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote: snip

It is true that cheap-ass tubed equipment is far more technically
deficient than some of the expensive stuff. There's no reason why a
price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and accurate when that
high
price is invested in a technically sophisticated way.


That's exactly what I said. If you are willing to spend money either
tubes or solid state may be used to build good amplifiers. Good solid
state ones IMO aren't cheap either. They need (IMO) big heat sinks
and quiet low impedance power supplies.

Partly true.

A price-no-object tubed amp can sound as good in many ways. That does
not mean they are equivalent.

In his sad quest for the false appearance of technical competence, the
Morein grotesquely distorts what I said and then tries to make a big show
out of *correcting* his own statements as if they were mine.

Obviously I never said that tubed amps and SS amps could be equivalent. I
said

"There's no reason why a price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and
accurate when that high
price is invested in a technically sophisticated way."

But output transformer saturation leads to an inherent high-pass
filter that cannot be eliminated, unless on goes with something like
the Futerman OTL design.

Regrettibly, the Morein confuses two common output transformer failings.

(1) Core saturation, which causes nonlinear distortion (e.g., THD and IM).
(2) Leakage capacitance, which causes loss of high frequency response.

There are also third and fourth common transformer failings:

(3) Leakage inductance, which also causes a loss of response.
(4) Resonance, which causes rough response and ultimately additional high
frequency losses.

Morein's incorrect statement would look like this:

Core saturation, which causes loss of high frequency response.

Morein mentions saturation, but he lines it up with the wrong amplifier
performance fault.

Here is confirmation of my claims from a independent source:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_9/11.html

"When a transformer's primary winding is overloaded from excessive applied
voltage, the core flux may reach saturation levels during peak moments of
the AC sinewave cycle. If this happens, the voltage induced in the secondary
winding will no longer match the wave-shape as the voltage powering the
primary coil. In other words, the overloaded transformer will distort the
waveshape from primary to secondary windings, creating harmonics in the
secondary winding's output. As we discussed before, harmonic content in AC
power systems typically causes problems.

You can see that the independent authority essentially says that

Core saturation causes nonlinear distortion.

The three other common transformer failings are also described by the
reference:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_9/10.html

"Like their simpler counterparts -- inductors -- transformers exhibit
capacitance due to the insulation dielectric between conductors: from
winding to winding, turn to turn (in a single winding), and winding to core.
Usually this capacitance is of no concern in a power application, but small
signal applications (especially those of high frequency) may not tolerate
this quirk well. Also, the effect of having capacitance along with the
windings' designed inductance gives transformers the ability to resonate at
a particular frequency, definitely a design concern in signal applications
where the applied frequency may reach this point (usually the resonant
frequency of a power transformer is well beyond the frequency of the AC
power it was designed to operate on).

....
"Closely related to the issue of flux containment is leakage inductance.
We've already seen the detrimental effects of leakage inductance on voltage
regulation with SPICE simulations early in this chapter. Because leakage
inductance is equivalent to an inductance connected in series with the
transformer's winding, it manifests itself as a series impedance with the
load. Thus, the more current drawn by the load, the less voltage available
at the secondary winding terminals.


It is not possible, with a practical level of effort, to equal the
amperage and damping factor of an excellent solid state design.

Agreed, which is why I said that a price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound
good and accurate when that
high price is invested in a technically sophisticated way. However, I would
probably cut to the chase and elmiinate the output transformer all together.
Eliminating the output transformer and yet providing ample ability to drive
difficult speaker loads would require a large number of output tubes, which
would drive up the expense quite *effectively*

That said, I have seen a Krohn-Hite vacuum tube laboratory amplifier that
was flat from about 1 Hz to 10 mHz.

Probably didn't have an output transformer, and probably couldn't drive a
speaker load to appreciably power levels. Krohn-Hite still provides wideband
amplifiers, but they are designed to work with loads in the 200-600 ohm
range. They'll drive lower impedance loads, but with a tremendous loss of
rated power output.

The caveat is that the Krohn-Hite was this flat only at the 1 watt
level. At higher levels, the inherent storage capacity of the output
transformer constricted the bandwidth. All tube amplifiers suffer
from this at more than low power levels.

I question whether there was an output transformer.

Solid state amplifiers slow down a little when driven toward the
supply rails, but the corresponding bandwidth reduction is fractional
compared to tube amplifiers.

Agreed.

Tubes are high impedance devices. Speakers are low impedance devices.
Making the two work together requires the output transformer, which
introduces artifacts from the hysteresis of the iron core. Some
people regard this as beneficial to the sound. There is no point in
arguing with a personal preference. However, I, personally, have not
heard a tube amplifier as pleasing to my ear as the best solid state
equipment.

I don't find the sound from really good tubed amplifiers disturbing or
substandard. I just question working so hard and spending so much money to
obtain a result that can be obtained easily and inexpensively from
well-designed SS equipment.

I would not dispute that some tube equipment sounds better than some
solid state equipment.

Or, vice versa which is the more common situation.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote: snip
[snip]
I'm flattered to be subject to one of your smears.
I must be doing something right.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote: snip
[snip]

I'm flattered to be subject to one of your smears.

Ironic Morein given that you started this by trying to smear me?

I must be doing something right.

Not when it comes to your knowlege of tube audio. You seemed to have gotten
just about every major point you made, wrong. I thought that you had claimed
some proficiency in Electrical Engineering? Why then do such basic EE texts
as I cited both contradict and provide needed completion to what you said.
Morein?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote: snip

It is true that cheap-ass tubed equipment is far more technically
deficient than some of the expensive stuff. There's no reason why a
price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and accurate when that
high
price is invested in a technically sophisticated way.


That's exactly what I said. If you are willing to spend money either
tubes or solid state may be used to build good amplifiers. Good solid
state ones IMO aren't cheap either. They need (IMO) big heat sinks
and quiet low impedance power supplies.

Partly true.

A price-no-object tubed amp can sound as good in many ways. That does
not mean they are equivalent.

In his sad quest for the false appearance of technical competence, the
Morein grotesquely distorts what I said and then tries to make a big show
out of *correcting* his own statements as if they were mine.

Obviously I never said that tubed amps and SS amps could be equivalent. I
said

"There's no reason why a price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good
and
accurate when that high
price is invested in a technically sophisticated way."

But output transformer saturation leads to an inherent high-pass
filter that cannot be eliminated, unless on goes with something like
the Futerman OTL design.

Regrettibly, the Morein confuses two common output transformer failings.

(1) Core saturation, which causes nonlinear distortion (e.g., THD and IM).
(2) Leakage capacitance, which causes loss of high frequency response.

If you could read, this would be unnecessary. I said, high pass filter, not
low pass filter. I was not commenting on the loss of high frequency
response. With respect to loss of low frequency response:
1.The induced voltage in a transformer is proportional to d Phi/d t, the
rate of flux change in the core.
2.The lower the applied frequency, the slower the flux change.
3.Therefore, the amplifier compensates, by it's feedback loop, by increasing
the rate of flux change, ie., drive throught the transformer, to maintain
flat voltage response on the output winding.
4.Therefore, at lower frequencies, the maximum flux value through the core
is higher for a particular output.
5.Therefore, the lower the frequency, the lower the output at which the core
saturates.
6.Thus, the low frequency output of a transformer coupled amplifier is
limited by mass of the transformer, which determines the maximum flux.
7.This accounts for the fact that tube amplifiers can have wide bandwidth at
low power levels, but the bandwidth contracts at higher power levels.
8.Transistor amplifiers exhibit this reduction in bandwidth with power
increase to a much smaller degree.

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not when it comes to your knowlege of tube audio. You seemed to have gotten
just about every major point you made, wrong. I thought that you had claimed
some proficiency in Electrical Engineering? Why then do such basic EE texts
as I cited both contradict and provide needed completion to what you said.
Morein?

Mr. Krueger.

You're wasting your time pointing out the poor education my sick son Bob has
received. He spent 12 years and enormous amounts of my money at Drexel
University, before they finally kicked his sorry ass out. Then he spent
tens of thousands more of my money suing them, trying to get a degree out of
them.

My poor sick son Bob is what was known in my day as a "bull**** artist". I
recently found out he's been responsible for harassment of numerous fine
people on other chat rooms. I found out when the FBI showed up at my house
and gave me hundreds of pages of the most sick and vile messages I have ever
seen - all sent from the internet connection I pay for!

So I would be careful at pointing out what a failure my son Bob is. He can
come unglued at any moment.

Facts about my Son, Robert Morein

Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS
--

Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.


"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing.