"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Patrick Turner has proclaimed that none of what I wrote
is correct.

All of this depends on the assumptions under which we are operating.
You and Patrick may have less bother if you agree ground rules. This
isn't a knock. I made the same error: I thought you and I had a set of
assumptions agreed but it turns out not to be so when you say:

However, all
things being equal (or as equal as can be, PP will be superior).

The horses for courses assumption, supported by the above, which I
thought we had in common, is totally reversed in this exchange:

Andre offers Trevor a handicap: You can assume the worst condition for
SE (zero negative feedback) and the best condition for PP (all the
negative feedback even an incompetent designer may want), and I'll
still whip your ass.

**Nope. If your hypothetical SE(T) amp uses no Global NFB, then so too
does
the hypothetical PP amp. Same output tubes, same Class A bias, similarly
sized power supply, etc, etc. Let's compare apples with apples, not
apples
with bricks.

Oh dear. I was operating under assumption that all things are not
equal, not in the sense you elaborate above, that instead we are
positing a comparison between median real-life amps.

**That would be a really dumb way to compare topologies. If you are
comparing topologies (which we are) then we need to eliminate as many
variables as it is possible to do. Global NFB vs. zero Global NFB is a HUGE
variable.

For instance, a
modern ZNFB SET amp is deliberately designed to be much flatter than
say fifty years ago, while the PP amp will have much more power (than
the SET) with NFB silencing it. That changes my view on these matters
that you raise, even in the first (strictly technical) round where I
agreed with you, the second harmonics matter excepted. I read "similar"

**When I say "similar" is mean SIMILAR. All the way down to the type of iron
used, tube types, resistor types, HT Voltages, bias currents and NFB
arrangements.


in a very much wider context of merely meaning "competent" or "of
presently acceptable design", whereas you (and John and Chris) are
reading it as literal sameness, including precisely the same tubes at
precisely the same power output with precisely the same NFB, which you
specifically state later on.

**There is no necessity for a PP amp to use Global NFB. If you want to
compare non-Global NFB SE(T) amps, then compare them with a similarly
configured PP amp.

If that sort of *equality*, meaning precise similarity to the greatest
possible extent achievable, is the rule under which we're operating (a
stupid ****ing way to proceed,

**Huh? If you're comparing output stage topologies (which we are) then it is
the ONLY way to proceed. Otherwise, you're just comparing different iron,
different NFB schemes, whatever.

even if more scientific--nobody would
choke a PP amp down like that), I must be a greek giver. I cannot agree
with you an any point in the first round except the second harmonic.

**Then you need to do more reading. Or testing. You choose.



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

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

But in this
contest, with both amps operating under the same conditions, they are
assumed to be designed so that the harmonics of any nature are
imperceptible.

**A bold assumption. Under what conditions can your SET amp acheive that?


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

When the two amps use the same tubes under the same operating
conditions? Rubbish. That's why I tried to give your beloved PP a break
so you could win something in the first round.

**Huh? Let me spell it out for you: When your SE amp (of ANY variety) hits
it's maximum peak current, not only does it cease to be operating in Class
A, but it ceases to be an amplifier. *ANY* PP amp, will still continue to
act as an amplifier, even after it reaches a point where more peak current
is demanded, beyond it's bias point. It simply begins operation in Class B.
IOW: The worst case scenario will be that a PP amp will deliver
approximately similar power levels, even as the load impedance is halved. A
theoretically 'perfect' amplifier will, of course, double it's power as the
load impedance is successively halved. Therefore, *any* SE(T) amplifier is
the complete antithesis of the perfect amplifier.


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

In Class A?

**Yes. Want that RDH4 quote again?

Replace the loud "much" with a whimpered space, and I'll
agree.

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

This is entirely an irrelevance in modern amps where we know how to
reduce levels of hum and noise to better than acceptable levels. It is
a petty point applicable only to the cheapest commercial amps. We're
talking about a different class of amp.

**Fair enough. Nevertheless, it is a fact of life that PP confers an
automatic reduction in hum an noise.


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

I withdraw my original highly qualified agreement, given under a false
assumption of amps of standard design for their class rather than
artificially similar as in the new rules.

**One must compare apples with apples.

Have it your way, Trevor. In that case, under the present rules your
statement is incorrect.

**Huh?


**I have no issue with PP, of any persuasion. PP eliminates or reduces
most
of the problems associated with SE(T).

But Trevor, there aren't any problems remaining.

Under the new rules of equality, where I am defending ZNFB Class A SET
against Trevor's ZNFB Class A PP, push pull topology simply does not
have any technical advantage over SET, and in real life where the PP
amp would use beam or pentode tubes and the SET a DHT, the SET has all
the advantages of its built-in NFB.

**I suggest you read the sections I've previously cited from the RDH4. Your
knowledge is seriously deficient. Unless, of course, you feel that the autor
of the RDH4 was wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

You shouldn't have changed the rules Trevor. Under the new rules you
cannot prove superiority for PP amps.

**I changed nothing. When comparing topolgies, it is appropriate to compare
ONLY the topolgy.


Not that anyone changes behaviour, of course. You will play your
beloved PP and I will play my beloved PP, and my beloved SET, and my
beloved solid state. We'll both still be listening to the speakers, not
the amps.

Thanks for sparring.

**Sparring? What's with boxing metaphors?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

dave "deaf" weil wrote :

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"?


Please Sir, excuse Dave. He is the only deaf audio-reviewer around here.

Dave I have already told you that because of your hearing problems you
should stay off the discussions about HiFi...
What about a little politic discussion with McKelvy on RAO, eh Dave ?



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
originally gave you in the concert hall. The PP amp will have that
disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
live with?

I would have given Trevor that one were he not trying to have it both
ways, on the one hand reproaching me for trying to cut his champion a
break by giving it NFB, on the other deceitfully claiming above that
despite making the amps precisely similar, which must surely include
the same level of THD (it would be hard to give them the same harmonics
spectrum!), the SE amp would still
have "higher levels of distortion". xTHD is xTHD, Trevor; all that is
different is the spectrum of harmonics.

But sure, I include in my definition of "greater fidelity" the quality
of distortion. When THD is levelpegged, the SE amp must produce a
superior quality result to that of the PP amp. (1)

You can't have it both ways, Trevor!

Andre Jute

(1) And, as Ruud Broens has already pointed out, odd harmonics are so
disturbing that even where the THD of a PP amplifier is lower than that
of an otherwise similar SE amp (Trevor's case above), the PP amp is
perceived as noisy whereas the SE amp is perceived as blamelessly
silent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

**I would accept that both amps display similar levels of odd order
distortion, at their rated power outputs. Say: 10 Watts(@ 8 Ohms) for the SE
and 20 Watts (@ 8 Ohms) for the PP. In that case, the SE amp will be
exhibiting MUCH higher levels of even order distortion than the PP amp. More
importantly, when the impedance of that speaker falls to (say) 4 Ohms, the
SE amp will fall on it's face, whist the PP amp will continue to deliver
more power (under most circumstances). Here is the impedance curve of a
(admittedly diabolical) 4 Ohms speaker:

www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg

Configured for the 4 Ohm tap, a 10 Watt SE amp will be delivering around 2
Watts at the impedance dips. The PP amp, OTOH, has a much better chance of
maintaining output Voltage, regardless of the impedance of the load. The SE
amp, despite heroic efforts to bolster power supplies, is inevitably limited
by it's bias current. It is a major and fatal flaw on the road to high
fidelity reproduction.


Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
originally gave you in the concert hall.

**Prove it. And forget about these musician friends. They are not
necessarily the ultimate arbiters of accurate sound reproduction equipment.

The PP amp will have that
disturbing edge of odd harmonics.

**The PP amp will exhibit similar levels of odd order harmonics.

Reduce the level of distortion a
little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

**Prove it. I don't know about you, but I listen to music at any
(reasonable) level I want. Being forced to listen at incredibly low levels
is quite an odd concept.


Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
live with?

**The amp which:

* Exhibits the lowest levels of (audible) distortion.
* Is capable of driving real world, off the shelf loudspeakers.
* Exhibits the most linear frequency response, when driving the
above-mentioned loudspeakers.


I would have given Trevor that one were he not trying to have it both
ways, on the one hand reproaching me for trying to cut his champion a
break by giving it NFB, on the other deceitfully claiming above that
despite making the amps precisely similar, which must surely include
the same level of THD (it would be hard to give them the same harmonics
spectrum!), the SE amp would still
have "higher levels of distortion". xTHD is xTHD, Trevor; all that is
different is the spectrum of harmonics.

**Incorrect. For and SE amp and a PP amp to deliver a similar level of odd
harmonic distortion, the SE amp MUST deliver significantly higher levels of
even order distortion. Want me to quote the relevant RDH4 sections (again)?


But sure, I include in my definition of "greater fidelity" the quality
of distortion. When THD is levelpegged, the SE amp must produce a
superior quality result to that of the PP amp. (1)

**Not possible. The SE amp will ALWAYS be generating higher levels of even
order distortion. PP automatically reduces this effect. ref: RDH4.


You can't have it both ways, Trevor!

**PP amps allow it. PP amps provide the best of all possible results, with
no downsides (apart from a modest increase in complexity).


Andre Jute

(1) And, as Ruud Broens has already pointed out, odd harmonics are so
disturbing that even where the THD of a PP amplifier is lower than that
of an otherwise similar SE amp (Trevor's case above), the PP amp is
perceived as noisy whereas the SE amp is perceived as blamelessly
silent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

**Indeed. Distortion is bad. Whether it be even or odd order. Given that PP
amps reduce even order distortion, they MUST be a better way.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.

To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.

Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
originally gave you in the concert hall.

No, it will give you a warm glow that *never existed* in the concert
hall - it washes whiter than white.

The PP amp will have that
disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

If the distortion is below perception in each case, then the amps will
sound identical. I believe our colonial cousins would insert a 'duuhh'
around here somewhere.......

Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
live with?

In the second case, they are both just fine, but the SE amp will have
cost much more, so you have less money to spend on speakers.......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.

To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.

Exactly! That is why a silent SE amp, such as I build, sounds so much
better than anything else.

Life isn't fair, Stewart. That's just a normative case they teach in
engineering departments so the students don't run away to become
plumbers and earn real money and retire to Spain (horrid thought) at
35.

Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
originally gave you in the concert hall.

No, it will give you a warm glow that *never existed* in the concert
hall - it washes whiter than white.

Hey, persil is good too. I'm outa advertising. The housewife isn't
stupid, she's your wife. The audiophile, at least the one with the
sense to buy tubes, isn't stupid, he's your paymaster.

The PP amp will have that
disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

If the distortion is below perception in each case, then the amps will
sound identical.

In your normative case, sure. In real life the SE amp will be ZNFB and
the PP amp will have NFB. After 14 hours (not a random number but the
average number of hours an amp is on in my study every day) the SE amp
will still please but the NFB will not just be audible, it will visible
and threatening. This isn't about numbers but about the discrimination
of taste and experience.

I believe our colonial cousins would insert a 'duuhh'
around here somewhere.......

Proud to be an Australian.

Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
live with?

In the second case, they are both just fine, but the SE amp will have
cost much more, so you have less money to spend on speakers.......

Says a guy who bought a Krell! What's more, the discussion above
proceeded from the standpoint that the audiophile in question already
owns Quad ESL of some kind and Tannoy Royal Westminsters too. He's not
spending on speakers any more. I didn't mention that as it was too
obvious.

--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd
harmonics of PP even when the latter is at a much lower
absolute level.

One might try to compare SET and PP by comparing two amplifiers, one a SET
and the other a PP amp built up by running two SETs identical to the first,
in PP.

Now let's compare these two amps that differ only in that one is PP and the
other is SET. Let's further stipulate that listening levels will be kept
low, so that any power advantage of the PP amp is nullified.

We find that the SET puts out its usual mixture of even and odd-order
distortion. The PP setup will internally cancel out the even order
distortion, leaving only the same odd order distortion that the SET
produced. From the stand point of production of odd order distortion, the
two amps are identical. The SET differs in that it also produces even order
distortion.

The SET amplifier therefore provides no meaningful advantage from the
standpoint of reduction of odd-order distortion. It simply produces more
even-order distortion.

It is well known that amplifier nonlinearity whether odd or even order does
not produce only harmonic distortion. Amplifier nonlinearity produces IM
distortion. Even order nonlinearity is an especially effective means for
producing intermodulation products. IM distortion is almost guaranteed to be
non-harmonic and therefore very irritating to listen to.

In addition to producing less over-all distortion, the PP amplifier will
also produce less IM distortion than the SET amplifier.


**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher
levels of distortion will lead to greater fidelity?

The universe of SET hysteria, of course! ;-)

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics
of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of
distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.

To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.

Exactly! That is why a silent SE amp, such as I build, sounds so much
better than anything else.


The only time an SET sounds good is when it's silent. :-) It's when you
turn them on that they suck.

On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.

To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.

Exactly! That is why a silent SE amp, such as I build, sounds so much
better than anything else.

Except that you don't, and they don't.

Life isn't fair, Stewart. That's just a normative case they teach in
engineering departments so the students don't run away to become
plumbers and earn real money and retire to Spain (horrid thought) at
35.

Sure life's fair - it's *people* who try to make it unfair.

Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
originally gave you in the concert hall.

No, it will give you a warm glow that *never existed* in the concert
hall - it washes whiter than white.

Hey, persil is good too. I'm outa advertising. The housewife isn't
stupid, she's your wife. The audiophile, at least the one with the
sense to buy tubes, isn't stupid, he's your paymaster.

Nope, he's spent far too much money on tubes to afford to hire anyone.

The PP amp will have that
disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

If the distortion is below perception in each case, then the amps will
sound identical.

In your normative case, sure. In real life the SE amp will be ZNFB and
the PP amp will have NFB. After 14 hours (not a random number but the
average number of hours an amp is on in my study every day) the SE amp
will still please but the NFB will not just be audible, it will visible
and threatening. This isn't about numbers but about the discrimination
of taste and experience.

Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
amp is the one that's actually connected!

I believe our colonial cousins would insert a 'duuhh'
around here somewhere.......

Proud to be an Australian.

I thought you were a Sarth Efrikaan?

Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
live with?

In the second case, they are both just fine, but the SE amp will have
cost much more, so you have less money to spend on speakers.......

Says a guy who bought a Krell!

Indeed, and for less then a grand, and it drives everything from
Lowthers to Apogees with equal aplomb - and sound just like its input
signal, as it should.

What's more, the discussion above
proceeded from the standpoint that the audiophile in question already
owns Quad ESL of some kind and Tannoy Royal Westminsters too. He's not
spending on speakers any more. I didn't mention that as it was too
obvious.

Not an unreasonable choice for the well-heeled audiophile, just needs
a decent 60-watter in each case. Fortunately, many excellent amps of
this description are currently available.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
amp is the one that's actually connected!

**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out
of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into
the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP
amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and
ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in
place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way
unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of
course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After
he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so
good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

Because he did not disclose the modifications.

Sorry for the erant double clicks!

Anyway, he asked for a repair of a tube amp, not a replacement
of the tube components with a ss components.
A proper repair woud be the replacement of
of like components. Making a substantive modification
without notification and consent of the owner is unethical.
If a proper repair could not be made on an economic
scale, this should have been discussed with the unit owner.

Mikey, can't you perceive
the deceptivemess of what Trevor did?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


Yes, you did not notify or discuss the mdifications with the owner.
Well, let's say it was quite deceptive.
I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
be unable to discern the difference....

Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.

Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
instructions, also well and good.

But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought. You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

And, after all that, was it worth it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good.


Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


I would never have done this without asking the customer first.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

wrote in message
ups.com...
I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
be unable to discern the difference....

So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?


Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.


Let's just say deceptive and dishonest.


Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
instructions, also well and good.

But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought. You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

And, after all that, was it worth it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


Good points

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/21/05 4:00 PM:

"I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If
was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good . . . . "

"You call that 'fraud'?"

* * * *

You deliberately misled the client who was left with the impression that you
fixed his tube amp. That's deception. And I think it also meets the
definition of fraud.

Don't be to quick to congratulate yourself for making his amp sound better
than before. After all, it was totally broken before the mod.

Sheesh. You'd even make a "dishonest garage trader" blush . . . .

Jon

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart
from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors
and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it
had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put
the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair
of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front
of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I
left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp.
If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in
full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all
the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his
amps had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they
did when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power
amps which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


Yes, you did not notify or discuss the mdifications with the owner.
Well, let's say it was quite deceptive.
I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
I suspect you wouldn't want to find out that you were fooled into thinking
that something other than what you had previously thought was a great amp
could be switched on you and you not know it. Welcome to a reason for
DBT.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
be unable to discern the difference....

Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.

Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
instructions, also well and good.

But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought. You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

And, after all that, was it worth it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

OK, I concede.

Still it points up how idiotic the whole amp sound nonsense is and how easy
it is for us to fool ourselves into thinging we have something that sounds
one way, but acutally sounds another or makes no difference.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart
from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors
and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it
had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put
the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair
of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front
of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I
left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp.
If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in
full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all
the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his
amps had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

Because he did not disclose the modifications.

Sorry for the erant double clicks!

Anyway, he asked for a repair of a tube amp, not a replacement
of the tube components with a ss components.
A proper repair woud be the replacement of
of like components. Making a substantive modification
without notification and consent of the owner is unethical.
If a proper repair could not be made on an economic
scale, this should have been discussed with the unit owner.

Mikey, can't you perceive
the deceptivemess of what Trevor did?



Already conceded the point in another post.

Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted tests
was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely different.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart
from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors
and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it
had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put
the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair
of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front
of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I
left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp.
If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in
full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all
the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his
amps had never sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they
did when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power
amps which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


Yes, you did not notify or discuss the mdifications with the owner.

**That is not entirely true. I DID discuss what I termed "radical
alterations, in order to keep costs at a minimum" with the client. He OK'd
the job, after my assurances that he would receive a money back guarantee.

Well, let's say it was quite deceptive.

**That would your opinion. My client liked the cosmetics of his old amps and
wished to retain the charm of the products. I complied with his requests.

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
ups.com...
I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
be unable to discern the difference....

Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.


**Where did you acquire your legal training? And what do you understand by
the words: "Money back guarantee, if not completely satisfied."?


Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
instructions, also well and good.

**If he asked what I had done, I would have explained in exquisite detail.
He was pleased to have his amps back and functioning and looking just like
they did when he gave them to me for service.


But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an 'automatic'
upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to use
modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?


Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not.

**That is a false and oft-repeated claim. SOME tube amps clip softly and
SOME SS amps do not. You forget that I had one good channel, with which I
was able to measure and duplicate the performance from.

What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought.

**Question based on previous false assumption. Your question is, therefore,
invalid.

You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

**In which universe do you imagine that such a warranty has to be provided?
Look at the facts:

* The amp is now MUCH more reliable than it was.
* The amp will enjoy a much longer life than it previously could.
* The now has protection against owner stupidity, which it did not
previously have.


So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

**It may do so.


And, after all that, was it worth it?

**Lemme see:

* I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
service and has also recommended several other clients to me.

Yes, it was well worth it. For all concerned.

Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/21/05 4:00 PM:

"I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If
was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good . . . . "

"You call that 'fraud'?"

* * * *

You deliberately misled the client who was left with the impression that you
fixed his tube amp. That's deception. And I think it also meets the
definition of fraud.

Don't be to quick to congratulate yourself for making his amp sound better
than before. After all, it was totally broken before the mod.

Sheesh. You'd even make a "dishonest garage trader" blush . . . .

Jon

Yeah, after the kicking you took for merely being *shoddy* about the
provenance of an amplifier design and *careless* about who you
believed, and then being too stubborn to admit you were wrong, what
Wilson did must rate at least electrodes to the testicles.

"Fraud" doesn't even begin to describe what Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio
did to this poor unwitting customer.

In the championship dishonesty stakes, Jon, you're a piker... no,
that's the wrong word, a pike is a predator... you're a throw-back
fingerling trout, accident-prone rather than actively dishonest.

Andre Jute
It's the shock of being exposed to RAO that made me so nice

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.


IF YOUR MECHANIC TOLD YOU!!!!!!
That's my point.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


* I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
service and has also recommended several other clients to me.


If he knew of your deceit,
he might not have recommended you to anyone else.

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.


You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.

I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

Andre Jute

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
amp is the one that's actually connected!

**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
nk.net...



Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted tests
was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely different.


It wasn't a sighted test.
It wasn't even any test at all.
Surely you can see that.

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/21/05 7:36 PM:


**If he asked what I had done, I would have explained in exquisite detail.
He was pleased to have his amps back and functioning and looking just like
they did when he gave them to me for service.

* * * Hmmm. A tube works because of an air vacuum. A serviced amp works
because of an ethical vacuum . . . ?

"If only he had asked" is beyond lame . . . . Gee, I would have told the
nice sheila that I slipped her a mickey before I shagged her brains out if
only she had asked!

Trevor, as a serviceman you have a duty of disclosure so that a client can
make an informed decision, even if that decision is ultimately not is his or
her best interest.


But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an 'automatic'
upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to use
modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

* * * How is an upgrade or mod anywhere on the same continuum as deception?
There ain't no line to draw between these two disparate points, IMHO.


Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not.

**That is a false and oft-repeated claim. SOME tube amps clip softly and
SOME SS amps do not. You forget that I had one good channel, with which I
was able to measure and duplicate the performance from.

What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought.

**Question based on previous false assumption. Your question is, therefore,
invalid.

* * * You can parse a logical argument but keep flexible on ethical
matters?

You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

**In which universe do you imagine that such a warranty has to be provided?
Look at the facts:

* The amp is now MUCH more reliable than it was.

* * * Ergo, the ends justify the means? Sometimes . . . But not here.

* The amp will enjoy a much longer life than it previously could.
* The now has protection against owner stupidity, which it did not
previously have.

* * * Guess the owner was too stupid to explain what you did.


So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

**It may do so.


And, after all that, was it worth it?

**Lemme see:

* I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
service and has also recommended several other clients to me.

Yes, it was well worth it. For all concerned.

Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.


* * * *

Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client. I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
happy he was with the info.

Jon

Andre Jute wrote:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.

Andrew Joot of no audio skill of note, you are a pontificating, deceitful windbag.

Graham

in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 12/21/05 7:41 PM:


Yeah, after the kicking you took for merely being *shoddy* about the
provenance of an amplifier design and *careless* about who you
believed, and then being too stubborn to admit you were wrong, what
Wilson did must rate at least electrodes to the testicles.

* * *

If you are talking about Henry's amplifier, any "shoddiness" about it's
provenance was due to my ignorance. I appreciate being corrected, especially
of the person offering the correction is correct as well.

I've never claimed anything but novice status. I continue to learn. I
don't have any problems admitting error in the tube world.

"Fraud" doesn't even begin to describe what Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio
did to this poor unwitting customer.

In the championship dishonesty stakes, Jon, you're a piker... no,
that's the wrong word, a pike is a predator... you're a throw-back
fingerling trout, accident-prone rather than actively dishonest.

* * * And what can I learn from you on the topic of honesty?

Andre Jute
It's the shock of being exposed to RAO that made me so nice

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
which would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.


IF YOUR MECHANIC TOLD YOU!!!!!!
That's my point.

**I offered my client the two alternatives. I just did not spell out in
exquisite detail what the two alternatives were.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.

**I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.

**I provided a money back guarantee.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

**The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

**After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised that
you have no stomach for an honest discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.

Andrew Joot of no audio skill of note, you are a pontificating, deceitful windbag.

Graham

Here we have the difference between you and me, Poopie. You make wild
statements on the basis of nothing except your pointless spite and
envy. When I make a statement, it is backed by facts and reaoned
deduction, which provide for all to judge.

Andre Jute

And here are the facts and deductions I cited which Graham Poopie
Stevenson deceitfully deleted:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.


Andre Jute


- Hide quoted text -

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
amp is the one that's actually connected!


**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Andre Jute wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.

Andrew Joot of no audio skill of note, you are a pontificating, deceitful windbag.

Graham

Here we have the difference between you and me, Poopie. You make wild
statements on the basis of nothing except your pointless spite and
envy.

Envy ? You *have* to be joking ! I'd be embarrased to have as little understanding of
audio as yourself. Your apparent disdain for getting to grips with important details is
what marks you out as a jester looking for quick dirty inaccuarate 'answers'.

When I make a statement, it is backed by facts and reaoned
deduction, which provide for all to judge.

And I read the *whole*. Not selected snippets such as you provide.

Graham

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.

**I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.

**I provided a money back guarantee.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

**The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

**After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised that
you have no stomach for an honest discussion.

Where is the honesty in you taking money for altering a customer's
property radically without his knowledge or his consent? Where is the
honesty in taking money for not telling the customer, the owner of the
property, what you did? Where is the honesty in taking money for
holding the customer up to ridicule on the net to satisfy your sick
urge to win a minor debating point?

You committed fraud and theft, Wilson. You also dishonestly snipped my
original letter to remove the evidence from your own mouth of your
fraud and your theft. I reprint both your admission and my conclusion
below my signature.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I wouldn't buy blank DVD's from Rage Audio, never mind entrust my
amplifier to the fraud and thief Trevor Wilson. Who knows what he will
do with it? Who knows when he will gloat on the net that I paid him to
defraud me and steal from me.

Andre Jute

Here is Trevor Wilson's own account of how Rage Audio treats its
customers, and my conclusions again, since Wilson deceitfully snipped
the evidence and the reasoning:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.


Andre Jute


- Hide quoted text -

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
amp is the one that's actually connected!


**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au