"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
ragazine reviews?
I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
SS amp with loop feedback? For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.

Regrettably, the Stereophile web site is kinda deficient in terms of reviews
of the classic SEt amps whose tests I'd like to review. John Atkinson and I
may share a preference for p-p tubes as opposed to SETs, if the SP web site
online review situation is any indication.

So here's an alternative of the few available:

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ue/index4.html

Figure 12:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -40 dB
3 -55 dB
4 -75 dB
5 -72 dB
6 -85 dB
7 -95 dB
8 -95 dB
9 -90 dB

(data runs out 1 KHz due to Stereophile's choice)

Still about 20 dB dirtier than the SS amp, even for the highest harmonics
for which data is available.

BTW note that figure 12 is miscaptioned as being a 50 Hz test. It's labeled
on the chart as being a 100 hz test. The chart label is consistent with the
data, but the caption isn't.