"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

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.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much
odd-order distortion as PP amps, it's just that the
vastly higher even-order distortion isn't cancelled out?

Good chance of that, all things considered. ;-)

There's a well-known cure for audible distortion in amplifiers, one that has
worked well for about 50 years or more in both tubed and SS amps. It's
called inverse feedback, either local or global. SETs try to minimize
inverse feedback, presumably so that they will sound appreciably different
from good amplifiers that exploit inverse feedback and sound cleaner and
smoother.