"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 8:54 am, "David Looser"
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...



Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so
efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included
that large, expensive heatsink at the back.

I've no idea, perhaps it looks nice. Even when used as part of a stage PA
rig for an amateur musical (driving Bose SR speakers) it barely got warm
to
the touch.

But you're the one who told us how efficient the 405 is, David. Now we
discover you believe that the heatsink is superfluous. Those are
mutually inconsistent statements

I see you are quick to resort to "strawman" arguments, no surprise there. In
any case your logic is flawed, if an amplifier is efficient it wastes less
energy in the form of heat, so needs less in the way of heatsinking.

I have a PSE 300B amp that cost about 1600 Euro to build, about the
price of a modern equivalent of the Quad 405 MkII. It's lasted fifteen
years.

And how many new valves has it needed in that time?

Why, none. I must say, David, I'm surprised that you should, on no
evidence whatsoever, assume that I treat my equipment as roughly as
you apparently do yours.

15 years of normal domestic service probably equates to around 20,000 hours
of use. Just how much have your DHTs deteriorated in that time?


Hey! you started it with your inane suggestion that SET amps somehow or
other fit the "small is beautiful" philosophy.

Here you go again lumping all SET amps into one basket, and pouring a
liberal helping of ignorant prejudice over the basket.

YOU were the one who lumped them all in the same basket!, I see your
determination to blame others for your own actions continues. I may be
"prejudiced" (as indeed is everyone who holds an opinion), but it is not
based on ignorance.

If you want a SET that fits the "small is beautiful" philosophy, just
cruise my netsite or ask me. Here
for instance, you will find my T68 "Minus Zero", a one-third watt SET
amp which, for less draw from the wall than many battery amps, drives
Lowther Horns to ecstasy.

If 1/3rd of a watt drives Lowther horns "to ecstasy", then an alternative
design of 1/3rd watt amp will do so more efficiently. This is still no
justification for claiming that SET amps are "small". Small amps are small.

You anti-SET fanatics are even less rational and consistent than the
audiophools who think a SET is the be-all and end-all of quality
sound. Neither is interested in listening to reason, or capable of
understanding that all such choices are subject to qualification.

I'm really not that interested in SET amps either way. I just get ****ed-off
by people trying to justify their own prejudices by making nonsensical
comparisons.

David.