"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
Understand two things: OK?

I'd hate to have to live with you, though there are doubtless those that
are
less fortunate - have you tried the army?

**I don't respond well to authority.

Care to comment on the content of what I wrote?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com

OK Andy, first off (due to bad snipping - which is on the increase in here)
it looks like you are calling Jim Lesurf a 'valve knocker' which, I'm
certain, is not quite the case.

If that's so I apologise. But let's go back to the beginning. I posted website
details for some of Lynn Olsen's arguments in defense of valves. What happened
was:
1. Nobody bothered to read what I posted
2. People seem to just have read the word 'valve' to trigger a childish and
simplistic response - several thought I was Lynn Olsen, though I made it clear
I wasn't
3. I am absolutely FED UP with being patronised by people who continue to say
'well it's alright if you like valves as long as you say it's strictly
subjective (like I'm some sort of freak kept in the East Wing)' Whereas 'we who
like transistors' are of course objective so we don't even need to listen to
know we're right.
4. There's a hell of a lot of careful thought going on in valves - follow Audio
Asylum for some very complex arguments
5. It is POINTLESS thinking that some retro chassis from the sixties is the
cutting edge of valve technology, and just as pointless to think that all valve
amps sound alike and have 'that valve sound' (dreadful phrase) yet all valve
amps seem to be lumped together.
6. I have carefully explained in a number of posts the improvements that can be
made at componant level to radically improve the sound of a valve amp. All this
can be followed in great detail on Audio Asylum in the Tweakers and Tube DIY
sections.
7. I've been a musician for about 40 years and my hearing is absolutely fine
down to fine details. I know exactly what I'm listening for and why.
I could go on, but since I'm largely talking to robots, why should I?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
**I don't respond well to authority.

Care to comment on the content of what I wrote?

I just did - you don't respond well to authority because it threatens your
own
use of authority over others.

**My dog, is the only creature I use my authority over. I stated facts. Care
to comment on my facts?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


Now, assuming I've got that right, selecting A will be equal to the cable
without the resistor and selecting B will include the resistor, yes? Will
that work OK and the fact that both A and B connections exist (but not
simultaneously selected, of course) throughout not 'muddy the waters' at
all? The geezer I got the resistors from went over my head with summat
about
the amp being wired 'in series' internally?????

Yup, you got that right,


OK, on the menu for sometime tomorrow now.....


and he's a dickhead.


Andrew at A N Audio? Oh, you know him then?


Hey, you're pretty sharp,


Hmmm, I think I should tell you I don't do 'tonguey ones'.... ;-)


so why are you still messing around with vinyl? :-)


Because I frickin' *lurve* it!

:-)

In article ,
Andy Evans wrote:
You valve dickheads

You're talking about the whole of the Audio industry up to the sixties.

Surely then acoustic recording of gramophone records must be best since
this came first too?

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
OK Andy, first off (due to bad snipping - which is on the increase in
here)
it looks like you are calling Jim Lesurf a 'valve knocker' which, I'm
certain, is not quite the case.

If that's so I apologise. But let's go back to the beginning. I posted
website
details for some of Lynn Olsen's arguments in defense of valves. What
happened
was:
1. Nobody bothered to read what I posted

**Bull****. Quite a few posters read it and commented intelligently. I was
one of them. You said so yourself.

2. People seem to just have read the word 'valve' to trigger a childish
and
simplistic response - several thought I was Lynn Olsen, though I made it
clear
I wasn't

**Not me. SOME valve amps are very good. SOME are complete crap. Like
transistors, it depends on the implementation. Making inane statements which
infer:

Valves = good, Transistors = bad.

Is just plain dumb. That is pretty much what Lynn Olsen stated. If Lynn
Olsen had ever taken the time to do some blind tests (such as the ones I've
done) he would be humbled by the abilities of good SS amps. I know - I was
humbled by the abilities of good valve amps.


3. I am absolutely FED UP with being patronised by people who continue to
say
'well it's alright if you like valves as long as you say it's strictly
subjective (like I'm some sort of freak kept in the East Wing)' Whereas
'we who
like transistors' are of course objective so we don't even need to listen
to
know we're right.

**I agree. A good valve amp can sound very accurate. There is absolutely no
excuse to state:

Transistors = good, Valves = bad.

Such a blanket statement is facile and erronious.

4. There's a hell of a lot of careful thought going on in valves - follow
Audio
Asylum for some very complex arguments

**Sure. There's also a goodly number of nutters in Audio Asylum. There's a
few smart guys in there too.

5. It is POINTLESS thinking that some retro chassis from the sixties is
the
cutting edge of valve technology, and just as pointless to think that all
valve
amps sound alike and have 'that valve sound' (dreadful phrase) yet all
valve
amps seem to be lumped together.

**Hang on a sec! That was the thrust of YOUR first post! And, for the
record, I have never stated such nonsense. There are some good valve amps
and some crap valve amps. SETs, f'rinstance, are crap.

6. I have carefully explained in a number of posts the improvements that
can be
made at componant level to radically improve the sound of a valve amp. All
this
can be followed in great detail on Audio Asylum in the Tweakers and Tube
DIY
sections.

**I'm sure you have.

7. I've been a musician for about 40 years and my hearing is absolutely
fine
down to fine details. I know exactly what I'm listening for and why.
I could go on, but since I'm largely talking to robots, why should I?

**I don't insulting people furthers your case. Holding your alleged
muscian's staus over the heads of others, does absolutely nothing for me.
The last muso's system I attended had the speaker wired out-of-phase. It had
been so for the last 3 years. He had not noticed. I picked up the fault More
disturbing was that the particular muso is a very highly regarded classical
muso, here in Australia. I won't say anymore, because he is very high
profile and very talented. He also has no clue about what listening to
recorded music is all about.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com

"Andy Evans" wrote


snipped it all


Andy, I have snipped your whole reply (much of which I was in agreement
with) to make a (relatively) brief observation in the hope it will help.

We have had a situation in this group recently where a small minority of
'anti vinylists' managed to make the very mention of the subject into
intense arseache for all here for a very long time. Worse yet was the
certain knowledge (according to correspondence I've had) that it was putting
people off the group and getting the group an international rep for
childishness and acrimony. (Which, AFAIAC, may well be the 'norm' in and
therefore OK for rao but not for the UK....... ;-)

As a result a separate vinyl group has been formed and (despite no-one seems
to be able to get on it yet) is showing early signs of taking root. It's my
hope that 'vinylists' who do not subscribe to this group will find their way
into it and that it will grow. Already there has been a marked decrease in
vinyl acrimony here and something of a shift of attitude toward the subject.

Logically, if the 'bashing' tendancies of a similar (dare I say the 'very
same') minority here are going to shift to valves it would make sense to
create uk.rec.audio.valves (hands up the prat who said 'tubes') which I'm
sure Nick G could knock into place in a lunch break....

However we 'valvies' are in a much smaller minority here than I believe the
'vinylists' were and I feel rec.audio.tubes (hands up the prat who said
'valves') is much better placed to serve the needs of UK valve lovers. (I
believe a good number of UK valvies already subscribe there on a regular
basis, in any case.) My take on valves is rather like that of Harley
Davidson riders - 'if ya gotta ask, then you probably wouldn't understand
the answer......'

It's easy to shoot valves down on paper and (IMO) almost impossible to
defend them. I posted earlier this evening that a modest valve amp easily
beat a modest SS amp in a quick comparison tonight with the killer 'valves
and vinyl' combination. I know it was probably all down to the phono stages
but it was 'so big' a blind man could have seen it - IOW, no contest, no
way.....!! It is only an observation and of no importance (or interest,
probably) to anyone else here....

Someone's got to put the brakes on this 'split to the point of destruction'
or we are going to end up with uk.rec.audio.silver.solder one day. I would
(if I may) suggest the best way forward is for the relatively few 'valvies'
here to avoid the contention and simply ignore 'anti valve' remarks. (There
are a good number here who already do just that - me included, normally!) It
certainly doesn't do much good to make a fuss about it if you are going to
be ****ed off by the reactions you get!

Do what I do - switch your amps on before tea, go in a bit later and have a
quiet little smerk to yourself when you spin the first one up!

;-)

On 24 Jul 2003 22:37:55 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

You valve dickheads

You're talking about the whole of the Audio industry up to the sixties.

Yup, and the E-type Jag was a great car - in the sixties......

Now even my wife's Audi TT will blow the doors off an E-type, and we
have solid-state amps which comprehensively outperform anything using
valves. There's a reason why valve fans have to use 70-year old
devices..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:11:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


Understand
two things:

There are good and bad valve amps.
There are good and bad SS amps.

OK?

I've performed many, many blind and not blind tests, between SS amps and
valve amps. One thing has become abundantly clear, after listening to
literally thousands of different products. The very best tube amps (and
preamps) sound remarkably like the best SS amps (and preamps). So close,
that I have been unable to detect which is which, in a blind test, when
using appropriately rated loudspeakers (ie: those without wild impedance
swings).

For the record, two valve products, which I consider have largely inaudible
flaws a Audio Research VT100 and Conrad Johnson Premier 16. Both are
superlative examples of valve technology.

Some valve amps (SETs, are the best known examples) are instantly
recognisable, for their flaws. Although it would be possible to replicate
those flaws, using SS products, it would be a pointless and wasteful
exercise.

I just thought that the above was worth repeating! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:23:49 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Someone's got to put the brakes on this 'split to the point of destruction'
or we are going to end up with uk.rec.audio.silver.solder one day.

And what pray is wrong with silver solder? Of course, I hope you don't
mean brazing sticks, which are used for 'soldering' silver and brass,
but proper 'audiophile' eutectic alloy containg 2% silver. :-)

I would
(if I may) suggest the best way forward is for the relatively few 'valvies'
here to avoid the contention and simply ignore 'anti valve' remarks. (There
are a good number here who already do just that - me included, normally!) It
certainly doesn't do much good to make a fuss about it if you are going to
be ****ed off by the reactions you get!

It should be noted that it was that ignorant **** Andy Evans who
*started* all this valve crap, not anyone who might be described as
'anti-valve'. This should be obvious from the contentious thread
titles, which were an invitation to rebuttal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering