|
|
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
60 years ago saw the introduction of the Western Electric 300A and 300B
direct-heated power triode, RCA 45, 50, and 2A3 directly-heated power triodes, and RCA 27, 56, 76, 6P5, 6J5, and 6SN7 family of indirectly-heated triodes. Sixty years later, these devices continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made. No pentode, bipolar transistor, JFET, or MOSFET has ever approached the distortion performance of mid-Thirties triodes. In addition to low distortion in the absolute sense, the distortion spectra of triodes is favorable, with a rapid fall-off of the upper harmonics. (This is not true for beam tetrodes, pentodes, or solid-state devices, which are intrinsically less linear.) If you ever want to put a solid-state designer on the spot, ask them which transistors were designed for high-fidelity audio applications ... and are they still on the market, ten or twenty years after they introduced? The sad fact is that solid-state devices have linearity well down on the list of design priorities, with feedback needed to clean up devices that were never primarily intended for audio. The automotive equivalent would be cars modified to use truck diesels ... OK for Soviet Russia maybe, but do you think you'd want to buy something like that if you had a choice? Yet this is the state of affairs in solid-state audio, with the electronic equivalent of an industrial diesel pressed into service in so-called "high-end" electronics. Lynn Olsen Keep the faith - "If it ain't glowing, it ain't going" === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
In article , Andy Evans
wrote: 60 years ago saw the introduction of the Western Electric 300A and 300B direct-heated power triode, RCA 45, 50, and 2A3 directly-heated power triodes, and RCA 27, 56, 76, 6P5, 6J5, and 6SN7 family of indirectly-heated triodes. Sixty years later, these devices continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made. No pentode, bipolar transistor, JFET, or MOSFET has ever approached the distortion performance of mid-Thirties triodes. In addition to low distortion in the absolute sense, the distortion spectra of triodes is favorable, with a rapid fall-off of the upper harmonics. (This is not true for beam tetrodes, pentodes, or solid-state devices, which are intrinsically less linear.) Could you be more specific by what you mean above? Under what specific conditions of use, signal powers, etc, are you making the above comments? Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Arny Krueger wrote:
Anybody who has seen and understood the plate curves for just about any Pentode should be laughing their butts off about now. I guess thats why he excluded Pentodes, and looking at the list of valves, indirectly heated triodes, or were you choosing to ignore that ? -- Nick |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Yes, they were introduced around 25-30 years ago. OTOH, we do have this thing called 'progress' in SS devices, unlike valves. 6C33C Its progress, maybe not in the right way... If valves are so wonderful, why has nothing been produced which is better than the 300B, in 70 years? 212 though looking at lines, I would say the 45 was way better than the 300b -- Nick |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: Anybody who has seen and understood the plate curves for just about any Pentode should be laughing their butts off about now. I guess thats why he excluded Pentodes, and looking at the list of valves, indirectly heated triodes, or were you choosing to ignore that ? By doing so he excluded an apples-to-apples comparison. Comparing a transitor to a triode is not an apples-to-apples comparison because the transistor has so much greater amplification. If you apply enough local feedback to a transistor amplifier to make it comparable to a triode, it's often even more linear. Yes, agreed, gain is cheap with transistors, but you are still assuming that feedback is without its cost in sonic terms. And before you go off on one of your rants, a zero (global) feedback SET does some things that no other type of amp does. Yes, it has faults, thats why I don't at the moment have one, and yes, to get it anywhere near usable you are talking about a high cost if only for the iron. BUT, sit someone down infront of a well designed SET, and a high enough sensitivity speaker and it will communicate to them is a way that nothing else can. And no, you can't sample that sound and push it through a comparitor. -- Nick |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:51:14 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If valves are so wonderful, why has nothing been produced which is better than the 300B, in 70 years? 212 though looking at lines, I would say the 45 was way better than the 300b The 845? That's a mid-thirties valve designed for use in radio transmitters............ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:58:51 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Nick Gorham" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: Anybody who has seen and understood the plate curves for just about any Pentode should be laughing their butts off about now. I guess thats why he excluded Pentodes, and looking at the list of valves, indirectly heated triodes, or were you choosing to ignore that ? By doing so he excluded an apples-to-apples comparison. Comparing a transitor to a triode is not an apples-to-apples comparison because the transistor has so much greater amplification. If you apply enough local feedback to a transistor amplifier to make it comparable to a triode, it's often even more linear. Yes, agreed, gain is cheap with transistors, but you are still assuming that feedback is without its cost in sonic terms. How about the internal feedback in triodes? :-) And before you go off on one of your rants, a zero (global) feedback SET does some things that no other type of amp does. Well, we can certainly agree on that!! Yes, it has faults, thats why I don't at the moment have one, and yes, to get it anywhere near usable you are talking about a high cost if only for the iron. BUT, sit someone down infront of a well designed SET, That's kinda like 'military intelligence', ain't it? :-) and a high enough sensitivity speaker and it will communicate to them is a way that nothing else can. Bull****. And no, you can't sample that sound and push it through a comparitor. IOW, it's all in your imagination, and your knowledge of the cost and 'exoticness' of the device. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:51:14 +0100, Nick Gorham wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If valves are so wonderful, why has nothing been produced which is better than the 300B, in 70 years? 212 though looking at lines, I would say the 45 was way better than the 300b The 845? That's a mid-thirties valve designed for use in radio transmitters............ Agreed, but FWIW, I remember you rating this http://www.nagrausa.com/nagra_VPA.htm In a earlier post, its got them in. -- Nick |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
And no, you can't sample that sound and push it through a comparitor. IOW, it's all in your imagination, and your knowledge of the cost and 'exoticness' of the device. Maybe, not that bothered, but I don't see how its exotic, just the reverse I would have said. -- Nick |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Could you be more specific by what you mean above? Under what specific
conditions of use, signal powers, etc, are you making the above comments? These are excerpts from Lynn Olsen's very interesting site, not my words. You have to read the original in full, rather than making comments on excerpts, however tempting that may be! http://www.aloha-audio.com/ - look at the Libraries section. Cheers, Andy === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Andy Evans" wrote
snip rather nice valve troll Keep the faith - "If it ain't glowing, it ain't going" OK, having hooked ukra back up again (as I said I would) it's interesting that all I'm seeing is valves and cable threads. I blew the cable thread (seen it all before - way too many times now) and read the valves thread with some interest as it has coincided exactly with my current experimentation: Yesterday evening, my 'audiophile salesman' chum Nigel was up to hear the Technics SE-A2000 (that I've just bought from his shop) in my system. It's an interesting bit of kit with (I'm told) a fairly unusual 'twin monaural' construction using mosfets and bipolars in all the right places....?? I got it mainly for protracted 'background' use and because it became available and because I've got a soft spot for the 'higher end' Technics gear generally. (I also love the 'power meters' but for Gawd's sake don't tell anyone..... :-) I had it paired up with an EAR 834L (1 x ECC83 JJ Tesla and 2 x 5814a JAN Philips) line stage and played Nigel a selection of 'his sort of thing'. Apart from a little 'dryness' and possibly a hint of 'dull' (if you listen closely for the first few minutes), I find this combo completely inoffensive, once I've got used to it. It's certainly got clout - deep and very tight bass which can create quite a bit of 'sternum pressure' and can send little puffs of air past your ears, even from small speakers. (That remark will either mean something or it won't....) Anyhoo, all was perfectly fine and Nigey Wigey loved it. Then the Devil in me kicked in and halfway through the evening I quickly swapped to my WAD Kit88. With Chris Rea 'On The Beach' actually playing (like already started) I swapped leads and switched it on and it creaked and squeaked its way up from stone cold. (All other aspects of the kit were unchanged.) In less than a minute the Kit88 valve amp had blown the Technics (MY Technics, no less) into the weeds! It was all there - sweetness, soundstage, tone, warmth, 'naturalness', 'friendly' even!. All those little 'red rag' terms I know you all love so much! ;-) Ain't got the grip or slam of the Technics but beats it in every other respect. (After an hour the Technics stood no chance whatsoever.) For the remainder of the evening I asked Nigel from time to time 'which one?' (bearing in mind he's *totally* Technics 'high end' himself) and each time he just shot a finger toward Johnny WAD.... Believe it or believe it not, I don't give a ****. (Checkable by phone if anyone *had * to hear it from the horses mouth, I suppose, Google up A N Audio, St Neots - they've got a website - and ask for 'Nigey Wigey'! :-) I've got no real axe to grind with valves - you either 'get it' or you don't. They can be a right pain in the arse and they definitely ain't for everyone! (It doesn't hurt to be a damn sight 'techier' than I'll ever be, for a start!) I've also no axe to grind with 'specs' and 'metrology' (essential for designers and builders) but, FFS, just once in a while put the slide-rules down and have a good *listen* will ya? There - my £0.02...... Now, anybody else get a freebie HFN this morning with MF's heejus new TT ad included with it? Oops! Wrong group.......! ;-) |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:59:35 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: Yesterday evening, my 'audiophile salesman' chum Nigel was up to hear the Technics SE-A2000 (that I've just bought from his shop) in my system. It's an interesting bit of kit with (I'm told) a fairly unusual 'twin monaural' construction using mosfets and bipolars in all the right places....?? Twin monaural - Wossat? Sounds a bit like two shoes, matching left and right, rather than a pair of shoes. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:59:35 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Yesterday evening, my 'audiophile salesman' chum Nigel was up to hear the Technics SE-A2000 (that I've just bought from his shop) in my system. It's an interesting bit of kit with (I'm told) a fairly unusual 'twin monaural' construction using mosfets and bipolars in all the right places....?? Twin monaural - Wossat? Sounds a bit like two shoes, matching left and right, rather than a pair of shoes. Heh heh! Didn't see my own post - seems I'd managed to killfile myself! (Ya gotta larf don't ya...? :-) Right Don, you wear shoes on your ears do you? - That can't help much, can it......? ;-) 'Twin Monaural' is 'Technicspeak' for 'dual mono'...... (Wot else?) |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: Twin monaural - Wossat? Sounds a bit like two shoes, matching left and right, rather than a pair of shoes. Posh name for separate power supplies for each channel. Or poor matching of performance. ;-) -- *I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian. Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:26:33 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: Arrrummm.... so what is the difference (for ten points) between dual mono, and stereo? **** Nose. I always thought two monos made a stereo....... Is it just that the channels are not well enough matched to qualify as stereo? More than likely (are they ever?)... But, by some stroke of great fortune, the (likely) imbalanced amplifier channels coupled with the slope of my floor, the prevailing East wind, one speaker cable being a quarter inch longer than the other, using different cable on each speaker in any case, me being more deef in one ear than the other, the obvious poor match of my speakers, odd shape of my room, the cellular phone transmitting mast right outside my window, the cat sitting over near the door, the 'list' on my cartridge, the turntable pitched up 15º from the right, collapsed springs in my listening chair and the grace of Gard (Charleton Heston in the movie....) all manage to provide me with a beautifully placed, solid, utterly central image..... Funny how things turn out, ain't it........? ;-) Just you wait 'til the clocks go back. It'll all need changing again. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:26:33 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Arrrummm.... so what is the difference (for ten points) between dual mono, and stereo? **** Nose. I always thought two monos made a stereo....... Is it just that the channels are not well enough matched to qualify as stereo? More than likely (are they ever?)... But, by some stroke of great fortune, the (likely) imbalanced amplifier channels coupled with the slope of my floor, the prevailing East wind, one speaker cable being a quarter inch longer than the other, using different cable on each speaker in any case, me being more deef in one ear than the other, the obvious poor match of my speakers, odd shape of my room, the cellular phone transmitting mast right outside my window, the cat sitting over near the door, the 'list' on my cartridge, the turntable pitched up 15º from the right, collapsed springs in my listening chair and the grace of Gard (Charleton Heston in the movie....) all manage to provide me with a beautifully placed, solid, utterly central image..... Funny how things turn out, ain't it........? ;-) Just you wait 'til the clocks go back. It'll all need changing again. ****....... |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
In less than a minute the Kit88 valve amp had blown the Technics (MY Technics,
no less) into the weeds! "If it ain't glowing, it ain't going." === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
In article , Keith G
wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote In less than a minute the Kit88 valve amp had blown the Technics (MY Technics, no less) into the weeds! I would be interested to know your reactions if you first fitted a pair of resistors in series with the outputs of the Technics. Values of around 0.47 to 1 Ohms between each output and the speaker. This would roughly mimic the relatively high output impedances typical of valve amps. I'd be curious to know if, after listening, you felt this changed things in a way that made you feel that the Technics now sounded more like the valve amp. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:24:29 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:51:14 +0100, Nick Gorham wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If valves are so wonderful, why has nothing been produced which is better than the 300B, in 70 years? 212 though looking at lines, I would say the 45 was way better than the 300b The 845? That's a mid-thirties valve designed for use in radio transmitters............ Agreed, but FWIW, I remember you rating this http://www.nagrausa.com/nagra_VPA.htm In a earlier post, its got them in. Indeed it does, and it uses them very sensibly, in a push-pull configuration. I've never argued that there are *some* good valve amps, and indeed the 845 is arguably the very best power triode, but note that all of those good valve amps are ludicrously expensive compared with an equivalent SS amp. BTW, the 845 is hardly evidence that things have improved in the 70 years since the 300B was introduced, since it's only a couple of years younger................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:27:05 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: And no, you can't sample that sound and push it through a comparitor. IOW, it's all in your imagination, and your knowledge of the cost and 'exoticness' of the device. Maybe, not that bothered, but I don't see how its exotic, just the reverse I would have said. What, with the Ongaku at £35,000 for a 25 watt amp, using a humungous output tranny made with silver wire, and a 1920s radio transmitter valve? Just how exotic does it need to be? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:27:05 +0100, Nick Gorham wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: And no, you can't sample that sound and push it through a comparitor. IOW, it's all in your imagination, and your knowledge of the cost and 'exoticness' of the device. Maybe, not that bothered, but I don't see how its exotic, just the reverse I would have said. What, with the Ongaku at £35,000 for a 25 watt amp, using a humungous output tranny made with silver wire, and a 1920s radio transmitter valve? Just how exotic does it need to be? Agreed, I never said it had to be cheap, or couldn't be made exotic, my point was, its possible to have a very simple SET circuit, its not inherent in the class. The last one I listened to was a PSE 300b amp, £1000 and I agree thats not cheap in SS terms. Also note that I didn't clame SET's were better, but just that it did some things differently. Anyway, who needs silver wound transformers http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulr.b...formerCrop.jpg -- Nick |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
**Well, not quite. Modern BJTs do, indeed, approach Triodes in their distortion levels but Triodes employ a large amount of NFB to achieve such low levels of THD. Adding a similar level of NFB around a transistor will allow the device to deliver comparable or lower levels of distortion. On that subject, can anyone suggest a equivilant to a 2SK170 ? or a UK supplier ? http://www.mushroom.co.uk/stock_w.htm UK-friendly: http://www.donberg.ie/descript/2/2sk170.htm |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... In article , Keith G wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote In less than a minute the Kit88 valve amp had blown the Technics (MY Technics, no less) into the weeds! I would be interested to know your reactions if you first fitted a pair of resistors in series with the outputs of the Technics. Values of around 0.47 to 1 Ohms between each output and the speaker. This would roughly mimic the relatively high output impedances typical of valve amps. I'd be curious to know if, after listening, you felt this changed things in a way that made you feel that the Technics now sounded more like the valve amp. OK, I'll give this a go and get the same person to do the test. (My own take is that, on the Technics, the sound lost 'air', 'sweetness' and kinda shrunk back into the speakers, but I let my mate, Nigey Wigey, make all the claims......) Tell me if this will work: The amp has two sets of speaker outlets (A and B) which I have used to check the 'biwiring' phenomenon (to absolutely 'zero' effect, I would say, yet again). If I use two pairs of (identical) speaker wires to the speakers and leave the connecting links on the speaker terminals will I be able to select A and B in turn (ie to compare the 'with' and 'without' resistors in series) or will the impedances be somehow 'messed up'? (It would be a simple front-panel button pressing exercise if this is permissible....) |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:57:41 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: Tell me if this will work: The amp has two sets of speaker outlets (A and B) which I have used to check the 'biwiring' phenomenon (to absolutely 'zero' effect, I would say, yet again). If I use two pairs of (identical) speaker wires to the speakers and leave the connecting links on the speaker terminals will I be able to select A and B in turn (ie to compare the 'with' and 'without' resistors in series) or will the impedances be somehow 'messed up'? (It would be a simple front-panel button pressing exercise if this is permissible....) That should work, but it will also work if you just use the one cable, and link the resistors between the A and B output terminals. This reduvces the number of variables to just the resistor. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:57:41 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: Tell me if this will work: The amp has two sets of speaker outlets (A and B) which I have used to check the 'biwiring' phenomenon (to absolutely 'zero' effect, I would say, yet again). If I use two pairs of (identical) speaker wires to the speakers and leave the connecting links on the speaker terminals will I be able to select A and B in turn (ie to compare the 'with' and 'without' resistors in series) or will the impedances be somehow 'messed up'? (It would be a simple front-panel button pressing exercise if this is permissible....) That should work, but it will also work if you just use the one cable, and link the resistors between the A and B output terminals. This reduvces the number of variables to just the resistor. OK, this sounds neat and 'elegant' - better than wires running everywhere. Correct me if I'm not getting this right - connect a cable like the letter 'h' where the speakers are off to the top and terminal A is the 'left foot' and terminal B is the 'right foot' of the 'h'. The resistor (I have managed to get a couple of R47Js rated at 4W - I take it these will be OK?) is then chopped into the 'loop' between A and B. 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????? Off out for a while, will be playing with this later - listen out for the 'bang'........ :-) |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
This would roughly mimic the
relatively high output impedances typical of valve amps. I'd be curious to know if, after listening, you felt this changed things in a way that made you feel that the Technics now sounded more like the valve amp. You valve knockers just can't get it into your heads that valves do something DIFFERENT that CAN'T be reproduced by simple tricks. I lived with those ghastly 'valve sound' monstrosities that the music industry foisted on us - none of them sounded as good as valves, not even remotely. === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
|
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Andy Evans" wrote in message ... This would roughly mimic the relatively high output impedances typical of valve amps. I'd be curious to know if, after listening, you felt this changed things in a way that made you feel that the Technics now sounded more like the valve amp. You valve knockers just can't get it into your heads that valves do something DIFFERENT that CAN'T be reproduced by simple tricks. I lived with those ghastly 'valve sound' monstrosities that the music industry foisted on us - none of them sounded as good as valves, not even remotely. **You're painting with a very broad brush. And badly, at that. 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. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
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? === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"Andy Evans" wrote in message
... This would roughly mimic the relatively high output impedances typical of valve amps. I'd be curious to know if, after listening, you felt this changed things in a way that made you feel that the Technics now sounded more like the valve amp. You valve knockers just can't get it into your heads that valves do something DIFFERENT that CAN'T be reproduced by simple tricks. I lived with those ghastly 'valve sound' monstrosities that the music industry foisted on us - none of them sounded as good as valves, not even remotely. 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. I think you'll find that he (like me) adopts a fairly pragmatic approach to the question of valves and SS kit. (I ain't fekkin' stoopid - I love and prefer valves but wouldn't entertain them if I didn't think they were 'better' in the circumstances I use them... ;-) Secondly, by way of a quick observation, a short, sharp shoot-out I conducted earlier this evening between an Audio Innovations Series 400 15 wpc valve amp (EL84s) with a valve Phono stage and a borrowed Technics SU-A700 45 wpc integrated SS amp revealed the following: For vinyl playback the Audio Innovations fairly ****ed on the Technics in almost every respect (usual litany avoided). For CD playback the Technics held its own without difficulty and, if I was into CDs (which I ain't) would probably be just as interesting as the valve amp. It doesn't tell anyone a lot - it was merely an opportunity to reset my 'zero points' before I use this Technics amp for the little experiment suggested by Jim. Can't use my own SS power amp as I am using valve pre's with it and I'm not sure what effect they might have on the proceedings. All I can say is that my son who owns the AI amp (and couldn't give a rat's whether its valves, SS, vinyl, CDs, SACDs, Minidiscs, DVD this and that or a thin crust pizza) grew up with and absolutely *adores* Technics gear but wouldn't swap for it..... ;-) (Hint: I'll probably keep this little Technics bugger anyway, as it too cute to hand back.....) Anyways, more anon when I have had a fiddle with the resistors........ |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"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 |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
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. |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"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 |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"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! :-) |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
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 |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"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 |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
"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! ;-) |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
|
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
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 |
Hello valve lovers, wherever you are.
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk