So what was it in that last post of Andy's that finally snapped the
patience of two of us, at the same moment, in the same way, and to
exactly the same effect?

Bear in mind that serious valve amp builders are equally exasperated with the
generalisations of those who are NOT up to date with valve technology and don't
inform themselves on a regular basis of circuits, valve characteristics and
finesses of modern valve technology. And don't accuse us of anything deriving
from old Mullard and Williamson circuits - time has moved on but evidently
prejudices have not.

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

On 22 Oct 2004 13:43:45 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

So what was it in that last post of Andy's that finally snapped the
patience of two of us, at the same moment, in the same way, and to
exactly the same effect?

Bear in mind that serious valve amp builders are equally exasperated with the
generalisations of those who are NOT up to date with valve technology and don't
inform themselves on a regular basis of circuits, valve characteristics and
finesses of modern valve technology. And don't accuse us of anything deriving
from old Mullard and Williamson circuits - time has moved on but evidently
prejudices have not.

From a man who will not / can not even measure the performance of his
own designs, a charge of prejudice has all the substance of a slight
breeze.

As for "up-to-date" and valve technology - an oxymoron if ever I saw
one. I presume that means that ECC83s, 12AT7s, EL43s and the like are
not to be found in your designs? And of course transformers no longer
have hysteresis losses and non-linearities? Please post a reference
for these new magic magnetic materials - I'm interested.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

From a man who will not / can not even measure the performance of his
own design

Let me repeat for the nth time where n is a large number that I have nothing
against engineering whatsoever, and I go out of my way to have my amps measured
on scopes and distortion meters.

As for "up-to-date" and valve technology

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Check posts on audio Asylum.

I presume that means that ECC83s, 12AT7s, EL43s and the like are
not to be found in your designs?

Correct. I've already given a list of valves that sound better. If you want
references:
a) Valve Amplifiers, Ed. 3 Morgan Jones
b)
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?...hlight=6sn7+th
orsten&r=&session
c) http://www.geocities.com/la1zka/hifi/distortion.html
d) http://www.enteract.com/~joepage/tubelist.htm
http://users.rcn.com/joepage

And of course transformers no longer
have hysteresis losses and non-linearities?
And ss amps still use elecrolytics in the sugnal path.

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

On 22 Oct 2004 14:13:12 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

From a man who will not / can not even measure the performance of his
own design

Let me repeat for the nth time where n is a large number that I have nothing
against engineering whatsoever, and I go out of my way to have my amps measured
on scopes and distortion meters.

As for "up-to-date" and valve technology

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Check posts on audio Asylum.

I presume that means that ECC83s, 12AT7s, EL43s and the like are
not to be found in your designs?

Correct. I've already given a list of valves that sound better. If you want
references:
a) Valve Amplifiers, Ed. 3 Morgan Jones
b)
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?...hlight=6sn7+th
orsten&r=&session
c) http://www.geocities.com/la1zka/hifi/distortion.html
d) http://www.enteract.com/~joepage/tubelist.htm
http://users.rcn.com/joepage

I don't want references, what do you use? When were they invented and
how did you decide on the right ones to use?

And of course transformers no longer
have hysteresis losses and non-linearities?
And ss amps still use elecrolytics in the sugnal path.

My ss amp has none. And of course, in relative terms, the effects of
an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to those of a
transformer.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

the effects of an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to those of a
transformer.

As a coupling cap? Don't make me laugh.

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

On 22 Oct 2004 15:06:19 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

the effects of an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to those of a
transformer.

As a coupling cap? Don't make me laugh.

Laugh all you like. Anyway - I already told you my ss amp has no
electrolytics in the signal path. More to the point, it has no
transformers there either.

I can see that your ideas of Hi Fi are mythology-based.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 22 Oct 2004 15:06:19 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

the effects of an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to those of a
transformer.

As a coupling cap? Don't make me laugh.

You are clearly an incompetent designer, if you make such a
fundamentally wrong statement.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
the effects of an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to those
of a
transformer.

As a coupling cap? Don't make me laugh.

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

CJ think otherwise, no electolytics used in power supply, certainly not as
a coupling cap or cathode bypass (or decoupling for that matter) IMO thats
why CJ amps and pre's are known universally to sound very good (Again, you
pay for quality).

Mike

I once tried electrolytics as CC ...never again.

In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
the effects of an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to
those of a transformer.

As a coupling cap? Don't make me laugh.

Erm... you seem to have snipped a part of what Don said that I think is
relevant here. The original sequence went:

From: Don Pearce
Subject: Is Hi-Fi delusional?
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:20
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

And of course transformers no longer
have hysteresis losses and non-linearities?
And ss amps still use elecrolytics in the sugnal path.

My ss amp has none. And of course, in relative terms, the effects of
an electrolytic cap are absolutely minute compared to those of a
transformer.

i.e. I understood that Don and yourself were arguing about the
*nonlinearity* of transformers and electrolystic caps. Presumably in their
normal and appropriate conditions of use. (I put the above back in as I
think that simply quoting the sweeping term "effects" may cloud the issue
and not represent the original comment about nonlinearity.)

If so, my understanding is that the nonlinearities introduced by many of
the signal transformers used for audio power output coupling may be much
greater than the nonlinearities of electrolytics used as coupling caps.

IIRC This is the gist of the measurements of linearity I have seen,
when viewed in the relevant ways for the designs I've seen. Indeed, I've
just had a quick look at Morgan Jones and a reprint of the old Williamson
articles, and these seem to show quite high nonlinearities in the
transformers they describe.

FWIW I think there was an article in HFN a year or two ago where MC set out
to expose distortion in electrolytics, but to do so - even at very low
levels - had to subject the caps to conditions of use that were very
different to the normal situation in the amps I am familiar with.

Whether the above 'matters' is perhaps a different question[1]. But if you are
referring to 'nonlinearity' and mean by that what engineers normally mean,
the above is my understanding of the situation.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] I am not automatically 'hostile' to transformers in the audio chain.
After all, I do prefer Quad ESLs to conventional speakers. ;-

--
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

In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
From a man who will not / can not even measure the performance of his
own design

Let me repeat for the nth time where n is a large number that I have
nothing against engineering whatsoever, and I go out of my way to have
my amps measured on scopes and distortion meters.

As for "up-to-date" and valve technology

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Check posts on audio Asylum.

I presume that means that ECC83s, 12AT7s, EL43s and the like are not to
be found in your designs?

Correct. I've already given a list of valves that sound better. If you
want references: a) Valve Amplifiers, Ed. 3 Morgan Jones b)
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?...hlight=6sn7+th
orsten&r=&session c)
http://www.geocities.com/la1zka/hifi/distortion.html d)
http://www.enteract.com/~joepage/tubelist.htm
http://users.rcn.com/joepage

The copy of Morgan-Jones that I have only gives data for types of valve
that look 'old' to me - ones I recognise from designs back in the pre
1960's. However if I get a chance I'll look at the above references.

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