Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Phil North wrote:

Now if people buying valve gear would just say its because they
*prefer* the sound rather than saying the sound is *better* (how can
it be given SS systems can reproduce it), there would be no problems :-)


Is it possible to prefer something and not think that it is better at
the same time?

No. but you need to be clear that the thing in question is only then
better within your subjective criteria by which you determine its worth,
and thus you probably wont be able to easily compare your something to
anyone elses, including convincing them that you really know its better.

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"mick" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:34:47 +0000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Really? Can you provide your measurements to validate that fact? Here's
a few figures which your amps would need to meet, in order to provide
inaudible levels of distortion:

Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz (at, say, 1/3rd full power) +/- 0.1dB,
when operating into a real-world loudspeaker. Phase error: 20Hz - 20kHz -
+/- 5 degrees, when operating into a real-world loudspeaker.
Output impedance: Lower than 0.1 Ohm, from 20Hz - 20kHz (BTW: This is
where many run-of-the-mill SS amps fail)
THD: Less than 0.1% from 20Hz - 20kHz, at (say) 1/3rd maximum output.
IMD:
Less than 0.1%.


Trevor, I respect your point of view, but some research has been done (and
its not for me to judge how well) which shows that:

Frequency response - bottom end is limited by the volume of the room. Few
are capable of producing a fundamental tone down to 20Hz, although the
harmonics may be produced. The amp's and speaker's responses can't change
this - especially if they are "flat".

**Non-sequitur. Assume, for a moment, that I am still using my old KEF
T-lines, which were flat to 23Hz. The room I used them in was flat to 20Hz.


Phase errors are generally not easily heard unless a listener has
previous experience in spotting these. When they are detected it is
perceived as location information, not distortion.

**Phase errors MAY be very obvious to many listeners. More obvious than
frequency response errors.


Output impedence of the amplifier - controlling the speaker damping - is
also inaudible to the majority of listeners unless it is *really* bad.

**That would depend on the speaker. Some are insensitive to high output
impedance figures and some are not. Even the figure I quoted is too high for
some speakers. Like this one:

www.rageaudio.com.au/accu.jpg


THD is meanongless in the real world. It is a great method of producing
comparisons between amps, but there are so many other factors to be taken
into consideration that, below something like 5%, it is completely
inaudible.

**Bull****. Way back when I was a trainee tech, some of us experimented with
some pretty crappy speakers and discovered than 1% THD was audible. Other
experimenters have suggested that around 0.1% is a reasonable threshold for
average listeners. Critical listeners may be able to detect far less.


I'm not claiming that these are my own views. I generally don't consider
an amp bad unless I can hear the problems or it makes something smoke!


**Because many people imagine that because it has tubes, it must be
good. It is very important to show that this is not necessarily the
case. A valve amp may be good, or it may be bad.


Very, very true. Likewise a ss amp can sound absolutely appalling when
compared to a simple valve amp that has been designed and built well.
There are good and bad on both sides. IMHO some recordings sound better
via valves and some sound better via ss and for me the *sound* of the amp
is far more important than any figures attached to it. These preferences
may be a characteristic of my speakers!


**And I have never said anything of the kind. Except AM (though I did
build a superb, all valve, 4 stage TRF, with a triode infinite impedance
detector, when I was 16.).


And nothing sounds as nice as your own home-built stuff does it?

**Wrong. I built stuff for many years, 'till I heard my first commercial
amplifier. It was a sobering lesson to listen to a mighty Marantz 1200B. It
blew away everything I had ever built. My TRF was another story altogether.
I used to 'phone up the radio staion and complain about one of their
turntables having a worn stylus.

I've been
there, done that! (for many years). My first trf used battery valves & ran
from suitable 90v and 1.5v batteries!

**I'll betcha you didn't use an infinite impedance detector. Yours used a
standard diode one, right?



In fact, the last valve amp, I listened to, which I could easily live
with, was the Audio Research VT100. Trouble is, I regularly listen to
an SS amp which outperforms the VT100 at a significantly lower cost.



Lower cost - now we are getting to the point. Valves can't compete when
you talk of high quality watts per pound. I agree. But, you can't build
good, stable ss amps as easily as simple valve amps. The small size &
proximity of the components makes it far more difficult.

**That depends. If you're talking about building an amp from scratch, then
valves are easier. If you're tal,ing about buying off the shelf, or from a
kit, then the answer is not so straightforward.


I would recommemnd that anyone who wants to try the "valve sound" should
build a simple amp and give it a go. The cost can be reasonable, providing
that you are happy with 10W or less and are willing to make sacrifices
both ends of the audible spectrum. Remember that adult males tend to have
a top end hearing limit at about 16kHz (above this the frequencies give
"presence" information) so this isn't necessarily a great loss. This isn't
hi-fi, I suppose, but does that matter when you are enjoying the music?


**Nothing makes me happy. I'm a grump.

Ah! Get the soldering iron out & build a little valve amp to cheer
yourself up!
:-)

**No need. I use a soldering iron every day.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:10:57 +0000, Ian Molton used
to say...


Nick Gorham wrote:


I am sure you will have studied physics, name me one case where
perception does reflect exactly what is actually going on ?

Ever looked at one of those pictures that looks like its moving but isnt?

I think you just proved his point.

Yeah, aint that a bitch ;-)

(misread does as doesnt. Still, I shant feel too embarrased as his other
posts seem to indicate hes a reasonable guy.)

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
**Heheh. I'll go one better. Last year I received two old 3 Watt/ch valve
(PP) amps in for repair. Two of the four output transformers were shot,
along with most of the electros, a goodly number of resistors, all the
output valves and most of the paper caps. I offered the client two deals:

1) I'll restore it to original condition for around AUS$1,000.00.
2) For about AUS$300.00, I'll attempt a partial repair, which, if he was
not happy, would get his money refunded.

He chose deal #2. I stuck two power OP amps inside, rolled off the
frequency extremes, left the filaments connected and gave it back.

He reported back to me that his amps had never sounded so good. And
rightfully so. He now had around 3 times the power output.

You've used this story here before.

**Er, that's because it ain't a story.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Keith G wrote:

Certainly it does - if music/voices on my kit didn't sound exactly like I
expect it/them to, I'd get rid.

Out of curiosity, whats your reference to 'what they should sound like' ?

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Ian Molton wrote:


Given that 'better' is a subjective term, or alternately a way of
describing something subjectively, then if someone prefers one over the
other then it is indeed better.


since when was better a subjective term. it requires a context.


Better is a subjective term, think about it, if it requires a context,
then how can it be objective ?

maybe I should setup the post I did just over a week ago about why can't
we just let this die, with a cron job, get it posted once a week.

--
Nick

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Nick Gorham wrote:
Ian Molton wrote:


Given that 'better' is a subjective term, or alternately a way of
describing something subjectively, then if someone prefers one over the
other then it is indeed better.



since when was better a subjective term. it requires a context.


Better is a subjective term, think about it, if it requires a context,
then how can it be objective ?

If its meaningless without a context, it must be objective as you must
supply a context.

I contend that without a context, better on its own is meaningless.

Ie. "Brussells sprouts are better".

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Molton" wrote in message


that said, the quality of the engineering in a good mechanical watch
is going to be LIGHT years ahead of a 1.99 digital watch, and I'll
bet it'll last a damn sight longer before disintegrating.


Depends how you define quality engineering. No doubt the chip in the
digital watch is produced to finer mechanical tolerances.

I dont know about that. how big is the typical mask for a relatively
coarse chip making process such as in a watch?

Watch chips aren't necessarily coarse. The finer the lines, the more chips
per slab of silicon.

I guess its possible its bigger than some of the smaller components
in a classical watch. (thats a guess though).

Not at all.

the chip is produced by shrinking the mask optically onto the silicon
wafer...

Yes, which means that the detail is very fine - tolerances on the order of
wavelengths of light and even X-rays.

As far as watches disintegrating goes, its been decades since I
replaced a digital watch because it stopped working and couldn't be
resucistated with a cheap battery.

I dunno about you, but the 1.99ukp cheapies dont seem to last more
than a year, maybe three before the strap goes...

I go with *quality* product - Timex ;-)

I usually end up replacing my watches for reasons of appearance, a
problem that extends to cheap mechnaical watches as well.

True.

Note that there are very few truely mechanical cheap watches - most
of them have a chip oscillator or some kind of battery-powered gizmo
near their heart.

Having repaired a few cheapies Im aware of that :-)

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale Diamond II's
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


Additionally, if the input is sublimely perfect, any amp which
distorts, will ruin the goodness.


Sublimely perfect input??? Got any?

**Several.


You do?

**Yes.

What are they?

**You're joking, right? The list is too long to mention here.


Oh, sure...

OK, just two or three then - to give us an idea. Only we get to hear all
about this 'crappy amps' and 'perfect inputs' but we *never* get any
examples. The reason is too obvious to be worth a mention......

**I fail to see the point, but I'll grab a couple from my shelf, above my
bench, which I use for test purposes.
* Mary Black - Mission Demonstration disk
* Brahms - Cello Concertos (RCA)
* Chet Atkins - The Essential Chet Atkins
* Neil Diamond - You Don't Bring Me Flowers
* Christine Anu - Christine Anu

Happy now? What purpose did that serve.


Ah.

I thought you were talking about inputs as in *devices*......

(You know - what you get when you flick the 'Input Selector'....???)









Got an amp which *doesn't* distort?? Not at all???

**Several. None of which exhibit any AUDIBLE distortions. More to the
point: Do YOU have any amplifiers which exhibit no audible
distortions, when used with real-life loudspeakers?


None of my amps disort audibly that I or anyone else here can detect.

**Really? Can you provide your measurements to validate that fact?


Wake up dummy - read the words 'I' and 'can detect' again, also try to
get the notion that just a few of us actually *listen* to the music and
don't just watch it on a scope.....

**Now I understand. You KNOW that your amplifiers do not audibly distort,
but you have no way yo prove it. That makes sense.


Certainly it does - if music/voices on my kit didn't sound exactly like I
expect it/them to, I'd get rid.

**So, you have no way to verify what you think it should sound like? How do
you know that your source is accurate?




I have news for you: If your amps do not meet or exceed the parameters I
have outlined, they do, in fact, audibly distort.


Not that I can detect - why do you have a problem grasping this?

**You can't detect their distortions, because you've never measured them.






snip bollockology

restore facts and figures, which you seem to be extremely uncomfortable
in discussing

Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz (at, say, 1/3rd full power) +/- 0.1dB,
when operating into a real-world loudspeaker.
Phase error: 20Hz - 20kHz - +/- 5 degrees, when operating into a
real-world
loudspeaker.
Output impedance: Lower than 0.1 Ohm, from 20Hz - 20kHz (BTW: This is
where
many run-of-the-mill SS amps fail)
THD: Less than 0.1% from 20Hz - 20kHz, at (say) 1/3rd maximum output.
IMD: Less than 0.1%.


Interesting/useful to a manufacturer or designer, of little importance to
the end user.

**Nope. Absolutely critical to the end user. There is no point building a
system around a faulty component.

Mention 'distortion' and 'flat response' to one or two people
I know in the racket and they'll laugh their arses off!

**Sure. There's stupid people in the racket. I'm in the racket (and have
been for 35 years) and consider those parameters to be very important. In
fact, unless a product meets those basic criteria, there's little point
considering it at all, since it will affect the sound of any decent system
negatively.






(What,
do you think we sit here listening to 'audible distortion'...??? :-)

**Yes.


Well, I reckon Swim's a better judge than yew, me auld china (played
clart in the presence of Queenie at the RCM and a colleague of Tony
Michaelson for 3 years or so) so it'll be alright if I go along with her
opinion and discard yours, will it?

**I have no idea who "Swim" is. So, no.


Swim = SWMBO

I put a clart piece on she says it's OK. I put it on a valve amp she says
it's 'very real'. I put it on the triode amp she says it's the 'most real
yet' - who am I to argue???

**I'm assuming that since her sensibilities coincide with yours, you won't.








There's much tub-thumping about 'high fidelity' and 'straight wires
with gain' - like one type of amp absolutely fits these criteria and
another type don't.

**Few amplifiers actually fit that description, WHEN DRIVING REAL
LOUDSPEAKERS.


No need to shout, me auld shagger...

**There is, sometimes.


No, really, there isn't....

**Sure there is. You still seem to be hung up on:

Valves = Good
Transistors = Bad


Hmmm...


This is faulty logic.


You're not kidding....


There are some very fine valve amplifiers. There are some really bad valve
amplifiers. There are some very fine SS amplifiers and some really bad SS
amplifiers. Just because an amplifier uses a particular active devices,
does not automatically convey a measure of goodness (or badness) on that
product. However, at a given price level (assuming good design), a SS
amplifier will always outperform a valve amp.


I'm not sure what this is all leading up to. First off, I love all these
'qualified' statements we keep seeing like 'crappy valve amps' and 'at a
given price level', 'good design' etc. etc.

Next, I'm not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that we're tit-deep in
'bad' amplifiers. Call it a sheltered upbringing if you like, but I'm not
sure I've ever heard a *bad* amplifier....???

**I have. Lots of them. Including the afore-mentioned Audiolab 8000A.


(Are bad amps like fleas? - The more you seek, the more you find and the
more you find, the happier you be??)

**In my business I get to see *a lot* of amplifiers. I usually listen to the
ones which demonstrate overtly interesting results on the test equipment.
The most recent one being a Linn Intek. Quite a good amp, BTW.


Then you seem to be very comfortable presuming that I would choose *any*
valve amp over *any* ss amp, come what may?? Wrong, asitappens, but I've
yet to hear an ss amp I could live with other than during the single
week's hot weather we get in the UK...

**[GAG] Hot weather? You have no idea what hot weather really is. Trust me
on this. As it happens, the amp I use is specifically designed to operate at
an internal temperature of 60oC, regardless of the outside temperature
(provided the outside temperature does not exceed 60oC, of course).

As for your selection of an SS amp, I suggest you use similar criteria to
that which would affect your choice of valve amps. Here's a few criteria you
could consider:
* Low Global NFB.
* No current limiters (or current limiters which operate in a benign
fashion).
* A good, big power supply, relative to power output. IOW: A nice, heavy,
low power output amp.
* Moderately high Class A operation.
* Collectors coupled to loads.

The afore-mentioned Linn Intek comes close to these parameters.


(First thing to go with ss is the 'soundstage', you see.....)

**Not necessarily. Soundstage is affected by several things. All of which
can be addressed quite easily.








Quite a few manage it with dummy loads and sine waves, however.

(Not to mention whatever input or amp is used, the speakers and the
room will have the final say, in any case....)

**Strawman, duly noted.


Geekboy 'Usenet' terminology duly noted.....

**Strawman, duly noted.


Geekboy 'Usenet' terminology duly noted.....

**Your further strawman is duly noted.


Your further Geekboy 'Usenet' terminology duly noted.....





(You been talking to the other opinionated, non-UK loudmouth that
hangs around in here by any chance?)

**That depends.


Thought as much....


What does that tell you? They got no place in this ng for a start?

**Not at all. I have stated, ad nauseum, that a REALLY GOOD valve
amplifier


You're shouting again - do try to hold it together, there's a good
chap.

**Clearly I need to shout. You don't seem to pay attention.


Won't get (or keep) my attention by shouting muchacho, saying something
interesting is all it takes - try it.....

**I try to. You just ignore the truth. Just try to follow my logic, once
in awhile.


You have no logic, you have only prejudice and dogma....

**Nope. I have logic and experience on my side.






Who's discussing cheap, crappy valve amps?

**The original poster.


Oh ah? And where do you see that, then? Nothing in there that I could
see - he mentions a valve amp (preferably DIY) and that he's got a
budget system - make the classic mistake of confusing the two different
statements, did we??? ;-)

**Nope. A DIY'er is, by definition, after a bargain (or an education).
Further, it is safe to assume that his choice of speakers suggests that
he is on a tight budget. If I am wrong, I will be happy to retract my
assumption.


Absolute ******** - a very unsafe presumption at best...






- That's your usual (what's that
term - 'strawman'?) little injection into the proceedings isn't it??

**Nope.


Not nope - yep...

**I could have said: "Non-sequitur".


I could have said "Non est ad astra mollis e terris via
".....

**You could, but I wouldn't have a clue about what you are saying.








Or that
can subscribe here if they perform some sort of 'confession' or make
an obeisance to their (wiser) betters?

**Education never hurt anyone.


Agreed - try some.

**What would you suggest? Vaccuum tube theory? Nope. I can get by.


Start with 'Ubu Roi' by Alfred Jarry (1896) - it's an allegory of
Digital Theory predating the concept by nearly a hundred years. You
should find it interesting.....

**Why? I am not discussing digital. I am discussing signals in the
analogue domain.


That too...








Ever see a valvie give an ss type a hard
time because he doesn't like/use valves?

**Every single day.


Must be hell....

**It is distressing being surrounded by fools.


There there, never mind - if you don't look straight at them, they'll
all go away soon....


Again with the 'cheap, crappy valve amps' - you really don't have an
argument do you? Why not just say *broken* amps and be done with it???

**Because many people imagine that because it has tubes, it must be
good.

???


It is very important to show that this is not necessarily the case.


It is?? To whom??

**To the poor fools who have been deluded by the marketers of shoddy
valve amps, masquerading as decent products.


You must have 'em on every street corner.....

**Pretty much.


(Paid the full ML 'Red Rose' price for a chinky amp, did they?)

**Worse. Some have actually paid real Dollars for Audio Note amps.






A valve amp may be good, or it may be bad.


Stressy, isn't it...??? :-)

**Not at all. A quick set of measurements will soon sort out the good and
the bad.



Stoppit, please - most of us just chuck the ****ing music on and
listen to it. We ain't 'measuring' it or giving it marks out of ten!
We play it the best way we like to hear it - is that really too hard
to understand??

**Not at all.


Note to Jim Lesurf - if I don't see you pulling this clown up for not
snipping soon, I'll start to feel a bit 'singled out' - know wot I mean?


He ain't snipping, I ain't snipping - we've done all this before.....






The trouble with you *extreme* CD/SS types is you really got nowhere
to go, have you?

**Now you're engaing in projection. I suggest you do some homework,
before attempting to tar me with a brush you tar others with.

It can't be vinyl, it can't be valves, it can't be MP3s, it can't
be 24/92 or 24/192, it can't be AM, it can't be DAB, it can't be 78s,
it can't be cassettes, it can't be mono etc. etc. etc..

**And I have never said anything of the kind. Except AM (though I did
build a superb, all valve, 4 stage TRF, with a triode infinite
impedance detector, when I was 16.).


I'll say it again: The trouble with you *extreme* CD/SS types is you
really got nowhere to go, have you?

**More projection. Do your homework, before shooting your mouth off.
Here's where you have to prove that I have ever defended 16/44 digital as
being the "ultimate" signal source.


I don't have to prove diddly dick.....

**When you accuse me of something, you need to provide some evidence.



For the record:


Records are not digital....


* I use MP3 in my car. It is entirely adequate, in that environment.
* I stopped using cassettes a couple of years ago. (I used to own a
Nakamichi 100ZXL)
* I listen to AM radio, every Saturday morning. It's a local show called
The Weekend Woodies. http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/photogalleries/woodies/
* I have always felt that 16/44 digital is inadequate to compete with the
VERY BEST (sorry to shout) vinyl available.


First thing you've said that made any sense....


* I have always detested 78s.
* I like 15ips reel to reel.





**Means nothing to me. There are some crappy SS amps on the market.


Really?

**Yes, really.

That's news to me - can you name one current, freely available (in
the UK, of course) make and model??

**One of the most ordinary, I encounter reasonably frequently is the
Audiolab 8000A. It can deliver gobs of current, but sounds terrible. As
for current models, just pick up any sub-1,000 Squid surround sound
receiver. They all sound horrible. Any brand.


Ooh, that's going to ruffle the feathers of someone here.....

**I don't give a ****. It is a horrible sounding amplifier (yes, I've
compared it blind).


I've never heard one - all I've ever heard is that they are supposed to be
good???

**The Audiolab 8000A does SOME really good things:

* It is quite powerful and powerful sounding, in a compact package.
* It copes with difficult loads quite well.
* It delivers a good set of specifications.





Kills me the way you
'anti****s' try to fit this group up with your own wacky little
prejudices and then try to wipe it off on those of us who have
declared time and time again we don't give a rat's arse what you or
anyone else prefers or uses....

Still, if it makes you happy.....???

**Nothing makes me happy. I'm a grump.


Not as grumpy as me - I've got the sodding 'flu and haven't had a wink
of sleep all night......

**There are two Aussie inventions you should (have) tried. It is too late
now, as you need to use them at the first signs.
Tamiflu and Relenza. I find them to be remarkably effective (and
expensive).


We have Lemsip in the UK.....

(Says it all really.... :-)

**We have Lemsip here too. It's useless. Tamiflu and Relenza are
prescription drugs. They're useful. I've found Relenza shortens the duration
of a cold by about 2 days and reduces it's intensity somewhat. At AUS$60.00,
it ain't cheap, but those of us who are self-employed, it is well worth it.
No side effects.





(Might get mi second Chinky valve amp today tho' - that'll cheer me up!
:-)

**You deserve it. If you must, you really should try to lay your hands on
a second hand ARC VT100. Superb amp.


Sounds a little out of my price range.....

**If you want quality..... A Classic 60 and 120 are both nice products too.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Valve amp (preferably DIY) to drive apair of Wharfedale DiamondII's
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

I guess its possible its bigger than some of the smaller components
in a classical watch. (thats a guess though).

Not at all.

How big are the features on a typical mask used in photolithography then?

the chip is produced by shrinking the mask optically onto the silicon
wafer...


Yes, which means that the detail is very fine - tolerances on the order of
wavelengths of light and even X-rays.

Indeed - but is the mask that fine or is the image focued through a much
bigger mask?

I dunno about you, but the 1.99ukp cheapies dont seem to last more
than a year, maybe three before the strap goes...

I go with *quality* product - Timex ;-)

;-)