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

Paul Dormer wrote:

"Tat Chan" emitted :



I did say *main* factor, and not *only factor.


And that is what I am objecting to. Only for the overwhelmingly rich
does your statement make sense, but you applied it to allcomers...

no, as with all other hobbies, one should spend within their means. I
thoguht that would have been fairly implicit?

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

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Nick Gorham wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:


To make a fine distinction, some people go for what they
*perceive* as being more accurate.



sure, but sometimes perception doesn't reflect what is actually going
on.


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



Like a wheel looking like it is spinning backwards once the frequency of
rotation goes past a certain threshold?


That's called 'aliasing'.....

(Owzat for a 'vinyliste'...??? ;-)

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

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
Just dropping in...



"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

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 :-)


Just look at the brass arsehole on this **** - 'use my terminology and I'll
let you off'..!! Who TF does he think he is?


I have no problem with anyone preferring a valve
amplifier, but valvies seem to have this desperate need to *justify*
their preference with bull**** claims about 'inner detail' etc.


And more arrant ******** from the pink orifice of brown stuff - I know of
*no* valvie who gives a little **** on a stick about what this clown thinks
about valves! Justify our preferences?? - In his twitchy little
dreams......!!



The primary problem is people who cannot accept that leisure-based
opinions are not necessarily scientific claims.. which must be
challenged intellectually to the Nth degree.


What else would he have to live for....??


You're just another
nobody in a long series of pedantic, ego-propping nerds.


(Actually he's also more than just a little bit on the *boring* side - I
think I'm going to have to stop looking over people's shoulders!!)


Ya hafta fekkin' larf...!!!

:-)

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

Keith G wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**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.



Trevor,

Which version of the 8000A would that have been? There were numerous
revisions over the years (Mk I - III) from the early 80s till the mid
90s. The first version had a grey case with DIN connectors instead of
phono connectors. The MkIII versions (post '92?) are meant to be very
good, as they probably ironed out all the defeciencies by then. And
apparently the 8000A has a non-transparent pre-amp section ...

Have you tried the 8000S?


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


well, quite a few subscribers to UKRA are quite happy with their
Audiolab kit ...

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:55:07 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:45:47 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) used
to say...

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:

Did you think I was guessing?

Since you do about near everything else, why not this?

I rarely guess about something I care about.

Ah, so you finally admit that you don't care about audio!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:26:03 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

Just dropping in...

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

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?

Yes. I prefer to wear a mechanical wris****ch, but I cheerfully
ackowledge that it's not as good a timekeeper as the average £5 job
off the market.

That's dishonest.. you already stated you think they are overall
better on the basis of look and feel and over-engineering. Accuracy is
obviously a low priority to you for such pieces. Only a total headcase
would pay over the odds for something they know to be worse, without
any other justification. You can't have it both ways, hypocrite.

Not hypocritical at all, although I know it's your favourite word. A
wris****ch has a basic function, that has nothing to do with its form.
In terms of that function, a mechanical watch is not better than a
quartz watch, in fact it's usually about 50 times worse (although I
supertune my mechanical watches). One may of course prefer it for its
*form*, and for its precision engineering, but it's not 'better' at
what it does. Equally, and this is the whole point of the analogy, an
amplifier has a basic function, which has nothing to do with its form.
In this context, a valve amplifier is not better than a SS amp, and is
usually much worse. One may however prefer the particular sound that
it makes, one may prefer to have spent lots of money on a prestige
product which glows in the dark, and one may simply prefer the whole
nostalgic retro thing.

I have no problem with anyone preferring a valve
amplifier, but valvies seem to have this desperate need to *justify*
their preference with bull**** claims about 'inner detail' etc.

The primary problem is people who cannot accept that leisure-based
opinions are not necessarily scientific claims.. which must be
challenged intellectually to the Nth degree. You're just another
nobody in a long series of pedantic, ego-propping nerds.

And *you* are, what exactly? A whining parasite with nothing to offer
but spiteful sniping from the sidelines?

Take a leaf
out of Jim Lesurf's book.. he's able to elucidate and educate without
stepping over the mark, making overbearing presumptions about other
peoples business, or being grossly insulting, or pretending to
know-it-all. He sticks to what he knows about, and whatever biases he
may have are not used as weapons against other poeople.

Agreed, he's a fine - and extremely patient - chap who really knows
his stuff. That's why he doesn't use valves.

That's why he
gets respect and you don't..

Different strokes for different folks. You are clearly confusing me
with someone who gives a **** about *your* opinion.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 02:55:26 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
.. .
Just dropping in...

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

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 :-)

Just look at the brass arsehole on this **** - 'use my terminology and I'll
let you off'..!! Who TF does he think he is?

I've no idea - he's certainly not me.................

I have no problem with anyone preferring a valve
amplifier, but valvies seem to have this desperate need to *justify*
their preference with bull**** claims about 'inner detail' etc.

Now, that *was* me.

And more arrant ******** from the pink orifice of brown stuff - I know of
*no* valvie who gives a little **** on a stick about what this clown thinks
about valves! Justify our preferences?? - In his twitchy little
dreams......!!

You do it all the time, you puffed-up prat.

The primary problem is people who cannot accept that leisure-based
opinions are not necessarily scientific claims.. which must be
challenged intellectually to the Nth degree.

What else would he have to live for....??

You're just another
nobody in a long series of pedantic, ego-propping nerds.

(Actually he's also more than just a little bit on the *boring* side - I
think I'm going to have to stop looking over people's shoulders!!)

Ya hafta fekkin' larf...!!!

Feeling better now, dearie? :-)

MY my, you *really* don't like your pathetic prejudices being
permanently pricked by perceptive persons, do you? Your fellow hairy
arsed truckers must have had a real laugh when you weren't around, you
strutting ****. Didn't we just hoot when you put up that piccie of the
big strong boy with his shotgun, boasting about bending the girl in
the piccie over a desk. Posey **** - and no gentleman.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

In article , Tat Chan wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
I note many people in the audio press and elsewhere creating incredible
untested technical arguments for "why" valve amplifiers etc. Unless you
are in such a minority business and have to create or maintain a market
for your product, seeking engineering reasons to justify "why" someone
wants to try out a valve amplifier is both unnecessary and inappropriate.

Do they actually try to create engineering reasons?

Not always - and maybe my own background causes me to look too critically
at what's printed. I see speculations ranging from the plausible which
provoke thought to the more outrageous which demand (to my mind, anyway)
supporting evidence.

I used to be on the referees list for a well-known professional technical
journal (not audio). First of all, being in research demanded I ask
searching questions to be sure of getting to the truth. Then, from being
a referee probably I learned to apply an even higher standard of enquiry.

... I always thought the
usual mantra was "it sounds better because no one has designed the right
measurement test to capture the betterness" or "science doesn't tell us
everything yet"

That's always possible as technology progresses. Ultimately "this sounds
better" is what really matters. However the argument can be used and
is often used in support of sophistry.

--
John Phillips

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote
[snip]

I am not clear of your view on this point, but will also ask: Is it
possible that you simply prefer a sound that has been altered by some
specific forms of distortion?


I'm a little surprised to see you going for this 'favourite easy score'
- much more the practice of the clowns who want to trick someone into
admitting a) there *is* a 'rosy glow' and b) they *prefer* it...

I think that your surprise may stem from a misapprehension which I feared
you might draw. This was why I hesitated to ask. However - as you phrase it
later in your reply - I am not trying to 'label' you or others. I am not
necessarily trying to use an answer to the above to 'prove' anything about
what may be 'good' or 'bad' about your choice.

Try the simple approach - works with me every time: I've no real idea
why I (or, more importantly, my partner) prefers the sound achieved
with valve amps but we clearly do - night on night, day on day, never
failing, never faltering....

What labels people wish to try an attach to that is of no real concern
to me - if it's gamma rays from the Planet Zog making, say, Ry Cooder
sound more like my/our perception of 'Ry Cooder' then I'd have to put a
tick in the box marked 'Finds Gamma Ray Distortion Preferable'.....??

OK.

[snip]

My reason for asking is that I would wish to disentangle two points.

One is that it may be that you and others - to some extent - prefer 'valve
amps' (in a very general sense) because they *do* 'distort' the sound in
some specific ways.

The other is that we have to take care with assuming that 'distortion' is
something to be ashamed about in all cases.

If this hypothesis is correct, then I see no need to assume that such
'distortion' is *always* 'bad'. My interest is in considering if this is
the case. If it is, then it helps both those who like 'valve sounds' and
those who do not to be able to select/develop items they personally prefer.
It also helps us to establish the underlaying reasons why different people
prefer different types of system, and what may be 'different' in what they
are after.

The problem here, I think, is that some people regard distortion as 'bad'
(value judgement) and then others react against that as being a 'criticism'
of valve amps. However I think this combines two *different* points.

In general terms, I do not personally share your preference for valve amps,
However I can happily accept that you prefer them for some reason(s).
rather than this being a source of heated pun argument, my interest is in
trying to identify the reasons behind the difference in preference in ways
that might lead to 'better' results for you, and for others - of whatever
preference in this matter.

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

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith
G wrote:
[snip]


Also, if there is a level below which the distortion has no effect you
can detect, is that amp then not essentially


..what?

Sorry, my brain must have nodded. :-)

What I was trying to establish'check was if you agreed that the levels of
distortion might be low enough to be inaudible in some cases, but might
still exist or be measurable.

If so, then it becomes doubful if we need to use 'distortion free' to mean
literally zero distortion (nominally unobtainable). Instead we can use
'distortion free' to mean having no perceivable distortion (potentially
attainable) as a point of comparison.

Well, consider what I ask above. Is it the case that at some point the
distortions become so small that they become un-noticable?


I'm sure they do - at both ends of the audible spectrum, but I can't
claim to *know* that...???

That is a fair point. However you could (if you so wished) take part in
tests to establish if there is a level below which you could not tell the
difference between two versions of a musical signal - one with 'added
distortion' and the other not. I am not inviting you to participate in such
a test. :-) However just inviting you to consider it as a thought
experient


Like there are wise guys here and also idiots who put themselves
through a lot of extra effort and expense just to be bloody awkward
or summat? Have a little think for a minute - I don't know of
*anyone* who uses valves (or has got into valves) because he thinks
they are *worse* than ss amplification.....!!

That sounds reasonable, but what are you assuming about the
relationship between the subjective judgement "worse" and the
measurable quantites that indicate the level of distortion? Are you
symultenously assuming that:

1) More distortion = "worse"

and

2) But valve amps are "better"

Therefore concluding that valve amps must have 'less distortion'.


Huh?

WTF are you going on about James? - Keep it simple, try 'nice' and 'not
so nice'.....????

I am trying to avoid words like 'nice' as they are value judgements which
do not tell me anything about the *reasons* for a preference in engineering
terms, and hence would not help us to be able to understand (and hence
improve) what may be on offer.

The point I was aiming at above is described in another posting I just
wrote. That we should perhaps disentangle worries about 'distortion' from
considering what people may prefer. In effect, 'distortion' should not
necessarily be regarded as an 'emotionally loaded' term in this context.

[snip]

Or what relationship between 'distortion' and 'worse' are you assuming?


None whatsoever......

So are you quite happy if someone says that one of the reasons you prefer
vavle amps is that you like the distortions they may introduce? Or do you
dislike/reject such a statement due to your reactions to the term
'distortion'?

(Clue - I *never* 'assume' - I either find out for myself for sure, or I
ask someone I can trust....)

Actually, I think it likely that you - as with most of us - make
assumptions quite often. However you may also - as most of us - then
sometimes take steps to check your assumptions in various ways. :-)

Assumptions are often unavoidable. However as you say, we can then find out
for ourselves if they are reliable.

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