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

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:56:49 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:



For that reason, it is a word best used sparingly and with care in this
context.


But what, exactly, do you mean by "best"?

;-)

In what context, and on what occasion? :-)

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 , 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?

For me, the key point here is that 'better' is a term that is defined
in different ways by different people.



Of course - nothing unusal about that, it happens with half the English
Language. Words like 'fast', 'tall', 'slow', 'wide' etc. have no meaning
until a common standard is accepted.

Not quite. Words like "tall" differ from "better" in that we can easily
define a numerical measure for the purposes of comparison.

Thus we can say one person is 5ft 7in and another is 5ft 11in and then use
those values as a basis for a discussion or agreement as to which of the
persons may (or may not) be "tall". In such cases we can agree on the
measured values for a relevant quantity. The point being that if we then
disagree about what "tall" means in this context we can identify the root
of the disagreement more clearly and avoid ambiguity.

It is more difficult to do this with "better" as people using the term do
not seem to be using it to describe the same qualities, or have agreed how
they could be specified. Thus any use of "better" tends to lead to
arguments that stem from the failure to have a shared agreed meaning for
the term which is clear and unambiguous.


Normally possible with the use of such a standard ('mph' for example)
but often still meaningless in a world that has come to accept
exaggeration and blatant misrepresentation as standard practice.

Yes, any terms can be used in a misleading or ambiguous way. Indeed, the
advertising industry is founded on this. :-) However if we wish to
actually communicate, we have to establish clear and unambiguous meanings
for the words we use. Otherwise those involved literally do not know what
they are arguing about. :-)

Hence unless people first agree upon the specific definition they are
using, employing the word 'better' tends to lead to arguments at
cross-purposes.


That depends on the underlying motives of those who wilfully and
routinely choose to turn the casual use of such words into protracted
acrimony.

That may well be so at times. However my impression is that people also
often read meanings and 'motives' into statements that are not those the
writer intended. Hence my wish to try and pursuade you (and others reading
this :-) ) to direct more attention to the question of agreeing the
meanings of the terms used, and to notice when they are ambiguous.


For that reason, it is a word best used sparingly and with care in
this context.


Even that, however polite and innocent-seeming, is a form of censorship
not acceptable to me and one or two others in here.......

I am not asking for 'censorship'. I am suggesting ways to ensure
communication is more 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

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


[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.


Certainly - I will readily agree that I genrally prefer the distortions
of valve amps to the distortions of ss amps.

This then leads to the question of what the "distortions" you *perceive*
may be in each case.



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


Means nothing to me - it's a part of the physical world, the greatest
beauty of which is that there are no two truly *identical* entities and
'distortion' (general sense) exists to ensure this most wonderful state
remains thus for eternity.....

Whilst I would accept the above, I would also go on to comment that two
items may become indistinguishable in use. Hence they may then become
'identical' in the context of that use. Given this, I am not sure if it
matters if some precise measurements indicate differences which we don't
perceive when using the items.



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.


OK. You need to understand that I, for one, have absolutely no axe to
grind when it comes to amplifyer choices - I like ss amps, prefer valve
amps in the sphere of my own experience thus far.

A few minutes ago, I asked Swim 'do you prefer valve amps?' - 'yes'. OK,
why? 'They are warm, three-dimensional, and lifelike..'

Not really. But I suspect you guessed that. :-)

She could have been referring to their physical appearance for all I know.
The problem is the one I indicated in other postings. If you wish a set of
words to communicate your actual meaning you have to ensure the words used
have a meaning which the writer and the reader have agreed and is clear and
unambiguous. I can't say that I follow your/her meanings in this context,
so I am reduced to having to guess, which risks my simply misunderstanding.


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.


I think you're getting a bit hooked up on this distortion thing. It only
has the 'bad' connotation with people who started reading the
ingredients on the packet a few years ago and got a scare from it. Ever
since, they have been waving it about like a dead cat and trying to
scare the impressionable with it!!

OK. It may have been a misapprehension on my part, then. My impression at
times is that your or others have become annoyed and dismissed the idea
that valve amps (or analog/vinyl) show levels of distortion higher than SS
or digital. (I agree BTW that what I have just written is quite vague and
sweeping. :-) )


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.


Not sure what you mean - I don't need any help in this matter,

Do you mean:

1) You feel that you have already obtained the "best possible" (in terms of
your own meanings of those terms) amplifier, etc, so no help is needed for
that reason?

or

2) You feel that anything I might learn or suggest would be irrelevant as I
could not possibly have any advice or information that would be of use to
you in finding "better" (in your own judgement/terms) amplifiers, etc?

or

3) What?

if it helps you though I am delighted to assist any way I can.

OK. Then my personal preference here would be for you to assist by
considering the points about clarity and lack of ambiguity in the terms
used, and ensuring we all work with agreed definitions so far as possible
so as to promote understanding rather than argument.

As far as 'others' go, a few have been here to hear valves (never a
'slick' operation - summat usually manages to **** me about when they
are here...) and almost all of them have gone out and bought valves...??

Tell you anything?

(Means bugger-all to me - I suspect they were 'up for them' before they
ever got here in almost every case! ;-)

Can't say. However I'd agree that we may not all be seeking the same
things, so may end up making different choices. That is why I'd like to try
and clarify the details of those different aims.

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 ,
Paul Dormer wrote:
The fact is Pinkieton has an axe to grind with people who appreciate
valve amps, such that he needs to repeatedly point out the "obvious
failings" of the technology, whilst at the same time he indulges
himself with cupboards brimming with watches with "obvious failings"

But understands those failings and simply appreciates them for their looks
etc, rather than performance?

Nothing wrong in that. It's just like a hobby. I collect old test gear and
enjoy getting it working and playing with it. But don't claim it *works*
better than modern stuff. Indeed, a decent modern DVM that will near fit
in a pocket can replace a whole shelf full of valve test gear - and be far
more accurate to boot.

- or when they wish to discuss its
various pros and cons. That's merely expressing a preference, as we are
all entitled to do. But when 'they' endow that said valve amp with some
form of magical properties - as they invariably do - that's a different
matter.

False *scientific claims* are fair game IMO.

Well, yes. But not to many on here who think it's akin to an insult on
their manhood.


--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


So do I, dearie, and I'll lay an egg to an elephant that I've been
more places and done more things than a tired old-ex-trucker like you
ever has.


Well, this little exchange has been useful inasmuch as it's exposed your
(obvious) latent homosexuality for all to see, otherwise it has been simply
too boring to keep you out of the ****ter any longer - sorry! ;-)

*splash*

:-))

(In the ****ter? - Kinda suits you, doesn't it? :-)


Oh, ya hafta fekkin' larf!!!

:-)))

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

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" emitted :

Think you've missed the point. No one gets shot down in flames for saying
they prefer the sound of a valve amp

Bzzzzt! No, I've not *missed* the point. The original point has been
sidetracked, but still stands..

Here it is again...

SP :
You are the guys who get all '****ed off' when the obvious failings
of valve amps (and the bull**** you claim for them) are pointed out.

Moi :
Your numerous mechanical watches are less accurate than a £1.99
digital watch which can be had from any market stall. End of.

The fact is Pinkieton has an axe to grind with people who appreciate
valve amps, such that he needs to repeatedly point out the "obvious
failings" of the technology, whilst at the same time he indulges
himself with cupboards brimming with watches with "obvious failings"


The fact is rather more simple - that old queen has had free range in here
for a long time, chewing the arses of the meek and mild with his bull****
and has an axe to grind with anybody who won't roll over for it.

Queen? Chewing? Arses? Grind? Roll over?

(Should be enough little 'references' in there to keep him happy! :-)

OK, that's enough 'ad hom' or I'll have Fleetie after me again - fekkin'
crucial how nobody can see Pinkypoof's handbag whirling, ain't it??

Oh, ya *doo* hafta fekkin' larf!!!

:-)

No, make that - :-))))

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

Just a brief acknowledgement to say I gotta go out - I'm trying to shake the
worst cold (flu?) of my life atm!! I'll try and get back to you later.
(Guess what? - We don't have a box at the opera tonight either!! ;-)

Meanwhile, to give you some idea of a perspective , this is a list of all
the ss amps of which I have heard samples (and most of which I have owned)
in the last 5/6 years or so, as far as I can remember (off the top of my
head):

NAD
Rotel
Cambridge Audio
Cyrus
Marantz
Quad
Luxman
Sony
Yamaha
Technics
Parasound
Krell
Trio/Nikko (can't remember what it was)
MF (??)

and mebbe one or two others that don't come immediately to mind....

The 'light' came on for me when I got a big old valve amp (Arion) a few
years ago, since when I have never looked back and today I have a selection
of valve amps ranging from 40 year old classics to one which has not even
been powered up yet!!

OK?

;-)

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

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:41:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

So do I, dearie, and I'll lay an egg to an elephant that I've been
more places and done more things than a tired old ex-trucker like you
ever has.

Well, this little exchange has been useful inasmuch as it's exposed your
(obvious) latent homosexuality for all to see, otherwise it has been simply
too boring to keep you out of the ****ter any longer - sorry! ;-)

Somehow, I just knew that you couldn't stand the heat, dearie.... :-)

BTW, you have it the wrong way round - we're the ones who are *not* in
your sewer....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:08:58 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

The fact is Pinkieton has an axe to grind with people who appreciate
valve amps, such that he needs to repeatedly point out the "obvious
failings" of the technology, whilst at the same time he indulges
himself with cupboards brimming with watches with "obvious failings"

And as noted, I'm happy to acknowledge those obvious failings, and
even to discuss how they may be minimised (the new Daniels co-axial
escapement, for example). *That* is the difference.

You don't get it do you? You say you don't have prejudice against
valve users, but there's that blatant snideyness.

I said no such thing. I certainly have prejudice against clowns like
Evans and Garratt, who have no idea what they're talking about, and
don't want to learn.

The choice of words
eg. "obvious failings" and "obsolete technology" gives the game away.

Yeah, it's called reality, Dormouse.

*I* wouldn't say a precision engineered mechanical watch has "obvious
failings", nor would I repeatedly hammer the point home to mechanical
watch owners - except to make a point.

In that case, you're an idiot - but we already knew that. No
watchmaker would argue the point, he would simply agree that they
aren't as accurate as a good quartz watch, and point out that
timekeeping isn't why people buy mechanical watches.

Compare and contrast with valvies, who are petrified to agree that
their preference is inferior in absolute terms.

These watch makers have hardly
*failed* in their endeavors to make *satisfying* products.

Indeed so - but they would never argue that time is more 'realistic'
when you wear a mechanical watch. You just don't understand what's
happening in the world, do you Dormouse?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

Just a brief acknowledgement to say I gotta go out - I'm trying to shake
the worst cold (flu?) of my life atm!! I'll try and get back to you later.
(Guess what? - We don't have a box at the opera tonight either!! ;-)

Meanwhile, to give you some idea of a perspective , this is a list of all
the ss amps of which I have heard samples (and most of which I have owned)
in the last 5/6 years or so, as far as I can remember (off the top of my
head):

NAD
Rotel
Cambridge Audio
Cyrus
Marantz
Quad
Luxman
Sony
Yamaha
Technics
Parasound
Krell
Trio/Nikko (can't remember what it was)
MF (??)

and mebbe one or two others that don't come immediately to mind....

Arcam
Roksan