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

"Paul Dormer" wrote


What regularly happens between informal posters is they agree to
disagree when a contradiction arises, rather than forcing the issue.

Thus a lot
of time and 'fury' could be avoided if they recognise this and proceed
appropriately. e.g. simply acknowledge that the term they used may not
tell
the reader anything.

Hang on.. I wasn't implying that subjective comments may not tell
readers *anything*. It's up to the *reader* to sort the wheat from the
chaff.


Yes, agreed - I think there's too much 'you express your opinion in my terms
and I will allow it' tried on in here, at times.

Needs to be remembered that 'ultimate communication failure' (real or
imagined) with certain parties in this ng isn't of any particular
consequence....

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


The reality is that magazines tend to pay on a per-page or per-word basis.


Like we hadn't *noticed*??? :-)

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

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
He'd spent $3,000 on SS pre amd power amps, but after a year he could
stand it
no longer, and went to all tubes, how's that for 22 yr old ears?

Nice post, Patrick.


Certainly was - should go a long way with the 'silent majority' here to
counteract some of the shrieking hysteria we're seeing from the 'distortion
squealers' lately!!

:-)

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

Ian Molton wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:


Why cant you accept that valve amps (non transparent ones) simply
distort in a way you like, and (good) SS (or valve) amps do not
distort audibly.

Because, whilst I don't think anyone is claming that valve amps
produce less measurable alteration of the signal than solid state
ones, I think everyone who is trying to make the same point, is saying
that it seems to them that the valve amp appears to reproduce music in
a more accurate fashion, not measurable accuracy, but percieved accuracy.


What kind of bull**** is this? 'perceived accuracy' ? either something
is accurate or it isnt.

why cant you say it reproduces music in a more pleasurable fashion and
have done with it ?

why does it HAVE to be more accurate, than an SS system, just because
you happen to prefer the sound ?

Some people like mechanical watches, despite their inaccuracies. Few
claim they keep time in a smoother fashion or some similar bull****.

I HAVE listened to valve amps. I *DO* like the sound some produce. I
DONT like the same distortion applied to all my music. I *USE* my tone
controls.

You asked a question why some people didn't accept your view. I
attempted to answer with my opinion as to why some people could not
accept your view, Your answer to my reply was to repeat the same
question again, this time describing my reply as "bull****" maybe you
should read the reply, or maybe you are just not taking notice.

Its seems to heve been summed up in another post that just went by, I
quote...

"Yes, agreed - I think there's too much 'you express your opinion in my
terms and I will allow it' tried on in here, at times.

Needs to be remembered that 'ultimate communication failure' (real or
imagined) with certain parties in this ng isn't of any particular
consequence...."

Just a point about your comment about "percieved accuracy". I assume you
are sitting in front of a monitor reading this, and that monitor will be
displaying white areas. Now the white light you see outside from the sun
is composed of all frequences, the light from the monitor is only
composed of three frequencies. We percieve them both to be white, we can
all agree on the colour from the monitor being white. Which can be
accuratly described as white ? Does it matter if they are both percieved
the same, even though they can be measured and shown to be very different?

--
Nick

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

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Yup. And I wonder why all these valve nuts seem to ignore the decent
valve
amps like the Radford STA 25, or Quad II, and prat around with cheap
Chinese junk. If there had been any advance in valve design or circuitry
in these last 40 years or so, it might be a reason. But there hasn't.


snip interesting stuff


So when folks say that old valve amps are better made than current new
manufacture, you need gumboots to prevent the bull**** staining one's
trousers.


Never a truer word.....

Especially in the case of the manky little **** whose yap is quoted above!

(Mind yew 'Chinese Junk' ain't too bad - I might just nick that myself!!
:-)


Quad II, Leak, and many other designs were terribly affected by bean
counters
preventing the full implementation of what were fine ideas at the time.

The chinese are now making some valve amps which are at least as good as
some
of the 1955 crap that mostly has by now found its way to the dumper bins.
There is much crap around now made, but there always was crap made!


I've just bought a 'Chinese Junk' amp to check them out for myself (notice
the yappers do nothing - only yap) and was very impressed by it:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...chineseamp.htm


So much so in fact, I bought a second one!! Well up to 'home-built'
standards and very solid. A fekkin' *doddle* for £213 + P&P!!! Sound
quality? - Cracking! It will **** all over any ss amp anyone here cares to
compare it with!!

Smell? - Ooh, now yer asking! (Smells like it *has* been ****ting on ss
amps!! ;-) OK, they do have a bit of funny 'factory pong' for an hour or
two but it does burn off!!

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

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Ian Molton wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:


Why cant you accept that valve amps (non transparent ones) simply
distort in a way you like, and (good) SS (or valve) amps do not distort
audibly.

Because, whilst I don't think anyone is claming that valve amps produce
less measurable alteration of the signal than solid state ones, I think
everyone who is trying to make the same point, is saying that it seems
to them that the valve amp appears to reproduce music in a more accurate
fashion, not measurable accuracy, but percieved accuracy.


What kind of bull**** is this? 'perceived accuracy' ? either something is
accurate or it isnt.

why cant you say it reproduces music in a more pleasurable fashion and
have done with it ?

why does it HAVE to be more accurate, than an SS system, just because you
happen to prefer the sound ?

Some people like mechanical watches, despite their inaccuracies. Few
claim they keep time in a smoother fashion or some similar bull****.

I HAVE listened to valve amps. I *DO* like the sound some produce. I DONT
like the same distortion applied to all my music. I *USE* my tone
controls.

You asked a question why some people didn't accept your view. I attempted
to answer with my opinion as to why some people could not accept your
view, Your answer to my reply was to repeat the same question again, this
time describing my reply as "bull****" maybe you should read the reply, or
maybe you are just not taking notice.

Its seems to heve been summed up in another post that just went by, I
quote...

"Yes, agreed - I think there's too much 'you express your opinion in my
terms and I will allow it' tried on in here, at times.

Needs to be remembered that 'ultimate communication failure' (real or
imagined) with certain parties in this ng isn't of any particular
consequence...."

Just a point about your comment about "percieved accuracy". I assume you
are sitting in front of a monitor reading this, and that monitor will be
displaying white areas. Now the white light you see outside from the sun
is composed of all frequences, the light from the monitor is only composed
of three frequencies. We percieve them both to be white, we can all agree
on the colour from the monitor being white. Which can be accuratly
described as white ? Does it matter if they are both percieved the same,
even though they can be measured and shown to be very different?



Nick, excellent points well made.

(I admire your patience with these 'Valve Envy' clowns.... :-)

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Yup. And I wonder why all these valve nuts seem to ignore the decent
valve
amps like the Radford STA 25, or Quad II, and prat around with cheap
Chinese junk. If there had been any advance in valve design or circuitry
in these last 40 years or so, it might be a reason. But there hasn't.


snip interesting stuff


So when folks say that old valve amps are better made than current new
manufacture, you need gumboots to prevent the bull**** staining one's
trousers.


Never a truer word.....

Especially in the case of the manky little **** whose yap is quoted above!

(Mind yew 'Chinese Junk' ain't too bad - I might just nick that myself!!
:-)


Quad II, Leak, and many other designs were terribly affected by bean
counters
preventing the full implementation of what were fine ideas at the time.

The chinese are now making some valve amps which are at least as good as
some
of the 1955 crap that mostly has by now found its way to the dumper bins.
There is much crap around now made, but there always was crap made!


I've just bought a 'Chinese Junk' amp to check them out for myself (notice
the yappers do nothing - only yap) and was very impressed by it:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...chineseamp.htm


So much so in fact, I bought a second one!! Well up to 'home-built'
standards and very solid. A fekkin' *doddle* for £213 + P&P!!! Sound
quality? - Cracking! It will **** all over any ss amp anyone here cares to
compare it with!!

Smell? - Ooh, now yer asking! (Smells like it *has* been ****ting on ss
amps!! ;-) OK, they do have a bit of funny 'factory pong' for an hour or
two but it does burn off!!




Expect thats the new bottles giving out the smell, had the same thing
happen here when I installed 8 new KT88's..the stink was 'orrible but it
went away after about an hour. Funny that, because it's the first time I
had quite that strong smell from new power valves...probably a bit of burnt
bean sauce and rice wine after the factory lunch break :-) ......If they
have one that is!

Mike

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

"mick" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:36:58 +0000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

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.


You can produce two signals with identical THD%.

**Yep.

One will have very
audible distortion and the other won't.

**Yep.

It depends on the relative
strengths of the harmonics.

**And the TOTAL level of those harmonics. Less than around 0.1% is
inaudible, regardless of the harmonic structure. That is why I cited 0.1%
as being a reasonable indicator of 'high fidelity'.

This is reproducible under test conditions by
adding harmonics to a pure tone.

**Yep. Been there, done that. Anything less than around 1% is pretty hard to
hear.

The signal with the higher level of low,
even harmonics will sound purer. In the light of this, how can you state
that comparison of THD is meaningful *in listening tests*?

**Er, because THD figures of more than 0.1% are audible, under careful
conditions. And figures of less than 0.1% are pretty much inaudible, under
careful conditions. What part of this, don't you understand?

For amp
designing and comparison measurements, yes, but not for listening.

**Wrong. If distortion is audible (ie: 0.1%), then it may well be audible.

Your
listener will quickly pick up on, say, third harmonic if the second
harmonic is at a low level but as the second harmonic level increases it
masks the third harmonic problem. The THD goes up but the sound appears
"purer" to the listener.

**Then it is time to choose a new listener. Or are you speaking of THD
figures which are greater than 0.1%?

Obviously, I am talking about test tones here,
not real music, but that tends to introduce other masking effects anyway,
as the relative values of the harmonics are detected differently at
different frequencies. By all means design for low THD as this affects
the entire system, but a high THD does not necessarily mean that the amp
sounds bad or that the effect of the high THD is audible.

**I never suggested otherwise. HOWEVER, there is little point in bothering
with an amp, which does not meet some basic criteria. THD figures of less
than around 0.1% are necesseary to ensure inaudibility to a critical
listener.


snip
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?


Hell - I don't remember much about it now! It must have been over 40 years
ago! It was a regenerative detector (with a "reaction" control) just to
keep things simple for a first set. All I can remember for certain is that
it had a 1T4 valve in it. I seem to remember adding another one or two
valves later, but one of them was a DL91 to drive a speaker. The other was
probably an RF stage to isolate the oscillator from the aerial! Oh yeah -
it had a Denco coil on a paxolin former. Why did I remember that? I can
even picture the coil now!

**I can picture my four-gang tuning system. It was huge.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Nick Gorham wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


I spent the early part of the '80s
working mostly in Arizona with Hughes Aircraft,

wouldn't you have required a security clearance for that, or at the
very least be an American citizen?

BAE systems over here requires its staff to be citizens.


Maybe not, we did presses for General Dynamics and McAir around that
time, and when we went over for the final commisioning there was no
problem. And that was where they were building (at least F16/18's).


Hmmm ... maybe the Yanks trust the Brits in defence related matters.

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

Eiron wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

No amp should be run into distortion for HiFi use. Trouble is that
most valve amps distort within their normal operating conditions.


Technology moves on.
In 50 years we have gone from state-of-the-art valve amps
that sound like "a straight wire with gain"
and don't have any "valve sound"
to today's abominations that are deliberately non-linear.


If there is a market for "valve sound", they will build it ...

(or maybe there are more audiophools with money to throw around looking
for "inner detail" and "character" missing from a wire with gain)