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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:43 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

I gather it went tits up when your local council refuse collection went
out to tender.

Don't get me fekkin' started on these bozos! Now we have to have two,
count 'em *TWO* fekkin' great wheelie bins!! And we have to separate
everything out for the idle fekkers...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:49:35 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:14:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:58:32 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Hehe my claim to fame was dealing with one of the victims of the first
shootings in Moss Side circa '85.

It's rather awe-inspiring being in the middle of a race riot whilst
trying to bandage an abdominal bullet wound whilst sat in the back of a
Nissan that is perched on the edge of a raised garden :)

OK, kudos for that, no conditions applied. Balls of steel stipulated.
Sometimes, you just have to shut down your brain and do the frikkin'
job you were trained for...........................

No kudos required, I was doing the job I was lousily paid for and I was
****ting myself.

Kudos required. Getting on with it while ****ting yourself is the
*definition* of real bravery. Standard-issue 'heroes' are usually too
dumb to know it's dangerous out there.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:09:38 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


How do you get to do this DBT then? Go into a shop with your amp and ask
if you can borrow the (entire) dem room for an hour or two?? Do you take
your own music or use theirs??

Priceless!! :-)

**Er, or you could just borrow the damned amp. Don't they do that in
Pommyland? Dealers will readily loan out equipment, if their clients ask
nicely. I certainly do and I know of several dealers who do likewise. It
seems you guys put up with a lot of **** from your dealers. When you walk
in, gently remind then that YOU have the cash and they want that cash.
Works wonders for snooty salepeople.


That's the trouble with foreigners in this group - no idea at all....

Works fine for me. Maybe I have better dealers round here, or maybe I
have a better attitude.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:08:19 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Who said anything about me winning anything. I've already made my
statement based on the demonstrative proof of my gas bills.

The proof based on taking two courses of action and assigning the
improvement to the wrong one.

You haven't proved anything, you've just propounded a theory.

But you carry on - it's your money your wasting.

Actually, if you recall, this sub thread came about because I was saving
money. Apparently you think I'm not.

That's what I like about know-it-alls like you, I'm the one with all the
data, but you still think you know-it-all.

I'm surprised anyone can be so thick as you and still manage to breathe.

Like Geri Halliwell, he has a Walkman with a tape loop that repeats
"Breathe in, breathe out".............. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:33:53 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:23:18 +1100, Tat Chan used
to say...

Btw, he posted a reasonable question.

Not really given that Keith has never tried to deny that his beloved
valve amps produce audible distortion. He continually states that 1) he
doesn't care 2) he can't hear it anyway.

Not the point, as he insists that SS amps also have audible
distortion, but of a less pleasant kind. This is bull****.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:00:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Tat Chan" wrote


None of my EE friends learnt about valves in uni ... it was all BJTs,
JFETs and MOSFETs ...

welcome to the 21st century.

(so I guess the only people who will end up with practical, working
knowledge about valves will be people who service valve guitar amps ...)



Wakey wakey Mr Chan.

Go to:

http://www.worldtubeaudio.com/directory/directory.htm


Click around a bit and get with the programme..

Nothing there that you couldn't find in 1950...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:39:58 +1100, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:56:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


'Cos the point is, if you have to go and buy a *good* amp (when we are
told all ss amps over £300 qualify as 'good' ??)

**I never said anything of the kind. Moreover, I don't beleive that anyone
ever said anything like that.

Oh yes they did - it wuz Pinkypoof.


More typical ******** from the hairy-arsed ex-trucker. I never said
any such thing, indeed I'll point you to Tim de Paravicini's
solid-state version of his Yoshino, which is a *very* bad amp, and
costs lots more than £300.

why is it "bad"?

- it isn't a wire with gain?
- lots of audible distortion?
- it "sounds" like a valve amp?

All of the above.

btw, Marshall used to (still do?) make a line of guitar amps called the
"Valvestate" series. The amps were SS amps that were meant to sound like
valve amps (so I assume they sounded pleasant when overdriven) and were
cheaper than valve amps.

But they didn't in fact sound like valve amps..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:50:22 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:48:48 +0000, Ian Molton used
to say...


Most of us here *have* tried one. but when one already has an
essentially perfect amp, why would one need to improve on that?


You're an expert on valve amps aren't you Ian?

Not at all, but I've owned one, rebuilt one with a friend, and heard a
good number more over the years.

I happen to actually like the 'valve sound' but wouldnt want to apply it
to everything.

What he said.....................

--

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
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Kurt Hamster" wrote


How would you know? You're Australian.

**I realise that this may be a bit of a shock, but every Australian
schoolkid learns English grammar. I was an Australian schoolkid.
Therefore,
I learned English grammar. I was also taught the English spelling of
most
words. You know the stuff: Theatre, Metre, gaol, et al.

Australian English perhaps, certainly not UK English.

**It's very bloody close. Trust me.


'Ello, 'e's from Calcutta!!

(Goodness, gracious me...!! :-)



I understand Keith's writing style perfectly. Perhaps that because I'm
resident in this country and understand colloquialisms etc. Likewise I'm
sure that there would be a few things spoken in inner city Sydney that I
wouldn't have the first idea about.

**Very likely the case. I'm not speaking about colloquialisms. Read one
of his replies. Grammatically, they stink.


:-)



As to how I know that Keith's posts are an appalling indictment of the
British education system, I simply invite you to read a typical
response,
from him, to one of my posts. If you REALLY cannot find fault, then YOU
have
serious problems with the use and abuse of the English language.

I can understand him, it's as simple as that.


:-)



**No, it is not as simple as that. I'll brief you with the recent past,
then you may understand where I am coming from.

* I made (one of my many) grammatical errors in one of my posts.
* Keith took it upon himself to criticise my incorrect use of grammar
(Clearly, Keith understood my words, in spite of my incorrect use of
English).
* I then suggested that Keith's grammar (not his use of colloquialisms)
was not of the highest standards.


OK, less do you a little favour here, before you dig yourself in too deep.
I went to a 400 year old Grammar School, one of 3 founded in 1558 by a
geezer name of The Rev. Thos. Alleyne (Google 'Alleyne's Grammar
School') - as I said earlier, that's 230 years *older* than 'Australia'
and in the Tudor Period in this country's history. For my sins, I 'did'
Latin for three years (loved it), German for one year and managed to
absorb virtually no French in all the time I was there. (Like, who could
donnez une merde...???)

**I'm waiting to hear your point. More correctly: Your excuse for your
terrible writing style and your general inability to understand basic logic
and reason. Perhaps you paid too much attention to a long dead (and useless)
language, rather than useful subjects.



Trust that one did not get into this Academy of Excellence (mostly
digression, rugby, singing and playing grab-arse mostly....) with the
currently acceptable handful of cereal packet tokens - in those days an
11+ pass merely got you an interview with the headmaster. My headmaster
was a WW2 war hero (DSO) SOE Commander by the name of Francis Cammaerts
(Google) - one of the finest men I have ever had the pleasure to know.
Could stop a runaway locomotive with a raised eyebrow - know what I mean?
(No, I suppose you don't....))

Famous Alleynians (Stevenage branch)? - David Tomlinson, Actor (Mary
Poppins?), Tim De Paravacini (or his brother) Audio Designer and
Manufacturer, one of Jomo Kenyatta's 80 or so (I believe) kids and me....
;-)

Anyway, believe me when I say the art of *successful* communication is to
use a style that allows those, to whom you are attempting to communicate,
(like that?) enjoy that which you have to impart. If this can include some
wit, some Anglo-Saxon (that words like '****', in case you are struggling)
some irony, some humour etc. it makes what you say more interesting to
one's (like that also?) readers. Grammar doesn't come into it, it's a set
of rules to be kept or broken according the said style one is affecting.

**And yet, this whole series of nonsense began, with you acting like a
complete prat, by pedantically picking up one of my grammatical errors. Can
you begin to see how your own pedantry is at issue here, not your education?


Now, I have to say it, your ultra correct, trying too hard 'prickspeak'
just makes you look like a pathetic **** trying desperately hard to
impress.

**I am not trying to impress anyone. I have always written this way. Google
me, if you don't beleive me.

Take
a tip from me, cut the crap, lighten up and stop trying to pull people up
who have **** more fekkin' grammar than you'll ever know and making
yourself look a right **** in the process whilst so doing. OK?

**As opposed to a prat who drops Latin phrases at the drop of a hat? Yeah,
right. I'll really take notice of you. I can just imagine how well your
Latin goes down, when speaking to the blokes down at the local, or at the
footy.


(Next, we'll have that little plonker Molton pointing out the 'less' error
at the beginning of that statement....!!! :-)


Given that you have stated
that you have difficulties understanding what is basically standard
English dialect, and yours is the first comment I've seen complaining of
comprehension difficulties then my I suggest that a UK newsgroup may not
be an appropriate place for you.


Good point, well made....



**You may suggest that. That is your right to do so. When I have
professed my non-understanding of particular words or phrases, I ask.
Usually, the answer is short and polite. In any case, Keith chose some
obscure, dead language to make a point, the other day.


I did? (Summat in Latin then, woz it?)

**That would be it.



Hardly common words in the UK, I should think.


Er, I got news for you mister - Latin is used throughout this sceptic isle
on a daily basis, even if those doing so are blissfully unaware of it....

**And here too. My partner teaches me the **** every day (she's rather fond
of botany). It's still a dead language.



Common, for those who went to schools which teach (taught) those same
dead (and useless) languages, however.


Dead and useless??? Hmm...

**Yep and yep.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

In article , mick
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:07:05 +0000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**It's not that difficult. Here's how you do it:

1) Find an amplifier which has exemplary specifications (posted
earlier by me). 2) Compare the above-mentioned amplifier in a double
blind test. 3) If you can hear a difference, one amplifier is
distorting.


Nope, that won't work. You would be comparing 2 amplifiers, either or
both of which may be producing non-realistic (I won't say "distorted"
because that may be wrong in this context) sound. The test isn't that
easy.

Although it is correct that you would be comparing two amplifiers, you can
employ some methods which may help to come to a reliable conculsion.

For example, measurements may show that one amplifier provides output
waveforms that only differ by a (relatively) small amount from the inputs
whereas the other amp changes the waveforms by a much larger amount
(relatively). These measurements would have to be carried out in
appropriate circumstances. You also have to employ some reasonable
qualifications like allowing for rescaling (gain) and reducing the assumed
audibility of changes at, say, frequencies well outside the expected
audible range.

In that context it would seem reasonable to assume that the amp which
produces the smaller changes should also produce smaller amp-created
effects upon the output.

Given the above, unless you could provide a testable hypothesis for saying
the above statement is unreliable, you can then use it as a basis for
assuming that the amp that produces larger changes has more amp-related
effect upon the resulting sound.

Thus you could hope to reliably say more than 'they just sound different'.
You can hope to also be able to say which amp is producing the larger
effects.


If you are looking for "fidelity" rather than "measures perfectly"
then you need to compare a live performance with each amplifier and that
is *very* difficult to set up as a double blind test. If you don't do
this then you are merely comparing two different types of distortion. ;-)

Alas, the above definition of 'fidelity' seems to approach being
meaningless in scientific/engineering terms. The amp knows nothing about
the 'live performance'. All it is given is the voltage-time patterns
presented to its inputs. Thus any consideration of 'fidelity' can probably
only be based on that if your interest is in the *amplifier* rather than in
the entire chain of items from performance to ear.

What the above does not decide, though, is if someone may prefer (for
unspecified reasons) an amp that does alter the waveforms in some ways to
one that does not, or which alters it in other ways.

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