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

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:08:43 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

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.


Correct × 2



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

Does it really matter?



Nope. Not to me it doesn't. As I said earlier, I went through tons of ss
amps before I discovered valves, since when I have never looked back.

In a normal, 'musical' context valve amps **** on ss amps. End of.

(Anyone can't handle that? - Tough titty...)

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:20:41 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:31:09 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:59:33 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

I don't think anyone will argue that valves are old technology, but does
that as such have any bearing on anything ?

Are you suggesting that new is always better ?

Transistors aren't exactly state of the art either are they?

Er.... yes - they are actually. Unless you know of something more
advanced.


Ah so you agree that old technology (57 years old) CAN be state of the
art then?

Oh I do like it when pedants pounce on what they think is a mistake :)


Listen carefully. Transistors are state of the art because they are
where all the research is happening - they are moving forwards with
new and better geometries, and advances in integration.

Valves stopped evolving many years ago, and represent an obsolete art
with no current "state".

OK?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:31:09 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Nope, you can waffle as much as you like the transistor was invented in
1947. The transistor itself hasn't evolved much since then. Most
technology BASED on transistors is still evolving e.g. microchips,
surface mount technology etc, but even then most of that evolution is
based on how many can fit in a finite space and how to get them to work
without setting themselves alight.

The principle of the transistor has not involved, it doesn't matter how
its physical form takes it's still 57 year old technology. If I was 57 I
wouldn't consider myself to be young, would you?


If you were 57, would you consider that you had advanced since your
birth? Yes.

If you had been dead for thirty years, would you consider you had
advanced since your death? No.

OK?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:39:16 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:34:04 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:31:09 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Nope, you can waffle as much as you like the transistor was invented in
1947. The transistor itself hasn't evolved much since then. Most
technology BASED on transistors is still evolving e.g. microchips,
surface mount technology etc, but even then most of that evolution is
based on how many can fit in a finite space and how to get them to work
without setting themselves alight.

The principle of the transistor has not involved, it doesn't matter how
its physical form takes it's still 57 year old technology. If I was 57 I
wouldn't consider myself to be young, would you?


If you were 57, would you consider that you had advanced since your
birth? Yes.

If you had been dead for thirty years, would you consider you had
advanced since your death? No.

OK?

As I said, you can waffle as much as you like. Transistor technology is
57 years old, any new advances are still based on old technology.

To use your analogy then doesn't that preclude, $DEITY forbid, someone
using valves on a state of the art computer motherboard?


So your position is that transistors now are the same as transistors
57 years ago - there is no current state of the art. You are entirely
clueless.

Valves, on the other hand, are exactly like they were 57 years ago -
there have been no advances and the state of their art is far from
current.

Of course there has been one marketing led company that put a valve on
a computer motherboard. They have been such a tremendous success that
you can find virtually nothing else at your local computer parts shop.
Kurt, you really are some sort of prat.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:31:09 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:59:33 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

I don't think anyone will argue that valves are old technology, but does
that as such have any bearing on anything ?

Are you suggesting that new is always better ?

Transistors aren't exactly state of the art either are they?

Er.... yes - they are actually. Unless you know of something more
advanced.


Ah so you agree that old technology (57 years old) CAN be state of the
art then?

Oh I do like it when pedants pounce on what they think is a mistake :)




Pouncing pedant Pearcey paused, pondered, posted possible piffle, perhaps?

:-)

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:48:22 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:31:09 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:59:33 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

I don't think anyone will argue that valves are old technology, but does
that as such have any bearing on anything ?

Are you suggesting that new is always better ?

Transistors aren't exactly state of the art either are they?

Er.... yes - they are actually. Unless you know of something more
advanced.


Ah so you agree that old technology (57 years old) CAN be state of the
art then?

Oh I do like it when pedants pounce on what they think is a mistake :)




Pouncing pedant Pearcey paused, pondered, posted possible piffle, perhaps?

:-)

perhaps not.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:24:50 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:20:41 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:31:09 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:59:33 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

I don't think anyone will argue that valves are old technology, but
does
that as such have any bearing on anything ?

Are you suggesting that new is always better ?

Transistors aren't exactly state of the art either are they?

Er.... yes - they are actually. Unless you know of something more
advanced.


Ah so you agree that old technology (57 years old) CAN be state of the
art then?

Oh I do like it when pedants pounce on what they think is a mistake :)


Listen carefully. Transistors are state of the art because they are
where all the research is happening - they are moving forwards with
new and better geometries, and advances in integration.

Valves stopped evolving many years ago, and represent an obsolete art
with no current "state".

OK?


Nope, you can waffle as much as you like the transistor was invented in
1947. The transistor itself hasn't evolved much since then. Most
technology BASED on transistors is still evolving e.g. microchips,
surface mount technology etc, but even then most of that evolution is
based on how many can fit in a finite space and how to get them to work
without setting themselves alight.


I can't lay hands on the details but AFAIK the EL34 was introduced about
57/58 years ago and the KT88 even later than that? No? Wrong again?

Anyone got a link to a handy timeline



The principle of the transistor has not involved, it doesn't matter how
its physical form takes it's still 57 year old technology. If I was 57 I
wouldn't consider myself to be young, would you?


Hmmm......

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:51:00 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:24:50 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:20:41 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:31:09 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:59:33 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

I don't think anyone will argue that valves are old technology, but
does
that as such have any bearing on anything ?

Are you suggesting that new is always better ?

Transistors aren't exactly state of the art either are they?

Er.... yes - they are actually. Unless you know of something more
advanced.


Ah so you agree that old technology (57 years old) CAN be state of the
art then?

Oh I do like it when pedants pounce on what they think is a mistake :)


Listen carefully. Transistors are state of the art because they are
where all the research is happening - they are moving forwards with
new and better geometries, and advances in integration.

Valves stopped evolving many years ago, and represent an obsolete art
with no current "state".

OK?


Nope, you can waffle as much as you like the transistor was invented in
1947. The transistor itself hasn't evolved much since then. Most
technology BASED on transistors is still evolving e.g. microchips,
surface mount technology etc, but even then most of that evolution is
based on how many can fit in a finite space and how to get them to work
without setting themselves alight.


I can't lay hands on the details but AFAIK the EL34 was introduced about
57/58 years ago and the KT88 even later than that? No? Wrong again?

Anyone got a link to a handy timeline

Sounds about right - that represents the current state of the art for
valves. Yer hafta larf!



The principle of the transistor has not involved, it doesn't matter how
its physical form takes it's still 57 year old technology. If I was 57 I
wouldn't consider myself to be young, would you?


Hmmm......




So are YOU state of the art, Keith?

d


Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:34:04 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:31:09 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Nope, you can waffle as much as you like the transistor was invented in
1947. The transistor itself hasn't evolved much since then. Most
technology BASED on transistors is still evolving e.g. microchips,
surface mount technology etc, but even then most of that evolution is
based on how many can fit in a finite space and how to get them to work
without setting themselves alight.

The principle of the transistor has not involved, it doesn't matter how
its physical form takes it's still 57 year old technology. If I was 57 I
wouldn't consider myself to be young, would you?


If you were 57, would you consider that you had advanced since your
birth? Yes.

If you had been dead for thirty years, would you consider you had
advanced since your death? No.

OK?

As I said, you can waffle as much as you like. Transistor technology is
57 years old, any new advances are still based on old technology.

To use your analogy then doesn't that preclude, $DEITY forbid, someone
using valves on a state of the art computer motherboard?


Still manufacturing tellys with valves (tubes) in, ain't they??? :-)

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:58:20 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:45:16 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:39:16 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:34:04 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:31:09 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Nope, you can waffle as much as you like the transistor was invented in
1947. The transistor itself hasn't evolved much since then. Most
technology BASED on transistors is still evolving e.g. microchips,
surface mount technology etc, but even then most of that evolution is
based on how many can fit in a finite space and how to get them to work
without setting themselves alight.

The principle of the transistor has not involved, it doesn't matter how
its physical form takes it's still 57 year old technology. If I was 57 I
wouldn't consider myself to be young, would you?


If you were 57, would you consider that you had advanced since your
birth? Yes.

If you had been dead for thirty years, would you consider you had
advanced since your death? No.

OK?

As I said, you can waffle as much as you like. Transistor technology is
57 years old, any new advances are still based on old technology.

To use your analogy then doesn't that preclude, $DEITY forbid, someone
using valves on a state of the art computer motherboard?


So your position is that transistors now are the same as transistors
57 years ago - there is no current state of the art. You are entirely
clueless.

So come on then, tell me how transistors themselves have evolved.

Valves, on the other hand, are exactly like they were 57 years ago -
there have been no advances and the state of their art is far from
current.

Perhaps because they don't need to evolve?

Of course there has been one marketing led company that put a valve on
a computer motherboard. They have been such a tremendous success that
you can find virtually nothing else at your local computer parts shop.
Kurt, you really are some sort of prat.

Ooh 'ark at 'er. It's akin to what has happened to the transistor.

So tell me just how has the transistor has evolved then.

New materials
New geometries
New topologies
New packages
New integration styles

And it still hasn't stopped. Since the first piece of Germanium, we
have had silicon, Gallium Arsenide, Silicon/Germaium hybrids, organic
materials, diamond-based materials. Planar, transistors, junction
Fets, MOS Fets, insulated gate bipolars, switching diodes with broad
intrinsic layers, massive wafer-level parallel topologies for high
current applications.

The list goes on and on, and frankly I have neither the time nor the
inclination to research it. If you really want to know, go and find
out for yourself. But please don't come here posting ******** like
"new advances are based on old technology". They simply aren't.

OK?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com