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

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Tat Chan" emitted :

Is *accuracy* THE factor behind buying audio equipment? Not for
everyone.

for audiophiles, it should be the main factor.

Such sweeping generalizations are naive. You've overlooked other
factors which are arguably more important, namely cost, personal
preference, functionality and practicality. Last I heard there was no
explicit line drawn in the sand regarding TECHNICAL fidelity to be a
member of the audiophile fraternity. Just an interest in pursuing high
quality reproduction..

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.

To some people SS amplification doesn't sound as realistic as a decent
valve setup.

**Such a comment is a niave, sweeping generalisation.

Do you deny people their real-world perceptions??

**I do, because such a comment is a niave, sweeping generalisation.

I think
you should cut folk some slack.. it's subjective.

**That depends.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


Additionally, if the input is sublimely perfect, any amp which
distorts, will ruin the goodness.


Sublimely perfect input??? Got any?

**Several.


You do?

**Yes.

What are they?

**You're joking, right? The list is too long to mention here.





Got an amp which *doesn't* distort?? Not at all???

**Several. None of which exhibit any AUDIBLE distortions. More to the
point: Do YOU have any amplifiers which exhibit no audible distortions,
when used with real-life loudspeakers?


None of my amps disort audibly that I or anyone else here can detect.

**Really? Can you provide your measurements to validate that fact? Here's a
few figures which your amps would need to meet, in order to provide
inaudible levels of distortion:

Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz (at, say, 1/3rd full power) +/- 0.1dB,
when operating into a real-world loudspeaker.
Phase error: 20Hz - 20kHz - +/- 5 degrees, when operating into a real-world
loudspeaker.
Output impedance: Lower than 0.1 Ohm, from 20Hz - 20kHz (BTW: This is where
many run-of-the-mill SS amps fail)
THD: Less than 0.1% from 20Hz - 20kHz, at (say) 1/3rd maximum output.
IMD: Less than 0.1%.


(What,
do you think we sit here listening to 'audible distortion'...??? :-)

**Yes.



There's much tub-thumping about 'high fidelity' and 'straight wires with
gain' - like one type of amp absolutely fits these criteria and another
type don't.

**Few amplifiers actually fit that description, WHEN DRIVING REAL
LOUDSPEAKERS.


No need to shout, me auld shagger...

**There is, sometimes.



Quite a few manage it with dummy loads and sine waves, however.

(Not to mention whatever input or amp is used, the speakers and the
room will have the final say, in any case....)

**Strawman, duly noted.


Geekboy 'Usenet' terminology duly noted.....

**Strawman, duly noted.


(You been talking to the other opinionated, non-UK loudmouth that hangs
around in here by any chance?)

**That depends.




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.....!!

**I do. Quite a few, in fact. One of my clients sold his (rather
excellent) SS amplification and purchased some crappy valve amps. When
questioned about listening to his BEST quality recordings, he admitted
that SS was superior. Valves were, (in his opinion) better for average,
crappy recordings.


That's me sorted then.... :-)



What does that tell you? They got no place in this ng for a start?

**Not at all. I have stated, ad nauseum, that a REALLY GOOD valve
amplifier


You're shouting again - do try to hold it together, there's a good chap.

**Clearly I need to shout. You don't seem to pay attention.



can sound indistinguishable from a good SS amp, given a suitably benign
load impedance. There is nothing wrong with a well designed, well
exectued valve amp. Except that such an amp will almost always cost
significantly more than an approximately equivalent SS model. The
differece come about when we are discussing, cheap, crappy valve amps.
They, almost without exception, exhibit audible distortion, even when
driving modest loads.


Who's discussing cheap, crappy valve amps?

**The original poster.

- That's your usual (what's that
term - 'strawman'?) little injection into the proceedings isn't it??

**Nope.




Or that
can subscribe here if they perform some sort of 'confession' or make an
obeisance to their (wiser) betters?

**Education never hurt anyone.


Agreed - try some.

**What would you suggest? Vaccuum tube theory? Nope. I can get by.




Ever see a valvie give an ss type a hard
time because he doesn't like/use valves?

**Every single day.


Must be hell....

**It is distressing being surrounded by fools.




Ask your self what TF the ss
brigade are so fekkin' scared of that they gotta make the sign of the
cross and start yammering about 'high fidelity' every time valves are
mentioned?

**I don't. REALLY GOOD valve amps easily conform to 'High Fidelity'
standards. No problem. Cheap, crappy valve amps, often do not.


Again with the 'cheap, crappy valve amps' - you really don't have an
argument do you? Why not just say *broken* amps and be done with it???

**Because many people imagine that because it has tubes, it must be good. It
is very important to show that this is not necessarily the case. A valve amp
may be good, or it may be bad.




Take a bloody good look at the Ship Of SS Fools you sail with when you
add to the 'antivalve' content in this ng, it's too ridiculous for
words - 'audio amplifiers' that don't *qualify* for inclusion in an
*audio* newsgroup....???!!!

**And again: REALLY GOOD valve amps are, in every sense, high fidelity
products. They can easily expose the faults in recordings. Equally, they
are easily capable of allowing the goodness shine through.


Stoppit, please - most of us just chuck the ****ing music on and listen to
it. We ain't 'measuring' it or giving it marks out of ten! We play it the
best way we like to hear it - is that really too hard to understand??

**Not at all.


The trouble with you *extreme* CD/SS types is you really got nowhere to
go, have you?

**Now you're engaing in projection. I suggest you do some homework, before
attempting to tar me with a brush you tar others with.

It can't be vinyl, it can't be valves, it can't be MP3s, it can't
be 24/92 or 24/192, it can't be AM, it can't be DAB, it can't be 78s, it
can't be cassettes, it can't be mono etc. etc. etc..

**And I have never said anything of the kind. Except AM (though I did build
a superb, all valve, 4 stage TRF, with a triode infinite impedance detector,
when I was 16.).



Fekkin' priceless......



In fact, the last valve amp, I listened to, which I could easily live
with, was the Audio Research VT100. Trouble is, I regularly listen to an
SS amp which outperforms the VT100 at a significantly lower cost.


I wouldn't worry about that - you're off the hook, ain't yer?

**Huh?




(It might make you feel better to know that I have 3 ss amps here, one
of which is used on a daily basis, OK...??)

**Means nothing to me. There are some crappy SS amps on the market.


Really?

**Yes, really.

That's news to me - can you name one current, freely available (in
the UK, of course) make and model??

**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.



Many are quite good when driving (resistive) dummy loads, but fall flat
on their face, when driving real loudspeakers. Perhaps you need to listen
to an amp which can actually cope with speakers. Any of the small Rotel
models fit that bill quite nicely.


Read *all* my words (or don't bother to respond to any of them) - I've
already told you I have owned and used a number of Rotel amps. I don't
have them any more - now, does that tell you summat??

**Nope. Rotel have managed build some shockers, over the years. The RA02 is
not a shocker.

Kills me the way you
'anti****s' try to fit this group up with your own wacky little prejudices
and then try to wipe it off on those of us who have declared time and time
again we don't give a rat's arse what you or anyone else prefers or
uses....

Still, if it makes you happy.....???

**Nothing makes me happy. I'm a grump.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Paul Dormer wrote:

"Tat Chan" emitted :


Is *accuracy* THE factor behind buying audio equipment? Not for
everyone.

for audiophiles, it should be the main factor.


Such sweeping generalizations are naive. You've overlooked other
factors which are arguably more important, namely cost, personal
preference, functionality and practicality.

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

I do agree that cost, preferences, looks and functionality are important
considerations. After all, "95% of the sound for 10% of the price" is a
bargain in my book.

I did mention on ukra before that I use my CD player instead of DVD
player for playing CDs (even though I can't tell the difference in CD
playback between the two) because

- the remote control of my amp controls the CD player as well (and I
find the DVD remote poorly designed)
- I like the big LED display that displays track information on the CD
player compared to smaller display on the DVD player


Don't forget WAF as well. Oh, all right, PAF (have to be PC, don't we?).


Last I heard there was no
explicit line drawn in the sand regarding TECHNICAL fidelity to be a
member of the audiophile fraternity.

but what other sort of fidelity would there be?


Just an interest in pursuing high
quality reproduction..


But high quality *reproduction* would mean fidelity to the original
source, wouldn't it? (or we can define an audiophile as someone who
likes listening to music on a good system, where good is subjective and
depends on the individual).


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.


To some people SS amplification doesn't sound as realistic as a decent
valve setup. Do you deny people their real-world perceptions?? I think
you should cut folk some slack.. it's subjective.


I don't "deny people their real-world perceptions". I just said
perception can *sometimes* not reflect what is going on.

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

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:13:29 +1100, Tat Chan
wrote:

Paul Dormer wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :


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.


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


but is accuracy the factor behind buying mechanical watches?

I would assume that people buy/use mechanical watches nowadays for the
following reasons

- status
- "jewellery"
- they like the look and feel of one on their wrist
- family "heirloom"
- looks good with a suit

Heck, if I want an accurate timepiece, I would just use my mobile phone!

But none of the above is even remotely related to the internal method
of timekeeping used by the watch.

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

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

In article , Tat Chan wrote:
Heck, if I want an accurate timepiece, I would just use my mobile phone!

Indeed. In spite of my personal preference, I would never claim my own
mechanical timepiece to be objectively better than a modern electronic
one (except perhaps for some aspects of its near-obsolete mechanical
engineering).

It does a good enough job of timekeeping for me and I prefer the rest
of the "package" over the technically superior version. It's purely a
matter of a quirky non-mainstream personal set of priorities.

If you step back and take a high-level view, the scientifically-conducted
quest for objective engineering progress has served mankind very well
over the last few centuries (including John Harrison's contribution).

Amplifiers which have not taken advantage of the most accurate technical
developments in electronics remain perfectly valid for many of the
same reasons as mechanical timekeepers, jewellery and other matters of
individuality and preference.

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.

It is not necessary as justification for preference or curiosity, and
without the scientific method of making accurate and reproducible tests
(even for initially incredible hypotheses) it hinders good enquiry
into real reasons why any technology (solid state or vacuum tube) may
be technically advantageous.

Ultimately, however, it should be appreciated that the audio press and
this news group are not scientific journals. So personal positions,
curiosity and preferences should be treated with a little tolerance.

--
John Phillips

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

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 ?

--
Nick

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


Additionally, if the input is sublimely perfect, any amp which
distorts, will ruin the goodness.


Sublimely perfect input??? Got any?

**Several.


You do?

**Yes.

What are they?

**You're joking, right? The list is too long to mention here.


Oh, sure...

OK, just two or three then - to give us an idea. Only we get to hear all
about this 'crappy amps' and 'perfect inputs' but we *never* get any
examples. The reason is too obvious to be worth a mention......







Got an amp which *doesn't* distort?? Not at all???

**Several. None of which exhibit any AUDIBLE distortions. More to the
point: Do YOU have any amplifiers which exhibit no audible distortions,
when used with real-life loudspeakers?


None of my amps disort audibly that I or anyone else here can detect.

**Really? Can you provide your measurements to validate that fact?


Wake up dummy - read the words 'I' and 'can detect' again, also try to get
the notion that just a few of us actually *listen* to the music and don't
just watch it on a scope.....


snip bollockology


(What,
do you think we sit here listening to 'audible distortion'...??? :-)

**Yes.


Well, I reckon Swim's a better judge than yew, me auld china (played clart
in the presence of Queenie at the RCM and a colleague of Tony Michaelson for
3 years or so) so it'll be alright if I go along with her opinion and
discard yours, will it?





There's much tub-thumping about 'high fidelity' and 'straight wires
with gain' - like one type of amp absolutely fits these criteria and
another type don't.

**Few amplifiers actually fit that description, WHEN DRIVING REAL
LOUDSPEAKERS.


No need to shout, me auld shagger...

**There is, sometimes.


No, really, there isn't....





Quite a few manage it with dummy loads and sine waves, however.

(Not to mention whatever input or amp is used, the speakers and the
room will have the final say, in any case....)

**Strawman, duly noted.


Geekboy 'Usenet' terminology duly noted.....

**Strawman, duly noted.


Geekboy 'Usenet' terminology duly noted.....



(You been talking to the other opinionated, non-UK loudmouth that hangs
around in here by any chance?)

**That depends.


Thought as much....


What does that tell you? They got no place in this ng for a start?

**Not at all. I have stated, ad nauseum, that a REALLY GOOD valve
amplifier


You're shouting again - do try to hold it together, there's a good chap.

**Clearly I need to shout. You don't seem to pay attention.


Won't get (or keep) my attention by shouting muchacho, saying something
interesting is all it takes - try it.....


Who's discussing cheap, crappy valve amps?

**The original poster.


Oh ah? And where do you see that, then? Nothing in there that I could see -
he mentions a valve amp (preferably DIY) and that he's got a budget system -
make the classic mistake of confusing the two different statements, did
we??? ;-)



- That's your usual (what's that
term - 'strawman'?) little injection into the proceedings isn't it??

**Nope.


Not nope - yep...





Or that
can subscribe here if they perform some sort of 'confession' or make an
obeisance to their (wiser) betters?

**Education never hurt anyone.


Agreed - try some.

**What would you suggest? Vaccuum tube theory? Nope. I can get by.


Start with 'Ubu Roi' by Alfred Jarry (1896) - it's an allegory of Digital
Theory predating the concept by nearly a hundred years. You should find it
interesting.....






Ever see a valvie give an ss type a hard
time because he doesn't like/use valves?

**Every single day.


Must be hell....

**It is distressing being surrounded by fools.


There there, never mind - if you don't look straight at them, they'll all go
away soon....


Again with the 'cheap, crappy valve amps' - you really don't have an
argument do you? Why not just say *broken* amps and be done with it???

**Because many people imagine that because it has tubes, it must be good.

???


It is very important to show that this is not necessarily the case.


It is?? To whom??


A valve amp may be good, or it may be bad.


Stressy, isn't it...??? :-)


Stoppit, please - most of us just chuck the ****ing music on and listen
to it. We ain't 'measuring' it or giving it marks out of ten! We play it
the best way we like to hear it - is that really too hard to understand??

**Not at all.


Note to Jim Lesurf - if I don't see you pulling this clown up for not
snipping soon, I'll start to feel a bit 'singled out' - know wot I mean?



The trouble with you *extreme* CD/SS types is you really got nowhere to
go, have you?

**Now you're engaing in projection. I suggest you do some homework, before
attempting to tar me with a brush you tar others with.

It can't be vinyl, it can't be valves, it can't be MP3s, it can't
be 24/92 or 24/192, it can't be AM, it can't be DAB, it can't be 78s, it
can't be cassettes, it can't be mono etc. etc. etc..

**And I have never said anything of the kind. Except AM (though I did
build a superb, all valve, 4 stage TRF, with a triode infinite impedance
detector, when I was 16.).


I'll say it again: The trouble with you *extreme* CD/SS types is you really
got nowhere to go, have you?



**Means nothing to me. There are some crappy SS amps on the market.


Really?

**Yes, really.

That's news to me - can you name one current, freely available (in
the UK, of course) make and model??

**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.


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


Kills me the way you
'anti****s' try to fit this group up with your own wacky little
prejudices and then try to wipe it off on those of us who have declared
time and time again we don't give a rat's arse what you or anyone else
prefers or uses....

Still, if it makes you happy.....???

**Nothing makes me happy. I'm a grump.


Not as grumpy as me - I've got the sodding 'flu and haven't had a wink of
sleep all night......

(Might get mi second Chinky valve amp today tho' - that'll cheer me up! :-)

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

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:06:55 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**Yes. I am not a musician. If a musician sees fit to make the sound
distorted in some way (ie: The guitar work in Beatles, Revolution), then
who am I to make alterations to that artistic content?

Additionally, if the input is sublimely perfect, any amp which distorts,
will ruin the goodness.


Sublimely perfect input??? Got any?

Got an amp which *doesn't* distort?? Not at all???

Such wonderful things....

They are, I have several of them which do not produce any audible
distortion.

As my old dad used to say: "Two wrongs do not make a right." **

Wise words, but let's get a little reality check here.

He's an Ozzie, he really meant two Wongs don't make a white.......

There's much tub-thumping about 'high fidelity' and 'straight wires with
gain' - like one type of amp absolutely fits these criteria and another type
don't. (Not to mention whatever input or amp is used, the speakers and the
room will have the final say, in any case....)

Actually, *lots* of amplifiers fit those criteria - but not most valve
ones.

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.....!!

Sure, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about! In
fact, that's more than obvious around here, especially that ****
Evans.

What does that tell you? They got no place in this ng for a start? Or that
can subscribe here if they perform some sort of 'confession' or make an
obeisance to their (wiser) betters? Ever see a valvie give an ss type a hard
time because he doesn't like/use valves? Ask your self what TF the ss
brigade are so fekkin' scared of that they gotta make the sign of the cross
and start yammering about 'high fidelity' every time valves are mentioned?

Ask yourself why the valvies spend so much time trying to justify
their preference, instead of just accepting that valve amps are
likeable crap, and getting on with listening to music.

Take a bloody good look at the Ship Of SS Fools you sail with when you add
to the 'antivalve' content in this ng, it's too ridiculous for words -
'audio amplifiers' that don't *qualify* for inclusion in an *audio*
newsgroup....???!!!

Who says the don't qualify for inclusion? All they don't qualify for
is the description 'high fidelity'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:46:06 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

Paul Dormer wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :


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.


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

The point being that I really doubt Stuart would class them as 'better'
in that respect.

Absolutely not, indeed my collection includes a Casio G-shock
waveceptor, a radio-controlled watch that provides an absolute
timekeeping reference. I also have another three radio-controlled
closcks around the house, and one on my desk at work.

that said, the quality of the engineering in a good mechanical watch is
going to be LIGHT years ahead of a 1.99 digital watch, and I'll bet
it'll last a damn sight longer before disintegrating.

I don't know about lasting longer, but yes, it's the precision
mechanical engineering that's the attraction.

And in case anyone is wondering, my choice of watch is a 5ukp
bungie-cord watch which I find easier to take off, and doesnt get sweaty
under its strap since it doesnt have to hug to my skin. if I need it to
not get in the way I push it further up my arm.

its waterproof to at least as deep as the bottom of the diving area of a
swimming pool.

its indestructible and small.

it doesnt show seconds. It can show the date but only because the
manufacturers used an off the shelf clock - the button is inaccessible ;-)

It seems to be exactly 2 mins and 57 seconds slow, which is exactly the
same difference as last time I checked it about 2 months ago. Not bad at
all.

its only downside is if it ends up on the outside of my sleeve it gets
shoehorned off my arm, but thats a rare occurence.

The advantage of a G-shock is that it'll survive the fall! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:13:29 +1100, Tat Chan
wrote:

Paul Dormer wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :


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.


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


but is accuracy the factor behind buying mechanical watches?

I would assume that people buy/use mechanical watches nowadays for the
following reasons

- status
- "jewellery"
- they like the look and feel of one on their wrist
- family "heirloom"
- looks good with a suit

Only the third is of relevance to me, and you missed out the love of
fine mechanical engineering. That's also why I keep my old Nagra tape
recorder. Any modern laptop will do a better job of location
recording, but won't have that Swiss precision look and feel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering