"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"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.



:-)

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
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?


No, like amplifiers, they only need to be 'accurate enough'......



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


Dangerous thing 'assumption'.....



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


Which you can use for all your digital music as well, can't you? :-)

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

"Tat Chan" 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?


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

for audiophiles, it should be the main factor.



Where does all this come from? Who TF is an 'audiophile'???

I consider myself an 'audio enthusiast' who likes playing music, no more, no
less.....

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"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......

**I fail to see the point, but I'll grab a couple from my shelf, above my
bench, which I use for test purposes.
* Mary Black - Mission Demonstration disk
* Brahms - Cello Concertos (RCA)
* Chet Atkins - The Essential Chet Atkins
* Neil Diamond - You Don't Bring Me Flowers
* Christine Anu - Christine Anu

Happy now? What purpose did that serve.








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.....

**Now I understand. You KNOW that your amplifiers do not audibly distort,
but you have no way yo prove it. That makes sense.

I have news for you: If your amps do not meet or exceed the parameters I
have outlined, they do, in fact, audibly distort.



snip bollockology

restore facts and figures, which you seem to be extremely uncomfortable in
discussing

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.


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?

**I have no idea who "Swim" is. So, no.






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....

**Sure there is. You still seem to be hung up on:

Valves = Good
Transistors = Bad

This is faulty logic. There are some very fine valve amplifiers. There are
some really bad valve amplifiers. There are some very fine SS amplifiers and
some really bad SS amplifiers. Just because an amplifier uses a particular
active devices, does not automatically convey a measure of goodness (or
badness) on that product. However, at a given price level (assuming good
design), a SS amplifier will always outperform a valve amp.






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.....

**Your further strawman is 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.....

**I try to. You just ignore the truth. Just try to follow my logic, once in
awhile.



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??? ;-)

**Nope. A DIY'er is, by definition, after a bargain (or an education).
Further, it is safe to assume that his choice of speakers suggests that he
is on a tight budget. If I am wrong, I will be happy to retract my
assumption.




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

**Nope.


Not nope - yep...

**I could have said: "Non-sequitur".






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.....

**Why? I am not discussing digital. I am discussing signals in the analogue
domain.







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??

**To the poor fools who have been deluded by the marketers of shoddy valve
amps, masquerading as decent products.



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


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

**Not at all. A quick set of measurements will soon sort out the good and
the bad.



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?

**More projection. Do your homework, before shooting your mouth off. Here's
where you have to prove that I have ever defended 16/44 digital as being the
"ultimate" signal source. For the record:
* I use MP3 in my car. It is entirely adequate, in that environment.
* I stopped using cassettes a couple of years ago. (I used to own a
Nakamichi 100ZXL)
* I listen to AM radio, every Saturday morning. It's a local show called The
Weekend Woodies. http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/photogalleries/woodies/
* I have always felt that 16/44 digital is inadequate to compete with the
VERY BEST (sorry to shout) vinyl available.
* I have always detested 78s.
* I like 15ips reel to reel.





**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.....

**I don't give a ****. It is a horrible sounding amplifier (yes, I've
compared it blind).



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......

**There are two Aussie inventions you should (have) tried. It is too late
now, as you need to use them at the first signs.
Tamiflu and Relenza. I find them to be remarkably effective (and expensive).


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

**You deserve it. If you must, you really should try to lay your hands on a
second hand ARC VT100. Superb amp.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" emitted :

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

**Education never hurt anyone.

In the context of a leisure activity, it can be invasive..

**Never. I have always found that liesure activities are more pleasurable
with education.



True story: I was once playing tennis with a friend, and some stranger
wandered on court to tell me about the inadequacy of the racket I was
using, and that I was using the wrong grip...

Education???? You tell me.. was that somebody with MY best interests
at heart, or a pug-nosed gimp begging be told to "F**K OFF!!"

He received the latter, in either case ;-)

**And when I was given some friendly advice, way back when I was learning to
ski, I gratefully received the education and never looked back.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article , Keith G
wrote:


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

How low do you think the distortion level of an amplifier has to be for the
effect of the distortion to become inaudible?

i.e. if we were to produce two amplifiers which had fairly low levels of
distortion, at what levels of distortion do you think you could tell the
difference between them?

Also, if there is a level below which the distortion has no effect you can
detect, is that amp then not essentially


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.

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....)

Well, consider what I ask above. Is it the case that at some point the
distortions become so small that they become un-noticable?

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.....!!

That sounds reasonable, but what are you assuming about the relationship
between the subjective judgement "worse" and the measurable quantites that
indicate the level of distortion? Are you symultenously assuming that:

1) More distortion = "worse"

and

2) But valve amps are "better"

Therefore concluding that valve amps must have 'less distortion'.

Or are you assuming that distortion has nothing to do with the "worse"
judgement?

Or what relationship between 'distortion' and 'worse' are you assuming?

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

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


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

Your unstated assumption is that you are able to identify any changes
caused by amplifier 'distortion' as being caused by that mechanism and not
being from other effects. Is it not possible that the sound is sometimes
being altered in an audible way by distortion, but you don't always
recognise this change as being due to amplifier distortion?

I am not clear of your view on this point, but will also ask: Is it
possible that you simply prefer a sound that has been altered by some
specific forms of distortion?

As Trevor has indicated, a problem here is that other items - notably
speakers and vinyl LP can produce distortion of levels that tend to be
quite high compared with some other items. Hence these may be affecting
your perception of the effects.

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

* Chet Atkins - The Essential Chet Atkins

Trevor - you might know this. I remember hearing a lovely track by Chet, solo
guitar - his arrangement of "When you wish upon a star". What CD is that on,
and are there any more solo recordings like that - it's a little gem. Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

In article , John Phillips
wrote:

I note many people in the audio press and elsewhere creating incredible
untested technical arguments for "why" valve amplifiers etc.

I would agree. Alas, what seems to happen is that unreliable speculations
tend to be repeated in magazines and elsewhere are can become estabilshed
as 'facts' yet may have no real basis.

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.

I would agree. However my concerns a

1) That the consumer press at times misleads people and impedes
understanding, and hence may hold back further progress in producing items
that the consumers concerned might prefer in their own terms.

2) That I wish to understand the 'why' and 'how' of such matters. Partly as
a matter of personal curiousity. Partly as I'd like to be able to help
those who wish to make 'better' items - including ones like valve amps for
those who prefer them.

The problem is that when we have magazines that do not make relevant
inquiries, and report inaccuracies as being correct, and when many users
find it difficult to relate their preferences to an actual critical
understanding of the engineering involved, progress become more difficult
than I would wish.

Personally, I have no objection at all to people preferring one sort of
sound system to another. However by understanding *why* in engineering
terms, we may be able to aid them in getting systems that they then feel
perform in a way which they find even 'better'.

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

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
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 ?

I think that I would first ask you for clear, relevant, and unambiguous
definitions for your terms "reflect exactly" and "actually going on". :-)

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