"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:06:43 GMT, Trevor Wilson used
to say...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**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.

Brain damage from years of alcohol abuse.

**That would explain a great deal. I wish I'd known earlier. I have a
policy
of not arguing with drunks, drug addicts, children and the aged.

That puts Pinky out of the equation then eh?

**Dunno. Is Pinky an alcoholic, or a drug addict? He certainly doesn't give
the illusion of being one. His arguments are always logical, coherent and
sane. I may not always agree with him, but he usually has something of value
to say.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**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.

Brain damage from years of alcohol abuse.


Heh heh! Another 'Magic Moment' from ' Maggot Mouth' - so ****ed up and so
fekkin' *wrong* as usual.... :-)

(Headed for the Guiness Book Of Records, if you ask me....)



**That would explain a great deal. I wish I'd known earlier. I have a
policy of not arguing with drunks, drug addicts, children and the aged.


Hmm, I'm 57, 100% teetotal and don't do drugs other than 'normal'
ciggies - so how do I qualify then, eh, Captain Copout??

**I have news for you: "'normal'" ciggies are an highly efficient delivery
system for the most deadly drug in society. If you imagine that the hit you
recieve (within seconds) to your brain helps your thinking, you are in for a
shock. Nicotine shrinks blood vessels, thus restricting oxygenated blood to
the brain.


I think you need to try a little harder, remember what they say:
"Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium!"

(Still don't get it? Oh well - "Such is life!!" ;-)

Don't suppose you know who said that either, do you......???

**I know who said it, here in Australia. In Pommyland, no.


Ho hum....


(Jeez, ya hafta fekkin' larf.... :-))

**I do. Particularly at one who claims not to be a drug addict, then sucks
down nicotine.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Nick Gorham wrote:
Tat Chan wrote:


so, yes, there are people other than guitar techs who know about valve
amps.

Let me shift the goalposts a bit ...

Are there any universities that still teach valve (or tube) technology
as a *core* part of an EE degree?


I don't think so, you point being ?


valves are outdated technology?



What, like scissors??

**Nope. More like carburettors and the Kettering ignition system. Useful in
their time, but now there are superior alternatives available.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:33:46 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Still does the same thing in the same way though doesn't it?


Not even remotely. You won't understand if you haven't studied.

d

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

In article , Kurt Hamster wrote:
So tell me just how has the transistor has evolved then.

Err, is that meant to be a serious question? If you type "bipolar
transistor technology advances" into Google you will see page after
page of recent advances in just one type of transistor.

--
John Phillips

On 17 Nov 2004 20:38:50 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

In article , Kurt Hamster wrote:
So tell me just how has the transistor has evolved then.

Err, is that meant to be a serious question? If you type "bipolar
transistor technology advances" into Google you will see page after
page of recent advances in just one type of transistor.

John. he realised he said something really stupid, and has been
wriggling desperately ever since. Hasn't learned yet when to cut his
losses.

d

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**That would explain a great deal. I wish I'd known earlier. I have a
policy of not arguing with drunks, drug addicts, children and the aged.


Hmm, I'm 57, 100% teetotal and don't do drugs other than 'normal'
ciggies - so how do I qualify then, eh, Captain Copout??

**I have news for you: "'normal'" ciggies are an highly efficient delivery
system for the most deadly drug in society. If you imagine that the hit
you recieve (within seconds) to your brain helps your thinking, you are in
for a shock. Nicotine shrinks blood vessels, thus restricting oxygenated
blood to the brain.


So? Your point being....???




I think you need to try a little harder, remember what they say:
"Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium!"

(Still don't get it? Oh well - "Such is life!!" ;-)

Don't suppose you know who said that either, do you......???

**I know who said it, here in Australia. In Pommyland, no.


Pommyland? Aw, how twee....! ;-)


OK, so what famous Australian said it then?

(Kinda gives the game away dunnit? - *Famous Australian*!!?? - There was
only the *one*!!! :-)



Ho hum....


(Jeez, ya hafta fekkin' larf.... :-))

**I do. Particularly at one who claims not to be a drug addict, then sucks
down nicotine.


Check the words 'other than' (more of an acknowledgement than you would get
from *most* that cigarettes are a drug...) in my statement above and then
get a grip of yerself.....

Kurt Hamster wrote:

new advances are still based on old technology.

Theres a surprise...

Keith G wrote:

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

Only at the bottom end of the market, especially when you think of
projectors...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:54:04 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

snip

That wasnt my question. My question asked why Keith couldnt accept the
'cold harsh sound' of SS amps was due to a LACK of audible distortion.

I said nothing about wether valve amps distort.

You have raised a very good point there.

We know that valve amps distort. We know that we can produce ss amps
with almost unmeasurable (never mind inaudible) distortion.

We also know that our hearing is non-linear in all sorts of ways. We know
that the ear/brain combination does some *very* strange things under
certain conditions. Our hearing has even been found to introduce its own
THD which can be at least partially measured using a microphone in the
middle ear.

Could it be possible that non-linearity and the built-in distortion
factor is what causes the difference in sound? That a perfect "wire with
gain" amplification is actually *wrong* for our ears simply because it
does *not* introduce the distortion that our hearing associates with
"real" sound?

Following on from this hypothesis, I can see what the "valvies" mean by
the descriptions that they give (including the argued word "better"). I
can also see why some of them take a dislike to "ss" sound. Is the real
problem that in order to produce realistic-sounding results we *need* some
sort of distortion to fool our hearing into accepting the sound as real?

Has anyone started out with a really good, ultra-low distortion ss amp and
added harmonic distortion to it until a listener believes the sound to be
real? I doubt if this could be done with test tones as our ears are not
designed to handle them in real life.

IMHO it still really needs some method of double-blind testing live music
against amplified music to test this properly. Testing amp against amp is
doomed to misinterpretation because it takes no account of the *way* that
we hear amplified sound.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk