Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your
opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is
"always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and
therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied.

What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and
listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert
halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like
the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies
(except PP Class A) or any solid state amp.

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer.

Exactly.

People in love with silicon can be ever so irrational about triode amps
because to know there is a better lover they could have but dare not
because modern logic
forbids it causes them deep and suppressed anxiety, and having an affair
with triodes
would have them question their dull marriage to frumpy solid state devices.

Some men love soiled state amplifiers and think soiled state must be the
focus of their love
and mind like those religious zealots must focus on God, and that the only
one true faith includes lashings of NFB.
They foam at the mouth when they talk of SET, like as if SET amps are the
work of the Devil;
they just can't let themselves delight in the pleasures of triodes, and
flagellate themselves
like St Augustine to curb the lust they supress.

I really don't care too much about the foamings and BS and lust supressions
these
emotionally dysfunctional ppl bung on which won't budge anyone who
discovers that a few triodes are still
the best way of reproducing the sound heard at a live performance after it
has been electronically recorded.

I have heard music through quite good sounding systems which have included
soiled state amplifiers,
but its never been better than what I have heard from a few triodes, and
the
best sound has been through triode amps that have a nice high power ceiling

compared to average power level used, and my many experiences with SE amps
confirm in my mind that serious
ppl designing decent SE amps using triodes, pentodes or beam tetrodes are
not wasting their time.

90% of the recorded music in the world is very electronically processed
during the performance
and following it in the studio, ( rather like meat is treated to produce
sausages
so that resemblance to meat is removed. ) So we have music being the result
of electric guitars
with added triode/tetrode/pentode/digital/soiled state distortions, so
triode amps
at home may not do much better than any other type of amp
since the music is crap anyway. What makes AC/DC or Meatloaf sound any good
at all?
Sorry, but I have no clue.
But what is the best amp to use for Dame Joan Sutherland recorded at her
best from vinyl
in 1963? I'll settle for the triodes thankyou.

What brings Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing together from about
1953 right into your lounge?
What gives the greater sense of emotional engagement? What produces the
greatest sense
of being there in the recording studio?
I don't need Krell or Mark Levinson for that, I am most happy if I have a
few triodes, with perhaps one exception,
the single j-fet in cascode with the first triode of the phono amp.

I trust a fet with a few millivolts, but after that I like to leave the
larger signals in the hands of triodes.

Patrick Turner.

Absolutely, except for the fet, which I think is unnecessary except if
you are counting pennies. But the point isn't description, Patrick, but
that they now demand reasons why triodes please so well.

And *that* is like standing a dozen men on the edge of a field and
noticing that some like daisies and some like lilies, and a few idiots
like nettles; then demanding an instant explanation.

I'm too busy listening to my tube and solid state amps to bother with
those unhappy people. They probably committed some sin to earn their
unhappiness. My experience is that the world is, on the whole, a fair
and equitable place. People get what they deserve. Some people deserve
solid state amps, a minority deserve tubes, and really good people
deserve and get triodes.

Andre Jute



By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost
without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the
composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the
presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious
music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a
brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on
the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and
performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the
premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same
composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere.
Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of
variation.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Ian Iveson wrote:
Just strayed to ukra, and tried this:

"...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The
"sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical
combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
performer, and is optimised for that purpose."

Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've
never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one.

Is it true?

cheers, Ian



(To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this:

The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
reproduction.

Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce
the "sound of real musicians playing".

SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction,
but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".

Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound
of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for
reproduction.

Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.)

Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your
opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is
"always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and
therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied.

What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and
listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert
halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like
the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies
(except PP Class A) or any solid state amp.

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer.

Exactly.

People in love with silicon can be ever so irrational about triode amps
because to know there is a better lover they could have but dare not
because modern logic
forbids it causes them deep and suppressed anxiety, and having an affair
with triodes
would have them question their dull marriage to frumpy solid state devices.

Some men love soiled state amplifiers and think soiled state must be the
focus of their love
and mind like those religious zealots must focus on God, and that the only
one true faith includes lashings of NFB.
They foam at the mouth when they talk of SET, like as if SET amps are the
work of the Devil;
they just can't let themselves delight in the pleasures of triodes, and
flagellate themselves
like St Augustine to curb the lust they supress.

I really don't care too much about the foamings and BS and lust supressions
these
emotionally dysfunctional ppl bung on which won't budge anyone who
discovers that a few triodes are still
the best way of reproducing the sound heard at a live performance after it
has been electronically recorded.

I have heard music through quite good sounding systems which have included
soiled state amplifiers,
but its never been better than what I have heard from a few triodes, and
the
best sound has been through triode amps that have a nice high power ceiling

compared to average power level used, and my many experiences with SE amps
confirm in my mind that serious
ppl designing decent SE amps using triodes, pentodes or beam tetrodes are
not wasting their time.

90% of the recorded music in the world is very electronically processed
during the performance
and following it in the studio, ( rather like meat is treated to produce
sausages
so that resemblance to meat is removed. ) So we have music being the result
of electric guitars
with added triode/tetrode/pentode/digital/soiled state distortions, so
triode amps
at home may not do much better than any other type of amp
since the music is crap anyway. What makes AC/DC or Meatloaf sound any good
at all?
Sorry, but I have no clue.
But what is the best amp to use for Dame Joan Sutherland recorded at her
best from vinyl
in 1963? I'll settle for the triodes thankyou.

What brings Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing together from about
1953 right into your lounge?
What gives the greater sense of emotional engagement? What produces the
greatest sense
of being there in the recording studio?
I don't need Krell or Mark Levinson for that, I am most happy if I have a
few triodes, with perhaps one exception,
the single j-fet in cascode with the first triode of the phono amp.

I trust a fet with a few millivolts, but after that I like to leave the
larger signals in the hands of triodes.

Patrick Turner.

Absolutely, except for the fet, which I think is unnecessary except if
you are counting pennies. But the point isn't description, Patrick, but
that they now demand reasons why triodes please so well.

Are they? Who? that mob outside with pitchforks?

Do we ask why wine of a certain vintage is like nectar?
Do we have time to ask why the Mona Lisa is the best painting in the world?
( personally though, some of the gals at the local supermarket check out are
deleriously
beautiful, so the ML may be the best painting, but I don't care if it is. )

Is there are need to ask why a lily is so nice, or why a rose is such a
wonder.....

And yes, a 2SK369 does only cost $1.20 at WES components.
I think it mauls the sonics less than a transformer.
Well at least it isn't worse imho....



And *that* is like standing a dozen men on the edge of a field and
noticing that some like daisies and some like lilies, and a few idiots
like nettles; then demanding an instant explanation.

Well yes, I see you started thinking about flowers, and even nettles,
when mobs were about....

I'm too busy listening to my tube and solid state amps to bother with
those unhappy people. They probably committed some sin to earn their
unhappiness. My experience is that the world is, on the whole, a fair
and equitable place. People get what they deserve. Some people deserve
solid state amps, a minority deserve tubes, and really good people
deserve and get triodes.

Yeah, but I wonder what Stalin used? russian pentoads?

I know he went along to hear Shostakoviches 9th at a theatre. He didn't just
stroll out to a shop and buy the record.
It was supposed to be a victory number, but it was a parody, and old uncle Joe
wasn't amused
by the "Up you Joe theme", and banished
Shosta for quite some time.
Some time later Stalin died first. Ah, what a relief that was.

But depending which recording of that symphony that you may have, it sure
can sound well on through triodes, and you can savour the taking of the mickey
out of those who are all too serious and puffed up...... :-)

All those ppl are still out there and moaning.
They'll always be there, but I don't give a damn.

Patrick Turner.





Andre Jute



By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost
without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the
composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the
presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious
music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a
brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on
the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and
performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the
premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same
composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere.
Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of
variation.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Ian Iveson wrote:
Just strayed to ukra, and tried this:

"...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The
"sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a
previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical
combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live
performer, and is optimised for that purpose."

Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've
never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one.

Is it true?

cheers, Ian



(To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this:

The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
reproduction.

Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce
the "sound of real musicians playing".

SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction,
but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".

Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound
of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for
reproduction.

Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.)

Definition of a Cult
Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following 5
characteristics:

1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain
its members

2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society

3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not
accountable and has charisma

4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds
recruit people

5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society

Does sound suspiciously like SET, doesn't it?
a. In order to be 'saved' one must believe it.
b. If one believes it, no further explanation is necessary.
c. If one questions it in any way, one is considered an apostate.

Ah, well. I consider myself one of the blessed unwashed in this
case... I will _never_ get it. I do like tubes, though.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

" wrote:

Definition of a Cult
Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following 5
characteristics:

1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain
its members

I could be accused of being in a cult, part of a cult, or even one of its
damnable priests,
but coercion of ppl to join in an SET cult is something I don't practice.

Ppl just discover SET, its akin to meeting a new friend, and one finds that
a single triode offers
something good.
Full technical explanations are not required about friendship; its just
there.




2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society

Gee, those guys who wax lyrical about the wonders of large solid state
amplifiers
and who go around smashing triodes whenever they can sure do seem to be an
elitist totalitarian society.


3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not
accountable and has charisma

Yeah, just who was it who invented soiled state?
But hey, did he have charisma?, I thought he had only dogma,
and it could have been run over by the karma....



4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds
recruit people

Soiled state engineers in many large corporations have been believing that
the end justifies the means
since about 1947.



5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society

Well where does the wealth go then? Sony or Pioneer shareholders perhaps?

Where did all the triodes go, long time passing?





Does sound suspiciously like SET, doesn't it?

I have to beg humbly to differ sir, I think you have things fractabunt,
and its the big cult of Silly Con you are talking about; I started to
suspect you likened
the SET listeners to a cult, but really they are just like a harmless
flower smelling society.
If the smell is good, they do not need talk about aroma chemistry.




a. In order to be 'saved' one must believe it.

Well of course, and the more ppl in a cult, the more beliefs are
reinforced,
so 99% believe Silly Con is a great religion....


b. If one believes it, no further explanation is necessary.

Well that not only applies to cults large or small, but to politics,
and mass movements, like Nationalism, or Consumerism....


c. If one questions it in any way, one is considered an apostate.

What sticks up, must be bashed down flat



Ah, well. I consider myself one of the blessed unwashed in this
case... I will _never_ get it. I do like tubes, though.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Well its encouraging to know you like tubes......
Its a nice start...

Patrick Turner.

Andre Jute wrote:

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined
effects box and amplifier, that can compensate
for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer
endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto
the master tape.

If so, SETs are indeed remarkable.

BugBear

You will never get what Mr. McCoy actually means... if he were to go
there, he would have to stand by it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Yah know....

rec.audio.SET or alt.cult.SET should be NGs in and of themselves. Then
90% of the vituperation and likely 100% of the vulgarity and
fulmination displayed here moment-by-moment could find a home and
satisfaction amongst like-minded individuals. And those who actually
may want to know stuff would know to go elsewhere for repeatable
information & techniques.

Science and the Scientific Method requires that results that are to be
trusted are predictable and repeatable. I see the leading Kult-Keeper
here grasping the term "Science" to his bosom, yet feels no need to
share his means-and-methods, nor explain his conclusions, nor what he
even means by the terms he uses. Patrick, you may not be a priest of
the cult, perhaps not even a senior acolyte, but it sure smacks of cult
behavior at Mr. McCoy's level. And with him go Allison and Ludwig in
some sort of unhappy and terrible lockstep based on mutual loathing. I
feel sorry for the bunch of them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"bugbear" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined
effects box and amplifier, that can compensate
for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer
endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto
the master tape.


If so, SETs are indeed remarkable.

BugBear

Hello BB. Is this supposed to be humour?
I saw no smiley.

As for "arbitrary mistakes made by the recording
engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound
onto the master tape" Your comment suggests that you
know little about recording. Anything less "arbitrary"
is difficult to imagine.

Hopefully you know more about SET amps.

Have you ever built, or listened to one?


Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"bugbear" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined
effects box and amplifier, that can compensate
for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer
endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto
the master tape.


If so, SETs are indeed remarkable.

BugBear

Hello BB. Is this supposed to be humour?
I saw no smiley.

As for "arbitrary mistakes made by the recording
engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound
onto the master tape" Your comment suggests that you
know little about recording. Anything less "arbitrary"
is difficult to imagine.

Hopefully you know more about SET amps.

Have you ever built, or listened to one?



I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain
why I like SETs.

Maybe, like Jazz (or Joan Baez Vols 1 and 2), they ain't for the Great
Unwashed after all....??

**** 'em....

Keith G wrote:

I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain
why I like SETs.

Interesting approach to a discussion forum.

BugBear