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.

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.)

Mr. McCoy:

For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me"
and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming
Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims,
then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant
and reduces your already tenuous credibility.

Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it
the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or
not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are
used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to
be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above.

So, in light of your absolute statement:

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

What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other
than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer
would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if
accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers
a

A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting
volume.
B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks
in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow).
C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow.

We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then
please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers
in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'?

I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is
"original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first
one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest
appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for
interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Gee, Useless, first you abuse Mr McCoy for an *excess* of precision,
now you *demand* precision from him, all within ten minutes! Why don't
you put your mind in gear before you switch on your computer?

Andre Jute

Useless Wiecky wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me"
and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming
Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims,
then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant
and reduces your already tenuous credibility.

Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it
the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or
not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are
used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to
be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above.

So, in light of your absolute statement:

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

What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other
than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer
would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if
accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers
a

A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting
volume.
B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks
in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow).
C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow.

We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then
please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers
in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'?

I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is
"original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first
one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest
appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for
interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an
abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am
searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and
understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one
given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding
defining what you mean by them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Useless Wiecky, you really are a counterproductive idiot. I undoubtedly
know more about the subject of SET than anyone here, have vastly more
experience, have a better understanding of what is possible and what is
doubtful, have a better grasp of what is known and what remains to be
discovered and, should I care, have the expertise and means to be first
to discover what we don't know about SET. But, even as you seek
knowledge from me, you have antagonized me in three separate posts,
which I reproduce below. Furthermore, you are so dumb that when you
come to the only freerange expert accessible to you, you try to score
silly little points by delimiting only three possible answers. If you
like your answers so much, choose one, sonny, and I'll be delighted to
shoot it down. But I don't help bullies and thugs; I stomp them.

Andre Jute

Three posts from Useless Wiecky trying to extort information:

wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me"
and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming
Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims,
then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant
and reduces your already tenuous credibility.

Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it
the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or
not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are
used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to
be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above.

So, in light of your absolute statement:

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

What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other
than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer
would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if
accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers
a

A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting
volume.
B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks
in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow).
C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow.

We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then
please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers
in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'?

I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is
"original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first
one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest
appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for
interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky:

wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.

Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
Altogether a glamorous lady.

Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
other than Old Arabic, of course.

However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.

So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
say it UTILITY.

You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue:

wrote:

Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an
abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am
searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and
understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one
given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding
defining what you mean by them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Mr. McCoy

Write what you will, but you are still both evasive, tiresome and quite
stupid as to actually answering a direct question. One might be
convinced that you are actually and entirely smoke and mirrors as
opposed to the wise and all-knowing oracle such as is your posture. Put
some facts on the screen so your wisdom becomes obvious to all, if you
are able.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Useless Wiecky wrote:
Mr. McCoy

Write what you will, but you are still both

Okay, that's two.

evasive, tiresome and quite
stupid

No, no, no, Useless. "Evasive", "tiresome" and "stupid" are three
items. Three is not a 'both' number.

as to actually answering a direct question.

We'll return to this vexed "direct question".

One might be
convinced that you are actually and entirely smoke and mirrors as
opposed to the wise and all-knowing oracle such as is your posture.

Or both, or neither, of course. You don't have either the brains or the
command of the language to discover which, and right after I let you
think one or the other I might change my mind just because it is lovely
little you. Well, you might be lovely after you take tip about your
mouthwash.

Put
some facts on the screen so your wisdom becomes obvious to all, if you
are able.

Is this your idea of a "direct question", Useless? A non-specific
demand for knowledge, delivered with menaces?

Or is it just another excuse to make yourself look important by abusing
your betters, eh, Useless?

Typical.

Peter Wieck

Useless.

Wyncote, PA

Home of the Useless.

Unsigned out of contempt

Three sets of threats from Useless Wiecky trying to extort information:

wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me"
and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming
Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims,
then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant
and reduces your already tenuous credibility.

Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it
the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or
not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are
used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to
be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above.

So, in light of your absolute statement:

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

What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other
than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer
would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if
accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers
a

A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting
volume.
B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks
in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow).
C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow.

We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then
please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers
in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'?

I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is
"original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first
one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest
appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for
interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky:

wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.

Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
Altogether a glamorous lady.

Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
other than Old Arabic, of course.

However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.

So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
say it UTILITY.

You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue:

wrote:

Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an
abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am
searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and
understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one
given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding
defining what you mean by them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

So many words to mask a poseur.

Mr. McCoy, you are truly a piece of work. Hollow of a certainty. Like
termite-ridden wood, and about as substantial.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote:
So many words to mask a poseur.

Mr. McCoy, you are truly a piece of work. Hollow of a certainty. Like
termite-ridden wood, and about as substantial.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

We'll let your thousand words of abuse speak for you, Useless Wiecky:

wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me"
and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming
Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims,
then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant
and reduces your already tenuous credibility.

Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it
the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or
not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are
used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to
be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above.

So, in light of your absolute statement:

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

What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other
than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer
would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if
accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers
a

A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting
volume.
B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks
in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow).
C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow.

We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then
please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers
in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'?

I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is
"original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first
one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest
appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for
interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky:

wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.

Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
Altogether a glamorous lady.

Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
other than Old Arabic, of course.

However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.

So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
say it UTILITY.

You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue:

wrote:

Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an
abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am
searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and
understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one
given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding
defining what you mean by them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

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.







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.)