Make a gainclone
 

Jem Raid wrote:
Make a gainclone

I did, while I waited months and months for Stewart Pinkerton to design
and build a silicon homage to my KISS 300B which was calling KISASS.
Unfortunately, Pinko's design turned out so stinko that even he refused
to build it.

The articles about my opamp minimum amplifier are he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
the circuit is here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20mGBschem.jpg
and the photo is here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg

You can then change the components and hear the differences.

:-)

Jem

ps It's no bollox, hairy or otherwise though I can't imagine what the
otherwise would be.

Shaved, smooth, oiled, muscular?

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com, Andre Jute
wrote:
OK, what about-

The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person,
one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture"
and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive?

I didn't say that. You concluded it (inference is another process) from
your own prejudice that culture is superior to technical concerns.

I was quoting by means of "cut & paste" exactly what you *did* say, so I have no
idea what you can mean by declaring that you didn't say it. The phrase referring to
culture rather than technology came from you. Expressions of the form "X rather
than Y" are usually intended to suggest that X and Y are different. You're entitled
to use any words you like but if you don't use them in conventional ways, others
will have difficulty understanding your meaning.

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

It is a truism that musical and mathematical ability often coincide
Pinkerton.

No it isn't. Some mathematicians are indeed musical, but professional
musicians are much closer to the creative personality on key factors as
measured by the Cattell 16PF (with supporting data on Holland
Occupational Scales showing a cluster of AES as much more common in
musicians, and of course I being a priotity in mathematicians) see
Evans A "Secrets of Musical Confidence" (HarperCollins) and Evans A
"Sectrets of Performing Confidence" (A&C Black). Data from the 16PF
users manual also shows different profiles for mathematicians and
engineers on a number of the 16 factors, as above. In terms of
research, Revesz (1953) found that only 9% of professional musicians
had mathematical talent or interest in mathematics. Shuter (1964) found
zero correlation between the Wing tests and the Admiralty mathematics
tests. Where there is some interesting data is in particular fields of
research demanding high spatial ability, which include high level
mathematics and indeed other scientific subjects. The common factor
here may be research/creativity rather than general mathematical
ability as might be found in administrative posts such as accountancy
or banking. Vernon's data (1933) showed that 60% of Oxford University
scientists were members of the Oxford Music club as opposed to 15% for
the university as a whole. Revesz's research into the actual musical
ability of mathematicians in terms of tests of aural ability were much
less indicative. Music does seem to relate more to spatial ability
(right hemisphere) than verbal ability (left hemisphere) -
particularly in terms of improvisation (Webster 1979) - and this would
favour a correlation with other "creatives" within all fields,
including but not limited to science. Interestingly, though, Shuter's
research shows that professional musicians (particularly classical)
became progressively more left brained as they tended to analyse music
more, while non-musicians continued with more spatial/emotive responses
to music. Against this, Karma's research (1980) seemed - confusingly -
to go in an opposite direction. Summing up this evidence, there is no
conclusive link, and it would seem that personality factors place
musicians close to creatives, while the link with scientists would
favour those involved in research rather than process, and would be
associated with common "creative" personality factors rather than
mathematical ability per se or a tendency to occupational preferences
involving the use of number.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Emotion is of course the difference between art and "engineering":

No, it isn't. Pinkerton

It would be both anecdotal and misguided to refer to both as
"passionate about their work" since this might equally be true of
hairdressers or mass murderers. There is Myers Briggs data relating to
the third factor Thinking-Feeling, and on this artists and musicians
are some way apart. My own data (Evans A, "Secrets of Performing
Confidence" A&C Black) shows artists as generally skewed towards
feeling (n for male/female being roughly similar, since this is also a
factor that would weight it) in different proportions when subdivided
into classical music, popular music, theatre and dance. The MBTI
handbook shows System Analysts, for instance as T 80% and several other
engineers as T 50%, whereas we fall to 51% before we find the first
group of arts subjects - actors (this agrees with my differentials
showing actors as more T than musicians). Artists and Entertainers as a
larger data grouping (n = 378) were 44% on this. The binary of
Thinking-Feeling, while not strictly the same as "passionate about
their work" which you seem to have extrapolated, would at least show a
tendency towards emotion rather than rational process, which I believe
was the initial point.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what
he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some
form of 'magic'

That is complete and utter nonsense and not based on anything I've
said, though it seems a commonplace on this ng to find myself
misrepresented. To take up the point about the "engineers personality"
which seems to have come in for some discussion here, we already know
that engineers as a general grouping (n=986) are T 50% on the MBTI and
as high as 80% in the case of operations and systems analysis, which
differs from artists as 44% (see other posting in this thread) - this
would be one differentiating factor that Andre may have alluded to. It
would also be interesting to look at factor A on the Catell 16PF which
we know to be skewed downwards in scientists, engineers and indeed
academics. My data on both popular and classical musicians on Factor A
puts them around the norm for UK adults at sten score 5. (Evans A
"Secrets of Musical Confidence, HarperCollins), while engineers would
be significantly lower particularly if they were also academics.
Entertainers can be significantly A+. People with low scores on A+ are
said by Cattell (1957) to be “obstructive, cantankerous, inflexible,
rigid, cool, indifferent, secretive, anxious, suspicious, hostile,
egotistical and dry – apparently not such a pleasant person to have as
a friend”. I leave it to the imagination to figure if this applies to
members of this newsgroup. High scorers on this he described as
“warmhearted, adaptable, attentive to people, frank, emotional,
expressive, trustful, impulsive, generous and co-operative” (evidently
an easier person to have as a friend). So it seems that Andre's
attempted distinction between engineering and what he referred to as
"culture" (rather loose word) would certainly hold for parameters such
as expressiveness and emotionality (again see other posts on this
thread). I believe that this factor, probably more than any other,
gives a much needed reference for what has been a rather woolly debate
in strictly psychometric personality terms. Catell goes on to say many
things, of which the following is relevant, since it relates to the
frustration and animosity displayed by those low in factor A towards
those scoring higher on A (arts in general, and particularly
entertainers, but also health workers which relates to my own case).
"Social workers have to adapt cheerfully and flexibly to a lot of
compromises with human failings and to accept a ceaseless impact of
never entirely soluble emotional problems that might drive the exact
logician or the careful electrician mad”.
The clinical data shows more psychopathology for lower A scores, such
as social avoidance, critical detachment, flatness of affect or a
history of unsatisfactory relationships, and it would be recommended
that clinicians encountering scores of 1 or 2 should check for
“burnt-child” reactions associated with unrewarding and austere
relationships in early years. Changes in factor A can be attributed to
situational factors such as occupation, so some caution in interpreting
the above is recommended, though there is also evidence of relative
long term stability and also hereditary tendencies.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what

he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some
form of 'magic' ventured Plowman.

Don't be so quick to dismiss magic as a human phenomenon - it's an
interesting subject of study. I owe some interest in it to my friend
Jerry Sadowitz who wrote the forward to my book "This Virtual Life -
Escapism and Simulation in our Media World" (Fusion Press, 2001) .
Magic is found in pp 18 to 22, together with Illusion, Paranormal
Psychology, the Psychology of Deception and the magician as escapist.
It is no surprise for me to find you routinely dismissive of some of
the more interesting aspects of human behaviour - others like to keep a
more open mind to psychological aspects of our social interactions.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Andy Evans wrote:

It would be both anecdotal and misguided to refer to both as
"passionate about their work" since this might equally be true of
hairdressers or mass murderers. There is Myers Briggs data relating to
the third factor Thinking-Feeling, and on this artists and musicians
are some way apart. My own data (Evans A, "Secrets of Performing
Confidence" A&C Black) shows artists as generally skewed towards
feeling (n for male/female being roughly similar, since this is also a
factor that would weight it) in different proportions when subdivided
into classical music, popular music, theatre and dance. The MBTI
handbook shows System Analysts, for instance as T 80% and several
other engineers as T 50%, whereas we fall to 51% before we find the
first group of arts subjects - actors (this agrees with my
differentials showing actors as more T than musicians). Artists and
Entertainers as a larger data grouping (n = 378) were 44% on this.
The binary of Thinking-Feeling, while not strictly the same as
"passionate about their work" which you seem to have extrapolated,
would at least show a tendency towards emotion rather than rational
process, which I believe was the initial point.

Interesting. How was the thinkingness and feelingness measured? How were the
two aspects scored? As percentages of a person's thinkingness and
feelingness, or rated in some way compared with other people's scores? In
other words, could a person be identified as 'stronger' in a given aspect
than another person? Could a person be stronger than another in both
aspects? If there are individuals who are notably strong in both aspects,
did any particular groups predominate?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Wally asked
Interesting. How was the thinkingness and feelingness measured? How
were the two aspects scored? As percentages of a person's thinkingness
and feelingness, or rated in some way compared with other people's
scores?

In the MBTI the scores are for 'strength of preference', not population
norms as on the Cattell 16PF. Since the factors are scored between
opposite poles it is only possible to have a central tendency, not be
'strong on both'. A strong preference for Thinking would indicate a
rational disposition, inclined to make logical choices, able to make
tough decisions with people, a liking for 'principles' which can be
reasoned, and a liking for justice and fairness. Sensitive to
injustice, which can cut deep. A Feeling preference is more concerned
with empathy, harmony, communication between people including
non-verbal communication and a pay-back system more akin to 'I'm a good
guy so people should like and praise me". Sensitive to betrayal and
being ignored/belittled.
There are four factors on the MBTI, which gives 16 personality types,
commonly identified by a four letter code. The test is popular and
widely used, and originally came from the ideas of Jung. Andy.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Wally asked
Interesting. How was the thinkingness and feelingness measured? How
were the two aspects scored? As percentages of a person's thinkingness
and feelingness, or rated in some way compared with other people's
scores?

In the MBTI the scores are for 'strength of preference', not population
norms as on the Cattell 16PF. Since the factors are scored between
opposite poles it is only possible to have a central tendency, not be
'strong on both'. A strong preference for Thinking would indicate a
rational disposition, inclined to make logical choices, able to make
tough decisions with people, a liking for 'principles' which can be
reasoned, and a liking for justice and fairness. Sensitive to
injustice, which can cut deep. A Feeling preference is more concerned
with empathy, harmony, communication between people including
non-verbal communication and a pay-back system more akin to 'I'm a good
guy so people should like and praise me". Sensitive to betrayal and
being ignored/belittled.
There are four factors on the MBTI, which gives 16 personality types,
commonly identified by a four letter code. The test is popular and
widely used, and originally came from the ideas of Jung. Andy.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Andy Evans wrote:

In the MBTI the scores are for 'strength of preference', not
population norms as on the Cattell 16PF. Since the factors are scored
between opposite poles it is only possible to have a central
tendency, not be 'strong on both'. A strong preference for Thinking
would indicate a rational disposition, inclined to make logical
choices, able to make tough decisions with people, a liking for
'principles' which can be reasoned, and a liking for justice and
fairness. Sensitive to injustice, which can cut deep. A Feeling
preference is more concerned with empathy, harmony, communication
between people including non-verbal communication and a pay-back
system more akin to 'I'm a good guy so people should like and praise
me". Sensitive to betrayal and being ignored/belittled.
There are four factors on the MBTI, which gives 16 personality types,
commonly identified by a four letter code. The test is popular and
widely used, and originally came from the ideas of Jung. Andy.

Thanks for that, Andy. I think I've seen the four-letter code thing, now
that you mention it. I asked about the scoring, and whether a person could
be strong in both (perhaps at different times), because it seems to me that
thinkingness and feelingness are states of mind - each a sort of
psychological 'mode' that one can be in. If it's reasonable to say that a
person can be in different states of mind at different times, then it
doesn't seem too great a stretch to suggest that a person can be in a
logical, thinking mode some of the time, and in a feeling 'arty' mode at
other times - I don't see that one neccessarily precludes the other.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Wally it doesn't seem too great a stretch to suggest that a person
can be in a logical, thinking mode some of the time, and in a feeling
'arty' mode at other times - I don't see that one neccessarily
precludes the other.

The MBTI would agree with you - it only establishes a general
preference, not a situational one, and the opposite pole is present and
referred to as the 'shadow'. In the work I've done on creativity, I'd
say that you need both simultaneously. This is particularly the case
with improvising jazz, which was my own profession for years - the
chord structure and available options of substitute chords etc
(thinking) has to be conveyed through an equally important empathy with
the other musicians, "swing" which is a feel thing, and emotion
(feeling). It's also non-verbal and spatial processes predominate (as
the research would confirm). But this is common to all creativity
within art - indeed Rossetti said "fundamental brainwork is what makes
the difference in all art". The exploration may have a "feel"
dimension, especially in a state of flow or 'rumination' as it is
sometimes referred to as, but the myraid decisions and micro decisions
have to have a reasoned artistic place in the whole opus, without which
the process would be merely expressive rather than truly productive

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Wally it doesn't seem too great a stretch to suggest that a person
can be in a logical, thinking mode some of the time, and in a feeling
'arty' mode at other times - I don't see that one neccessarily
precludes the other.

The MBTI would agree with you - it only establishes a general
preference, not a situational one, and the opposite pole is present and
referred to as the 'shadow'. In the work I've done on creativity, I'd
say that you need both simultaneously. This is particularly the case
with improvising jazz, which was my own profession for years - the
chord structure and available options of substitute chords etc
(thinking) has to be conveyed through an equally important empathy with
the other musicians, "swing" which is a feel thing, and emotion
(feeling). It's also non-verbal and spatial processes predominate (as
the research would confirm). But this is common to all creativity
within art - indeed Rossetti said "fundamental brainwork is what makes
the difference in all art". The exploration may have a "feel"
dimension, especially in a state of flow or 'rumination' as it is
sometimes referred to as, but the myraid decisions and micro decisions
have to have a reasoned artistic place in the whole opus, without which
the process would be merely expressive rather than truly productive

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:
It is a truism that musical and mathematical ability often coincide
Pinkerton.

No it isn't. Some mathematicians are indeed musical, but professional
musicians are much closer to the creative personality on key factors as
measured by the Cattell 16PF

[Yawn]

All of a sudden you believe in measurements...

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote:
I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms
what he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements,
but some form of 'magic' ventured Plowman.

Don't be so quick to dismiss magic as a human phenomenon - it's an
interesting subject of study. I owe some interest in it to my friend
Jerry Sadowitz who wrote the forward to my book "This Virtual Life -
Escapism and Simulation in our Media World" (Fusion Press, 2001) .
Magic is found in pp 18 to 22, together with Illusion, Paranormal
Psychology, the Psychology of Deception and the magician as escapist.
It is no surprise for me to find you routinely dismissive of some of
the more interesting aspects of human behaviour - others like to keep a
more open mind to psychological aspects of our social interactions.

Thanks for explaining what I already knew. You dismiss DBT as being an
'engineers' method, but know all about the psychology of deception.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


You never need to trust an engineer - unless you fly...... :-)

Or cross a bridge... or go into a tall building... or... :-)

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab
a
Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it
out
for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have.

I mostly use a Class A Krell amplifier - it sounds just like my
low-bias Class AB Audiolab amplifier.................


There is *no question* that my Class A valve amps sound better than my AB
valve amps...

Perhaps it's your speakers?



The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by
more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in
itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound.


Those are the words of Fruitius Loopius, but I happen to agree. I am a lot
more comfortable with the idea that there isn't too much *constriction*
going on in the amp/speaker arrangement....



That's because they are idiots who think SET amps sound good, so they
make up these fairy stories about proper amplifiers in order to
ascribe some magivcal prperty to their pathetic flea-power crap.


:-)

It's the word 'pathetic' that says most here - FWIW, no-one much can stand
the 'loudness' of my 8 watt 300B SET at half volume here.....


The
term 'ultrafidelista' is of course just more of your pretentious
twaddle.


Yes, he means 'ultrafidelitians' I suspect.... ;-)

Doesn't include me, btw - I'm not hung up on 'fidelity', I'm a *consumer*
who is more interested in the sound than the signal...

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Keith G wrote:


I'm most definitely a SeTtie (worked my way up to it) but the *absence*
of
the usual crossposting encourages me to read further...

These are considerations of culture rather than technicalities.


Culture without etiquette is like a snake with no head...



See my remarks to Mick about how your ear and brain adapts to whatever
equipment you have.


??


There are a couple of others here I usually expect to trot out that sort of
(obvious) remark......

My problem (or saving grace) is that I accomodate the change in sound from
different items of audio gear very quickly, which is why I so elicit the
opinions of others when the opportunity presents - I'm interested in what
they think, I don't need then to tell me what I like.......



No. "A degree of fidelity" is not unqualified fidelity.


Again with the statement of the obvious...?? Thinking aloud, possibly?


"Recognition of
someone's voice" is high fidelity, sure. Unqualified fidelity would be
the possibility of mistaking the replay for the person in the room with
you but out of sight behind the curtain or perhaps behind you.


Long past that point, thank you kindly - being startled by 'unexpected'
voices and, for a split second, thinking there was someone in the house!!
That is a good example of a 'greater' degree of fidelity...



I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab a
Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it
out
for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have.

The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by
more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in
itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound.


Yes, I'm very hip to the 'Zen' of flea-power amps moving serious air with
large, sensitive speakers, myself.

The idea of an arc-welder driving a pair of ironing boards is a bit like a
V8 motorcar being driven with the handbrake permanently on, in my book......

Isn't that very *American* - needing 200 watts to do 55 mph....??? :-)


snip Quad stuff - I am the one person in this group who 'doesn't give a
sod
about Quad'...

Audiophile Wealth Alert: this is a serious mistake you're committing,
Keith. You should take an interest in Quad because Quad gives you
superior sound in exchange for mere money. If you count up the value of
your hours, you hi-fi is already many times the price of a complete
top-drawer Quad setup. Also, you require a reference, and for this
second-hand Quad gear is the cheap option, and also the superior
option.


Pay attention now, Keith. Andy and I between us can explain it to you.
Might take us a while though. Put on some nice muzak and...


Unlikely....

I seriously doubt either you or Andy share my range of taste in music....

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"John Phillips" wrote


snip pricky stuff


It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.


This phrase 'good engineers' bothers me....

(Implies there engineers who are *not* good - where do the they go then??)

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Andy:

This is absolutely fascinating. In fact, I have long believed that my
extraordinary serendipity runs true in my choice of publishers, in that
the people who share publishers with me are generally and particularly
the most interesting, cleverest and entertaining writers.

However, I think that from your analysis it is only a short step to
performing on-line Hare evaluations of the "engineers" we meet here,
and finding them full forty-score undesirables. We do seems to have an
inordinately large proportions of intuitive obstructives. That would be
a lot of work wasted to discover what we know already; I prefer simply
to remember the TIME article which explained why the ugliest people in
society become engineers, which was brought to my attention by a
protege of mine, herself an engineer (and definitely not ugly either
spiritually or physically, a shining exception--except that she isn't:
most of the automobile, electronic and civil engineers I know are
cultured, civilized and entertaining people -- the audio conferences
probably attract all the wrongoes in the world and therefore give a
skewed view).

I like the loose phrasing of "cultured people" and "technical people"
because I am an includer, not an excluder like the obstructionists
here, and I like the carefully loose phrasing (1) among other good
reasons because it admits of a huge overlap. (Ask yourself why Roderick
Stewart is going to such extraordinary lengths to "prove" his lie that
I devised these categories to be mutually exclusive, and why all the
wrong people immediately piled in to cheer him to the rafters. The
answer is sickening.)

It seems to me significant that the engineers who actually work in
recording and music production are very carefully staying out of this
thread because they don't want to be tarred with the arid, cramped,
fearful brush of the "engineers" whose idea of logic is to snip
relevant counter-argument and then to repeat their own argument, plus
abuse of course.

Thanks for the entertainment!

Andre Jute

(1) Several of my mentors and keenest boosters were Freudians. I regret
now in the overenthusiastic ignorance of youth savaging their hero for
"being of strictly literary interest". Science is not defined only by a
concurrent ability to take hard measurements; it is amazing how often
science proceeds by insight only later formalized by repeatable test
protocols, and it is notable how even in my lifetime psychology and
economics, more philosophies than sciences when I was a student, have
developed a hard mathematical carapace. My joke, intended to reassure
my partners and clients that the millions we spent on market research
were justified, that "Economists and psychologist are merely jumped-up
statisticians with more imagination and class," is probably well on the
way to becoming true.

Andy Evans wrote:
I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what
he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some
form of 'magic'

That is complete and utter nonsense and not based on anything I've
said, though it seems a commonplace on this ng to find myself
misrepresented. To take up the point about the "engineers personality"
which seems to have come in for some discussion here, we already know
that engineers as a general grouping (n=986) are T 50% on the MBTI and
as high as 80% in the case of operations and systems analysis, which
differs from artists as 44% (see other posting in this thread) - this
would be one differentiating factor that Andre may have alluded to. It
would also be interesting to look at factor A on the Catell 16PF which
we know to be skewed downwards in scientists, engineers and indeed
academics. My data on both popular and classical musicians on Factor A
puts them around the norm for UK adults at sten score 5. (Evans A
"Secrets of Musical Confidence, HarperCollins), while engineers would
be significantly lower particularly if they were also academics.
Entertainers can be significantly A+. People with low scores on A+ are
said by Cattell (1957) to be ?obstructive, cantankerous, inflexible,
rigid, cool, indifferent, secretive, anxious, suspicious, hostile,
egotistical and dry ? apparently not such a pleasant person to have as
a friend?. I leave it to the imagination to figure if this applies to
members of this newsgroup. High scorers on this he described as
?warmhearted, adaptable, attentive to people, frank, emotional,
expressive, trustful, impulsive, generous and co-operative? (evidently
an easier person to have as a friend). So it seems that Andre's
attempted distinction between engineering and what he referred to as
"culture" (rather loose word) would certainly hold for parameters such
as expressiveness and emotionality (again see other posts on this
thread). I believe that this factor, probably more than any other,
gives a much needed reference for what has been a rather woolly debate
in strictly psychometric personality terms. Catell goes on to say many
things, of which the following is relevant, since it relates to the
frustration and animosity displayed by those low in factor A towards
those scoring higher on A (arts in general, and particularly
entertainers, but also health workers which relates to my own case).
"Social workers have to adapt cheerfully and flexibly to a lot of
compromises with human failings and to accept a ceaseless impact of
never entirely soluble emotional problems that might drive the exact
logician or the careful electrician mad?.
The clinical data shows more psychopathology for lower A scores, such
as social avoidance, critical detachment, flatness of affect or a
history of unsatisfactory relationships, and it would be recommended
that clinicians encountering scores of 1 or 2 should check for
?burnt-child? reactions associated with unrewarding and austere
relationships in early years. Changes in factor A can be attributed to
situational factors such as occupation, so some caution in interpreting
the above is recommended, though there is also evidence of relative
long term stability and also hereditary tendencies.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:59:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"John Phillips" wrote


snip pricky stuff


It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.


This phrase 'good engineers' bothers me....

(Implies there engineers who are *not* good - where do the they go then??)



They install aerials - some of them, anyway.

d

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

You dismiss DBT as being an 'engineers' method Plowman

No I don't - you really have to learn to read.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Hello Andre -
I take what seems to me to be a very different view here. I love
engineering, and I have nothing against the people who carry it out so
I'm not throwing any stones here. What I've referred to is certain
personality factors that we know from available data (16PF, MBTI etc)
to be typical of engineers as a group - individual scores as always may
vary. When matching personality to occupation one would expect a close
fit on essential factors, but a more distant one on non-essential
factors which my be of the opposite polarity. So for factor A on the
16PF, a low score would have the advantage of scepticism, detachment,
precision, criticism and ability to work alone, though this would come
with a certain rigidity and reluctance to compromise. I am sure this
description would fit many on this ng. But additionally, a low score is
at the opposite polarity from easy-going, emotionaly expressive,
co-operative, kind, adaptable and attentive to people.
I think the situation you are referring to on this ng, Andre, is that
there is a collective mutual re-inforcement of low Factor A. We have to
be careful here since individual scores vary so we can't say either
"all low Factor A are engineers" nor again "all engineers are low
Factor A". The fact that certain ng members have distorted the term
'audio' into 'engineering' (in one case simplistically stating
audio=engineering) gives this collective the advantage of being able to
state principles and argue on what they take to be their territory.
This statement of collective views, when it comes into conflict with
those who see audio as additionally having essential human and musical
content, causes the collective to re-inforce their shared Factor A and
revert more overtly to type, which for Factor A is “obstructive,
cantankerous, inflexible, rigid, cool, indifferent, secretive, anxious,
suspicious, hostile, egotistical and dry". As I write this I can see
that this does not by any means describe certain of the engineers who
post here, but on the other hand it fits a small number with uncanny
accuracy.
If we explore the character types of those who are interested in the
human and musical aspects of audio, we see quite a different picture -
the creative and expressive features are considerably stronger, and so
is the capacity for adaptability, open-mindedness, conviviality etc.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:59:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"John Phillips" wrote


snip pricky stuff


It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.


This phrase 'good engineers' bothers me....

(Implies there engineers who are *not* good - where do the they go then??)



They install aerials - some of them, anyway.

Eh?...

d

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

--
Tony Sayer

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Keith wrote: My problem (or saving grace) is that I accomodate the
change in sound from different items of audio gear very quickly, which
is why I so elicit the opinions of others when the opportunity presents
- I'm interested in what they think, I don't need then to tell me what
I like.......

I hope Keith won't mind my referring to this as typical of higher
Factor A, showing "openness, flexibility, attention to people, ability
to co-operate, adaptability and an easy-going nature". In other posts
I've referred at some length to low Factor A and its association with
engineers as a group.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Keith G wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

someone's voice" is high fidelity, sure. Unqualified fidelity would be
the possibility of mistaking the replay for the person in the room with
you but out of sight behind the curtain or perhaps behind you.

Long past that point, thank you kindly - being startled by 'unexpected'
voices and, for a split second, thinking there was someone in the house!!
That is a good example of a 'greater' degree of fidelity...

That happened eighty years ago, as documented in 'Out Of The Blue' by
Sapper.
I don't have my copy to hand so I may have got the wrong title but it shows
the dangers of pointing guns at yourself while a wireless is switched on
just before the start of the day's programmes.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
Keith wrote: My problem (or saving grace) is that I accomodate the
change in sound from different items of audio gear very quickly, which
is why I so elicit the opinions of others when the opportunity presents
- I'm interested in what they think, I don't need then to tell me what
I like.......

I hope Keith won't mind my referring to this as typical of higher
Factor A, showing "openness, flexibility, attention to people, ability
to co-operate, adaptability and an easy-going nature". In other posts
I've referred at some length to low Factor A and its association with
engineers as a group.



Andy, I've been called a few things in my time - 'Higher Factor A' is
*nothing*, believe me!! :-)

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


You never need to trust an engineer - unless you fly...... :-)

Or cross a bridge... or go into a tall building... or... :-)



Had exactly the same thoughts when I saw that remark myself.....

(The Channel Tunnel came to mind also..... ;-)

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:28:22 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:59:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"John Phillips" wrote


snip pricky stuff


It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.


This phrase 'good engineers' bothers me....

(Implies there engineers who are *not* good - where do the they go then??)



They install aerials - some of them, anyway.

Eh?...

I'm talking about the clowns who did his installation... not you;
hence the "some of them"

d

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article . com, Andre
Jute wrote:
(Ask yourself why Roderick
Stewart is going to such extraordinary lengths to "prove" his lie that
I devised these categories to be mutually exclusive, and why all the
wrong people immediately piled in to cheer him to the rafters. The
answer is sickening.)

Ahem. Do you mean me?

I have no idea what you "devised", and cannot recall making any assertion
that you devised anything, so it is hardly accurate to describe as a
"lie", somnething I didn't say.

What I did do was to quote verbatim YOUR OWN WORDS, (and I'll quote them
again if it helps) which appear to indicate that you have difficulty with
the concept of somebody with technical knowledge also being competent to
understand art, or "culture". If I've misunderstood those words, please
feel free to explain them and why they don't mean what they appear to
say.

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 13 Feb 2006 10:41:59 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

You won't catch me making any ad hominem statements.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Priceless..........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:01:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote:
I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms
what he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements,
but some form of 'magic' ventured Plowman.

Don't be so quick to dismiss magic as a human phenomenon - it's an
interesting subject of study. I owe some interest in it to my friend
Jerry Sadowitz who wrote the forward to my book "This Virtual Life -
Escapism and Simulation in our Media World" (Fusion Press, 2001) .
Magic is found in pp 18 to 22, together with Illusion, Paranormal
Psychology, the Psychology of Deception and the magician as escapist.
It is no surprise for me to find you routinely dismissive of some of
the more interesting aspects of human behaviour - others like to keep a
more open mind to psychological aspects of our social interactions.

Thanks for explaining what I already knew. You dismiss DBT as being an
'engineers' method, but know all about the psychology of deception.

He's an interesting nutball, isn't he? Knows all about human
fallibility, but thinks he is somehow immune in his own listening
comparisons. Then again, they do say that pshrinks are nuttier than
their 'clients'..........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Make a gainclone
 

On 13 Feb 2006 11:00:11 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Jem Raid wrote:
Make a gainclone

I did, while I waited months and months for Stewart Pinkerton to design
and build a silicon homage to my KISS 300B which was calling KISASS.
Unfortunately, Pinko's design turned out so stinko that even he refused
to build it.

Firstly, KISASS is not a homage to anything, it's simply a superior SS
alternative to a minimalist SET design - but not a 'good' amplifier by
any reasonable standard, which is why I didn't build it. Secondly, you
never built KISS, so get off your high horse.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com, Andre Jute
wrote:
What I did do was to quote verbatim YOUR OWN WORDS, (and I'll quote them
again if it helps) which appear to indicate that you have difficulty with
the concept of somebody with technical knowledge also being competent to
understand art, or "culture". If I've misunderstood those words, please
feel free to explain them and why they don't mean what they appear to
say.

Rod.

Oh, I definitely mean you, Stewart. You're a liar. You use two
deliberate methods calculated to deceive and lie:

1. Unless someone writes out all the qualifications, extensions and
possibilities, you take the most negative and obstructive view of his
words. That is not what decent people do in civilized conversation.
Once may be an oversight but you do it repeatedly. That is deliberate
dishonesty.

[tirade of insults snipped]

If you think I've misunderstood something you posted, then it would be more
helpful to explain it than to accuse me of being a "liar" or taking a
"negative and obstructive view". I simply take views based on what I read.

In particular, if I've grasped the wrong indended meaning of your words,
please correct my misunderstanding and tell me what you really mean to imply
with the words "a different class of person, one of culture rather than a
technician" (your words, verbatim), and what exactly is a "jumped-up techie"
(your words, verbatim, again)?

Rod.

Please contribute generously to spectacles for PinkoStinko, was Make a gainclone
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Feb 2006 11:00:11 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Jem Raid wrote:
Make a gainclone

I did, while I waited months and months for Stewart Pinkerton to design
and build a silicon homage to my KISS 300B which was calling KISASS.
Unfortunately, Pinko's design turned out so stinko that even he refused
to build it.

Firstly, KISASS is not a homage to anything, it's simply a superior SS
alternative to a minimalist SET design - but not a 'good' amplifier by
any reasonable standard, which is why I didn't build it. Secondly, you
never built KISS, so get off your high horse.

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Perhaps we should take up a collection on UKRA to buy you spectacles,
Pinkostinko. Photos of versions of my T39 KISS Amp have been sitting on
the net for years. Here's a photo that has been sitting there since
around a fortnight before you thought of your wretched KISASS travesty,
say 15 months:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/t39kiss001.jpg
None so blind as those who don't want to see, eh, Pinko?

Of course, if you really didn't know of these photographs, it is a dire
commentary on your universal unpopularity that, even as you repeatedly
for more than a year now made a fool of yourself by claiming I didn't
build an amplifier that everyone else knows I have built over and over
and over in various incarnations, no one told you where to find the
photographs. I feel sorry for you, Pinko.

Furthermore, don't you claim to be an engineer, more particulary an
electronics engineer? How is it that an "electronics engineer" cannot
see instantly that another amp repeatedly discussed *with reference to
the photographs* on RAT while you hung around like a bad smell, my T68
"Minus Zero" potato amp, is in fact only the T39 KISS Amp with the 300B
removed and the 417A used as power tubes?

Or do you call yourself an electronics engineer because your mommie
said you could? Postman Pinko, mommie's little "engineer". Lovel-ly!

Tallyho! From my high horse,

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article .com, Andre Jute
wrote:
What I did do was to quote verbatim YOUR OWN WORDS, (and I'll quote them
again if it helps) which appear to indicate that you have difficulty with
the concept of somebody with technical knowledge also being competent to
understand art, or "culture". If I've misunderstood those words, please
feel free to explain them and why they don't mean what they appear to
say.

Rod.

Oh, I definitely mean you, Stewart. You're a liar. You use two
deliberate methods calculated to deceive and lie:

1. Unless someone writes out all the qualifications, extensions and
possibilities, you take the most negative and obstructive view of his
words. That is not what decent people do in civilized conversation.
Once may be an oversight but you do it repeatedly. That is deliberate
dishonesty.

[tirade of insults snipped]

If you think I've misunderstood something you posted, then it would be more
helpful to explain it than to accuse me of being a "liar" or taking a
"negative and obstructive view". I simply take views based on what I read.

In particular, if I've grasped the wrong indended meaning of your words,
please correct my misunderstanding and tell me what you really mean to imply
with the words "a different class of person, one of culture rather than a
technician" (your words, verbatim), and what exactly is a "jumped-up techie"
(your words, verbatim, again)?

Rod.

Here is the text Stewart snipped from my letter in order to hide his
dishonesty from you. Nothing further needs to be said. --Andre Jute

******
2. When someone does write out the qualifications, you snip dishonestly
to make your preconceived points. For instance, to establish your claim
above that "you [Jute] have difficulty with the concept of somebody
with technical knowledge also being competent to understand art, or
'culture'", from my very first reply to your silly allegation you
snipped my direct statement to the contrary: "Oh, by the way, not only
didn't I say what you accuse me of saying...*** I said exactly the
opposite***... that I know many cultured engineers, in this same
thread, in messages which appeared on the newsgroup hours before you
wrote your cramped, ill-informed, slanted, wrongheaded reply." Then you
repeatedly snip my iterated refutations of your claim while hammering
on about your misinterpretation of my straightforward words. That is
deliberate, iterative dishonesty.

Those who want to see the evidence for these conclusions of Stewart's
dishonesty may start in the subthread following this post:
http://groups.google.ie/group/uk.rec...a7a4?rnum=31&q

These two dishonesties cause me to call Arny Krueger lying scum. These
two dishonesties cause me to call Stewart Pinkerton lying scum. I see
no reason not to call you, Roderick Stewart, a liar for the same
dishonesties.

I can't see a single reason to waste any further time corresponding
with someone as deliberately dishonest as you, Stewart.

Andre Jute
*************

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:59:10 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab
a
Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it
out
for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have.

I mostly use a Class A Krell amplifier - it sounds just like my
low-bias Class AB Audiolab amplifier.................


There is *no question* that my Class A valve amps sound better than my AB
valve amps...

Sure there's a question - ever try a blind level-matched comparison?

Perhaps it's your speakers?

They are a tough load, but highly transparent - very good at sorting
the men from the boys in the amplifier department.


The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by
more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in
itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound.

Those are the words of Fruitius Loopius, but I happen to agree. I am a lot
more comfortable with the idea that there isn't too much *constriction*
going on in the amp/speaker arrangement....

There is if you constrict the amp to less than ten watts!

That's because they are idiots who think SET amps sound good, so they
make up these fairy stories about proper amplifiers in order to
ascribe some magical property to their pathetic flea-power crap.

:-)

It's the word 'pathetic' that says most here - FWIW, no-one much can stand
the 'loudness' of my 8 watt 300B SET at half volume here.....

Depends on the speakers, don't it?

I can crank my Krell flat out without causing listener fatigue - they
don't realise how loud it is until they try to talk above the music.
Now *that* has always been a good test of a clean system for me. Maybe
it's your speakers? :-)

OK, I know that's fightin' talk, pilgrim!

The
term 'ultrafidelista' is of course just more of your pretentious
twaddle.

Yes, he means 'ultrafidelitians' I suspect.... ;-)

Who ever knows *what* the heal the idiot Jute really means? There's
always about three hundred lines of purple prose, with a dozen words
of content (if you're lucky).

Doesn't include me, btw - I'm not hung up on 'fidelity', I'm a *consumer*
who is more interested in the sound than the signal...

Quite right, too!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:41:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


You never need to trust an engineer - unless you fly...... :-)

Or cross a bridge... or go into a tall building... or... :-)

Thinking of the 'Millenium Bridge' in London, Andy may have a point
about some of the dodgier engineers........... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:59:13 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...

Keith G wrote:


I'm most definitely a SeTtie (worked my way up to it) but the *absence*
of
the usual crossposting encourages me to read further...

These are considerations of culture rather than technicalities.


Culture without etiquette is like a snake with no head...

Hmmm, I find 'culture' without etiquette definitely has fangs......

The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by
more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in
itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound.

Yes, I'm very hip to the 'Zen' of flea-power amps moving serious air with
large, sensitive speakers, myself.

The idea of an arc-welder driving a pair of ironing boards is a bit like a
V8 motorcar being driven with the handbrake permanently on, in my book......

Isn't that very *American* - needing 200 watts to do 55 mph....??? :-)

Ah, but my ironing boards are lifting bodies, and can do Mach 5!

Your approach is more like a Sinclair C5, lots of squawking but no
real progress................... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:59:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"John Phillips" wrote


snip pricky stuff


It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.


This phrase 'good engineers' bothers me....

(Implies there engineers who are *not* good - where do the they go then??)

They design wobbly footbridges - and valve amps....... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 14 Feb 2006 03:30:55 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Keith wrote: My problem (or saving grace) is that I accomodate the
change in sound from different items of audio gear very quickly, which
is why I so elicit the opinions of others when the opportunity presents
- I'm interested in what they think, I don't need then to tell me what
I like.......

I hope Keith won't mind my referring to this as typical of higher
Factor A, showing "openness, flexibility, attention to people, ability
to co-operate, adaptability and an easy-going nature". In other posts
I've referred at some length to low Factor A and its association with
engineers as a group.

And it's a fine illustration of how actual high fidelity sound is low
on the list of priorities, getting all empathetic is much more
important. You see, a high factor A doesn't really bring 'openness and
flexibility', just a desperate need to 'fit in', regardless of the
reality of the situation. Ever read 'The Emperor's New Clothes'? The
little boy went on to design bridges.............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering