"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?

It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?

I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
the music, higher order harmonics.

Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html

Figure 8:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -28 dB
3 -38 dB
4 -60 dB
5 -62 dB
6 -60 dB
7 -62 dB
8 -83 Db (strange anomoly at 420 Hz)
9 -90 dB
10 -95 dB
11 -62 dB
12 -90 dB
13 -68 dB
14 -90 dB
15 -62 dB
16 -100 dB
17 -90 dB
18 -72 dB

Since when is not the 18th harmonic a higher order harmonic?

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.


Then get a good SS amp with reasonable amounts of loop feedback!

Compare the above to the Adcom GFA 7805
http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramp...om/index4.html

Figure 8:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -95 dB
3 -82 dB
4 -110 dB
5 -90 dB
6 -100 dB
7 -98 dB
8 -105 dB
9 -105 dB
10 -115 dB
11 -115 dB
12 -102 dB
13 -110 dB
14 -120 dB
15 -110 dB
16 -110 dB
17 -100 dB
18 -112 dB


What
I want is an outcoming signal that sounds more like the
concert hall than what the engineers now give me.

So how is adding audible noise and distortion going to help that?

One way
of doing that is by having a very silent class A sound
from devices operated along only the most linear part of
their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that
the odd and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the
mix than before.

Wrong - the Adcom above has far less of every order of distortion than the
Wavac.

Your way of thinking appears to hold it
axiomatic that a solid state device is a paradigm of fine
sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for whatever
reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The
one that works a lot better is Class A operated at high
voltage and high current into a high impedance with
little or no negative feedback.

The facts say otherwise.

Andre Jute wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Yet still produce a vastly less distorted signal than any SET.

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.

Then why use an SET?

What I want is an
outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
engineers now give me.

What if the music was not recorded in a concert hall?

One way of doing that is by having a very
silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before. Your
way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.

An opinion not supported by the facts.


Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
(if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
lies a lot).

I get it, in Jute/McCoy world, truth is a lie.

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
can even love more than one amp at a time.

Love what you like, but SET's are better suited to being doorstops and
paperweights than for reproducing audio signals.


Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
unlovable...


Actually all amps should simply amplify and in no audible way change
the signal being amplified.

..

On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
wrote:

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?


I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
from a average example of a SET.

--
Nick

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
ragazine reviews?
I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
SS amp with loop feedback? For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.

Regrettably, the Stereophile web site is kinda deficient in terms of reviews
of the classic SEt amps whose tests I'd like to review. John Atkinson and I
may share a preference for p-p tubes as opposed to SETs, if the SP web site
online review situation is any indication.

So here's an alternative of the few available:

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ue/index4.html

Figure 12:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -40 dB
3 -55 dB
4 -75 dB
5 -72 dB
6 -85 dB
7 -95 dB
8 -95 dB
9 -90 dB

(data runs out 1 KHz due to Stereophile's choice)

Still about 20 dB dirtier than the SS amp, even for the highest harmonics
for which data is available.

BTW note that figure 12 is miscaptioned as being a 50 Hz test. It's labeled
on the chart as being a 100 hz test. The chart label is consistent with the
data, but the caption isn't.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:07:22 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....

IOW, a fun car!

That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at significantly
higher speeds in safety, and with total control of my vehicle. For the
alternative and lots of fun, there's always the one horsepower option.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?


I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
distortion isn't cancelled out?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:39:31 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
wrote:

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.


The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

That would be fine, if psychos like Jute wouldn't keep peddling this
'ultrafidelista' crap. Interestingly, while he reserves the term
ultrafidelista for 'zero feedback' SET lovers, he claims that he
himself prefers a much higher-powered PP amp with NFB. Is this guy
seriously deranged, or what?

That was indeed the ultimate rhetorical question........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:07:22 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote
a set of golf clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often
the driver....

IOW, a fun car!

That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at
significantly higher speeds in safety, and with total
control of my vehicle.

Points well taken. I have a friend with a fully-restored 60s muscle car, a
428 Cougar to be exact. Its anything but the car you want to drive fast on
even a straight road (drum brakes) let alone a curved one (dead steering and
numb handling).

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on
here there again seems to be a wish to modify the
incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave?


It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
ragazine reviews?


I thought you were in
the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.


Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ac/index5.html


I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much
odd-order distortion as PP amps, it's just that the
vastly higher even-order distortion isn't cancelled out?

Good chance of that, all things considered. ;-)

There's a well-known cure for audible distortion in amplifiers, one that has
worked well for about 50 years or more in both tubed and SS amps. It's
called inverse feedback, either local or global. SETs try to minimize
inverse feedback, presumably so that they will sound appreciably different
from good amplifiers that exploit inverse feedback and sound cleaner and
smoother.