"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Here are a few of your lies (some of which you have backtracked on):

And then this nutter Wilson lists:

**A whole big bunch of your lies. Nothing more.


-- a set of incontrovertible facts agreed by all parties, without
explaining how the facts straight out of the RDH can be a lie

**Cite your alleged "incontrovertible facts". I'll wait. I have copy of
RDH4. Just give me the page and chapter reference numbers.


-- a set of my opinions on matters of taste, without explaining how a
cultural taste can be a lie

**I have not argued with your opinions. Just your lies.


-- and so on into astounding subdivisions of irrationality and
stupidity

**Really? How about discussing your lies then? Let's see if you can manage
it, without profanity and insults. Just calmly and rationally discuss my
points, one by one. I bet you can't.


Let's take just one example of what Wilson declares a lie.

**No, let's discuss the entirety of my post.

I wrote:

"Let me say that again: after NFB, third and higher harmonics will make
up a
greater part of the distortion than before."

According to Wilson that is "a lie". Really?

**An half truth. You leave out the obvious fact that IF odd order distortion
is reduced to inaudibility (which it is in all competently designed amps),
then it is irrelevant what part of the distortion is even or odd. I said I
was addressing your lies and half truths.

It is in fact a fact
(heh-heh) agreed between all informed parties that the NFB, while
reducing the *total* amount of distortion, by its very nature alters
the frequency distribution of the remaining distortion so that the odd
and higher harmonics make up a greater proportion of the recombinant
residual. That is several times spelt out in my original article which
causes Wilson to foam at the mouth. So tell us, Trevor-baby, how is my
statement lie?

**It is a half truth.


I can't resist. Here's another statement (a rhetorical question,
actually) this blockhead Wilson singles out as "a lie":

"And they still use Negative Feedback?"

Uh, duh, Trevor-baby, are you now claiming that the entire audio world
has stopped using NFB? Amazing.

**Nope. It is a half truth. EVERYONE uses NFB. Every single amplifier
designer. Even you. By not spelling what type of NFB you are telling half
truths.


Below my signature I reprint Wilson's entire hysterical (and
hysterically funny) letter in full for connoisseurs of audio
fruitcakery.

What a blockhead.

**I note that you still cannot answer my questions. Not bad for a
"blockhead" huh? If you are so smart, then prove it, by demonstrating that
each and every one of my points is incorrect.

I'll wait.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Wilson, you're quite mad. If I wrote according to your demands, every
sentence would be two thousand words long and require 200 footnotes
(another 10K words between them!) to cover all eventualities, and then
you would pick nits out of what is left of your hair about the order of
the footnotes.

Since you're so convinced NFB is the Second Coming, you're welcome to
write a full commentary on my piece and send it to me to publish on my
netsite. We can do with a comedy section. You should be aware though
that a couple of appearances in the comedy section of my netsite (once
for his ignorance on power supplies (1), once for the same matter of
distortion distribution that so upsets you (2)) cost Mike LeFevre
two-thirds of his existing business and closed out several avenues to
fame and riches just then opening up to him. Several years later he
still hasn't recovered. I'm sure you've wept for him...

I don't imagine that, dragging around an attitude like yours, you do
much business, but still, if it is your living perhaps you should not
sign your business-name to these tirades that do nothing more than make
you look ineffably stupid and offensive.

Andre Jute

(1) Google for "DC on the core"
(2) Google for the "Bubbaland 300B"

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Here are a few of your lies (some of which you have backtracked on):

And then this nutter Wilson lists:

**A whole big bunch of your lies. Nothing more.


-- a set of incontrovertible facts agreed by all parties, without
explaining how the facts straight out of the RDH can be a lie

**Cite your alleged "incontrovertible facts". I'll wait. I have copy of
RDH4. Just give me the page and chapter reference numbers.


-- a set of my opinions on matters of taste, without explaining how a
cultural taste can be a lie

**I have not argued with your opinions. Just your lies.


-- and so on into astounding subdivisions of irrationality and
stupidity

**Really? How about discussing your lies then? Let's see if you can manage
it, without profanity and insults. Just calmly and rationally discuss my
points, one by one. I bet you can't.


Let's take just one example of what Wilson declares a lie.

**No, let's discuss the entirety of my post.

I wrote:

"Let me say that again: after NFB, third and higher harmonics will make
up a
greater part of the distortion than before."

According to Wilson that is "a lie". Really?

**An half truth. You leave out the obvious fact that IF odd order distortion
is reduced to inaudibility (which it is in all competently designed amps),
then it is irrelevant what part of the distortion is even or odd. I said I
was addressing your lies and half truths.

It is in fact a fact
(heh-heh) agreed between all informed parties that the NFB, while
reducing the *total* amount of distortion, by its very nature alters
the frequency distribution of the remaining distortion so that the odd
and higher harmonics make up a greater proportion of the recombinant
residual. That is several times spelt out in my original article which
causes Wilson to foam at the mouth. So tell us, Trevor-baby, how is my
statement lie?

**It is a half truth.


I can't resist. Here's another statement (a rhetorical question,
actually) this blockhead Wilson singles out as "a lie":

"And they still use Negative Feedback?"

Uh, duh, Trevor-baby, are you now claiming that the entire audio world
has stopped using NFB? Amazing.

**Nope. It is a half truth. EVERYONE uses NFB. Every single amplifier
designer. Even you. By not spelling what type of NFB you are telling half
truths.


Below my signature I reprint Wilson's entire hysterical (and
hysterically funny) letter in full for connoisseurs of audio
fruitcakery.

What a blockhead.

**I note that you still cannot answer my questions. Not bad for a
"blockhead" huh? If you are so smart, then prove it, by demonstrating that
each and every one of my points is incorrect.

I'll wait.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hey, Trev-baby, you're doing a really good job with all this
mouth-foaming of persuading people to give me a hearing. After all, if
you and the "engineers" Pinkerton, Krueger, Pearce, and so on, are the
best that the opposition can bring, i win the argument by default. This
is easier than taking candy from a baby.

Thanks, pal.

Andre Jute
I dunno why I went to night skool to lurn to be a hard case when the
bad guys are so soft

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

I must say, Wilson, I don't understand why you're getting your
knickers
in a knot. You're like those bolshies I used to know who claimed that
anyone who wasn't willing to kill for "socialism" was only
play-acting.
Are you really claiming that someone who merely uses the NFB he finds
lurking in DHTs can't belong to the club until he repents and uses
excessive amounts of loop NFB? Are you really claiming that the use of
lots and lots of NFB is a prerequisite for good audio design? Are you
really claiming that because a little NFB is a good thing, an
unlimited
amount must therefore be better, and an infinite amount best of all?
Seems a bit immoderate to me, old chap.

You will find yourself arguing at a man who has a head full of solid
concrete.

**Really? Then, I take it, you approve of Jute's lies? That makes you an
idiot.

First of all, Jute's Lies as you call them are merely his opinion.

**Jute does not state them as opinions. He puts them forward as fact. Do you
fully and completely support his "facts"? Or do you dispute some (much) of
what he writes and you just hate me more than you hate him?


Its a free world and I tolerate opinions;

**As do I. Opinions are fine. I rarely argue with them. I will argue with
lies and half truths, however.

I do not necessarily agree with them,
and
it is my opinion that your head is so chock full of concrete that you draw
the
absurd conconclusion
that I am a fool because you have erroneously assumed I agree with all of
Jute's
ideas without question.

**If you dissagree with Jute's FACTS, then say so.


I have heard Jute on all this several times before, and would be wasting
time to
flame him about his opinions.

**Jute is not stating opinions. He is claiming that he states facts. Just
read what he wrote. There are no opinions stated anywhere.


Jute uses and tolerates quite a number of different amplifiers which
include SET
without added loops of NFB.
Jute is pro tube craft.

**Irrelevant. Jute is claiming a whole bunch of utter nonsense.


Now Trev, do us all a favour and just **** off out of rec.audio.tubes
because
you come here with a hammer.

**You go and get yourself well and truely ****ed. I will enter any newsgroup
I wish, whenever I wish. Jute crossposted his missive all over the internet.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jute, not me. HE is your
problem, not me.

On your way out, leave your tube breaking hammer in the re-cycle bin.

**As above.


Come back when you have something constructive to say about tube craft,
and can share our craft in a practical way ( build a tube amp, ok ) and
share
the experience in a tolerant spirit.

**I have done so, many times. I've built tube preamps, power amps, tuners,
pre-pre amps and a whole bunch of other stuff. It's no longer interesting,
as the technology is dead. Solid state offers far more potential. As I
carefully explained to Jute, modern transistors are more linear than his
favoured triodes. The battle is finished. They keep their peak performance
forever and don't need those pesky output transformers to interface with
loudspeakers. And, a note to Jute: They don't need Global NFB to keep them
linear either. Just because most of the mass market builders do use it, does
not mean everyone does.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:58:47 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:


All I hear from Oinkerton is "Oink....oink oink oink......squeal, oink...."

I doubt he makes any thing.

I doubt you make anything that sounds like its input signal.

Failure to address the technical points noted.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart wrote

Perhaps not the best example, because vacuum tubes operate
in their own very high temperature environment and were made
to tolerances impossible for semiconductors, buy yeah, a
feedback loop of a pair of resistors is a pretty durned
good reference.

Wot, no compensation? Is that possible?

More to the point, Chris's comment is bunk. Semiconductors are made to
tolerances of a couple of microns (less in the case of ICs), while
tubes are lucky if they're made to a tenth of a millimetre.
--

More sensible to consider precision as a proportion, doncha think? Last time I
looked at a magnified view of a transistor, it looked pretty lumpy.

And I wonder if Chris meant dimensional tolerance anyway?

If I wish to match the performance of a pair of devices in a circuit, how many
transistors would I need to choose from, and how many valves? Assuming all are
of acceptably good quality.

If I wish a device to precisely match published characteristics, how would the
amplitude and spread of error amongst transistors compare with that of valves?

In general, it seems to me that in terms of proportion, error increases as
things get smaller. Tower blocks and bridges can be made more accurately than
valves, and valves can be more precise than transistors.

Incidentally, "bunk" is a nonsense word, and a red rag to the comrades.

cheers, Ian

On 26 Mar 2006 02:21:53 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Hey, Trev-baby, you're doing a really good job with all this
mouth-foaming of persuading people to give me a hearing. After all, if
you and the "engineers" Pinkerton, Krueger, Pearce, and so on, are the
best that the opposition can bring, i win the argument by default. This
is easier than taking candy from a baby.

Of course, the reality is that you're so technically incompetent that
you don't even understand when your position has been obliterated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Snip a pile of **** that Trevor wrote without reading it......

I said.......................


On your way out, leave your tube breaking hammer in the re-cycle bin.

**As above.


Come back when you have something constructive to say about tube craft,
and can share our craft in a practical way ( build a tube amp, ok ) and
share
the experience in a tolerant spirit.

**I have done so, many times. I've built tube preamps, power amps,
tuners,
pre-pre amps and a whole bunch of other stuff. It's no longer
interesting,
as the technology is dead. Solid state offers far more potential. As I
carefully explained to Jute, modern transistors are more linear than his
favoured triodes. The battle is finished. They keep their peak
performance
forever and don't need those pesky output transformers to interface with
loudspeakers. And, a note to Jute: They don't need Global NFB to keep
them
linear either. Just because most of the mass market builders do use it,
does
not mean everyone does.

But you have not designed or built ANYTHING for 30 years ever since you
met
Peter Stein
who designed the ME technology range of Oz amps.

On numerous occasions both Phil Allison and myself have had to correct
your
gross ignorance with techical details
of amplifiers.

Your record is that you are a buffoon grandiose.

Your miserable paragraph above contains reams of technical errors not
worth
responding to.

Just **** off, you are a dead boring old man with nothing in you that
anyone
else wants to share.

Keep contributing to rec.audio.tubes, and all you will ever achieve is
bigger BS
artist status.

**You have, as usual, COMPLETELY missed the point. Let me see if I can
explain it to you in terms which a 9 year old can understand:

I was responding to Jute's lies and half truths. Nothing more. I am not
bashing tubes and those who have a preference for tube amplifiers. That is
their choice and they are entitled to it. I was merely responding to Jute's
lies and half truths. Since you are attacking me and not Jute, I can only
assume that you share Jute's incorrect view of things.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Wilson, you're quite mad. If I wrote according to your demands, every
sentence would be two thousand words long and require 200 footnotes
(another 10K words between them!) to cover all eventualities, and then
you would pick nits out of what is left of your hair about the order of
the footnotes.

**Then do so. I'll wait. We both know you can't. In fact, I'll make it easy
for you: Let's just discuss one, lone lie. YOU justify your lie about a
triode being more linear than a MODERN BJT. Not a 30 year old one, but an
up-to-date device.


Since you're so convinced NFB is the Second Coming,

**Nothing of the sort. NFB is unavoidable, that's all. NFB is used in EVERY
SINGLE amplifier on the planet. It's just the type and amount of NFB which
varies. A point you manage to neatly avoid in everything you write. You
additionally manage to avoid the fact that transistor amps can be built
which do not use Global NFB, if required.

you're welcome to
write a full commentary on my piece and send it to me to publish on my
netsite.

**You already have my criticism of what you wrote.

We can do with a comedy section. You should be aware though
that a couple of appearances in the comedy section of my netsite (once
for his ignorance on power supplies (1), once for the same matter of
distortion distribution that so upsets you (2)) cost Mike LeFevre
two-thirds of his existing business and closed out several avenues to
fame and riches just then opening up to him. Several years later he
still hasn't recovered. I'm sure you've wept for him...

I don't imagine that, dragging around an attitude like yours, you do
much business, but still, if it is your living perhaps you should not
sign your business-name to these tirades that do nothing more than make
you look ineffably stupid and offensive.

**As opposed to your complete inability to answer my questions and points?
Yeah, sure.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

We can do with a comedy section. You should be aware though
that a couple of appearances in the comedy section of my netsite (once
for his ignorance on power supplies (1), once for the same matter of
distortion distribution that so upsets you (2)) cost Mike LeFevre
two-thirds of his existing business and closed out several avenues to
fame and riches just then opening up to him. Several years later he
still hasn't recovered. I'm sure you've wept for him...


Andre Jute is not responsible for Mike Lefevre's woes. Mike Lefevre
is. People got tired of his rank dishonesty and ineptitude. Andre got
on the bandwagon when it became apparent he was going down. Not that
Lefevre deserves any sympathy.

Wilson, you're getting nuttier and nuttier. First you claim my opinions
and some really basic, totally uncontroversial science are lies because
I haven't dotted thousands of tees you claim make your contrary point.
Now you want me to defend tubes against BJTs, which as far as I can
tell are Blow Jobs by Transvestites. I'm not queer, I see no need to
defend tubes against every passing hanger-on of the silicon slime (to
me you and MIckey McMickey sound equally uninformed and equally
deranged), and I see absolutely no reason to defend either my opinions
or my facts against some salesman with commercially inspired contrary
opinions. If you want to come with chapter and verse about negative
feedback, with all sources fully cited and a logically reasoned
development, by all means do so; we will then pay you the respect of
serious discussion but you should be aware that we are unlikely to
change our taste at the bidding of anyone as singularly lacking in
charm as you. Until you do bring facts and reasoning and persuasion
rather than your present bullying thuggery, your kibbitzing is just
your opinion--and it isn't worth even a fraction of my opinion. You're
in my killfile as a waste of time until I see others discussing some
serious point you made, if ever you manage to make one.

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Wilson, you're quite mad. If I wrote according to your demands, every
sentence would be two thousand words long and require 200 footnotes
(another 10K words between them!) to cover all eventualities, and then
you would pick nits out of what is left of your hair about the order of
the footnotes.

**Then do so. I'll wait. We both know you can't. In fact, I'll make it easy
for you: Let's just discuss one, lone lie. YOU justify your lie about a
triode being more linear than a MODERN BJT. Not a 30 year old one, but an
up-to-date device.


Since you're so convinced NFB is the Second Coming,

**Nothing of the sort. NFB is unavoidable, that's all. NFB is used in EVERY
SINGLE amplifier on the planet. It's just the type and amount of NFB which
varies. A point you manage to neatly avoid in everything you write. You
additionally manage to avoid the fact that transistor amps can be built
which do not use Global NFB, if required.

you're welcome to
write a full commentary on my piece and send it to me to publish on my
netsite.

**You already have my criticism of what you wrote.

We can do with a comedy section. You should be aware though
that a couple of appearances in the comedy section of my netsite (once
for his ignorance on power supplies (1), once for the same matter of
distortion distribution that so upsets you (2)) cost Mike LeFevre
two-thirds of his existing business and closed out several avenues to
fame and riches just then opening up to him. Several years later he
still hasn't recovered. I'm sure you've wept for him...

I don't imagine that, dragging around an attitude like yours, you do
much business, but still, if it is your living perhaps you should not
sign your business-name to these tirades that do nothing more than make
you look ineffably stupid and offensive.

**As opposed to your complete inability to answer my questions and points?
Yeah, sure.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au