KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com

Relax. Iain rarely makes stuff up,

Kinda. He's good at mis-perceiving reality.

and in this case, he may be dead-on target. Just parse the claim:

Top end of the market. Dominated by tubes.

With absolute respect to those very few in the top end of
any market who are there because they actually demand the
best and are willing to pay for it, most anyone paying
nose-bleed prices for stereo equipment are typically not
overly gifted with either taste or common sense. They
purchase what is in fashion at the moment, mostly because
they can.

If you haven't noticed, I live in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Plenty of that
sort of thing going on, only not so much with audio gear. We've got lots of
very boatable fresh water nearby, if you catch my drift.

It is certainly the case that tube equipment happens to
be "in fashion" at this moment.

This may be true in certain limited areas, but it is not a global truth.

My friend at the local
High end ship (The Stereo Trading Outlet in Jenkintown,
PA) has started to move a great deal of tube stuff lately
and the trend is increasing.

Isolated anecdote?

It would not surprise me one bit if Iain's claim is true.

Given his many misperceptions in the past, it might just as easily be false.

How long it remains true is a different question, as
trends evolve.

That it is true at all, remains questionable.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


It is no more than a begged question. If you choose to
define the top end of the market as that using tubes,
then the top end will be dominated by tubes.

Now that is more characteristic of Iain's sort of thinking.

On the other
had if, like anyone sensible, you define the top end of
the market as that with the most accurate systems, there
won't be a tube in sight.

Roughly true. Using tubes isn't absolutely detrimental to sonic accuracy,
just debilitating.

So just a standard logical
fallacy (or trick if you are being critical) in
operation.

Given my experience with Iain, the more likely situation.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com

I was defining "Top End" solely based on cost.

In fact, an incomplete way to define "Top end". Things like reputation and
who else owns the products, also relate.

I expect that Iain was as well.

Nahh, Iain defines "Top End" in a more self-centered way.

Those who choose what they want
based on knowledge and the expectation of certain and
sure results will choose based on those requirements, not
on cost.

Agreed.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com

Have you priced some of the stuff out there lately.

That only shows the offering prices, not the prices that are actually paid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but actual selling prices usually undershoot asking
prices by just a wee little bit?

There
is not much to choose between tube and SS in prices.

I'm not sure about that, if we are talking asking prices. I know about
fractional million $$$ tubed amps (e.g. Wavac), I may be speaking in
ignorance, but I know of no SS amps in the same range.

These guys charge what they charge because they can. In
the immortal words of W.C. Fields (or Edward Albee if you
are of that persuasion): Never give a sucker an even
break.

E.g. true believers like Iain.

As in most things, 'fashion' drives the very top end of
the industry. Once that is understood, the rest follows.

IME fashion relates to more than just prices.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message


There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a
THD & IM perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

Prove it.

You're only deifiying your tastes and prejudices.

If the elusive, subjective concept of "sonically pleasing"
applies to "upper end", then there would certainly be a
place for tube gear.

Beyond a certain price point, products tend to be less practical. Their
weirdness and peculiarities become part of their charm.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jon Yaeger wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a
THD & IM perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

The criteria of those who lack absolute references.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

Eeyore wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

Keeerist, Graham!

Get a grip!

Not everything is measurable. And _many_ things are a matter of taste
and preference, not fact and measurement. I cannot abide sweet-potatoes
or pudding in any form. Others dote on either or both. At any volume,
blind-folded and with a head-cold, I can distinguish between several
brands of 12AX7 & clone tubes. Do I think one is necessarily 'better"
than the other? Not hardly. Would they measure differently, I doubt it.
I find tube sound *different* from SS sound. There are times when I
prefer one over the other, and there are times when I could care less.
I have access to both, and within each several choices. Each appeals in
its own way. However EACH of them does great credit to the music I
choose to play. My wife, on the other hand, has a distinctly favorite
combination and could care less about the rest of it. That favorite is
100% solid-state, but uses our commonly preferred speakers. I believe
that it has much to do with the simplicity of that system vs. the
others. She has only to deal with two switches: On/Off/Volume & Source.


Comes to it, I believe that my choice of speakers has far more to do
with what things 'sound like' than my choice of amplification.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com

Not everything is measurable.

But everything that is audible is readily measurable.

IOW, in a discussion of audio, everything is measuable.

And _many_ things are a
matter of taste and preference, not fact and measurement.

Taste and preference are also measurable. Perhaps not as well as some would
like.

Furthermore, there are ways to isolate many perceptions from preconceived
notions.

I cannot abide sweet-potatoes or pudding in any form.

The diffrences between foods you like and foods you don't like are generally
measurable.

Others dote on either or both.

Guilty as charged! ;-)

At any volume,
blind-folded and with a head-cold, I can distinguish
between several brands of 12AX7 & clone tubes.

Horsefeathers.

Do I think one is necessarily 'better" than the other? Not hardly.

I think you've not done enough blind listening tests to speak as you do.

Would they measure differently, I doubt it.

Horsefeathers. Tubes measure differently all day long. Anybody with adequate
experience with a comprehensive tube tester knows that.

I find tube sound *different* from SS sound.

That may or not be true. Depends which SS and which tubes.

There are times when I
prefer one over the other, and there are times when I
could care less.

Guilty as charged. ;-)

I have access to both, and within each
several choices. Each appeals in its own way. However
EACH of them does great credit to the music I choose to
play.

IME some does, some doesn't.

My wife, on the other hand, has a distinctly
favorite combination and could care less about the rest
of it. That favorite is 100% solid-state, but uses our
commonly preferred speakers. I believe that it has much
to do with the simplicity of that system vs. the others.
She has only to deal with two switches: On/Off/Volume &
Source.

Women seem to have this practical streak... ;-)

Of course there's always Jenn over in RAO. A rare exception does not
disprove the rule.

Comes to it, I believe that my choice of speakers has far
more to do with what things 'sound like' than my choice
of amplification.

That makes sense. The reasons are measurable, BTW.

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

Peter Wieck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

There are a lot of SS systems that are "accurate" from a THD & IM
perspective but are not sonically pleasing.

By whose criteria ?

Keeerist, Graham!

Get a grip!

Not everything is measurable.

No ?

My point is that Jon made a blanket statement that has no basis in fact as far
as I can see. Hence I asked for some elaboration.

Graham

KISS Amp 300B Ultrafi finalized; circuit updated
 

The friends of Don Pearce may want to skip this message. I held it over
for several days in the hope that one of the other siliconiteys would
straighten out one of their own so that I could appear magisterially
above the grubbing of "engineers" but clearly they aren't interested in
truth, only in "winning" something. This post demonstrates that Pearce
cannot read a schematic, doesn't know anything about tube amp design
(he mistakes a grid leak for a feedback resistor!), proceeds from
unscientific prejudice rather than the facts, and besides suffers from
a deficit in English comprehension and that minimum numeracy we have a
right to expect from an "engineer" who blusters out moral condemnations
about other people's component counts. As I say, the friends of Don
Pearce read on at their own risk: I am not responsible for foaming at
the mouth, apoplectic fits, and other symptoms of siliconitis.

Even if you don't read all of this post, enjoy this bit of bluster from
that clown Pearce before I whack him like the empty cheap-plastic pouch
of stale air that he is (a table tennis ball comes to mind):
don't try your nonsense
with me. You may get away with it with your dullard mates, so stick
with them.

Now let's see who is a dumbo:


Don Pearce wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Thanks for the effort, Pearce. I wasn't seriously putting forward the
Gaincard method of counting, just throwing it in for discussion while I
get on with the business of designing and building my next amp.

However, the grid leak resistor which you call the "47k feedback r"
raises an interesting point of difference between the silicon crowd and
the zero negative feedback ultrafidelista faithful. You intend to mean
by negative feedback *any* feedback. By convention tubies in general
and ultrafidelista in particular by negative feedback mean global or
universal or loop negative feedback, certainly nothing contained within
one stage of any of the classical topologies (including those newly
revived like the mu stage). Even a cathode follower, surely a feedback
device!, is kosher to the ZNFB crowd, and they have often resented me
for pointing it out as much as the silicon slime has resented me for
pointing out *their* wishful thinking and other depredations on the
immutable laws of physics. (Hey, there are some tubies who still want
to lynch me ten years later for puncturing their bubble on SRPP, which
until I made an irrefutable analysis they happily promoted for thirty
years as a constant current-loaded triode, which of course it isn't.)


My error on the 47k - apologies tendered.

Now an idiot who mistakes a grid leak resistor (the most common
component on tube circuits next to tubes themselves!) goes on to
lecture me about topologies:

But then you beg the question (and I mean that in the true sense of
the logical fallacy), when you start to claim that feedback isn't
feedback because you define it thus. Well, I have news for you.
Feedback IS feedback, however you apply it. If the output signal is
capable of comparison with the input and thereby reducing some of its
error, you have feedback - live with it and don't try your nonsense
with me. You may get away with it with your dullard mates, so stick
with them.

You have an English comprehension problem, Pearce. Let me give it to
you by numbers in simple soundbites.
1. I didn't beg any question.
2. I described a view held by others.
3. I said plainly that I pointed out to them that they are wrong.
4. The implication, plain as the nose on your smug mug, is that I think
they are wrong.
5. Now you accuse me of sharing their view.
6. And you add some dumb moralizing crap: "don't try your nonsense
with me. You may get away with it with your dullard mates, so stick
with them."

Are you surprised, then, Pearce, that I publicly call you a moron and
treat you with contempt? You're thick, you're illiterate, you bluster,
you're a bully, and you aren't even amusing.

You counted the "47k feedback r" (the grid leak, without which the amp
won't work) twice.

And you're either innumerate as well or you cheat. Then you proceed
with totally unscientific prejudice:

Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

It is rather interesting that you don't ask for the noise figures of my
tube amp before you start spouting condemnations based on your
prejudicial preference for silicon bodged nearly right with excessive
negative feedback.

Why would I give a toss about the noise figure of a power amp? It
didn't even occur to me that you might screw that up.

Then how can you claim, as you do above, that "the components in this
amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal". You have no
evidence, you haven't asked for evidence, you have in public in writing
refused to look at evidence to the contrary. That defines an
unscientific prejudice.

In fact, it is clearly analogous to fearful prejudice of the most
fanatical religious type, an atavistic cringing at the danger of being
tempted by the devil of musical pleasure. If hi-fi is merely a scourge
for your own unworthiness, Pearcey, enjoy whipping yourself. But don't
spray the spittle of your obscene betrayal of scientic principle on me,
if you don't mind.

Have you?

Screwed it up? Nah. It is impossible to screw up a 300B amp. You should
try it. Even you could probably build one that's nearly good. If you
can't read my circuit, just ask on RAT and I or Patrick or John or
Chris or Al or Raymond or Bob or any one of many others will explain it
to you.

Perhaps you should at least draw the loadline on the tube transfer
curves and calculate the distortion before you spout off, Pearce. If
you know how, of course. You might surprise yourself. (I hesitate to
suggest that you build the design and measure for yourself; I wouldn't
want you to electrocute yourself on unaccustomed high voltage or burn
yourself with your new soldering iron.)

Sorry, miscounted.

Again. Did I say innumerate yet?

I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

They're humbusters for the AC filaments. You do know that DC filaments
on DHT sound like ****, don't you, Pearce? Now go on, tell me about the
joys of regulation.

So you are claiming that an unbypassed cathode resistor is NOT a
voltage feedback system?

I didn't say that, Pearce. Once more you're trying to put words into my
mouth that I didn't speak in your clumsy attempts to make me fit some
crude stereotype of tubies you have in your railroad mind.

Your technical abilities plumb yet greater
depths.

And once more, Pearce, on no evidence whatsoever, except your dumb
prejudice, you come to a dumb, sweeping conclusion. You haven't made a
single good point about the schematic I published, Pearce. You didn't
even spot an earth bumped into the wrong place when I redrew the schemo
to add snubbers across the chokes. That is something I would expect a
first year engineering student to pick up. You didn't.

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

What do you consult on, Pearce? Prejudice? It can't be logic, because
you have none, it can't be science because you proceed by prejudice
rather than evidence, it can't be electronics because you can't even
spot a ground in the wrong place, and it sure as hell can't be audio
engineering because you mistake a grid leak for a feedback resistor.

Always great to hear from you, Pearce. It gives me a warm glow of
superiority that a famous engineer like you, a proven hostile to tube
amps, can find only twee tiny quibbles when I publish a design.

When you publish a design claiming it to have no feedback, and I can
show that it does indeed use feedback, you can expect me to speak.
Bull**** always stinks.

So it does. And, as I have demonstrated conclusively from your own
words, you're the one who stinks to high heaven of unscientific
prejudice, the worst kind of bull****.

Now let's read Pearce's amazing summary of his triumph of "logic",
which he must learned from that malicious clown Krueger:
When you claim there are only six components in the signal path and I
count 17 (yes, still apologies for the miscount and misidentification
- apropos of which you might want to redraw the schematic to make that
57k look a bit less like a feedback resistor), you can expect me to
speak. Even you should be able to count a bit better than that.

That short paragraph by Pearce contains the following lies:
1. I didn't "claim there are only six components:. I made fun of the
Gaincard folk by ridiculing their method of counting, mainly as a
distraction for fools like Pearce while those of us more capable got on
with inspecting the schematic. I am not responsible if people like
Pearce, in dire need of a humour transplant, possess zero grasp of the
subtleties of the English language. Railroad minds needn't apply.

2. I didn't misplace or otherwise misrepresent the grid leak resistor.
It has been drawn in that position in that manner since the First World
War. Pearce is just bog ignorant and is now making excuses for his
ignorance on a matter he tries to pontificate on. Still, his ignorant
bluster tells us a lot about the real Don Pearce.

****

In summary, throwing a couple of red rags into the arena for the dumber
bulls to worry while the rest of us got on with the real work was not
merely successful in its own terms but offered amusement for a bonus.
It was also most educational in exposing about Pearce:

1. Pearce's dire ignorance. He cannot distinguish a grid leak from a
feedback resistor. He apparently doesn't know where an earth should be
placed in a power supply.

2. Pearce's unscientific behaviour. He calls a signal damaged. He is
offered evidence to the contrary. He refuses to look at it. He repeats
his prejudiced statement.

3. The lacunae in Pearce's education. He cannot comprehend
straightforward English through the fog of his prejudice. He has no
sense of humour: he cannot see a tongue mountainously bulged into a
cheek. He cannot count. He doesn't understand that science progresses
by evidence rather than prejudice. He cannot even read a basic
schematic.

Makes you wonder, eh?

Andre Jute
The trouble with Don Pearce is not what he doesn't know, but what he
knows for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain