That'll Teach Me... (Chinese Valve Amp)
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
. uk...
Serge Auckland wrote:


What amuses me /irritates in equal measure about all the above is
that even staying with valves, a PPUL EL84 amplifier like the Mullard
5-10 or GEC equivalent has a little more power than the SET, with a
whole lot less distortion and lower output impedance such that is
*does* make music very satisfactorily, without having to make
apologies for the SETs shortcomings. It would also be cheaper to
build as a PP output transformer is considerably cheaper than a
half-decent SET one, and a pair of EL84s cost much less than a single
300B. The only thing I can think of in a SETs favour is that it looks
a lot more dramatic with those DH big triodes.

S.


Fine, I didn't set out to amuse or irritate you, but if it does, then
thats not my problem.

I was asked by two people on the ng to post what I thought of the
sound of the amp in question, one being its owner, I did so because of
that, I wouldn't have done so otherwise. Especially as I could have
(and still might have) offended the amps owner.

I don't think at any point I made any apologies for anything's
shortcomings, I just posted my own subjective impressions. I made a
point of specifically describing them as subjective, and being my own.

But somehow, this upsets you enough to feel the need to spout a bunch
of unasked for, unconnected and rather condecending opinions.

Hey, when the owner first asked for help, maybe you should have
suggested he send the thing to the tip, and not to consider that it
could be fixed by replacing a £3 resistor.

I am sure you have saved many of the worlds population from being
corrupted by the existance of certain output device and topology.


See my reply to Serge - I'm hoping the Jerichos that you heard here
didn't go too far to put him off SETs. As you may remember, the 2A3 SET
(without preamplification) was working far too hard to get a truly
decent sound out of them - totally different story on the Lowthers now,
but then I usually supply it with a nice, phat (but clean) preamplified
signal from the Technics SS Control Amp I have here...

That'll Teach Me... (Chinese Valve Amp)
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
. uk...
Serge Auckland wrote:


What amuses me /irritates in equal measure about all the above is that
even staying with valves, a PPUL EL84 amplifier like the Mullard 5-10 or
GEC equivalent has a little more power than the SET, with a whole lot
less distortion and lower output impedance such that is *does* make music
very satisfactorily, without having to make apologies for the SETs
shortcomings. It would also be cheaper to build as a PP output
transformer is considerably cheaper than a half-decent SET one, and a
pair of EL84s cost much less than a single 300B. The only thing I can
think of in a SETs favour is that it looks a lot more dramatic with those
DH big triodes.

S.


Fine, I didn't set out to amuse or irritate you, but if it does, then
thats not my problem.

I was asked by two people on the ng to post what I thought of the sound of
the amp in question, one being its owner, I did so because of that, I
wouldn't have done so otherwise. Especially as I could have (and still
might have) offended the amps owner.

I don't think at any point I made any apologies for anything's
shortcomings, I just posted my own subjective impressions. I made a point
of specifically describing them as subjective, and being my own.

But somehow, this upsets you enough to feel the need to spout a bunch of
unasked for, unconnected and rather condecending opinions.

Hey, when the owner first asked for help, maybe you should have suggested
he send the thing to the tip, and not to consider that it could be fixed
by replacing a £3 resistor.

I am sure you have saved many of the worlds population from being
corrupted by the existance of certain output device and topology.

--
Nick

Nick, I wasn't getting at you, and I apologise if I gave that impression. I
*was* getting at the current fad for SET amplifiers which were abandoned in
the early part of the last century when PP amplifiers were developed,
overcoming many of the shortcomings of SETs. Why some people persist with
this technology is quite beyond me, other than the same reason some like to
drive vintage MGs, for the sheer fun of it.

SETs have much higher distortion and output impedance than PP amps,
especially those with overall negative feedback. Now, if one likes the sound
of distortion, together with a frequency response that varies with the load,
that's fine, but I would have thought that as alternatives with better
performance are available, it would be better to go that way rather than
persist with something patently flawed.

As to the OP's original problem, it was good that you were able to help, I
would have done the same if he had been local to me. I just wonder why he
was in that position in the first place.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

That'll Teach Me... (Chinese Valve Amp)
 

I suspect that I am being rather excessivly crytical of the amp, and
perhaps the above should be viewed in that light, but I can only apply
the same standards I apply to amps I might build myself, or listen to
that others have built. If I don't at least try and have a standard to
compare against, then it makes any attempt to build something that at
least does what I want (even if its not to anyone elses liking) will
never have a hope of success.

There you go, just my 2d worth.


Thank you for that. The reason I asked is that the much-mentioned Tony
asked me about the very same amp (on eBay for not a lot, at the time) and
I said that it would likely be OK, may well need some TLC at some stage
and that he might do better to spend a bit more money on summat that was
less 'on the outside' and a little more 'on the inside' (or on top, in the
case of valve amps) - is how he came to buy the Bluebell 300B SET monos!

Note to Steve:

Bear in mind that Nick is a highly experienced *valvie* who has pushed
himself much further into the art than many of us could (or would want) to
go - asking him for an opinion on any cheap amp is never going to get the
reaction 'Cor, I wish I had bought one of these instead!!' My own
*general* opinion of Chinese cheepies remains the same - better *any* amp
you can afford, providing it's at least 'OK', than not having one at all
because you can't afford it or don't want to part with the money!! They at
least get you into the game and, if it proves to be the right way to go,
there's nothing to stop you upgrading at any time in the future - I'm
doing this with mics atm, myself!




Chaps,

I'm not the least upset by Nick's comments. Of course I wish he had said
"I'm selling all my custom made gear and sending a cheque off to China
tonight", but it wasn't likely to happen.
In comparison to Nick's thoroughly developed amps and his OB speakers,
average was about the best I could expect.

Now when I get the amp back home on Friday, and attach it to my temporary
(for the last 12 years...) Ruark Templar speakers, I'm confident I will
quickly be back listening to the music and forgetting the equipment
compromises.

I'll let you know.

Steve

That'll Teach Me... (Chinese Valve Amp)
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:

[big snip]

I *was* getting at the current fad for SET amplifiers which were
abandoned in the early part of the last century when PP amplifiers were
developed, overcoming many of the shortcomings of SETs. Why some people
persist with this technology is quite beyond me, other than the same
reason some like to drive vintage MGs, for the sheer fun of it.

SETs have much higher distortion and output impedance than PP amps,
especially those with overall negative feedback.

Coincidentally, I've recently added

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/outoftune/outoftune.html

to my Audiomisc site. :-)

Didn't include o/p impedance or transformer nonlinearity effects, though.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html