"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre

You appear to be a troubled individual, yet I will attempt to answer
your audio question. Two of the systems we have operating right now
are based on Quad 988s and Hill Plasmatronics 1A's, both far better
examples of emulating a point source in a nearfield environment. The
988s (we retired the 63s and 57s) are a fine speaker system but
nothing close to a full range plasma.

Admittedly the Plasmatronics only range from 700 Hz to 30 kHz, but
their amplitude and phase linearity is astonishing. The midbass and
woofer drivers have been re-engineered and arrival times
electronically compensated to maiximze the ETC response quality. It
is a much better approximation of the theoretical point source, and
trust me there's been more cash and effort thrown into the system than
is rational.

I'm happy that you enjoy the system you own and hope you get many
hours of continued listening from them. Yet the fact that you own
them and like them does not make them a world reference standard, nor
you an expert on sound reproduction accuracy. I'll spend my time
reading a Jens Blauert book if I'm looking for that.

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction. Don't get me wrong, it's up there with the
Cadillac V16's, but practically speaking the Bugatti Veyron of today's
world is vastly superior.

As you suggest, it's time for me to get back to the paying clients
now.


..

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article .com,
" wrote:

Andre

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?

I'm assuming he's referring to the grid structure, which is not exactly
designed for lowest possible capacitance, but instead for higher gain.
Which is, of course, a good compromise for the design application even
if the miller effect will kill you at RF.

The 6L6, on the other hand, will put out close to rated power at 3.5 MHz,
reasonable power at 7 MHz, and barely detectable power at 28 MHz.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?

I'm assuming he's referring to the grid structure, which is not exactly
designed for lowest possible capacitance, but instead for higher gain.
Which is, of course, a good compromise for the design application even
if the miller effect will kill you at RF.

I think you may be putting words in John's mouth, let's not assume,
let's see what he says. With regard to RF, Neutralization can do
wonders, although grid to plate capacitance isn't the only
characteristic that can inhibit operation at RF. My point however was
that there is a large gap between "voice" frequencies and RF which
contains frequencies important to music reproduction, and John was
implying that the 300B was limited in reproducing these higher audio
frequencies above the "voice" frequency range.

The 6L6, on the other hand, will put out close to rated power at 3.5 MHz,
reasonable power at 7 MHz, and barely detectable power at 28 MHz.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 1, 2:11 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:



John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?

I'm assuming he's referring to the grid structure, which is not exactly
designed for lowest possible capacitance, but instead for higher gain.
Which is, of course, a good compromise for the design application even
if the miller effect will kill you at RF.

I think you may be putting words in John's mouth, let's not assume,
let's see what he says. With regard to RF, Neutralization can do
wonders, although grid to plate capacitance isn't the only
characteristic that can inhibit operation at RF. My point however was
that there is a large gap between "voice" frequencies and RF which
contains frequencies important to music reproduction, and John was
implying that the 300B was limited in reproducing these higher audio
frequencies above the "voice" frequency range.

I've written to John Mayberry about this amusing claim of his:

****

You also say about the 300B that it is
[...] deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Whoever told you so has an odd idea of the range of the human voice. I
suspect you just made it up on the spot to suit the argument. It is
for making up crap to suit the argument that I stepped on those three
"engineers" Poopie Stevenson, Slapdash Krueger and Bluster Pearce.

FYI, it is no problem whatsoever making a 300B give whatever audio
range bandwidth you desire. Zero NFB, class A1 300B in either SE or PP
are normally limited at the top end by the transformer rather than the
tube and at the lower end are normally deliberately limited either to
avoid turntable rumble getting into the speakers or, in the case of
horns like the Fidelio, to avoid the diaphragm causing distortion or
even being damaged when it almost instantly becomes unloaded below Fs.
You do know all this, don't you, Mayberry?

Or don't you do high fidelity in A/V (and I still don't know what A/V
is)?

You could do yourself a favour and build a ZNFB Class A1 PP amp with
300B to drive your Quads. It will blow you away--and give you a
permanent case of schizophrenia to know that something with such an
"unacceptable" THD number can sound so good! When you pick yourself up
from the floor, come ask on politely RAT and I'll explain to you how
the dichotomy arises. You'll kick yourself for not seeing something so
simple.

*****

We'll see if he has a plausible explanation for the gulf between his
statement and the experience of those who actually work with the
300B..

The 6L6, on the other hand, will put out close to rated power at 3.5 MHz,
reasonable power at 7 MHz, and barely detectable power at 28 MHz.

I have also explained to Mayberry that there is a different way of
looking at dissipation than the one that comes naturally ot him:

****
I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and [...]

Well, for a start, calling the 300B a 10W tube is marketing department
horsepower-advertising exaggeration. Only a fool believes there are
more than 7 clean watts in a 300B. On my netsite you will find a
hedonist's 300B amp called T39 KISS (in honour of the greatest
engineering principle of them all); it puts out a glorious single-
ended 3.8W with, of course, zero negative feedback. If taste is your
primary prerequisite, the "engineering" fallacy of "efficiency" which
leads to hogging out all the power, which in turns requires ugly NFB
to clean up the distortion, becomes a total irrelevance. Oh, by the
way, more in your line of country, my T39 is also the booster amp for
an insane P/SE 25-80W transmitting tube amp to drive stacked ESL63 to
party volumes (T199 Millennium's End); I found it to be quite
unnecessary and broke it up and substituted my T113 Triple Threat EL34
Class A PP, maybe 20W on a good day -- more than enough to drive a
pair of ESL63 (that's not a provocation; it works).

If you had sensitive point source speakers like the Fidelio, you too
could have heavenly sound from tubes "rated only ten watts". You
listen to your speakers, man, not your amp.

*****

We'll have to wait and see if he understands what I'm getting at or if
his mind is locked up tighter than a Vassar virgin's girdle.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

If the guy now starts being less hostile, we might consider changing
the name of the thread to give poor Scott Dorsey few palpitations.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre- you started this thread stating, "Those three substandard jerks
are an embarrassment to decent, honest
engineers everywhere." Ironically, you have similarly glaring
mistakes in your own website.

Yet when you were called on it, you first challenged my education,
skillsets, professional achievements, and even my identity. In the
short time I looked at your site, I found dozens of similar errors.

When I called you on each issue in turn you eventually went after my
attitude, the last refuge of those who've already lost their argument.

Whatever shell you hide in or behind to justify your anger, you don't
appear to have sufficient character to apologize to those you've
offended. It might be best to let some of it go; it can only hurt you
in the long run.


P.S. AV is short for Audio and Video, systems commonly intertwined in
the modern world. Yes, I was Director of Operations at Maryland
Sound for awhile as well. Not sure what the relevance is, but we did
do some large systems and tours at the time.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre- do you have any idea what the Western Electric 300B was
originally designed to do? That's right, amplify voice frequencies
for telephone repeaters to compensate for line losses. That's how
telephone companies supplied long distance service back in the
1930's. I have the original manual for it around here somewhere,
signed by some of the original WE engineers. Here's a modern review
of it,

"Yup, how could any review covering 300B variants be complete without
the ever lovely Western Electric 300B? Please let me say right up
front that i love the midrange. It is one of those midranges that
make you want to crawl up in it and stay warm, cuddly, and happy.
Especially if you have a not so smooth digital front end, the WE300B
can be just what the doctor ordered! Alas, not all is perfect
though. The extreme uppermost and lowermost frequencies aren't quite
reproduced as well as the KR Enterprise 300BXLS or even the Art Audio
or JJ, but are better then the hazy Centron 300B to my ears.

When comparing the weight of the tube itself, the WE300B seems really
lightweight when compared to the KR Enterprise tubes too. It's an
amazing weight difference! The WE300 is very lightweight physically.
Still, the sound has all the charm you could ever ask for in the
crucial midrange where a better part of the music resides."
Surprisingly, the midrange frequencies are also the voice frequencies
used in telephone systems... I have an increasingly harder time
believing you have the slightest idea of what you're writing about.

If an OTL, SE, Zero NFB, 1 watt amplifier is your version of
perfection, then so be it. Uh, let's just say it's been done
(Futterman and Gizmo Rosenberg come to mind) and leave it at that.
They sound great at very low levels. You'd need compression horns
for them to really do anything with them though. Quads at 83 dB/SPL/1
Metre just don't cut it.

Much of what you appear to be discovering has already been stolen by
the ancients.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 4, 4:23 am, " wrote:
Andre- you started this thread stating, "Those three substandard jerks
are an embarrassment to decent, honest
engineers everywhere." Ironically, you have similarly glaring
mistakes in your own website.

Then you should liste them and we can discuss them one by one. For you
to say "you have similarly glaring mistakes in your own website"
without specifying them so that I may reply is a McCarthyite smear.
Furthermore, it presumes that you know enough to spot such errors. I
for one, given your history with me so far, am not willing to make any
such assumption. Provide proof or **** off.

Yet when you were called on it,

Lie No. 1. You didn't "call" me on anything.

you first challenged my education,

Lie No. 2. Far from challenging your education, I congratulated you on
it.

skillsets,

Lie No. 3. I congratulated you on those as well.

professional achievements,

Lie No. 4. Nope. I merely stated that without your name, I didn't know
who you were and therefore could not check your claims. That is not a
"challenge", that is a statement of fact about your rude lack of a
signature to your letters.

and even my identity.

Lie No. 5. This is bull****. I didn't "challenge" your identity, I
said it was unknown, absent, unsigned. That is an observation, not a
challenge.

In the
short time I looked at your site, I found dozens of similar errors.

If you don't list them, with your reasons for believing them to be
errors, this is merely a McCarthyite smear. How do we even know you
are capable of spotting an electronic error? You could be making this
up from thin air.

When I called you on each issue

Remind us of each of these "issues" and provide proof that you told
anyone, otherwise you are a liar.

in turn you eventually went after my
attitude, the last refuge of those who've already lost their argument.

We haven't had an argument about electronics yet. The only argument
we've had is about your arrogant assumption that you know something I
don't. (You probably do, about electronics. So what? You should!
Electronics is your profession and my hobby. I know more about an
untold number of subjects than you do but, again, so what? I should;
I'm a communicator, not a techie.) We have so far seen no proof that
you know anything I want to know.

Whatever shell you hide in or behind to justify your anger, you don't
appear to have sufficient character to apologize to those you've
offended.

You came here for the specific purpose of being offended. Why should I
care **** about you? I find your cod-psychology both personally and
professionally offensive, but I'm not asking you for an apology; these
offences you give are incidental to you being an ugly engineer,
individible from you character, training and profession. See the
headline.

It might be best to let some of it go; it can only hurt you
in the long run.

Thank you for the advice, Mayberry. I shan't presume to offer you any
free advice.

P.S. AV is short for Audio and Video, systems commonly intertwined in
the modern world.

Oh, yes, I see. What I meant to imply is obsolete and old-fashioned
when a long time ago in Toronto I invented the word "multimedia".

Yes, I was Director of Operations at Maryland
Sound for awhile as well.

What's the affirmative "Yes" for? No one asked you to brag some more.

Not sure what the relevance is,

None.

but we did
do some large systems and tours at the time.

So what? I toured with Jim Reeves when I was a boy but that's hardly
an argument worth spit in this discussion. However, John D Loudermilk
was also on that tour, and if you can tell without looking him up why
I am prouder of that small detail, then you get a brownie point.

So, list your "issues", sonny, complete with technical argument, or
stand still while I call you a liar.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article . com,
" wrote:

Andre- do you have any idea what the Western Electric 300B was
originally designed to do? That's right, amplify voice frequencies
for telephone repeaters to compensate for line losses. That's how
telephone companies supplied long distance service back in the
1930's. I have the original manual for it around here somewhere,
signed by some of the original WE engineers.

Two points, first I seriously doubt the 300A/B was designed for use in
voice frequency telephone repeaters, can you cite a model number for
even one voice frequency telephone repeater that used the 300A/B? I
have studied a number of vintage voice frequency telephone repeaters and
the 300A/B just doesn't fit the mold of the tubes that were used in any
voice frequency telephone repeater I have ever heard of. If you don't
understand the several reasons why the 300A/B doesn't fit that
application, then Andre has correctly pegged you. It appears that you
have made this "telephone repeater" story up out of whole cloth, can we
have an example of an actual voice frequency telephone repeater that
used the 300A/B?

Second, I don't know what application the 300A/B was originally designed
for, I have heard claims that it was designed for applications even
lower on the totem pole than "voice frequency" amplification, while
those claims are possible, my gut tells it is unlikely for various
reasons. But let's assume that you are correct and that the 300A/B was
originally designed to "amplify voice frequencies", how would that make
the tube unsuitable for use in High-Fidelity amplifiers? What counts
are the specifications of the tube and its suitability for the
application, not some vague notion that it was only designed to "amplify
voice frequencies". Can you give a technical justification why the
300A/B is less suitable for High-Fidelity use than other common audio
tubes?

Given your posting history I won't hold my breath waiting for
substantive answers to these questions.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/