Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:22:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:55:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:19:06 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems.
BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers
fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain


That isn't the claim we are seeing. The claim is that it is not
only
audible, but "better" than undistorted.


Where are you seeing that?

I only claim a preference, I wouldn't dream of attempting to tell
anybody what is *better* - that's Trevor's prerogative, it would
appear....


Well, stuff like...
"There is no big mystery AFAIAC - valves give more clarity, 'air'
and
*life* than any SS I've heard; SETs add more depth and better
imaging
than PP, making the sound more *natural*...."
doesn't exactly read like "well it may be distorted, but I prefer
it".
That is pretty much a "SETs are better", kind of thing.


OK, this is bordering on an exercise in semasiology but 'better for
me'
is not the same as *categorically better* (based on measurements) with
the implication that it will be better for everybody else. I also
reject
the requirement for a *public confession* along the lines of "well it
may be distorted, but I prefer it" with the implication that it is
some
form of heresy - almost implies that so-called 'blameless' amps are
entirely free from distortion, doesn't it?

Rather than rely on arrogant declamations of 'superiority' like one or
two others are prone so to do, I have published any number of tracks
here for public consumption and, so far, no-one has come back with any
comment about audible distortion (despite some pretty ropey recordings
at times) or made any other form of negative remark - what, is
everybody
just being polite or summat??

It all comes back to the fact there's a small few here who choose
audio
kit on the basis of figures and not what they *hear*, AFAIAC - and,
once
again, it's not like I don't have a number of PP amps here, both valve
and SS also....



I know where you are coming from - and I've had a listen to those
tracks, and I'm afraid I hear nothing natural about them. My test for
natural is whether I can believe there is somebody standing in the
room singing; they come nowhere near that.


Well, bugger me with the bog brush....

Then it must be a pretty personal/subjective thing because the whole
point of SET/horns is that it does *just that* - by contrast, for me, SS
and 'normal speakers' drop the sound back into the speakers and
(usually) make it 'planar' if not 'recessive'!!

One of us is deaf!!

**I SAID 'ONE OF US IS DEAF'!!**

**GOT THAT?**

(Half past two...)


If equipment has a "sound" that I need to audition, I don't want it.


Lofty old words Don....

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:02:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round here...


The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.

Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.

d


To quote wikipedia

"Better is the comparative form of the adjective good"

No sign of any of the clear objective meanings you have placed on it,
its as subjective as any other comparison. The fact that you may compare
using objective values, doesn't make your comparison any more valid than
any other to any other person.

IMHO.

Look at it this way. The job of an amplifier is to make a signal
better. A good amplifier will be one that does just that. A bad one
will be one that can't manage that without bending the signal in some
way. That degree of bending is easily measured in as objective a way
as you like, and you can thus derive a ranking of good - better - best
in a completely objective fashion.

If you are saying you quite like the sound of a bent amplifier, that
is fine, but it is a decidedly subjective position, and should not try
to avail itself of the objective terminology.

Unless, of course, you can justify an objective ranking in terms of
degree and type of distortion, position and size of peaks and dips in
frequency response etc. etc. etc. Do that, and I will quite happily
accept your assertion that your comparison is as good as the
non-bending amplifier test. I won't hold my breath, I'm afraid.

d

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round
here...

The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.


What that means to me is you are trying to reserve the word for use in a
'measurably' objective context only....



Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.


When (other than using the word 'better' without permission, to describe
certain characteristics) have I ever claimed other??

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:04:18 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:02:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round here...


The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.

Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.

d


To quote wikipedia

"Better is the comparative form of the adjective good"

No sign of any of the clear objective meanings you have placed on it,
its as subjective as any other comparison. The fact that you may compare
using objective values, doesn't make your comparison any more valid than
any other to any other person.

IMHO.

Look at it this way. The job of an amplifier is to make a signal
better. A good amplifier will be one that does just that. A bad one
will be one that can't manage that without bending the signal in some
way. That degree of bending is easily measured in as objective a way
as you like, and you can thus derive a ranking of good - better - best
in a completely objective fashion.

If you are saying you quite like the sound of a bent amplifier, that
is fine, but it is a decidedly subjective position, and should not try
to avail itself of the objective terminology.

Unless, of course, you can justify an objective ranking in terms of
degree and type of distortion, position and size of peaks and dips in
frequency response etc. etc. etc. Do that, and I will quite happily
accept your assertion that your comparison is as good as the
non-bending amplifier test. I won't hold my breath, I'm afraid.

d

Sorry about the Freudian slip! The job of an amplifier is to make a
signal BIGGER.

d

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

Game, SET and match....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I'd say the two are opposites. Colouration *is* the main part of
the
'veil'.


Not in my book - I see (hear) colouration mostly as the 'quackiness'
that unfortunately manifests itself on the male voice at times (radio
presenters, usually)

Doesn't really matter about the source? Don't you hear the same effect
on
a bass etc in an opera? Or any other singer with a deep voice?


Certainly can, but it usually works in a 'real performance/distant
voice' way...



but the *veil* on ordinary speakers as the lack of
the clarity and edge (that horns have in abundance which, of course,
many people don't like)

They may have it 'in abundance' compared to ordinary speakers when
driven
by one of your weedy amps - but it's not a characteristic of them.
Clarity
is generally a lack of colouration and edge transient response. Which
a
large single driver simply isn't capable of.


It's the word 'weedy' that bothers me here; the last truly 'weedy' amp
I've had here was the 25 kg Technics power amp I've just got rid of -
definitely a case of 'all trousers and no mouth' that was....



which leads to a comparative loss of detail and
lack of space, depth and 'air'...

I think one thing that needs pointed out *yet again* is that most (if
not all) SET/horn/vinyl users have ready access to ordinary speakers
and
amps and (usually) plenty of *digital music* (I have them all in
*daily
use* here) - it's a bit like when you're out on a 'bike - you get
****ing idiot car drivers talking as though you have never driven a
car,
let alone owned/bought about 150 of 'em and driven no end of others
also!!

I think the one thing you're lacking is somewhere decent to listen to
this
lot. The more I read from you the more it sounds like a crappy room.


Yep, can't argue with that - not helped by my back wall doubling as a
cinema screen!

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:04:18 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:02:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round
here...


The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.

Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to
argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.

d


To quote wikipedia

"Better is the comparative form of the adjective good"

No sign of any of the clear objective meanings you have placed on it,
its as subjective as any other comparison. The fact that you may
compare
using objective values, doesn't make your comparison any more valid
than
any other to any other person.

IMHO.

Look at it this way. The job of an amplifier is to make a signal
better. A good amplifier will be one that does just that. A bad one
will be one that can't manage that without bending the signal in some
way. That degree of bending is easily measured in as objective a way
as you like, and you can thus derive a ranking of good - better - best
in a completely objective fashion.

If you are saying you quite like the sound of a bent amplifier, that
is fine, but it is a decidedly subjective position, and should not try
to avail itself of the objective terminology.

Unless, of course, you can justify an objective ranking in terms of
degree and type of distortion, position and size of peaks and dips in
frequency response etc. etc. etc. Do that, and I will quite happily
accept your assertion that your comparison is as good as the
non-bending amplifier test. I won't hold my breath, I'm afraid.

d

Sorry about the Freudian slip! The job of an amplifier is to make a
signal BIGGER.


I liked it better the first time! :-)

Oops...

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:03:23 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:22:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:55:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:19:06 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems.
BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers
fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain


That isn't the claim we are seeing. The claim is that it is not
only
audible, but "better" than undistorted.


Where are you seeing that?

I only claim a preference, I wouldn't dream of attempting to tell
anybody what is *better* - that's Trevor's prerogative, it would
appear....


Well, stuff like...
"There is no big mystery AFAIAC - valves give more clarity, 'air'
and
*life* than any SS I've heard; SETs add more depth and better
imaging
than PP, making the sound more *natural*...."
doesn't exactly read like "well it may be distorted, but I prefer
it".
That is pretty much a "SETs are better", kind of thing.


OK, this is bordering on an exercise in semasiology but 'better for
me'
is not the same as *categorically better* (based on measurements) with
the implication that it will be better for everybody else. I also
reject
the requirement for a *public confession* along the lines of "well it
may be distorted, but I prefer it" with the implication that it is
some
form of heresy - almost implies that so-called 'blameless' amps are
entirely free from distortion, doesn't it?

Rather than rely on arrogant declamations of 'superiority' like one or
two others are prone so to do, I have published any number of tracks
here for public consumption and, so far, no-one has come back with any
comment about audible distortion (despite some pretty ropey recordings
at times) or made any other form of negative remark - what, is
everybody
just being polite or summat??

It all comes back to the fact there's a small few here who choose
audio
kit on the basis of figures and not what they *hear*, AFAIAC - and,
once
again, it's not like I don't have a number of PP amps here, both valve
and SS also....



I know where you are coming from - and I've had a listen to those
tracks, and I'm afraid I hear nothing natural about them. My test for
natural is whether I can believe there is somebody standing in the
room singing; they come nowhere near that.


Well, bugger me with the bog brush....

Then it must be a pretty personal/subjective thing because the whole
point of SET/horns is that it does *just that* - by contrast, for me, SS
and 'normal speakers' drop the sound back into the speakers and
(usually) make it 'planar' if not 'recessive'!!

One of us is deaf!!

**I SAID 'ONE OF US IS DEAF'!!**

**GOT THAT?**

(Half past two...)


Thursday? So am I, mine's a pint please.


If equipment has a "sound" that I need to audition, I don't want it.


Lofty old words Don....


Nah - just reality.

d

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

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:08:06 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round
here...

The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.


What that means to me is you are trying to reserve the word for use in a
'measurably' objective context only....

No, just trying to be clear.



Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.


When (other than using the word 'better' without permission, to describe
certain characteristics) have I ever claimed other??




Now don't make me go digging! ;-)

d

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

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:32:24 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


If you are saying you quite like the sound of a bent amplifier, that
is fine, but it is a decidedly subjective position, and should not try
to avail itself of the objective terminology.

No, what I am saying, is we all know your position, and we all know the
position you are arguing against, we all know that the two will never
become reconciled, so why not find something a bit more positive to talk
about?

Ah - that is different. But it takes two to tango, you know.

d

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:02:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Can I just repost something that I originally posted almost exactly
three years ago. I know it doesn't directly reference SET's, but it
seems to address the same points that are going round and round
here...


The word "better" is the problem. It is an objective term that is
being hijacked into a subjective meaning. It has clear objective
meanings in terms of flatness of frequency response, absence of
distortion etc.

Can't we simply refer to preference and thus have no reason to
argue?
That would address the situation far more directly and appositely.

d


To quote wikipedia

"Better is the comparative form of the adjective good"

No sign of any of the clear objective meanings you have placed on it,
its as subjective as any other comparison. The fact that you may
compare
using objective values, doesn't make your comparison any more valid
than
any other to any other person.

IMHO.

Look at it this way. The job of an amplifier is to make a signal
better. A good amplifier will be one that does just that. A bad one
will be one that can't manage that without bending the signal in some
way. That degree of bending is easily measured in as objective a way
as you like, and you can thus derive a ranking of good - better - best
in a completely objective fashion.

If you are saying you quite like the sound of a bent amplifier, that
is fine, but it is a decidedly subjective position, and should not try
to avail itself of the objective terminology.

Unless, of course, you can justify an objective ranking in terms of
degree and type of distortion, position and size of peaks and dips in
frequency response etc. etc. etc. Do that, and I will quite happily
accept your assertion that your comparison is as good as the
non-bending amplifier test. I won't hold my breath, I'm afraid.


Forget all that, Don - this 'straight wire with gain' malarkey is aimed
at designers and manufacturers and comes from a time when 'fidelity' was
hard to come by; nowadays, you can get it from a gadget the size of a
matchbox (with a pair of decent earphones). By the time an amp is in the
hands of the *end user* it's a device for creating a
pleasant/engaging/whatever sound - witness all the *bass boost* buttons
(and other available adjustments) on various bits of kit....