Building my own valve amp
 

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?

--
Nick

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.


Sure - *your* reality!! ;-)

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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! ;-)


Why not? I've spent most of the day raking leevs (when I wasn't in here
on the computer!! ;-)

(OK, *some* of the day....)

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:30:56 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"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....



We disagree. The fact that amplifiers have reached a state of
essential perfection is not a good enough reason for me to want to
climb back from that and introduce deliberate distortions. It is just
something to celebrate and move onto the next thing; in my case it is
the speakers.

I've just modded my under-stairs sub by porting it. Without the port
its frequency response fell away gently from its crossover; with the
port it is notionally flat down to about 11Hz, but at the expense of
some timing inaccuracies. It sounds a bit different on a very small
number of tracks, and I'm trying to make up my mind which I prefer.
Now that is a real question because I am trying to choose between two
kinds of imperfection, with no perfect alternative.

d




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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


I've just modded my under-stairs sub by porting it. Without the port
its frequency response fell away gently from its crossover; with the
port it is notionally flat down to about 11Hz, but at the expense of
some timing inaccuracies. It sounds a bit different on a very small
number of tracks, and I'm trying to make up my mind which I prefer.
Now that is a real question because I am trying to choose between two
kinds of imperfection, with no perfect alternative.


That rather sums up the boat we are all in, doesn't it?

Given that your sub is 'built in' can you not have an
'openable/closable' port and swing both ways?

Building my own valve amp
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:55 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


I've just modded my under-stairs sub by porting it. Without the port
its frequency response fell away gently from its crossover; with the
port it is notionally flat down to about 11Hz, but at the expense of
some timing inaccuracies. It sounds a bit different on a very small
number of tracks, and I'm trying to make up my mind which I prefer.
Now that is a real question because I am trying to choose between two
kinds of imperfection, with no perfect alternative.


That rather sums up the boat we are all in, doesn't it?

Given that your sub is 'built in' can you not have an
'openable/closable' port and swing both ways?



Bingo! That's exactly what I'm doing right now. I have a couple of
huge cork bungs (from the big cardboard tubes I've made the ports
with) that I can use to go between the two. One bit of organ music
sounds (ok feels) really good with the ports open.

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:55 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


I've just modded my under-stairs sub by porting it. Without the port
its frequency response fell away gently from its crossover; with the
port it is notionally flat down to about 11Hz, but at the expense of
some timing inaccuracies. It sounds a bit different on a very small
number of tracks, and I'm trying to make up my mind which I prefer.
Now that is a real question because I am trying to choose between
two
kinds of imperfection, with no perfect alternative.


That rather sums up the boat we are all in, doesn't it?

Given that your sub is 'built in' can you not have an
'openable/closable' port and swing both ways?



Bingo! That's exactly what I'm doing right now. I have a couple of
huge cork bungs (from the big cardboard tubes I've made the ports
with) that I can use to go between the two. One bit of organ music
sounds (ok feels) really good with the ports open.




There you go - it's case of 'sock a bung in it'..!! :-)

Game, SET and match....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
No matter how many times you and others post it doesn't make it true.


Are you saying it (amp/speaker pairing) isn't true?

Like I said only if both are of poor design.


Of course a poor amp might help the failings in a poor speaker or
vice versa. And of course plenty high quality speaker makers use amps
tailored to their speakers to correct mainly frequency response errors
- but I don't think this is what you mean.

No.


(Especially when they've *never* even heard the 'Holy Trilogy'.. ;-)

I posted these tracks of very old recordings to make my point that
*natural* doesn't necessarily have to be *accurate*:

It just makes the point of what you *like* to hear. Nothing wrong in
that provided you understand it.


No, you miss the point. Those tracks are to demonstrate 'natural'
although they are clearly coloured - due to age of recording and not
helped by being miked from the speakers....

I'm afraid you've totally lost me as we don't speak the same language.

Natural to me means something which is well recorded and well reproduced.
Not something I just happen to like the sound of. Although the two are
often coincident.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Building my own valve amp
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:


What the OP needs to do is listen to those who are experienced with
real
*buildable* circuits and follow the advice he likes the sound of
best -
he's got to start somewhere and damn near every 'normal' PP amp on
the
planet owes summat to the early Mullard designs (AFAIK) so why
struggle
against it??


**Why trust what people say? Some people are seriously deluded. How
is
Max to know if the people he is speaking to know anything at all?
MUCH
better for him to listen to a product, BEFORE plonking down the cash.


Because the OP asked about BUILDING a amplifier, given you find this
mythical dealer that lets you geard some commercial amps, what then,
ask
the maker for the winding schedule for their TX's

**How will he know what to build, unless he can listen to it? Valve
amps
mostly sound different to each other. Their sound is largely
differentiated by the topolgy, the output transformers and the valves
used. Without a good listen to the amps, it is a total crap shoot. MUCH
better to listen to several amps and make a choice from those.



(Different with SETs of course, but I'd recommend a SET as a start
amp
for a number of reasons!)


**SETs are for idiots.

"Why trust what people say? Some people are seriously deluded."

**Want me to explain to you why SET amps are for idiots? I'm quite
happy
to explain in exquisite detail, that any technical person can
understand.
You'll need to explain it to Iain though. He's not too bright in things
technical.

Trevor. Some time ago, It became clear to me after reading
some of your posts, that Patrick Turner (acknowledged by
one and all to be a man of considerable expertise in things
thermionic) was correct when he wrote in a Usenet post
(I paraphrase) "There is nothing that TW can teach Iain
or probably anyone else here about valve/tube audio.
He is an SS audio salesman with little knowledge and
no practical experience in valve amp construction"

**You are, of course, incorrect. That won't stop you from lying and
misrepresenting my position, nor my words in the future, however. You've
made it into something of an art form. You are a lying piece of ****.

Trevor. It is impossible for you to discuss in a calm and rational
way, without recourse to invective. You are sounding more like
Pinky by the day:-)

**Wrong (of course). I am happy to carry on a rational discussion with
people who don't lie. You are a liar. That I( have exposed you, bothers the
Hell out of you. OTOH, if you wish to carry on a discussion without being
called a liar, then all you need to do is be truthful.



Anyone can check the archive to find that my paragraph above is
sadly correct. Sadder still is the fact that since he made that
statement, you have confirmed Patrick's findings in any number of
tube audio related posts.


**No. I am advising him to LISTEN, before he plonks down a single cent.


Others have asked. How can he listen to it before he has built it????

**Don't build it. Let me restate:

I am advising him to LISTEN, before he plonks down a single cent.
It ain't rocket science.


Surely you are not naive enough to think that people do not listen
carefully to a selection of amplifiers before making their choice?

**Lots of people don't listen. Keith is one.

I will continue to challenge your lies. Do not think you can get away
with
them. You won't.

Nothing to challenge. Anyone can check. .

**I suggest you do exactly that.


A short while ago I was travelling in India. I spent an evening in
the company of a Jainist mystic/philosopher. He told me that he
believed that after death we each go to our own private hell.

So you can look forward to an eternity of Shostakovich Quartets
on SET amps with Lowthers, whioe the furnaces are fired with
ME amplifiers and HK cheapo CD players:-)

**I am not a supernatural believer. I am an existentialist. There is no
Hell. Hardly surprising that you subscribe to such nonsense, given your
adherence to SET amplifiers (though you don't actually own one).

Trevor Wilson

Building my own valve amp
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...

"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.

**THD is ONE form of distortion. There are others. SETs fail miserably at
those too.

Trevor Wilson