Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message ...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


**I'll try to make it REAL simple for you:

If you can't hear it, don't buy it.


That's eBay ****ed then....

**Wrong. There are a great many products available on eBay that
are/have been available in other places.

If you can't hear it, don't buy it.


So 'wise', yet so stupid....

**Let me see if I have this straight:

*I* have suggested that listening to a product is helpful when
determining if a product is worth buying.


No. You have said "If you can't hear it, don't buy it." (see right
above) - that is considerably more emphatic than merely 'helpful'....

**Indeed. Thanks for the correction.



*You* are suggesting that buying first, makes more sense.


News to me - I'm simply suggestiong that sometimes 'buying (or
building) first' is unavoidable in practical terms...

**Nope. It is never unavoidable. If you can't hear it, don't buy it.
Buy something else.


That you can go and hear presumably - even if it means on somebody
else's speakers, with somebody else's sources in some location other
than your own listening room?






*I* am suggesting that people who sell stuff will always say that it
sounds good.


OK. My experience is different - even the local robber baron will
only describe cheap, plank turntables as 'OK for just making a bit of
noise', but there ya go....

**I'll betcha he says that they're the best value for money
turntables, though.


Nope. He doesn't care for turntables - they only stock the cheapest, but
they will supply anything you ask for (at a price)...




*You* are suggesting that people selling stuff should always be
trusted.


I am? Where is this all coming from? Do you hear voices?

**You are suggesting that people should buy stuff without first
performing a careful evaluation. To do so, implies that the seller is
trustworthy.


Well, if you buy *unheard* from eBay you are taking a bit of a chance
(half the fun for some), otherwise the supplier's reputation (especially
if they have a good returns policy) and the *brand* can reduce the
risk...




*I* am suggesting that people who build stuff cannot provide
unbiased advice.


OK.


*You* are suggesting that people who build stuff are absolutely
reliable when offering advice about the stuff they've built.


I am? (More voices?)

**Nope.


Well then, stop fabricating...






Is that about it?

And you call me "stupid".


You bring it on yourself.

**Because I suggest that people listen to a piece of audio equipment,
BEFORE they plonk their cash down? How curious.


No, because you say 'if you can't hear, don't buy' - it's just not
practicable sometimes....






Wake up and smell the coffee.


Don't need to.

**Yeah, you do.


No I don't...



In an ideal world to 'hear before you buy' would be the best way to
go for sure,

**Good. I'm pleased we have established that.

but we're not in an ideal world and, for one reason or
another, I suspect the *majority* of audio gear that is bought in
this country is actually bought *unheard*.

**Let's refine that statement to:

"I suspect the *majority* of 'high quality' audio gear that is bought
in this country is actually bought *unheard*."

Is that better?


No. For a kick-off, I'm almost certain the majority of cheap (maybe low
quality) audio gear is bought unheard/unopened.



I made the correction, because a lot of cheap, crappy audio equipment
is probably purcahsed without first being carefully evaluated.


Yes, see above...


OTOH, IME, high
quality audio equipment is carefully listened to before purchase.


Not always - I was called in to set up an SME 10 turntable with (IIRC)
and expensive Ortofon cart at the above-mentioned shop (that only stocks
a few planks and the Numark USB tt mentioned a few days ago); the new
owner had not even seen it at that stage, let alone heard it....




In fact, I suspect almost
everybody in this group will have bought stuff at some point either
on spec. or because it was recommended verbally, or even because they
read a favourable review in a magazine!

**SOME, yes. MOST, no. Of course, Poms are different to Aussies. But,
I suspect, not that different.


Oh, I do hope so....




(It might help you to know that valve amps are not plentiful in
'audio shops' in this country, contrary to what the strong valve
presence in this group and the current 'valve fad' in audio magazines
might lead you believe - to assemble a selection of valve amps for
'auditioning' would be a difficult and time-consuming thing...)

**Iain has stated that valve amps constitute the vast majority of high
end amplifier sold in his country. Of course, he can't provide any
actual proof of that.


No more than you can prove "OTOH, IME, high quality audio equipment is
carefully listened to before purchase"....


I can tell you that it is easy enough to locate a bunch of valve
amps (in one location) here in Australia. I would expect that it is
easier in the UK. What, with all that crappy weather and all.


Nope. Ask anyone....

(It's not impossible, but easy it ain't - note the *lack* of a chorus of
people here saying I'm wrong....)

Game, SET and match....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.


When they complement each other and cross-cancel their
failings/shortcomings?





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.


OK, seein's it's you Plowie, I'll explain: The first few tracks were
'miked speaker' recordings of Hoagy Carmichael from a long time ago.
(The guy died a quarter of a century ago!) 'Normal' for his stuff is the
sound I recorded (like 'normal' for Caruso can be a tinny/scratchy
acoustic 78 sound?) so it was, in fact, a 'natural' sound or a sound
which I am used to.

Unfortunately the sound of the posted tracks isn't quite what I hear
(let's face it - it's been re-recorded and converted into MP3s), so the
exercise was pretty pointless; it is was only to give something of an
idea, after all...



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.


Natural to me is a sound that is 'in the room', almost tangible, sounds
*lifelike* (within reason) and not way back in a pair of speakers....

??

Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:49:27 -0000, Andy Evans
wrote:

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?

Well, no. Not really. I can't see that the phrase "sounds better"
hijacks any word that has a specific scientific meaning. It's common
speech.

No, don't do that. What we are seeking is something that would address
"Is it a better amplifier". See the problem?

And your proposal that listeners who are quite secure in their audible
preferences should demote themselves to "subjective", leaving those
who put their trust in some far from exhaustive measurements occupying
the high ground of "objective" continues to be demeaning to those who
have heavily researched hi-fi systems and who know very well the sound
of live instruments.

We can't get away from the situation that we're dealing with sound
here, and all we're doing right now is writing about it, not even
listening to it. Like dancing about architecture really.


Quoting others doesn't help either. The question really boils down to
this; do you want to listen to something that resembles what the
artist intended, or the output of an effects box?

Oh, and I'm listening as I type,


As I am usually, but right now Swim's got the 'airwaves' and it's summat
****ing hideous on the telly - Gordon Ramsey??

Building my own valve amp
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
Perform a range of detailed and exhaustive measurements
on an amplifier

Could you give us an example of an "exhaustive measurement" which
measures EVERYTHING?

And could you follow that by explaining why, after carrying out such
an "exhaustive test" which by definition needs no further information,
you then need to go on and listen to the amplifier?



The only 'exhaustive test' that works for me is to run a bit of kit for
weeks and months in my own system, in my own room; anything less is
'lip-service' and pointless - is why I'm not particularly bothered to
hear kit before I get hold of it!

(Anything don't work out pretty soon gets moved on....)

Building my own valve amp
 

The question really boils down to this; do you want to listen to
something that resembles what the artist intended, or the output of an
effects box?

There absolutely has to be a missing piece to this jigsaw. We have
perfectly sane and intelligent people at odds with each other - on
both sides are music lovers and hi-fi enthusiats but it's like a
Moslem talking to a Catholic.

I'm pretty sure I know what the missing piece is. In my opinion
different brains prioritise different key features. If certain key
features are reproduced better, even is other aspects are reproduced
worse, the listening preference will go to the key feature. Such a key
feature may be accurate tone to a piano, feeling in a voice, slam in
the bass - various things. These may be more important than frequency
response. The ear can adapt to some things easily, and a skewed
frequency response is likely to be one, since we don't mind our
kitchen radios. The ear may not adapt so easily to other aspects, and
one of those that disturbs a few musicians I know is a sharpness/
discord in the high frequencies. Others dislike bland featureless
reproduction.

Whatever it is, it's something to do with individual perception and
the differential priorities we make.

Game, SET and match....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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.


OK, seein's it's you Plowie, I'll explain: The first few tracks were
'miked speaker' recordings of Hoagy Carmichael from a long time ago.
(The guy died a quarter of a century ago!) 'Normal' for his stuff is the
sound I recorded (like 'normal' for Caruso can be a tinny/scratchy
acoustic 78 sound?) so it was, in fact, a 'natural' sound or a sound
which I am used to.

You've still lost me. They didn't - by a mile - sound to me like you'd
recorded that artist in your room. Just sound like what they are.

Unfortunately the sound of the posted tracks isn't quite what I hear
(let's face it - it's been re-recorded and converted into MP3s), so the
exercise was pretty pointless; it is was only to give something of an
idea, after all...

Riiiiiight. You've still lost me. ;-)

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.

Natural to me is a sound that is 'in the room', almost tangible, sounds
*lifelike* (within reason) and not way back in a pair of speakers....

Well recorded stereo in a good room can give sounds from in front and
behind the speakers. It's not just left and right.
But should tell you the acoustic of the venue it was recorded in - which
takes you out of 'the room'.

--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

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

Game, SET and match....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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.


OK, seein's it's you Plowie, I'll explain: The first few tracks were
'miked speaker' recordings of Hoagy Carmichael from a long time ago.
(The guy died a quarter of a century ago!) 'Normal' for his stuff is
the
sound I recorded (like 'normal' for Caruso can be a tinny/scratchy
acoustic 78 sound?) so it was, in fact, a 'natural' sound or a sound
which I am used to.

You've still lost me. They didn't - by a mile - sound to me like you'd
recorded that artist in your room. Just sound like what they are.


No, you're still missing the point - they could never have sounded like
the artist as the (ancient) recordings don't even sound that 'natural',
they sound *old-timey recorded* and, as such, my recordings (of the
original recordings) were really quite natural! (Or would have been if
the last little bit of bass wasn't being lost due to the difficulty of
getting bass from the speakers without getting too much 'room'...)

Don't sweat it - the whole thing fell on its arse. (Even Don didn't get
it!)

Tell you what - play this for a few moments to establish a 'norm':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hhm0NHhCBg


Then play this 'til you get the idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SirOxIeuNDE


If I had miked the latter, it would hardly have sounded like the artist
but it might well have been a good (natural) facsimile of the recording.
Geddit?

(OK, I thought not...)



Unfortunately the sound of the posted tracks isn't quite what I hear
(let's face it - it's been re-recorded and converted into MP3s), so
the
exercise was pretty pointless; it is was only to give something of an
idea, after all...

Riiiiiight. You've still lost me. ;-)


Evidently....



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.

Natural to me is a sound that is 'in the room', almost tangible,
sounds
*lifelike* (within reason) and not way back in a pair of speakers....

Well recorded stereo in a good room can give sounds from in front and
behind the speakers. It's not just left and right.


Stoppit, Plowie....


But should tell you the acoustic of the venue it was recorded in -
which
takes you out of 'the room'.


Sure - which happens much better (oops) for me with SET/horns than it
does with the SS/'normal' speaker setups, but I'm not sure I'm really
bothered about *venues* as such unless it's a bit of church organ,
possibly....

Building my own valve amp
 

Jute:
Trevor has a most novel view of what constitutes a lie. He accused me
of lying about j-fets in a debate about negative feedback. When I
protested that I had said nothing whatsoever about j-fets, Trevor
replied that I was "lying by not presenting their advantages over
tubes" [paraphrased]. I was stunned into silence...

Wilson
**Bull****. However, feell free to provide a cite for your little story.

Trevor Wilson

Not j-fets, BJTs, mnemonic Blow Jobs for Transvestites; you can tell
from the need for a mnemonic that to me all those creepy crawlies are
a chinese population explosion...

Is "cite" street talk for a "citation", Wilson? Okay, as promised,
here you accuse me of lying by leaving out BJTs when I was talking
about something tubes, and demand their including with triodes, indeed
before triodes in the ranking:

"I KNOW that you just published a bunch of lies and half truths. THAT
is
what I DO know. If you want to publish a correction (which includes
the
superior linearity of modern BJTs over triodes) then I will support
you in
that endeavour."

It happened in the thread
"The Catch-22 of Negative Feedback aka NFB"
on RAT:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...7c1683a2670724

HTH you become a better, calmer person.

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
The question really boils down to this; do you want to listen to
something that resembles what the artist intended, or the output of an
effects box?

There absolutely has to be a missing piece to this jigsaw. We have
perfectly sane and intelligent people at odds with each other - on
both sides are music lovers and hi-fi enthusiats but it's like a
Moslem talking to a Catholic.

I'm pretty sure I know what the missing piece is. In my opinion
different brains prioritise different key features. If certain key
features are reproduced better, even is other aspects are reproduced
worse, the listening preference will go to the key feature. Such a key
feature may be accurate tone to a piano, feeling in a voice, slam in
the bass - various things. These may be more important than frequency
response. The ear can adapt to some things easily, and a skewed
frequency response is likely to be one, since we don't mind our
kitchen radios. The ear may not adapt so easily to other aspects, and
one of those that disturbs a few musicians I know is a sharpness/
discord in the high frequencies. Others dislike bland featureless
reproduction.

Whatever it is, it's something to do with individual perception and
the differential priorities we make.


You may be right - I wouldn't know. All I can say is that, having tried
20 million SS amps without real satisfaction, the minute I fired up a
valve amp I was hooked forever - immediately there was 'life' and
clarity, air, space, depth, detail, tone, timbre, realism, enchantment
and the fragrance of Attar Of Roses in the air...

That was a 50 Watt PP amp with 8 x 5881 valves - the gravitation towards
a low-powered SET (primarily concerned with delivering a signal, rather
than *rubber wrassling*) on Lowthers (more concerned with starting and
stopping on the mark than powering a wind farm) was, dare I say it, a
*natural* progression!

I revisited the *heavyweight SS sector* recently and found it wanting
(at least it was fairly easy to shift on eBay), but I guess if you spend
upwards of 5 grand or so on a big, fat SS amp you might just be able to
match a 300 quid cheepie Chinky SET or a little bit of homebrew...?? ;-)

Building my own valve amp
 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:35:21 -0000, Andy Evans
wrote:

The question really boils down to this; do you want to listen to
something that resembles what the artist intended, or the output of an
effects box?

There absolutely has to be a missing piece to this jigsaw. We have
perfectly sane and intelligent people at odds with each other - on
both sides are music lovers and hi-fi enthusiats but it's like a
Moslem talking to a Catholic.

I'm pretty sure I know what the missing piece is. In my opinion
different brains prioritise different key features. If certain key
features are reproduced better, even is other aspects are reproduced
worse, the listening preference will go to the key feature. Such a key
feature may be accurate tone to a piano, feeling in a voice, slam in
the bass - various things. These may be more important than frequency
response. The ear can adapt to some things easily, and a skewed
frequency response is likely to be one, since we don't mind our
kitchen radios. The ear may not adapt so easily to other aspects, and
one of those that disturbs a few musicians I know is a sharpness/
discord in the high frequencies. Others dislike bland featureless
reproduction.

Whatever it is, it's something to do with individual perception and
the differential priorities we make.


I'm sure you are right in this. My feeling is that I want to hear
straight past all the kit to the music - the equipment must efface
itself entirely.

Others want to hear what the amplifier is doing, and the speakers.

d

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