Building my own valve amp
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:11:19 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:46:20 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:22:28 -0800, Andy Evans
wrote:

So it's *silent* then...???

Yup. Just the way I like it.

d

But I'm sure the silences are blacker with SETs and horns.
Needless
to
say vinyl is blacker than CDs........


Not while they are playing. It is dark inside my CD player.


Laser broke?



Infra red. No light from that.



Relativity again....

;-)




Bloody hell - how fast does the laser move in your CD player?... I
reckon about 98% light speed to coax visible light out of an infra red
laser.


Given that I rarely switch it on - not very fast, on the whole....

Building my own valve amp
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:41:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:07:30 -0000, "Keith G"

wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:29:08 -0800, Andy Evans
wrote:

If you have a low distortion amplifier then you are
categorically
NOT
hearing it.

I'm with Keith and Nick here - I maintain you can hear it. As
Keith
has very carefully said, and I'm sure Nick and I have said using
practically the same words, the "true" standout characteristic
of
valves (and I would add DHTs in particular) that we users know
and
love consists of something intrinsic in the music, not
extrinsic.
You
state "adding something" but we hear ss amps as "taking
something
away" - usually described as vividness, inner clarity, life,
that
kind
of thing. We hear this inner clarity as part of the music
itself,
and
we believe that this vividness is present in live music. We
believe
that ss amps subtly mask this and sound flat. Contrary to
supposition,
valve users don't like "that warm sound" - on the contrary they
try
and get rid of any warmth or tubbiness masking the inner clarity
they
seek, and DHTs in particular seem to preserve the clarity
without
adding the warmth.

I hope I've correctly represented Keith and Nick - I think so
from
reading their posts.


To a man standing on a moving train, the world is apparently
moving
past him, but that doesn't mean he can validly claim that to be
so.
It
is very clear from even a cursory examination of SET and SS
amplifiers
that SET does things to the signal, and SS doesn't.

I'm afraid your relativistic stance doesn't survive examination.

Can you not simply accept that you like the way SETs and horns
change
the sound? What is with this rather desperate attempt to claim
it
not
to be so? Just enjoy it.


Nothing desperate about it - I (and one or two others, it seems)
simply
prefer the way SET/horns *present* the sound. AFAIAC, I'm not too
fussed
about what changes are going on but to think that 'blameless' SS
kit
doesn't distort or change the signal is just wishful thinking in
my
book. Remember I have just got rid of an amplifier with 'some of
the
lowest noise and distortion figures on record'....



But it is a fact that those amplifiers don't do anything to the
signal
- no wishful thinking needed. I've done the tests myself putting a
power amplifier in line (followed by an attenuator) to assess
whether
it makes any difference to the signal, and I assure you that it
doesn't.


Sod 'tests' Don - we've all seen that old guff about 5 amps in a row
&c.
&c. - I have spent a considerable amount of time, money and effort
swapping to and fro between different types of kit including the
latest
*SS revisitation*! Trust me that I have at least an idea of what SS
amplifaction sounds like, but when I get back to a SET/horns setup
it's
like *coming home*!! SS is fine for the telly, radio, movies and
computer but not for plating *music*....

Do try to get this understood: There are no less than 5 PP amps here
(and only 2 SETs) and 3 of them are SS - two of which are in *daily
use*....

OK??

Of course that is OK. But that is all about what you like, not
whether
an amp does anything to the signal. You only find that out by trying
the same signal path with and without the amp.


All amps do something to the signal - that's never been the issue.
Mine is a case of personal preference and I have stated often that I
don't really care what others prefer...??


I disagree. Conventional amplifiers


Conventional??

It's transistor amps that are the upstarts here - AFAIC, a
*conventional* amplifier has got valves in it!!

(Interesting that the discerning public are drifting back towards them,
isn't it? ;-)


do nothing to the signal (except,
granted, they make it bigger) that is audible. This is confirmed by
both measurements, and the test I believe first publicised by QUAD, of
putting a suitably attenuated amplifier in series with the signal
path, and its presence (or absence) will be completely transparent to
listeners.


So when does the *bland* get put in then?



SETs *do* change the signal, possibly in a way that you and others
prefer, but what comes out *is* different to what goes in.


(I have also stated that I wouldn't get into the defence of my
preferences, but there you go....)

Frankly Don, the less people here that *get into* SETs and horns the
better - it's always adds a nice little fruissance (sp?) to the
occasion when one feels one is slightly ahead of the pack!

;-)
I wonder - was that *too* obvious?? :-)


In my opinion, there's nothing to defend. You and others prefer the
sound of SETs, I and others don't.


Serge, next time you get a chance, drop by and hear all the same old
stuff but on my Fidelios - it's a whole new ballgame to what you heard
here!!

Building my own valve amp
 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:34:05 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:13:33 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


If eq were all there was to it, yes. But the key here is the
non-linearity of the valve amp.

d


Err, which bit of bent transfer curve didn't you notice? :-)

Or are you now suggesting there are further processes at work?


That's what I'm talking about. I can do the eq bit easily with my DAW,
but for the transfer curve I would need a valve amp, which I don't
have.

d


I would have tought a quick few lines of BASIC would do that non linear
transform for you :-).

Or, failing that, you could use a spice sim with a triode model and feed
a wav file through it.

Yup I could do that, but I would rather use something that has been
identified as melodic.

d

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

Building my own valve amp
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:41:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:07:30 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:29:08 -0800, Andy Evans
wrote:

If you have a low distortion amplifier then you are categorically
NOT
hearing it.

I'm with Keith and Nick here - I maintain you can hear it. As Keith
has very carefully said, and I'm sure Nick and I have said using
practically the same words, the "true" standout characteristic of
valves (and I would add DHTs in particular) that we users know and
love consists of something intrinsic in the music, not extrinsic.
You
state "adding something" but we hear ss amps as "taking something
away" - usually described as vividness, inner clarity, life, that
kind
of thing. We hear this inner clarity as part of the music itself,
and
we believe that this vividness is present in live music. We believe
that ss amps subtly mask this and sound flat. Contrary to
supposition,
valve users don't like "that warm sound" - on the contrary they try
and get rid of any warmth or tubbiness masking the inner clarity
they
seek, and DHTs in particular seem to preserve the clarity without
adding the warmth.

I hope I've correctly represented Keith and Nick - I think so from
reading their posts.


To a man standing on a moving train, the world is apparently moving
past him, but that doesn't mean he can validly claim that to be so.
It
is very clear from even a cursory examination of SET and SS
amplifiers
that SET does things to the signal, and SS doesn't.

I'm afraid your relativistic stance doesn't survive examination.

Can you not simply accept that you like the way SETs and horns
change
the sound? What is with this rather desperate attempt to claim it
not
to be so? Just enjoy it.


Nothing desperate about it - I (and one or two others, it seems)
simply
prefer the way SET/horns *present* the sound. AFAIAC, I'm not too
fussed
about what changes are going on but to think that 'blameless' SS kit
doesn't distort or change the signal is just wishful thinking in my
book. Remember I have just got rid of an amplifier with 'some of the
lowest noise and distortion figures on record'....



But it is a fact that those amplifiers don't do anything to the
signal
- no wishful thinking needed. I've done the tests myself putting a
power amplifier in line (followed by an attenuator) to assess whether
it makes any difference to the signal, and I assure you that it
doesn't.


Sod 'tests' Don - we've all seen that old guff about 5 amps in a row
&c.
&c. - I have spent a considerable amount of time, money and effort
swapping to and fro between different types of kit including the latest
*SS revisitation*! Trust me that I have at least an idea of what SS
amplifaction sounds like, but when I get back to a SET/horns setup it's
like *coming home*!! SS is fine for the telly, radio, movies and
computer but not for plating *music*....

Do try to get this understood: There are no less than 5 PP amps here
(and only 2 SETs) and 3 of them are SS - two of which are in *daily
use*....

OK??

Of course that is OK. But that is all about what you like, not whether
an amp does anything to the signal. You only find that out by trying
the same signal path with and without the amp.


All amps do something to the signal - that's never been the issue. Mine
is a case of personal preference and I have stated often that I don't
really care what others prefer...??


I disagree. Conventional amplifiers


Conventional??

It's transistor amps that are the upstarts here - AFAIC, a *conventional*
amplifier has got valves in it!!

(Interesting that the discerning public are drifting back towards them,
isn't it? ;-)

By "conventional" I meant modern SS amps or well designed PPUL valve amps,
but then you knew that.....



do nothing to the signal (except,
granted, they make it bigger) that is audible. This is confirmed by both
measurements, and the test I believe first publicised by QUAD, of putting
a suitably attenuated amplifier in series with the signal path, and its
presence (or absence) will be completely transparent to listeners.


So when does the *bland* get put in then?

That's in your head. The "bland" is the absence of added stuff.



SETs *do* change the signal, possibly in a way that you and others
prefer, but what comes out *is* different to what goes in.


(I have also stated that I wouldn't get into the defence of my
preferences, but there you go....)

Frankly Don, the less people here that *get into* SETs and horns the
better - it's always adds a nice little fruissance (sp?) to the occasion
when one feels one is slightly ahead of the pack!

;-)
I wonder - was that *too* obvious?? :-)


In my opinion, there's nothing to defend. You and others prefer the sound
of SETs, I and others don't.


Serge, next time you get a chance, drop by and hear all the same old stuff
but on my Fidelios - it's a whole new ballgame to what you heard here!!

I may well do, but from what you've been posting recently, will it be any
less painful than last time? Now if you still had the IMFs and the SS amps,
that would be worthwhile hearing again after more than 25 years.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Building my own valve amp
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:13:33 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


If eq were all there was to it, yes. But the key here is the
non-linearity of the valve amp.

d


Err, which bit of bent transfer curve didn't you notice? :-)

Or are you now suggesting there are further processes at work?


That's what I'm talking about. I can do the eq bit easily with my DAW,
but for the transfer curve I would need a valve amp, which I don't
have.

d


I would have tought a quick few lines of BASIC would do that non linear
transform for you :-).

Or, failing that, you could use a spice sim with a triode model and feed
a wav file through it.

--
Nick

Building my own valve amp
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote


By "conventional" I meant modern SS amps or well designed PPUL valve
amps, but then you knew that.....


:-)




do nothing to the signal (except,
granted, they make it bigger) that is audible. This is confirmed by
both measurements, and the test I believe first publicised by QUAD,
of putting a suitably attenuated amplifier in series with the signal
path, and its presence (or absence) will be completely transparent
to listeners.


So when does the *bland* get put in then?

That's in your head. The "bland" is the absence of added stuff.


Oh, so that's what the *bland* is then?


Serge, next time you get a chance, drop by and hear all the same old
stuff but on my Fidelios - it's a whole new ballgame to what you
heard here!!

I may well do, but from what you've been posting recently, will it be
any less painful than last time?


No - worse...


Now if you still had the IMFs and the SS amps,
that would be worthwhile hearing again after more than 25 years.


SS amps I can do any time - what do you want? Meridian? See on the floor
he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Allsorts.JPG


(Note the speakers - Ruarks which I still have, B&W which have since
long gone...)

The IMFs were a fine speaker but a little OTT for my pokey room -
delightful with a 'small source' like radio, but far too much bottom end
for vinyl and a tad *ancient* for vigorous 'digital'!!

Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"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.

In a few days, I hope to have a very good Danish SET amp
onb loan for a while.

At 1W, (the level at which it normally is used)
it has THD at 0.1% and IMD (19+20kHz 1:1) of 0.08%.

Does that meet your definition of miserable, Trevor?

Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**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. 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.

Poor memory fails you again, dear Trevor. You will really have to stop
that lead solder sniffing. It really is softening your brain.

I quoted a Swedish high end dealer who told me that the top 5%
of high end audio systems sold in *Scandinavia* are valve/tube
based systems. This is not in fact news, as sales in top end
systems have been at this level for over two years now.
I did not use the phrase "vast majority". Please check
before you misquote so blatantly.

If you had a better knowledge of geography, you would know that
Scandinavia is not a country, but a group of countries, formed long before
the EU was even thought of. Its member states are Sweden,
Norway, Finland and Denmark.

Being the gentleman I am, I will not jump up and down in apoplexy
as you are prone to do, swear and shout "Liar" Instead I will smile,
and think "Poor old Trevor. Once again he is so hot and bothered that
he misunderstood a simple statement in his own language".

Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 2, 1:29?am, "Keith G" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

snip magazine reviews and personal OSAFs

When examining the frequency response plots of the SET amps we can see
serious, highly audible flaws. When examining the distortion plots, we
can see serious audible flaws in most models at realistic listening
powers. Examining the plots of the other amplifiers, we can see no
obviously audible flaws. Choosing a SET amp over a push pull amp, is
therefore the deliberate choice of audible problems. Those audible
problems are completely artificial artefacts, not present in the
original sources.

Your problems are not everybody's problems - choice of a SET is to
choose an amp for its characteristics. The bit you can't choke down is
that people buying/choosing/using SET amps consider those
characteristics to be beneficial. Three members of the 'St Neots Six'
(local enthusiasts) own and use SETS, one of the others prefers my SET
to my PP amps, another would like a SET and the last one keeps
threatening to build one but probably never will as he is getting
perhaps a bit to old for more building - otherwise that could easily
become a *100%* instance of SETs here!!

I'm going to take a rest from trying to grapple with the considerable
weirdness of TWs mind (he now alternates between calling people
logically inconsistent and lying pieces of ****...)

**Let's set the record straight, here and now. Iain Churches is a lying
piece of ****. I was not referring to any other person. What's mo Iain
knows full well that he has lied and misrepresented my position. Several
times. Clear?


I neither lied nor misrepresented your position.
You can find Patrick's statement regarding your lack of tube amp
knowledge and expertise in archive.

Do your wife and children know that you behave in such a crude
fashion on a public forum? They must be terribly proud of you!

Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

**All of which can be characterised by measurements.

But of course you won't believe that
either, will you.

**Of course. I've experienced exactly that. You seem to be under the
delusion that two or three measurements are all that is required to define
the sound of an amplifier. The list is longer, much longer, than that.
What I am saying is this: Perform a range of detailed and exhaustive
measurements on an amplifier. The first, most basic ones are frequency
response ones, into appropriate loads (not resistors). If an amplifier
fails these measurements, it is rejected. Then move on to more complex
measurements. At each point, an amplifier is assessed for audible
performance flaws and, if necessary, it is rejected.

NB: I am not suggesting, for instance, that an amplifier needs to possess
0.00000001% THD or anything like that. Something around 0.1% is probably
adequately low enough. As long as that figure can be maintained at all
audio frequencies, all levels and when driving the specified load
impedance (not resistance).


Trevor. It would be interesting to read your "list of power amplifier
tests" plus
what you consider to be acceptable results, and compare it with the one I
have
from Swedish Broadcast. In a similar thread some years ago, Pinky gave a
list
of what he considered to be minimum measured requirements for hi-fi
performance.
His list was pretty good, except that he gave a ridiculously high
fig for DF to exclude most valve amplifiers:-)

Iain