Building my own valve amp
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
**I see. So, you're telling me that is to be a one-sided conversation. I
write stuff and you proclaim it to be "bull****".

"Stuff"!!!!! You wrote that anyone who likes/uses SETs is an idiot. I
think you have to be a little less ingenuous and realise that when you
call
SET users "idiots" they are likely to respond with a few choice words
of their own.

**Would you like me to provide the range of logical and reasoned facts which
prove that SET owners are idiots?


**This would be a 'pot, kettle, black' kind of moment.

No, this is an "insult people and they respond in kind" realisation
moment.

**I wan't insulting anyone. I was merely stating a fact.


I realise that my ideas regarding the judging of audio equipment may
appear, on the surface, to be unconventional ie: Examine measurements and
listen, BEFORE purchase)

How can you listen to a collection of parts you use in your design.

**You don't. You listen to the whole design.

Let's say you use O-netics OPTs from Seattle, Lundahl interstages from
Sweden, some ECC40s bought on ebay from France and some Russian 6B4Gs
for output tubes. The rationale for this is that each of these parts
has been previously shown to sound good in equipment. But the chances
of hearing that lot in a shop are - well be my guest and chose an
infinitely small number.

**Then you don't buy/build it, until you can hear it.


but I can assure you, that we humans consider such an
approach to be completely logical, reasonable and rational.

Hang on here, don't get ahead of yourself. I'm a human - so do I
"consider" the same way you do? I think not.

Let me provide some examples:

Please do provide an example of how you can hear an as yet unbuilt
design consisting of the above (or other) componants.

**If you can't hear it, don't buy/build it. Nothing mysterious here.


* Buying an amplifier? LISTEN to some amplifiers in the price range.

It's not that difficult.

Trevor - dear chap - we're talking about BUILDING an amp here. How do
you hear an unbuilt amp?

**You don't.

It's impossible, as others have already said.

**It's not impossible.

What are you going to say next - go to sleep on a pile of bricks to
see if a design using them would make a good home?

**Nope. You do the following:
* Look at a computer model of the design.
* Look at a scale model of the design.
* Look at the architect's other designs.
* Look at the builder's other projects.

Trevor Wilson

Building my own valve amp
 

"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.
*You* are suggesting that buying first, makes more sense.
*I* am suggesting that people who sell stuff will always say that it sounds
good.
*You* are suggesting that people selling stuff should always be trusted.
*I* am suggesting that people who build stuff cannot provide unbiased
advice.
*You* are suggesting that people who build stuff are absolutely reliable
when offering advice about the stuff they've built.

Is that about it?

And you call me "stupid".

Wake up and smell the coffee.



Trevor Wilson

Building my own valve amp
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

**I see. So, you're telling me that is to be a one-sided conversation. I
write stuff and you proclaim it to be "bull****".

"Stuff"!!!!! You wrote that anyone who likes/uses SETs is an idiot. I
think you have to be a little less ingenuous and realise that when you
call
SET users "idiots" they are likely to respond with a few choice words
of their own.


**Would you like me to provide the range of logical and reasoned facts which
prove that SET owners are idiots?



Yep, why not, and why don't you provide your definition of "idiot" first
so we know just what your are describing.


How does it compair to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

""Idiot" was originally created to refer to "layman, person lacking
professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of
ordinary reasoning".[6][7] Declining to take part in public life, such
as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian
democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad
judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot"
shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to
refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are
"stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy"
describe an extreme folly or stupidity, its symptoms (foolish or stupid
utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state
or condition now called profound mental retardation.[8]"

I am sure Andy can provide professional definitions as well. Oh, hang
on, that must mean he can't be an idiot. Oh, dear.


--
Nick

Building my own valve amp
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:


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


Oddly enough, of the people who have responded who have built stuff, you
seem to be the only one offering advice about it.

--
Nick

Building my own valve amp
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

**I see. So, you're telling me that is to be a one-sided conversation. I
write stuff and you proclaim it to be "bull****".

"Stuff"!!!!! You wrote that anyone who likes/uses SETs is an idiot. I
think you have to be a little less ingenuous and realise that when you
call
SET users "idiots" they are likely to respond with a few choice words
of their own.


**Would you like me to provide the range of logical and reasoned facts
which prove that SET owners are idiots?



Yep, why not, and why don't you provide your definition of "idiot" first
so we know just what your are describing.


How does it compair to:

**Hmmm.

OK.

Here are some reviews on various amplifiers:

Here are the frequency response curves for a US$3,000.00 SET amplifier. The
flaws would be audible. Easily.

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ue/index4.html

Here's a US$9,800.00 one.

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/687/index6.html

Here is a pretty decent PP (valve) amp (US$7,000.00):

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/653/index5.html

And another decent PP (valve) amp. (US$9,995.00):

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/807ar/index4.html

Another respectable PP (valve) amp (US$1,395.00):

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ue/index4.html

Another respectable PP (valve) amp (US$7,200.00)

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/406av/index4.html

And another PP (valve) amp (US$4,995.00)

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/404ear/index4.html

Here is a very decent PP (Transistor) amp. (US$4395.00):

http://stereophile.com/integratedamp...on/index4.html

Here is another, quite decent amplifier (US$899.00):

http://stereophile.com/integratedamp...ad/index5.html

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.

The choice of such an amplifier is, therefore, a rejection of the
musician's/producer's philosophy. The SET owner may be better off using a
'blameless' amplifier, with some tone controls and a little additional
distortion and noise.

Whilst not stated in the graphs, we also need to understand what constitutes
a *proper* amplifier. A proper amplifier is the *ideal* source. IOW: It
neither adds, nor subtracts anything to the music. Fundamentally, a SET
fails this simple test very early on. Most amplifiers are rated for XX Watts
@ 8 Ohms. Fine, as far as it goes, but the ideal amplifier will be rated for
XX Volts output. IOW: It will maintain XX Volts, regardless of load
impedance. Or, to put it another way: An ideal amplifier, rated for 100
Watts @ 8 Ohms, will deliver 200 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 400 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so
on. Naturally, in the real world, this is an impossibility. However, some
amplifiers do come pretty close, provided saturation effects are taken into
account. For example, if we examine a typical, quality, push pull amplifier,
rated at 100 Watts @ 8 Ohms. The same amplifier might, typically, deliver
150 Watts @ 4 Ohms and 175 Watts @ 2 Ohms. This allows for a choice of
speakers and, as the vast majority of loudspeakers do not exhibit a
perfectly resistive impedance characteristic, is a darned good idea.

A SET amplifier, OTOH, might be rated for (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms. It's 4
Ohm power, therefore, be less than 5 Watts. It's 2 Ohm power will be less
than 2.5 Watts. It is the complete and almost perfect antithesis of a
theoretically ideal amplifier. An ok choice, IF you happen to be using a
perfectly resistive load. For anything else (particularly ESLs), it is the
worst possible choice.

SETs are a fashion statement. They're not serious high fidelity products.
Their promoters are, at best, deluded. At worst, cynical opportunists.


Trevor Wilson

Building my own valve amp
 

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.

The choice of such an amplifier is, therefore, a rejection of the
musician's/producer's philosophy. The SET owner may be better off using a
'blameless' amplifier, with some tone controls and a little additional
distortion and noise.

Whilst not stated in the graphs, we also need to understand what constitutes
a *proper* amplifier. A proper amplifier is the *ideal* source. IOW: It
neither adds, nor subtracts anything to the music. Fundamentally, a SET
fails this simple test very early on. Most amplifiers are rated for XX Watts
@ 8 Ohms. Fine, as far as it goes, but the ideal amplifier will be rated for
XX Volts output. IOW: It will maintain XX Volts, regardless of load
impedance. Or, to put it another way: An ideal amplifier, rated for 100
Watts @ 8 Ohms, will deliver 200 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 400 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so
on. Naturally, in the real world, this is an impossibility. However, some
amplifiers do come pretty close, provided saturation effects are taken into
account. For example, if we examine a typical, quality, push pull amplifier,
rated at 100 Watts @ 8 Ohms. The same amplifier might, typically, deliver
150 Watts @ 4 Ohms and 175 Watts @ 2 Ohms. This allows for a choice of
speakers and, as the vast majority of loudspeakers do not exhibit a
perfectly resistive impedance characteristic, is a darned good idea.

A SET amplifier, OTOH, might be rated for (say) 10 Watts @ 8 Ohms. It's 4
Ohm power, therefore, be less than 5 Watts. It's 2 Ohm power will be less
than 2.5 Watts. It is the complete and almost perfect antithesis of a
theoretically ideal amplifier. An ok choice, IF you happen to be using a
perfectly resistive load. For anything else (particularly ESLs), it is the
worst possible choice.

SETs are a fashion statement. They're not serious high fidelity products.
Their promoters are, at best, deluded. At worst, cynical opportunists.

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Building my own valve amp
 

"we can see audible flaws" v. "we can see no obviously audible
flaws." (Trevor)

This is really the problem with your thinking here. You can't "see"
sound in its entirity. You can "see" a representation which, like all
representations, is merely acting in place of the original. I can see
quite clearly that your desire to refer your arguments to such
representations is seductive to your own ways of analysis, but it's
clear from our panel of "SET idiots" here that it doesn't satisfy the
musical brains of discriminating listeners who need to actually hear
those minute musical differences which, for instance, discriminate
between a Stradivarius and a practice violin.

The choice of such an amplifier is, therefore, a rejection of the
musician's/producer's philosophy.

A musician isn't a producer. A musician has ears, not philosophies of
sound. A musician would no more buy a Stradivarius because of its
frequency response plots than he would.........
(here comes to mind the immortal words of my harmony tutor at the
Royal Academy of Music in London "Andy, Beethoven would no more have
written that chord than he would have ****ed his own mother...)

Do musicians flock to concert halls to look at scores of the Rite of
Spring? Of course not - they listen to sound like we all do. Why are
you so hung up about representations? The rest of us listen to the
stuff we build and judge with our ears.

You're going to tell us now that our ears are inadequate to hear sound
- I can just see you creeping round the corner as I write.

Building my own valve amp
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Here is another, quite decent amplifier (US$899.00):

http://stereophile.com/integratedamp...ad/index5.html


Ahh, so what you are suggesting, is that anyone who decides to spend
more than £450 on a solid state amplifier is a "idiot" (never saw your
definition BTW). I could live with that as a logical argument.

So, what is it that you make again?

--
Nick

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
...


**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'....


*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...



*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....


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


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


*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?)



Is that about it?

And you call me "stupid".


You bring it on yourself.



Wake up and smell the coffee.


Don't need to.

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

(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...)

Building my own valve amp
 

What's interesting about Trevor is that he is simultaneously saying
that you can "see" the sound of an amp from representations of it, but
on no account should you trust anything but your ears because you HAVE
to hear before making your choice.

Then he turns around to people who have done exactly that - chosen
SETs with their ears - and says that they should have made their
judgement on the basis of visual response plots.

Hmmmm. Is this a case of "he who has the most internal contradictions
shouts loudest for rational thought?"