Building my own valve amp
 

"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"

I remember also that when asked how many tube amps
you had built in the past 25 years, the reply was "None"

And yet, here you are "advising" the OP about what *not*
to build.

What you lack in experience you certainly make up for in
prejudice:-)

In any case, performing a blind test between a SET amp and pretty much
anything else is a most sobering experience.

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


Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
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. I recall on another NG that TWwas asked directly how
many valve amps he had built in the past 20 or so years.
The answer was "None"

Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"max graff" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi guys,

I am planning on building my own valve amp and need a starting point
viz. books, forums etc. Any tips would be of good help.

**Just listen to a bunch of amps in your price range. Buy or build the
one
you like. Just for yuks, see if you can organise a blind test of the
amps.
That orta sort out the dodgy ones. For valve amps, unless you build it
PRECISELY the way you hear it (same valves, same output transformers,
etc)
you will be wasting your time.



It is *never* a waste if time, Trevor.
For many, that is the whole point of building a valve/tube amp. One can
try different brands of the same small signal tube. They will probably
have
identical very low distortion, but slightly differing distortion spectra.
Each will sound a little different - not necessarily better or worse -
but different. That's what people mean by "tube voicing"

It's a fascinating hobby.

**Far and away, the biggest variable with a valve amp is the output
transformer. By the time people have purchased half a dozen different
transformers, so they can vary the 'voicing' (as you put it), they will be
much poorer. THEN you can muck about with different valves. A much better
idea is to listen to a range of amps and select the one which suits.

Your method is incredibly inefficient and, ultimately, clumsy. It ain't
fascinating.


No. You misunderstand. One buys the best set of iron one can afford. In
the UK that means Sowter or Lundahl. German Welter is also very good.
There are others. Hammond comes near ythe bottom of the list.
There are others. You stick with that choice.

Voicing is done with valves/tubes, of the same type but different brand.
I am amazed you didn't know that.

Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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


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*....

Is that too simple??

Gosh Keith. You statement that "SETs add more depth and better imaging"
is incredibly deja-vu. It was a comment also made by another poster on
another NG a while ago, in another thread, which you probably have
not seen. Trevor took exception to this immediately, despite the fact
that it is an important and fundamental reason why people choose SET.

**I have never denied that microphonics (a form of distortion, well beyond
your ability to understand) is commonly mistaken for 'depth'.

Trevor Wilson

Building my own valve amp
 

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
.uk...
max graff wrote:

The bible is RDH4, which is enormously detailed and consequently turgid.
Easily found.

Like all good bibles, the audio bible is divided into
two testaments. The first is indeed RDH4. The second
is that wonderful 1200 page book by Howard Tremaine
called "Audio Cyclopedia"

Iain

Building my own valve amp
 

"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 ****.


I remember also that when asked how many tube amps
you had built in the past 25 years, the reply was "None"

**That much is correct. I ceased building valve equipment sometime around
1980. No point. Transistor technology had advanced to a point where valve
equipment offered no improvement in performance. Prior to that time, I was
using a valve preamp of my own construction. I found it significantly better
than any commercial transistor design. In 1980, I was presented with a
product (transistor) which caused me to revise my opinions, however. I have
never looked back. I will certainly acknowledge that I have heard a valve
preamp which is the equal of my transistor preamp. The Conrad Johnson
Premier 16. An utterly amazingly excellent preamp. Low distortion, very
quiet (low microphonics, too) and wide bandwidth. As good as my transistor
preamp and quite a steal at *only* ten times the price.


And yet, here you are "advising" the OP about what *not*
to build.

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


What you lack in experience you certainly make up for in
prejudice:-)

**My alleged lack of experience is in your own, deluded brain.


In any case, performing a blind test between a SET amp and pretty much
anything else is a most sobering experience.

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.

Trevor Wilson

Building my own valve amp
 

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:54:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**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.

snip


Keith was quite right though; it's almost impossible to find a dealer in
the UK that has *any* valve amps to listen to, never mind several to
compare. It just isn't feasible to hear quality valve sound without
building your own unless you have access to just a few of the top-line
dealers - who have no interest at all in giving you any tech information
whatever as they want the lucrative maintenance contract on the gear.


--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

Building my own valve amp
 

"Iain Churches" wrote


snip


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


Iain, I think the reality is that *most* people buy most of their audio
(and AV) kit *unheard* - I never heard any of the 'audio gear' I have
here until I had bought or built it!

(But I hear it *plenty* before I decide to keep it!! ;-)

See my response to Trevor for something of an explanation...

Building my own valve amp
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


a tidy up


**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
****.


Iain needs to gauge better how to play you without breaking the line....


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.


Correct. I see an amp I think might be of interest (from what experience
I have gathered) I grab it, haul it home and put it through its paces -
over a period of weeks or even months. If it makes the grade it stays,
if it don't it's gone and I am a little wiser by that amp. (Stupid
behaviour really - I only made 600 quid profit on the 'blameless' but
boring* Technics... ;-)

Same with speakers - build 'em and run 'em - bigger gamble that one, my
biggest cabinets are down in the garage *on hold*!!

Turntables? Feck me, half the fun of 'em is to make them sing! (Then you
end up with 3 of 'em under the bed, like I do atm!!)

Digital? What's to hear? What's to compare??

So it goes on - nothing more desperate in my book than some **** ****ing
about in a shop on the shop's kit trying to pick the better of two
bloody silly little overpriced SS amps, neither of which has got a power
supply big enough to run a decent Phono Stage...

If I were to be honest and someone asked me about a bit of kit that I
deemed (in my wisdom) to be at least *passable* I'd tell 'em 'just buy
the ****ing thing, take it home and get used to it'!


*No, I mean seriously ****ing boring - never mind the 'uncoloured' ****,
I mean *boring* like my attention wandered....

Building my own valve amp
 

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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


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*....

Is that too simple??

Gosh Keith. You statement that "SETs add more depth and better
imaging"
is incredibly deja-vu. It was a comment also made by another poster
on
another NG a while ago, in another thread, which you probably have
not seen. Trevor took exception to this immediately, despite the fact
that it is an important and fundamental reason why people choose SET.


I don't suscribe to any other group - that is my own judgement and
opinion.

(I also know what SETs *don't* do best!! ;-)