|
|
The Schumpeter Solution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... Small is also beautiful. The small is the genesis of the large. It's funny that some cannot grasp this fundamental concept with single ended triode (SET) amps. We routinely build preamps and voltage multiplication stages of triodes operating single-ended, and the diehards who with a convulsive kneejerk reject any amp without a push- pull power stage will be the last to let go of the single-ended gain stage, yet they cannot see that the small signal stage is a template for the sweetest power stage. What is sauce of quail must be sauce for the goose and the gander too. Very difficult to understand how some people think. **Speak for yourself. The best valve preamps I've ever heard are push pull (Alan Wright's fabulous balanced preamps spring to mind). Having said that, it is important to understand that _if_ a SE stage delivers inaudible levels of distortion and the load is resistive (which it pretty much is, within preamps), then there is no real problem. The problem with SE amplifiers is when they are burdened by output transformers. The massive DC flux within the transformer causes all sorts of problems, requiring heroic and completely silly solutions. Solutions which can be found simply, cheaply and easily by implementing that old idea of push pull. Trevor Wilson |
The Schumpeter Solution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
... Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. I've no idea, perhaps it looks nice. Even when used as part of a stage PA rig for an amateur musical (driving Bose SR speakers) it barely got warm to the touch. I have a PSE 300B amp that cost about 1600 Euro to build, about the price of a modern equivalent of the Quad 405 MkII. It's lasted fifteen years. And how many new valves has it needed in that time? It consumes about 120W for stereo. That's *less* draw at full power than the Quad 405 MkII. And for just how much of the time is a domestic HiFi amp used at anything even remotely near full power? The 405 and 44 pre-amp together consumes 35W most of the time, occasionally flicking up to around 50W or so on the loudest passages whilst driving my Tannoys. smaller SE 300B amp consumes about 50W for stereo and just idles along with horns but the 405 must draw down more than the SE amp to drive ESL-63 to the same SPL as the 300B drives the horns. Ah! you give different goal-posts to the two I see. A 405 must drive ESL-63s, whilst the SET amp can be allowed horns. That's a comparison between ESLs and horns, not between SETs and the 405. But the amazing thing here isn't your carelessness with the numbers I think I've pointed out that it's you who are being careless with numbers. but the hubris of telling me how your flavour of an obscenely expensive hobby is saving he planet! Hey! you started it with your inane suggestion that SET amps somehow or other fit the "small is beautiful" philosophy. David. |
The Schumpeter Solution
In article
s.com, Andre Jute scribeth thus On Jan 22, 5:03 pm, "David Looser" wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: Small is also beautiful. The small is the genesis of the large. Don't know about that. Schumpeter argued (in an analysis of western capitalism) that economics measures well-being by the standard of living (variously, average incomes and consumption). This is best achieved by maximising production and consumption. Buddhism (his 'foil' and the basis of the small thesis) does not measure well being as such, but consider that it is maximised when consumption is minimised. Basically this means that well being is not dependent on consumption - the 'given ends' (a difficult concept, granted, but take it as live in comfort perhaps) with the minimum means. An example might be hifi - why do we need all this stuff?! Large is a sort of antithesis, not genesis. Indeed, though I'm not sure that can be seen as a reason for using SET amplifiers. Their output power may be small, but as they are so inefficient their power consumption isn't. And the permanent dissatisfaction with what one already has (which is the basis of the audiophile philosophy) is the antithesis of the Schumpeter ideal. My Quad 405 may be "large", in the sense that it has an output power significantly greater than I really need, but it probably draws less energy from the mains than a SET amplifier does. Furthermore it has powered my main audio system for over 25 years without needing any replacement parts, so in terms of the energy used in manufacture and transport it has had a fairly low impact on the planet. David. Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. Prolly as their products went world-wide aimed for hotter climes?.. -- Tony Sayer |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 23, 8:54*am, "David Looser"
wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. I've no idea, perhaps it looks nice. Even when used as part of a stage PA rig for an amateur musical (driving Bose SR speakers) it barely got warm to the touch. But you're the one who told us how efficient the 405 is, David. Now we discover you believe that the heatsink is superfluous. Those are mutually inconsistent statements I have a PSE 300B amp that cost about 1600 Euro to build, about the price of a modern equivalent of the Quad 405 MkII. It's lasted fifteen years. And how many new valves has it needed in that time? Why, none. I must say, David, I'm surprised that you should, on no evidence whatsoever, assume that I treat my equipment as roughly as you apparently do yours. It consumes about 120W for stereo. That's *less* draw at full power than the Quad 405 MkII. And for just how much of the time is a domestic HiFi amp used at anything even remotely near full power? The 405 and 44 pre-amp together consumes 35W most of the time, occasionally flicking up to around 50W or so on the loudest passages whilst driving my Tannoys. smaller SE 300B amp consumes about 50W for stereo and just idles along with horns but the 405 must draw down more than the SE amp to drive ESL-63 to the same SPL as the 300B drives the horns. Ah! you give different goal-posts to the two I see. A 405 must drive ESL-63s, whilst the SET amp can be allowed horns. That's a comparison between ESLs and horns, not between SETs and the 405. But the amazing thing here isn't your carelessness with the numbers I think I've pointed out that it's you who are being careless with numbers.. but the hubris of telling me how your flavour of an obscenely expensive hobby is saving he planet! Hey! you started it with your inane suggestion that SET amps somehow or other fit the "small is beautiful" philosophy. Here you go again lumping all SET amps into one basket, and pouring a liberal helping of ignorant prejudice over the basket. If you want a SET that fits the "small is beautiful" philosophy, just cruise my netsite or ask me. Here http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/t...17acircuit.jpg http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg for instance, you will find my T68 "Minus Zero", a one-third watt SET amp which, for less draw from the wall than many battery amps, drives Lowther Horns to ecstasy. You anti-SET fanatics are even less rational and consistent than the audiophools who think a SET is the be-all and end-all of quality sound. Neither is interested in listening to reason, or capable of understanding that all such choices are subject to qualification. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review David. |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 23, 10:16*am, tony sayer wrote:
In article s.com, Andre Jute scribeth thus On Jan 22, 5:03 pm, "David Looser" wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: Small is also beautiful. The small is the genesis of the large. Don't know about that. Schumpeter argued (in an analysis of western capitalism) that economics measures well-being by the standard of living (variously, average incomes and consumption). This is best achieved by maximising production and consumption. Buddhism (his 'foil' and the basis of the small thesis) does not measure well being as such, but consider that it is maximised when consumption is minimised. Basically this means that well being is not dependent on consumption - the 'given ends' (a difficult concept, granted, but take it as live in comfort perhaps) with the minimum means. An example might be hifi - why do we need all this stuff?! Large is a sort of antithesis, not genesis. Indeed, though I'm not sure that can be seen as a reason for using SET amplifiers. Their output power may be small, but as they are so inefficient their power consumption isn't. And the permanent dissatisfaction with what one already has (which is the basis of the audiophile philosophy) is the antithesis of the Schumpeter ideal. My Quad 405 may be "large", in the sense that it has an output power significantly greater than I really need, but it probably draws less energy from the mains than a SET amplifier does. Furthermore it has powered my main audio system for over 25 years without needing any replacement parts, so in terms of the energy used in manufacture and transport it has had a fairly low impact on the planet. David. Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. Prolly as their products went world-wide aimed for hotter climes?.. -- Tony Sayer Prolly. And equally prolly to ensure that prized longevity. Overspeccing for durability is perfectly legitimate; I was just checking if Looser is a standard issue anti-SET hothead or knows how to engage his his mind in gear. He doesn't. Andre Jute Relentless rigour -- Caligula (as per Robert Graves) |
The Schumpeter Solution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Jan 23, 8:54 am, "David Looser" wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. I've no idea, perhaps it looks nice. Even when used as part of a stage PA rig for an amateur musical (driving Bose SR speakers) it barely got warm to the touch. But you're the one who told us how efficient the 405 is, David. Now we discover you believe that the heatsink is superfluous. Those are mutually inconsistent statements I see you are quick to resort to "strawman" arguments, no surprise there. In any case your logic is flawed, if an amplifier is efficient it wastes less energy in the form of heat, so needs less in the way of heatsinking. I have a PSE 300B amp that cost about 1600 Euro to build, about the price of a modern equivalent of the Quad 405 MkII. It's lasted fifteen years. And how many new valves has it needed in that time? Why, none. I must say, David, I'm surprised that you should, on no evidence whatsoever, assume that I treat my equipment as roughly as you apparently do yours. 15 years of normal domestic service probably equates to around 20,000 hours of use. Just how much have your DHTs deteriorated in that time? Hey! you started it with your inane suggestion that SET amps somehow or other fit the "small is beautiful" philosophy. Here you go again lumping all SET amps into one basket, and pouring a liberal helping of ignorant prejudice over the basket. YOU were the one who lumped them all in the same basket!, I see your determination to blame others for your own actions continues. I may be "prejudiced" (as indeed is everyone who holds an opinion), but it is not based on ignorance. If you want a SET that fits the "small is beautiful" philosophy, just cruise my netsite or ask me. Here for instance, you will find my T68 "Minus Zero", a one-third watt SET amp which, for less draw from the wall than many battery amps, drives Lowther Horns to ecstasy. If 1/3rd of a watt drives Lowther horns "to ecstasy", then an alternative design of 1/3rd watt amp will do so more efficiently. This is still no justification for claiming that SET amps are "small". Small amps are small. You anti-SET fanatics are even less rational and consistent than the audiophools who think a SET is the be-all and end-all of quality sound. Neither is interested in listening to reason, or capable of understanding that all such choices are subject to qualification. I'm really not that interested in SET amps either way. I just get ****ed-off by people trying to justify their own prejudices by making nonsensical comparisons. David. |
The Schumpeter Solution
In article , tony sayer
wrote: In article s.com, Andre Jute scribeth thus Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. Prolly as their products went world-wide aimed for hotter climes?.. I suspect he may have had IHFA707 in mind... ;- That was the test which came into use to try and deal with makers inventing bloated power ratings. The snag was that it defined that any test had to be done with the amp 'pre conditioned' by being run at 1/3rd the rated power for an hour before the power was checked at the rated amount. Useful as a test for weeding out amps with bogus power claims, but had little to do with use for most music which - in those days at least - had crest factors well over 10 in most cases. Although I have my doubts how common that is nowdays. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 24, 9:02*am, "David Looser"
wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Jan 23, 8:54 am, "David Looser" wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included that large, expensive heatsink at the back. I've no idea, perhaps it looks nice. Even when used as part of a stage PA rig for an amateur musical (driving Bose SR speakers) it barely got warm to the touch. But you're the one who told us how efficient the 405 is, David. Now we discover you believe that the heatsink is superfluous. Those are mutually inconsistent statements I see you are quick to resort to "strawman" arguments, no surprise there. In any case your logic is flawed, if an amplifier is efficient it wastes less energy in the form of heat, so needs less in the way of heatsinking. You can't have it both ways, sonny. You claim the Quad 405 is a model of efficiency. Then you tell us that in strenous use the huge Quad 405 heat sink does not get warm. Therefore the heatsink is overspecified and the amp is not efficient. An efficient amp would use its heatsink more efficiently. I'm just illustrating the futility of your weaseling, Looser. Me, I prefer my Quad 405 just like it is; that big heatsink is a factor in its longevity, a very worthwhile form of efficiency to me -- but that isn't what David is talking about. I have a PSE 300B amp that cost about 1600 Euro to build, about the price of a modern equivalent of the Quad 405 MkII. It's lasted fifteen years. And how many new valves has it needed in that time? Why, none. I must say, David, I'm surprised that you should, on no evidence whatsoever, assume that I treat my equipment as roughly as you apparently do yours. 15 years of normal domestic service probably equates to around 20,000 hours of use. Just how much have your DHTs deteriorated in that time? Man, if you have to worry about the cost of a quad of 300B every fifteen years, you can't afford a transistor amp, never mind a 300B. Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. In real life, anyone with a PSE 300B also has other amps, so a heavily used 300B will have about 10K hours on it. I have a set of WE 300B with 14K hours which are just nicely burned in. Hey! you started it with your inane suggestion that SET amps somehow or other fit the "small is beautiful" philosophy. Here you go again lumping all SET amps into one basket, and pouring a liberal helping of ignorant prejudice over the basket. YOU were the one who lumped them all in the same basket!, I see your determination to blame others for your own actions continues. I may be "prejudiced" (as indeed is everyone who holds an opinion), but it is not based on ignorance. If you want a SET that fits the "small is beautiful" philosophy, just cruise my netsite or ask me. Here for instance, you will find my T68 "Minus Zero", a one-third watt SET amp which, for less draw from the wall than many battery amps, drives Lowther Horns to ecstasy. If 1/3rd of a watt drives Lowther horns "to ecstasy", then an alternative design of 1/3rd watt amp will do so more efficiently. This is still no justification for claiming that SET amps are "small". Small amps are small.. The Marxists are alive and well and living in David Looser's head. Of course there is always a more efficient or smaller component available or just round the corner. That doesn't make a component that is efficient relative to relevant competitive components suddenly inefficient. And small SETs are small, too, once you have the right perspective. But I doubt you will ever get it. You anti-SET fanatics are even less rational and consistent than the audiophools who think a SET is the be-all and end-all of quality sound. Neither is interested in listening to reason, or capable of understanding that all such choices are subject to qualification. I'm really not that interested in SET amps either way. I just get ****ed-off by people trying to justify their own prejudices by making nonsensical comparisons. David. I shall let you have the last word. You've been a disappointment to me, David Looser. I hoped for much more when I noticed that you construct a grammatical sentence and commit none of the more irritating linguistic solecisms. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:23:19 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote: You can't have it both ways, sonny. You claim the Quad 405 is a model of efficiency. Then you tell us that in strenous use the huge Quad 405 heat sink does not get warm. Therefore the heatsink is overspecified and the amp is not efficient. An efficient amp would use its heatsink more efficiently. That isn't what "efficiency" means in this context, as well you know. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk