"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

in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 1/22/08 7:12 PM:

On Jan 22, 10:30*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message

...



"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"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).

And those pre-war WE cinema amplifiers that were referred to in another
thread had one or two stages of push-pull amplification before the output
stage. But then they were money-no-object designs, designed to produce the
best performance possible with the technology of their time.

**Pre-zactly. Since the advent of push-pull, SE has been negated, except in
cheap, crappy amplifiers.

Trevor Wilson

Let's hear that again?

Since the advent of push-pull, SE has been negated,

Then why are you spending so much time, Wilson, trying to stem the
tide of SE amps chosen by sophisticated music lovers?

except in
cheap, crappy amplifiers.

Eh? Most SE amps built or bought by audiophiles are not far off the
price of a reasonable used car.

Do you ever reread these vomitings you send out, Wilson, and reflect
that their irrationality and ignorance cannot reflect well on you?

Unsigned out of exasperation with this idiot Wilson



* * * * * * *


Andre,

You had this discussion with Trevor back in 2005. Your point of view,
quoted below, was distinctly different then.

From the Google groups archive, December 18, 2005, Andre Jute wrote:

"The truth is, Trevor, that my personal taste and the winner in blind
tests with the musicians (still unspecified, if you don't mind) I like
to use, as well as other qualified persons, is for small Class A
push-pull trioded pentodes operated at low power with zero negative
feedback. The best amp I ever designed is my T113 Class A PP EL34 in
triode mode (its switchable, actually) with zero or very little
negative feedback (also tunable in my own copy). That doesn't mean I
abhor SET or solid state. I have and use both, too. Nor does the choice
necessarily have anything to do with your reasons above."

Yo Bro', whassup wid dat?

Jon

"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.

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

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.

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)

"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.

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

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

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.