|
|
The Schumpeter Solution
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 multipliciton stages of triodes operating single-ended, and the diehards who with a convulsive kneejerks 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. 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
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. 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
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. 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. indeed :-) Rob |
The Schumpeter Solution
"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. |
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
"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. David. |
The Schumpeter Solution
"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 |
The Schumpeter Solution
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 |
The Schumpeter Solution
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. 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. It consumes about 120W for stereo. That's *less* draw at full power than the Quad 405 MkII. A 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. But the amazing thing here isn't your carelessness with the numbers but the hubris of telling me how your flavour of an obscenely expensive hobby is saving he planet! The only reason I'm not sarcastic about it is that your flavour, the Quad 405, is also one of my flavours. Andre Jute Catholic tastes |
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
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 |
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. |
The Schumpeter Solution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... 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. Yes he can. From an electrical (electronic) engineering point of view, the amp is obviously efficient as it isn't pumping out heat. From a production engineering point of view it is inefficient as it could have been made a few dollars cheaper with a smaller hotter heat sink. Personally my sympathies are with the electrical engineering side and I would have thought that yours would be too. Keith |
The Schumpeter Solution
In article ,
keithr wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... 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. Yes he can. From an electrical (electronic) engineering point of view, the amp is obviously efficient as it isn't pumping out heat. From a production engineering point of view it is inefficient as it could have been made a few dollars cheaper with a smaller hotter heat sink. The heat sink is part of the case which sort of determines the size and is part of the visual appeal of the design. Personally my sympathies are with the electrical engineering side and I would have thought that yours would be too. Only when it suits his argument of the moment. ;-) -- *Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Schumpeter Solution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
... On Jan 24, 9:02 am, "David Looser" wrote: 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. Listen, sonny, you originally mentioned the heatsink in an apparent attempt to prove that the 405 was electrically inefficient because it needed a big heatsink. Now, having failed to do that, you are trying to save face by using the word in a entirely different sense. Your weaselling does not impress me for a moment. As you yourself mentioned an overspecified heatsink helps with long-term reliability, but my point about appearance is also true, looks do matter commercially for any HiFi product. Also that heatsink is a major structural component of the amp, if it wasn't there some other structural element would be needed to replace it which would not necessarily be significantly cheaper. 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. Not what *you* were talking about you mean. You were the one who dragged the heatsink into this argument. 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. Who's talking about "worrying about the cost"? Is this another tangent you are going off on in a desperate attempt to "win"? In real life, anyone with a PSE 300B also has other amps, A very interesting comment. Why isn't a PSE300B good enough on it's own? I have a set of WE 300B with 14K hours which are just nicely burned in. If you say so. 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 Pardon?, is your definition of a "Marxist" - "someone who has the effrontery to argue with the great Andre Jute"? 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. But then SETs are not "efficient relative to relevant competitive components" at all. On the contrary they are inefficient "relative to relevant competitive components". Competitive components are those with a similar power output. You seem to want to compare apples with oranges, or low powered SETs with much more powerful amps of alternative architectures. And small SETs are small, too, once you have the right perspective. But I doubt you will ever get it. Oh wow! "the right persepective", I can guess what that means. 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. I shall let you have the last word. You've been a disappointment to me, David Looser. I can well understand that you are disappointed to find that I am not taken in by your bull****. David. |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:51:15 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote: I can well understand that you are disappointed to find that I am not taken in by your bull****. David. David, please just killfile him. He is a failure with delusions of adequacy. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 25, 3:36*am, "keithr" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... 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. Yes he can. From an electrical (electronic) engineering point of view, the amp is obviously efficient as it isn't pumping out heat. From a production engineering point of view it is inefficient as it could have been made a few dollars cheaper with a smaller hotter heat sink. Personally my sympathies are with the electrical engineering side and I would have thought that yours would be too. Keith Gee, that's a very convenient place you snipped my text, for in the very next paragraph I say that I too choose the electrical engineering side: 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 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 Jan 25, 10:01*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , * *keithr wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... 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. Yes he can. From an electrical (electronic) engineering point of view, the amp is obviously efficient as it isn't pumping out heat. From a production engineering point of view it is inefficient as it could have been made a few dollars cheaper with a smaller hotter heat sink. The heat sink is part of the case which sort of determines the size and is part of the visual appeal of the design. Personally my sympathies are with the electrical engineering side and I would have thought that yours would be too. Only when it suits his argument of the moment. ;-) Yup. Those of use with the sense to own Quad 405 Mk II can make that argument at every moment for a quarter-century (at least), as I did in the very next par that Keith snipped in order for his point to appear temporarily valid: "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." -- *Friends help you move. *Real friends help you move bodies. True friends understand when you have to drop them off. Goodbye, Plowie, you've outlived your usefulness. * * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW * * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound. Andre Jute Listening to Bach's Cantata 199, My Heart Swims in Blood -- and so it bloody well should |
The Schumpeter Solution
In article
, Andre Jute wrote: The heat sink is part of the case which sort of determines the size and is part of the visual appeal of the design. Personally my sympathies are with the electrical engineering side and I would have thought that yours would be too. Only when it suits his argument of the moment. ;-) Yup. Those of use with the sense to own Quad 405 Mk II can make that argument at every moment for a quarter-century (at least), as I did in the very next par that Keith snipped in order for his point to appear temporarily valid: "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." -- *Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. True friends understand when you have to drop them off. Goodbye, Plowie, you've outlived your usefulness. Oh. Another who wants acolytes. Doesn't seem to be working. Andre Jute Listening to Bach's Cantata 199, My Heart Swims in Blood -- and so it bloody well should Wonder by that what normally flows in your heart? -- *If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Schumpeter Solution
Andre Jute
Listening to Bach's Cantata 199, My Heart Swims in Blood -- and so it bloody well should Indeed!.. And a fine performance by the late very great Ms Hunt Liberson who I had the privilege of hearing at the proms a few years ago now. And now sadly gone before her time thanks to what we all enjoy but endlessly argue over is still he))..... http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Rec...-Craig-C03.jpg -- Tony Sayer |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 26, 10:02 am, tony sayer wrote:
Andre Jute Listening to Bach's Cantata 199, My Heart Swims in Blood -- and so it bloody well should Indeed!.. And a fine performance by the late very great Ms Hunt Liberson who I had the privilege of hearing at the proms a few years ago now. And we should occassionally remember to raise our glasses to the the recording engineers as well... And now sadly gone before her time thanks to what we all enjoy but endlessly argue over is still he))..... As C. Bartoli said a few years ago after I announced that I'd already invented enough witty stuff she woulda wanted to say to fill my column, so we could immediately get down to what really matters, "You brought more of that super chocolate!" http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Rec...-Craig-C03.jpg Thanks for the tip, Tony. I don't have that one but that is easily remedied. -- The BWV 199 I mentioned was added because it is on a disc featuring the countertenor Andreas Scholl, a favourite of mine, with the excellent Barbara Schlick. Or I might just have added it because my habit through the 90s was to prefer the disc from the Harmonia Mundi label, or anything distributed by HM (this particular disc is on Auvidis, distributed by HM), unless the alternative was by a known- good artist. Whoever was in charge at HM during the years I built up the major part of my collection was either too godawfully lucky to fit any know statistical format or had the most enviable taste. In Bach cantata getting me to deviate from the Ton Koopman complete set on Erato (which anyway also has the ubiquitous Barbara Schlick), or duplicating part of, is a hard job, but Scholl will always tempt me... Tony Sayer Andre Jute Music lovers before audiophiles |
A cruel farewell, was The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 26, 9:25*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , * *Andre Jute wrote: *Friends help you move. *Real friends help you move bodies. True friends understand when you have to drop them off. Goodbye, Plowie, you've outlived your usefulness. Oh. Another who wants acolytes. Doesn't seem to be working. Don't be like that, Dave. It's nothing personal, just pleasure. I've replaced you with a nubile who plays an instrument and has a novel under construction, whom I introduce to my literary friends as "my musical protege" (because they know she can't write worth ****) and to my musical friends as "my literary protege" (because they know she can't play worth ****) and to my family as "your new niece" (because they know better already). Take your shirt off in front of the mirror, Dave, and ask yourself why I shouldn't prefer an, er, acolyte. Hey, thanks for the word though. So much less hackneyed than "niece". Andre Jute Listening to Bach's Cantata 199, My Heart Swims in Blood -- and so it bloody well should Wonder by that what normally flows in your heart? Your German is slipping. This is about flows around the heart. Of course, I'm all heart, so inside and outside is the same. Ciao, Dave. It was educational knowing a bionic man. My your transistors never transist. Andre Jute Too sensitive for this world |
The Schumpeter Solution
In article
s.com, Andre Jute scribeth thus On Jan 26, 10:02 am, tony sayer wrote: Andre Jute Listening to Bach's Cantata 199, My Heart Swims in Blood -- and so it bloody well should Indeed!.. And a fine performance by the late very great Ms Hunt Liberson who I had the privilege of hearing at the proms a few years ago now. And we should occassionally remember to raise our glasses to the the recording engineers as well... And now sadly gone before her time thanks to what we all enjoy but endlessly argue over is still he))..... As C. Bartoli said a few years ago after I announced that I'd already invented enough witty stuff she woulda wanted to say to fill my column, so we could immediately get down to what really matters, "You brought more of that super chocolate!" http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Rec...-Craig-C03.jpg Thanks for the tip, Tony. I don't have that one but that is easily remedied. -- The BWV 199 I mentioned was added because it is on a disc featuring the countertenor Andreas Scholl, a favourite of mine, with the excellent Barbara Schlick. Or I might just have added it because my habit through the 90s was to prefer the disc from the Harmonia Mundi label, or anything distributed by HM (this particular disc is on Auvidis, distributed by HM), unless the alternative was by a known- good artist. Whoever was in charge at HM during the years I built up the major part of my collection was either too godawfully lucky to fit any know statistical format or had the most enviable taste. In Bach cantata getting me to deviate from the Ton Koopman complete set on Erato (which anyway also has the ubiquitous Barbara Schlick), or duplicating part of, is a hard job, but Scholl will always tempt me... Tony Sayer Andre Jute Music lovers before audiophiles Agree with that as I get older;))... -- Tony Sayer |
The Schumpeter Solution
For your edification, here is a guy (Yaeger) the Pathetic Dishonest Garbage
Peddler who spends dinner time on Christmas day (check the archives below) lurking on this NG, desperately trying to dig up anything on his superiors to please his Guru, Peter the Wiecked. Let's at least give him a pat on the back for this attempt, which obviously fizzled. west "Jon Yaeger" wrote in message ... 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 |
The Schumpeter Solution
On Jan 31, 4:04*am, "West" wrote:
For your edification, here is a guy (Yaeger) the Pathetic Dishonest Garbage Peddler who spends dinner time on Christmas day (check the archives below) lurking on this NG, desperately trying to dig up anything on his superiors to please his Guru, Peter the Wiecked. Let's at least give him a pat on the back for this attempt, which obviously fizzled. Yeah, poor Yaeger's attempt to attract my attention "fizzled" all right. I never saw it. I wouldn't have replied if I had. Yeager lacks the sophistication to understand that one may have several amps each of which is best or at least favourite for a different purpose. It is like a gentleman keeping at least one black automobile in his carriage house so that he may attend funerals. west Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ STATUTORY DECLARATION No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of Andre Jute's golem Peter Wieck aka Worthless Wieckless --- CE Certificate of Conformity "Jon Yaeger" wrote in message ... 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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
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