And another one!
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Oh - building valve equipment is actually more difficult than
transistor stuff.

But building with valves is a lot more fun:-) I've done plenty
of both over the years. And as someone pointed out, valves
are far more forgiving. You can set the bias slowly, and watch
the anodes glow cherry red:-)

PCBs take away one of the most interesting stages -
planning ther physical layout. Vero board looks very
Heath Robinson.

Making your own PCBs is part of the fun. And doing the layout manually -
not computer generated. That you think the only option is vero board says
you've not done much one off construction.

I have a PC board design programme and access to a
UV box/etching room. I drew the board for a cascode
preamp of which twenty were been sold. I have one at
home in daily use. But personally I prefer turret boards
for valve projects.

Given the better valve makers went over to PCBs for predictable results
why stick with a bird's nest?

Bird's nest?
Anyone who has ever built a valve amp knows that bird's
nests never work. Mil spec turret boards are still use by
bespoke valve amp makers.

I would post a link to some pics, but I know you
can't be bothered to look at anything that might disprove
your prejudices, Dave:-)


Iain

And another one!
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Making your own PCBs is part of the fun. And doing the layout manually
- not computer generated. That you think the only option is vero board
says you've not done much one off construction.

I have a PC board design programme and access to a
UV box/etching room.

As I said, doing the layout manually is part of the fun. PC board design
programmes not. And I have my own equipment for producing them. Not a
'room' though. Sounds like you've never actually made such a thing. ;-)

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

And another one!
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


I have a PC board design programme and access to a
UV box/etching room.

Whilst PCB design software is invaluable for complex logic boards, it is
hardly necessary for simple analogue amplifiers. I would far rather lay out
such boards manually than bother with computer design aids..

Given the better valve makers went over to PCBs for predictable results
why stick with a bird's nest?

Whilst PCBs were widely used for mass-produced valve equipment, especially
TVs, in the 1960s they were not without problems. The heat conducted through
the valve pins, or through the lead-outs of high-wattage resistors, caused
localised over-heating and charring of the (invariably SRBP) board. This
lead to the need to use things such as long-pinned valveholders which are
likely no longer available.

Bird's nest?
Anyone who has ever built a valve amp knows that bird's
nests never work.

They may not look neat, but they can, and do, work.

Mil spec turret boards are still use by
bespoke valve amp makers.

OK for audio, no use for RF because of the long lead-lengths involved.

David.

And another one!
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Making your own PCBs is part of the fun. And doing the layout manually
- not computer generated. That you think the only option is vero board
says you've not done much one off construction.

I have a PC board design programme and access to a
UV box/etching room.

As I said, doing the layout manually is part of the fun. PC board design
programmes not. And I have my own equipment for producing them. Not a
'room' though. Sounds like you've never actually made such a thing. ;-)


One group I worked in during my time with BT had it's own darkroom for PCB
manufacture. I could design a circuit in the morning, design and make the
PCB, populate it and have it working on the bench the same day. Happy days!

David.

And another one!
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...

Oh - building valve equipment is actually more difficult
than transistor stuff.

But building with valves is a lot more fun:-) I've done
plenty of both over the years. And as someone pointed
out, valves are far more forgiving. You can set the bias slowly, and
watch the anodes glow cherry red:-)

Tubes are better for people who don't know what they are doing, are
careless, and/or have slow reaction times.

PCBs take away one of the most interesting stages -
planning ther physical layout. Vero board looks very
Heath Robinson.

False as anybody who has actually designed PCBs will attest.

In valve amps, point-to-point can give unexpected results.
Tag boards can still be bought, and good old mil spec
turret boards are still readily available.

You can get unexpected results no matter how you do it, even PCBs.

I have reduced residual distortion and noise by maybe 5:1 by correcting PCB
layouts.

And another one!
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


I have a PC board design programme and access to a
UV box/etching room.

Whilst PCB design software is invaluable for complex logic boards, it is
hardly necessary for simple analogue amplifiers. I would far rather lay
out such boards manually than bother with computer design aids..

Yup. It's a part I particularly enjoy. Bit like a jigsaw puzzle. It's a
hobby that just sometimes pays for itself.

Given the better valve makers went over to PCBs for predictable
results why stick with a bird's nest?

Whilst PCBs were widely used for mass-produced valve equipment,
especially TVs, in the 1960s they were not without problems. The heat
conducted through the valve pins, or through the lead-outs of
high-wattage resistors, caused localised over-heating and charring of
the (invariably SRBP) board. This lead to the need to use things such as
long-pinned valveholders which are likely no longer available.

For home construction you can mix and match the best of both. No reason to
mount a valve holder direct to the PCB where that valve generates a lot of
heat.

Bird's nest?
Anyone who has ever built a valve amp knows that bird's
nests never work.

They may not look neat, but they can, and do, work.

Mil spec turret boards are still use by
bespoke valve amp makers.

OK for audio, no use for RF because of the long lead-lengths involved.

There is rarely one answer to every problem. Not something Iain likes to
admit with his narrow minded approach to things. ;-)

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

And another one!
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
As I said, doing the layout manually is part of the fun. PC board
design programmes not. And I have my own equipment for producing them.
Not a 'room' though. Sounds like you've never actually made such a
thing. ;-)


One group I worked in during my time with BT had it's own darkroom for
PCB manufacture. I could design a circuit in the morning, design and
make the PCB, populate it and have it working on the bench the same
day. Happy days!

Oh indeed. But not much use now you no longer work for them.;-) I have a
home made UV box and temperature controlled bubble tank. Work just fine
for my stuff. Ie anything size wise you'd need for most audio etc
equipment.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

And another one!
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
But building with valves is a lot more fun:-) I've done
plenty of both over the years. And as someone pointed
out, valves are far more forgiving. You can set the bias slowly, and
watch the anodes glow cherry red:-)

Tubes are better for people who don't know what they are doing, are
careless, and/or have slow reaction times.

What I do find surprising is those who are so shoddy with design and
construction they find valves forgiving are still here to tell the tale,
given the voltages involved...

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

And another one!
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
DIY 'audio' without 'tubes or vinyl' is very difficult and certainly
beyond the reach of someone like me who has no 'technical background'
but was able, just for a while, to pull it together enough to build two
amps (one of them a kit, the other a pile of components and a circuit
diagram), a 3 box valve phono stage (kit) and six pairs of speakers
(piles of board, speaker drive units and drawings) -

So in what way did this require vinyl? Did you also make the turntable,
arm and cartridge? If not it applies to any source like a CD player etc.


Turntables, carts and arms are easier to fiddle with and make a difference
than CD players or radio receivers, in my book. Feel free to disagree.




Oh - building valve equipment is actually more difficult than transistor
stuff.

three of which are
in daily use and have been complimented to death by visitors to here.

Interesting. You mention six pairs of speakers.


Seven actually, if you count a brief fling with a pair of 'open baffle'
speakers.


All presumably different.


Not quite, I made two pairs of the 'Cyburg Needles' one of which is now in
Brussels and much cherished by the person I made them for. After receiving
them, he went on to build a bigger pair of 'firewood horns' himself!


But 'complimented to death' by your visitors. Which merely shows they're
not picky and or lack experience of such things.


Your crystal ball needs a polish, you getting it all wrong again - most of
the people who have heard the speakers here and complimented them are
lifelong 'audio enthusiasts': one of them is making a pair of the
aforementioned Cyburg's Needles for himself; one immediately swapped his
'normal' speakers for a pair of horns with Lowther drive units and one was
very happy to receive a 'spare pair' from me and has them in daily use.
Others have expressed their regret that they don't have the room for them -
'WAF', I suspect! :-)

(It helps to explain that the trouble with 'firewood horns' is that, no
matter how much you like making them, you soon run out of space for them!
:-)


It also means you can't
have been much satisfied by any of them if you kept on building different
ones.


Oh dear, more crocked-up crystal ball gazing! Read da words: "three of which
are in daily use"...??!!??

For anyone who is interested, the speaker building programme went like this:

First pair - Buschhorn Mk 2:

My oft-mentioned 'Pinkies' - ludicrous deep bass for speakers with drivers
that measure only 3 inches across! The pinpoint imaging you get from these
single driver speakers and the exceptional clarity means these they are
completely transparent and absolutely perfect for my second cinema setup
with the words coming directly from the actor's mouths and the background
noises so '3D' and well defined they beat the 5.1 setup we have on the
'main' cinema setup which uses B&W and Tannoy speakers on a Sony amp. In
fact, the sound to the Buschhorns is actually routed through a Yamaha
subwoofer but I hardly ever remember to use it!

These speakers are so good that a number of people produce them for sale on
a commercial basis - against the designer's wishes who put the design into
the public domain.

Second pair - Cyburg's Needles:

Ludicrous good sound from such a tiny pair of speakers with drivers less
than 3 inches across - car door speakers. The sound is so fulsome I have
pulled one or two people's legs and had them looking for a subwoofer which
doesn't exist! They are on my radio/computer setup and are working most of
the day - I am so used to the sound it is my 'norm'!! They are so impressive
a friend of mine is building a pair for himself, but illness has turned it
into a long old job!

Third pair - Fostex design:

Another pair made to a Fostex design and very similar to the Buschhorns. I
used a slightly larger Visaton 'car door speaker' and fitted the grilles
which can be obtained for these drivers. They have gone to a friend (ex
poster now lurker here) with young children and the grilles keep the little
fingers out! He is delighted with them and AFAIK uses them regularly,

Fourth pair - Cyburg's Needles:

Another pair of Cyburg's Needles for a friend of mine in Brussels. He was
knocked out by them and they enouraged hime to make a larger pair (similar
but different to the Buschhorns) himself. My only concern here is the
Needles to to be back against a wall to get the right bass reinforcement and
the photos of the show them to be well out into the room, where they will
not sound best.

Fifth pair - Jerichos:

My only failure - because I would not follow the design route for speaker
drive units and 'notch filter' circuitry! They were huge (way to big for
here) and expensive to make. They never did sound right despite efforts with
the drivers I had to hand, but I did not want to risk the expensive German
drivers which the design recommended but which need circuitry I didn't want
to get into. I eventually gave the cabinets to a friend to play about with
and I suspect they have gone on a bonfire now. Sadly, these were the only
one's Serge got to hear when he came over.

Sixth pair - Fidelios:

When I built these and fitted Lowther drive units they blew the Jerichos out
of the water. Madr specifically for use with mu 31/2 watt SET amp, they have
all the attrubutes I was looking for and are *perfect* for my
valves/vinyl/horns 'Holy Trinity'! I had originally fitted near top of the
range EX4s but I swapped them for the current lowly PM2Cs, which I prefer.
Maybe not to everyone's taste but, from what I can gather, most
'Lowtherians' will settle for nothing else!!

There you are, then! There was also a pair of OBs I played with for a short
while as it was a fad with the 'building circle' that I got to meet from
time to time - they were surprisingly good but the bass got from them was
more imagined than real!

All Googlable, but I have pix of just about everything available if anybody
wants me to post summat.

Oh, and perhaps I should repeat for the umpteenth time: I also have Ruarks,
B&Ws and Tannoy 'normal' speakers here on the go here and have tried *no
end* of other 'normal' speakers of almost every imaginable make before I get
more silly *presumptious* and erroneous, guesser posts from a certain
quarter! ;-)

And another one!
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Making your own PCBs is part of the fun. And doing the layout manually
- not computer generated. That you think the only option is vero board
says you've not done much one off construction.

I have a PC board design programme and access to a
UV box/etching room.

As I said, doing the layout manually is part of the fun. PC board design
programmes not. And I have my own equipment for producing them. Not a
'room' though. Sounds like you've never actually made such a thing. ;-)


Sounds like you are calling Iain a *liar* with almost every response you
make to his posts without actually using the word...??