[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
wrote:

So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
output will be a triode SET.

No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something symmetrical, like
push-pull.



Sorry, I meant even harmonics and my prior reply to this post was BS.

CHeers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Soundhaspriority wrote:
snip
It seems possible to avoid that dilemma. I have never
experienced audible distortion due to overdriving a SS
amplifier, because I do not overdrive them.

Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! You've NEVER heard
distortion...in your life? Never
heard an overdriven car stereo, or AM radio? Never
wanted to get 'just a little more' out of a system and
went a little too far before you backed off? Never been
surprised by unexpectedly loud passage in a piece, which
drove your system into clipping? Ever?

That's an excluded middle argument.

Of course we've all heard overdriven amps. I sure have, and for the first 20
or so years of my life, they all had vacuum tubes.

A good quality tubed amp with loop feedback makes nice looking square waves
when overdriven, pretty much like a good SS amp does today.

The relevant point is that good clean SS power is relatively inexpensive and
reliable. High power from a SS amp is way under $0.50 per watt. In the days
of tubes, $1.00 per watt was an unachievable goal for quality power. Today,
that same tubed amp costs 6-10 times or more as much.

In order to have 300 wpc from a tubed amp, you need to have a lot of output
tubes which increases the cost of service pretty dramatically, because high
performance tubed amps need fresh tubes to keep their performance high. Then
you need a very expensive, large and heavy output transformer. Finally, the
power transformer needs to be larger because tubes are less efficient.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
wrote:
"In a word: YES...

"The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that
the device can pass or generate..."

Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes
There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is
triodes alone that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic
distortion. Pentodes generate odd harmonics just as
much as transistors do.

It is a myth that triodes generate only even harmonics.
In fact, tubes have basically exponential response,
which leads to the generation of a wide variety of
orders of distortion, both odd and even.

No, pentodes have an exponential transfer function like
BJTs do, but triodes have a simpler ^3/2 transfer
function which produces a different harmonic content.

In my book, what you call ^3/2 transfer function is
just another flavor of exponential.

I sujggest you get a better book.

Sue me for having a better general knowlege of math.

I also suggest you stop confusing "less odd harmonic" with "no odd
harmonic".

A ^3/2 transfer function can be read as the square root
of cubed, which is nothing like pure even order or pure
second order.

A simple expansion shows that the even order terms
dominate. See any book on tubes for details.

The same book says that there are significant odd-order terms. Maybe not
quite as big, but still there and audibly significant.

Furthermore, running tubes in either a balanced configuration (often done in
line level tubes amps used for audio production) or push-pull configuration
(done in any decent power amp) cancels out the even ordered terms very
nicely. Thus, the remaining odd-order terms are far more significant.

Bottom line is that most real-world tubed amps put out plenty of odd-order
distortion, no matter what kind of word games that the tubed amp bigots try
to play.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:56:14 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:



"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:01:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:



"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message ...
wrote:
"In a word: YES...

"The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that
the device can pass or generate..."

Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes


There is a lot missing from this article. First, it
is triodes alone that
generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes
generate odd harmonics
just as much as transistors do.

**So much nonsense, so little time to correct it. Why
this myth continues to
be perpetrated is a complete mystery. The TOPOLOGY
dictates what type of harmonics are generated, not the
devices.

Well, you're half right. They both dictate the
harmonics.

**I am 100% correct.

No, you're not.

Topology is the factor.

It's one factor.

Not the devices.

B.S.

Of course,
various devices DO contribute different distortion
amounts.

And different harmonic distributions as well.

For instance:

* At low bias currents, pentodes add large amounts of
distortion.
* At low bias current, triodes add smaller amounts of
distortion.
* At low bias currents, MOSFETs add very large amounts
of distortion.
* At low bias currents, BJTs add smaller amounts of
distortion.


Push pull eliminates even order
distortion products. Valve or solid state.

But does nothing for the odd orders, which are dictated
by the devices.

**Sure. ALL amplifying devices add odd order distortion.

Yes, but with different distributions.

So what?

With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the loop
hindering the proper use of loop feedback. It is far more economically
feasible to have large open loop gain. Thus despite all the intuitively
attractive but completely wrong-headed hand-waving arguments against loop
feedback, SS amps are able to use more of it. The net result is that SS amps
are far more linear, particularly at the ends of the audible range.

We've already had one tubie admit that even the best tubed amps make very
suboptimal subwoofer amps. Less-expensive tubes amps such as the classic
Dyna 70 and the amplifier sections of the better tubed receivers start
crapping out below 100 Hz which is well into the normal audible range for
even bookshelf speakers.


At moderate bias
currents, the approximate order is (from best to worst):

BJTs
Triodes
Pentodes
MOSFETs

At high bias currents, the order shifts somewhat to:

BJTs
MOSFETs
Triodes
Pentodes

Except for BJTs being the worst of the lot under all
conditions that's not too terribly screwed up.

It doesn't matter. Device linearity doesn't matter nearly as much as the
final performance of the finished product. One of the strong advantages of
SS is the ability to economically cascade stages to get higher open-loop
gain with low enough phase shift to provide superior stability margins at
all relevant frequencies.

It is the TOPOLOGY which dominates the issue of
distortion production, however.

Wrong.

Just saying it without supporting evidence is just meaningless posturing.

Depending on the amount of feedback employed, the
devices used
makes little difference.

Also wrong.

Just saying it without supporting evidence is just meaningless posturing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
wrote:

So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
output will be a triode SET.

No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something
symmetrical, like push-pull.


NO, PP CANCELS odd harmonics.

A totally false statement that any second-year engineering student would
recognize as being false.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
wrote:

So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
output will be a triode SET.

No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something
symmetrical, like push-pull.



Sorry, I meant even harmonics and my prior reply to this
post was BS.

Well, now having corrected yourself - deal with the issue that I raised.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 28, 11:48*pm, jakdedert wrote:

Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! *

Um... get with the program. This thread is a cross-posted unabashed
troll covering well-plowed, entirely exhausted ground without even a
scintilla of revealing, even useful information.

Is it any surprise that it brings out the crap-peddlers and bull****
artists? Those preaching revealed religion and those espousing their
closely-held-beliefs? The pretenders and the poseurs?

I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most brutish of
brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer level - and I find it
quite easy to drive either to clipping on certain passages at not-
quite-headbanging volume. Those who do not understand the power-curve
will _never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that a 60-
watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp... Draw your own
conclusions.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most
brutish of brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer
level - and I find it quite easy to drive either to
clipping on certain passages at not- quite-headbanging
volume.

First off, the restriction of "consumer level" is artificial. It is
well-known that if you are serious about amplifier power, you slip the surly
bonds of mere household appliances.

By modern standards, either is little more than a peanut-whistle.

Especially the Citation 16. It's only a little more powerful than the amps
in a modern $79 stereo receiver.

The most powerful amp produced at the consumer level that I could find with
a short search was rated at 960 watts into 8 ohm loads.


Those who do not understand the power-curve will
_never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that
a 60- watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp...


It is twice as powerful, but not twice as loud.

As we both know, twice as loud as a 30 watt amp takes about 300 watts. If
you want some serious amplifier power to play around with, you leave the
world of household appliances behind. A couple of Behringer EP2500s running
bridged into 4 ohm speakers gives you 1300 wpc. Now, you're talking the
beginnings of serious amplifier power.

Draw your own conclusions.

I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to artificially narrow the
field, and that even in that narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot
to be desired.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...
Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound.

Actually only a miniscule number of people have ever
heard it.

Maybe a small number of *young* people perhaps. The
number of older people who have heard tube equipment is
hardly "miniscule"!

Agreed - I suffered for about 20 years in tubed-only audio purgatory. Then
I got a serious dose of tube aversion therapy by being made responsible for
the 24/7 operation of pieces of military gear with about 400 tubes each.
That gear used advanced tube technology that is rarely used in audio to this
day. A bit ironic that said gear was designed to use the legendary 300B for
more like its intended use - a DC voltage regulator. By the time I got
there, the 300Bs had been replaced by solid-state plug-in modules.

To complete the story, The role of 5 major pieces from the days of tubes,
each a truck-trailer sized tubed military radar, two of which had their own
dedicated 45 Kw generators, has been replaced by a SS little something that
sits on the tailgate of a Hummer, has over 5 times the range and handles
about 100 times more concurrent targets.

[jamesgangnc]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:12:51 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
...


If you include the effects of real-world speaker loads, most tubed amps
have
audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of their far higher
source
impedance.

Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad performance of
tubed
amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy ones do rather
more
poorly in the bass.

All tube amps are expensive and heavy these days. No one is
advocating them for subwoofer drivers.

Any good push pull 6L6 or 6550 power amp will drive a classic
Klipsch, Altec or JBL setup to higher bass SPLs than any normal person
can tolerate. Headbangers wanting more should move out of town so as
not to disturb the rest of us.

Tubes are inherently bad devices to drive a low impedance load where as
solid state is perfectly happy being coupled directly to a speaker. You
can't make a tube current amp and that's what you need for audio.


The output of a 'tube' *is* current. It's 'input' is voltage. In this
respect they're like MOSFETs (or, rather, vice versa), both being
transconductance devices.

You could also make 'high current' tubes but the heater (and plate
dissipation) requirements would be excessive and it's more efficient
to take advantage of the high voltage operation to transformer
multiply the current.

Solid state devices aren't ideal either.
Don't say "you could but". The "but" is why you can't. And the output
transformer is half the problem with tube amps. Transformers are not clean
and it's impossible to make one behave consistently at both 20hz and 20khz.
Plus they are expensive. Extremely expensive if you want to run a lot of
watts through one. There is no "advantage" to the output transformer. The
transformer doesn't "improve" the amp. It's simply not possible to build a
tube amp without one. Where as a solid state amp can be designed to couple
directly to the load. The advantage of that circuit is obvious.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
wrote:
So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its
output will be a triode SET.
No, if you want mainly odd harmonics, you do something
symmetrical, like push-pull.


Sorry, I meant even harmonics and my prior reply to this
post was BS.

Well, now having corrected yourself - deal with the issue that I raised.




Which was?

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Lots of folks like the "warm" tube sound.

Actually only a miniscule number of people have ever heard it.

Maybe a small number of *young* people perhaps.

Probably most under 40 y.o.


The number of older people who have heard tube equipment is hardly
"miniscule"!

Good riddance in most cases, given the average quality of what was on offer to
the general masses.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the loop
hindering the proper use of loop feedback.

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
news
Don't say "you could but". The "but" is why you can't. And the output
transformer is half the problem with tube
amps.

Probably more than half of the performance problems with tubed amps is due
to the type of transformer that they require.

It is possible to build a transformer that has good response from 20-20 KHz
and maybe an octave or two on either side with acceptably low distortion,
but doing so with the required impedance levels and permissible costs is the
sticky point.

Transformers are not clean and it's impossible to
make one behave consistently at both 20 Hz and 20 kHz.

Can't knock all transformers, because there are transformers that perform
well-20-20K and extended both up and down. The ones I've seen that were
that good didn't handle high power levels. Secondly, McIntosh used to put
OPTs on their SS amps, and it didn't seem to hinder the amp's performance.
However they were a design that couldn't be retrofitted to your typical
tubed amp.

Plus they are expensive.

The good ones are expensive, big time!

Extremely expensive if you want to
run a lot of watts through one.

Agreed.

There is no "advantage" to the output transformer.

Not these days. Back in the early days of SS transformers were an expensive
solution to the limited voltage ratings of available devices, and they did
provide some short-circuit protection. However, high voltage SS devices
haven't been a problem for several decades.

The transformer doesn't "improve" the amp.

Agreed.

It's simply not possible to build a tube amp without one.

I wouldn't go that far. Futterman's ghost is still apparent. Whether it is
possible to build a practical tubed amp without an OPT is a different
question. Futterman's amps still managed to be heavy and expensive, OPT or
not.

Whereas a solid state amp can be designed to couple directly to the load.

Agreed.

The advantage of that circuit is obvious.

Agreed,

[Peter Wieck]

On May 29, 7:10*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message



I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most
brutish of brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer
level - and I find it quite easy to drive either to
clipping on certain passages at not- quite-headbanging
volume.

First off, the restriction of "consumer level" is artificial. It is
well-known that if you are serious about amplifier power, you slip the surly
bonds of mere household appliances.

By modern standards, either is little more than a peanut-whistle.

Especially the Citation 16. *It's only a little more powerful than the amps
in a modern $79 stereo receiver.

The most powerful amp produced at the consumer level that I could find with
a short search was rated at 960 watts into 8 ohm loads.

*Those who do not understand the power-curve will
_never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that
a 60- watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp...

It is twice as powerful, but not twice as loud.

As we both know, twice as loud as a 30 watt amp takes about 300 watts. *If
you want some serious amplifier power to play around with, you leave the
world of household appliances behind. *A couple of Behringer EP2500s running
bridged into 4 ohm speakers gives you 1300 wpc. Now, you're talking the
beginnings of serious amplifier power.

Draw your own conclusions.

I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to artificially narrow the
field, and that even in that narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot
to be desired.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

Thank you for fitting right in to its intent, Arny.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[jakdedert]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On May 28, 11:48 pm, jakdedert wrote:

Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off!

Um... get with the program. This thread is a cross-posted unabashed
troll covering well-plowed, entirely exhausted ground without even a
scintilla of revealing, even useful information.

Is it any surprise that it brings out the crap-peddlers and bull****
artists? Those preaching revealed religion and those espousing their
closely-held-beliefs? The pretenders and the poseurs?

I keep a Citation 16 and a Dynaco 416, two of the most brutish of
brute-force amps ever produced at the consumer level - and I find it
quite easy to drive either to clipping on certain passages at not-
quite-headbanging volume. Those who do not understand the power-curve
will _never_ get that sort of thing, and actually believe that a 60-
watt amp is twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp... Draw your own
conclusions.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yeah, well....

I kept out of the thread for the most part. Sometimes I can't resist
calling BS when I see it. I'll go back to my hole now.

jak

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

wrote:
"In a word: YES...

"The answer is rooted in the harmonic content that the device can pass
or generate..."

Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

There is a lot missing from this article. First, it is triodes alone
that generate pleasing 2nd harmonic distortion. Pentodes generate odd
harmonics just as much as transistors do.

Second the amount of distortion is level dependent. The output stages of
an amp create by far the most distortion. Any push pull amp output stage
will, by definition cancel most of the even order harmonics and leave
many nasty odd harmonics in the output - no better in that respect than
a transistor amp.

Yes, but the PP tube amp can easily have 0.03% THD at 1 watt levels
for excellent listening where THD/IMD is below audibility.

So how then is the distortion responsible for the different sound of an
amp?


So, the ONLY power amp with mainly odd harmonics in its output will be a
triode SET.

Your'e wrong, SE triode amps have THD comprising nearly all 2H almost up
to clipping.

3H, 5H, 7H, 9H are at extremely low levels at ordinary listening levels.

The kind of IMD produced in amplifiers is MUCH more important than the
THD itself.

The IMD produced in an SET is more benign than that produced in an amp
with a similar quantity of 3H, which would have to be a PP amp.

And don't forget, the amount of distortion is NFB dependant as well as
level dependant, and cancellation dependant.
And the PSU filtering needs to be good for good sound,
and the amount of class A needs to be high.....

Patrick Turner.




Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to
artificially narrow the field, and that even in that
narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot to be
desired.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".

Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter. You're not in this for
the sharing of opinions, but rather you chafe at the thought of a spirited
exchange. It is your way or the highway! :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:32:42 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:12:51 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
...


If you include the effects of real-world speaker
loads, most tubed amps have
audible issues inside the 20-20 kHz range because of
their far higher source
impedance.

Good thing you have nothing to say about the low bad
performance of tubed
amps, because all but the really expensive and heavy
ones do rather more
poorly in the bass.

All tube amps are expensive and heavy these days. No
one is advocating them for subwoofer drivers.

Any good push pull 6L6 or 6550 power amp will drive a
classic Klipsch, Altec or JBL setup to higher bass
SPLs than any normal person can tolerate.
Headbangers wanting more should move out of town so
as not to disturb the rest of us.

Tubes are inherently bad devices to drive a low
impedance load where as solid state is perfectly happy
being coupled directly to a speaker. You can't make a
tube current amp and that's what you need for audio.


The output of a 'tube' *is* current. It's 'input' is
voltage. In this respect they're like MOSFETs (or,
rather, vice versa), both being transconductance
devices.

You could also make 'high current' tubes but the heater
(and plate dissipation) requirements would be excessive
and it's more efficient to take advantage of the high
voltage operation to transformer multiply the current.

Solid state devices aren't ideal either.

Don't say "you could but". The "but" is why you can't.

I don't know where you got the idea that one solution
being more convenient means the other(s) "can't" be done
but it isn't so.

And the output
transformer is half the problem with tube amps.
Transformers are not clean and it's impossible to make
one behave consistently at both 20hz and 20khz.

Good transformers are not "impossible."

Plus they are expensive. Extremely expensive if you
want to run a lot of watts through one.

Well, good ones are, yes. Depending on how one defines
"extremely."

There is no "advantage" to the output transformer.

Sure there is. For one, they're a convenient solution to
tube PP output stages.

As a side note, output transformers were common in early
solid state designs as well and there are still some
esoterics that believe in them, like this one.

http://www.audiophonics.com/audiophonics-zeus75.html

The
transformer doesn't "improve" the amp. It's simply not
possible to build a tube amp without one.

Sure you can. They're called OTL (Output TransformerLess)

Here's a 100W OTL

http://www.1212designs.com/OTL_Stereo_Amp/default.htm

Didn't pick it as being 'the best', or anything else. It
just happened to conveniently come up on a google.

Where as a solid state amp can be designed to couple
directly to the load. The advantage of that circuit is
obvious.

There's no doubt that solid state is 'cheap', and
astronomically so.

I do think that sometimes lends itself to an
intellectually sloppy design approach where any problem
is attacked by simply sprinkling more sand over it and I
enjoy the challenge of getting the most from the least.

And then there are those who believe there is an audible
virtue to simplicity.

In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is a paragon of
simplicity.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg ****s on another Kroopologist.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".

Don't forget to gargle, Turdbucket.

Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter. You're not in this for
the sharing of opinions, but rather you chafe at the thought of a spirited
exchange. It is your way or the highway! :-(

Towering hypocrisy aside, Mr. ****, why are you dumping on Worthless
Wiecky? He's one of the few posters left who are willing to side with your
loathsome self against the Normals. Do you really disdain him as much as
you do, say, duh-Mikey McBugeater?

[Peter Wieck]

On May 29, 1:21*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to
artificially narrow the field, and that even in that
narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot to be
desired.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".

Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter. *You're not in this for
the sharing of opinions, but rather *you chafe at the thought of a spirited
exchange. It is your way or the highway! :-(

"Spirited exchange"?

Give me a break.

a) nothing but 'revealed religion' is exchanged.
b) no opinions will be altered, even by a single degree.
c) the same tired crap will be repeated ad-nauseum, cross-posted to
attract the entire coterie of idiots, fools, puppets and other
assorted scum.

As, for absolute proof of this, it brought you and the commander
together.

Need there be anything more?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On May 29, 1:21 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
I conclude that a debating trade trick was used to
artificially narrow the field, and that even in that
narrowed field, the basic thesis leaves a lot to be
desired.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

That debating trade trick is called "poisoning the well".

Seemed a bit autobiographical on your part, Peter.
You're not in this for the sharing of opinions, but
rather you chafe at the thought of a spirited exchange.
It is your way or the highway! :-(

"Spirited exchange"?

Give me a break.

a) nothing but 'revealed religion' is exchanged.

That's your story Peter. My story is that I corrected any number of
misconceptions, many rooted in the "revealed religion" that seems to
afflicts tube bigots. One biggie was the claim that push-pull operation
cancels odd-order distortion.


b) no opinions will be altered, even by a single degree.

That would be autobiographical on your part. However, looking at the track
record of iconoclasm by tube bigots on Usenet, it is indeed unlikely that
any of them will learn much.

c) the same tired crap will be repeated ad-nauseum,
cross-posted to attract the entire coterie of idiots,
fools, puppets and other assorted scum.

Good example of that being the OP.

As, for absolute proof of this, it brought you and the
commander together.

I believe that it was a person that brought us together, not a concept.

A cessation of self-righteousness posturing.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the
loop
hindering the proper use of loop feedback.

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

**Well, _we_ know that, but, it seems, may valve amp proponents still think
that the 2N3055 is the best that BJTs can offer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:32:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message


And then there are those who believe there is an audible
virtue to simplicity.

Since that is untrue at the performance level, this virtue is strictly in
the eye, not the ear of the beholder.

In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is
a paragon of simplicity.

You're making a joke, right? Like, if I wrap a black box
around a nuclear missile then it magically becomes
'simple' because we don't look inside.

LOL good one.

What you don't seem to realize is how much that same principle also applies
to the vacuum tube.

For example consider the major component of a vacuum tube by volume - the
vacuum. 100 years before the invention of the vacuum tube, volume production
of components with that kind of a vacuum inside of them was not even thought
about, let alone a standard production line process.

[Mr.T]

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Boy, that one really sets my bull**** detector off! You've NEVER heard
distortion...in your life? Never heard an overdriven car stereo, or AM
radio? Never wanted to get 'just a little more' out of a system and
went a little too far before you backed off? Never been surprised by
unexpectedly loud passage in a piece, which drove your system into
clipping?

And ***NEVER*** thought the solution was a vacuum tube amp!
Good luck trying to find a tube car radio these days! :-)
They never came within 20-30dB of what you can cleanly get out of a modern
solid state car amplifier if you really need it!
Modern tube HiFi amps don't either when compared to similarly priced solid
state ones.

MrT

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
A couple of Behringer EP2500s running
bridged into 4 ohm speakers gives you 1300 wpc. Now, you're talking the
beginnings of serious amplifier power.

And run them into some K-Horns (or even better, JBL Hatfield's) for some
serious SPL right :-)

MrT.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

We've already had one tubie admit that even the best tubed amps make very
suboptimal subwoofer amps.

Whoa!

Wouldn't that be something along the lines of "even the best putters
make very sub-optimal drivers"?

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

**Well, _we_ know that, but, it seems, may valve amp proponents still think
that the 2N3055 is the best that BJTs can offer.

So what are some good amps in the 250W (8 ohms) 400W (4 ohms) range?

[dizzy]

RapidRonnie wrote:

Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the 100-300 kHz
range. That is not a feature, it's a bug. The output transformer of a
tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme HF response.

Whoa! That's almost as good of a troll as the OP! Congrats!

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier is a paragon of
simplicity.

**Not really. It is an exceedingly complex device, which happens to be
simple to use. It is disingenuous to call such devices "simple".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

**Well, _we_ know that, but, it seems, may valve amp proponents still think
that the 2N3055 is the best that BJTs can offer.

So what are some good amps in the 250W (8 ohms) 400W (4 ohms) range?

Define 'good'. There are very few truly bad SS amps any more. Computer sound
boxes excluded.

Graham

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

RapidRonnie wrote:

Many solid state audio amplifiers work well for RF in the 100-300 kHz
range. That is not a feature, it's a bug. The output transformer of a
tube amplifier beneficially throttles this extreme HF response.

Whoa! That's almost as good of a troll as the OP! Congrats!

It's certainly pretty whacky !

Graham

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

And 100 years before the invention of silicon transistors volume
production of silicon with that kind of purity was not even thought
of, let alone a standard production line process, either. BFD.

The first demand for really high purity silicon was in the 1940s for point
contact diodes to be used in radar receivers' detector front end.

Du Pont's offering was the best at that time to the extent that the UK ended up
importing it too.

Graham

[[email protected]]

It's simply not possible to build a tube amp without one.

I wouldn't go that far. Futterman's ghost is still apparent. Whether it is
possible to build a practical tubed amp without an OPT is a different
question. Futterman's amps still managed to be heavy and expensive, OPT or
not.


OTL tube amps would have been commercially successful had vacuum tube
types been designed specifically for that service and had higher
impedance speakers become common. The Russians built low mu, high
current tubes which are used in OTL amps now that would be entirely
successful if the tubes were optimized for totem pole audio service
(the 6S33, which isn't, is used commonly by DIYers and high end
boutique vendors alike).

Had solid state never been common we'd have Tungar rectifiers and
largish transmitting tube-appearing devices driving 50, 150, 300 or
600 ohm speakers in hi fi saloons today.

And let's not forget: Futterman's quixotic achievements with OTL tube
amps made the modern comp-symm and earlier quasi-comp solid state
output sections thinkable, much as Philbrick's tube and early solid
state op amp modules made Widlar's IC op amp a marketable concept.

[[email protected]]

What you don't seem to realize is how much that same principle also applies
to the vacuum tube.

For example consider the major component of a vacuum tube by volume - the
vacuum.

Yes, but not by mass!

[[email protected]]

vacuum. 100 years before the invention of the vacuum tube, volume production
of components with that kind of a vacuum inside of them was not even thought
about, let alone a standard production line process.

And 100 years before the invention of silicon transistors volume
production of silicon with that kind of purity was not even thought
of, let alone a standard production line process, either. BFD.

But go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot some more because
integrated circuit manufacture is an astronomically more complex
process than assembling tube components and from that aspect they're
anything but "a paragon of simplicity."

It's more complex in terms of physics and chemistry but not in terms
of manual skill. Tube manufacture takes skilled workers and lots of
expensive tooling, as expensive to build from scratch as a non-leading-
edge semiconductor fab. To build a tube facility from scratch-no old
tooling-to produce even a humble 12AX7 or 6L6 would cost in the tens
of millions. You'd have to hire and train from scratch a lot of
workers.

There were probably 25 skill groups in a tube plant, none of which
are dispensible. The most skilled position was probably grid lathe
mechanic. Just try to find a grid lathe mechanic, or for that matter
a grid lathe today. Or even a manual for one. Litton was the primary
manufacturer, and Richardson has bought up almost all of them in
existence. They'll destroy every one before selling any, unless you
buy a whole working tube plant for a few million from them.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the
loop
hindering the proper use of loop feedback.

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

"Now", as in the last 35 years or more?

MrT.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

With SS amps we don't have as much problem with phase shift inside the
loop hindering the proper use of loop feedback.

At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz !

"Now", as in the last 35 years or more?

If you were prepared to pay the premium, I recall some Sanken devices back
around 1980 with fTs of around 10MHz, possibly 20 even ? It's a while back
you know !

20-40MHz is quite routine now at everyday commercial prices.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The number of older people who have heard tube equipment is hardly
"miniscule"!

Good riddance in most cases, given the average quality of what was on
offer to
the general masses.

No argument from me!
And they haven't improved much either considering the enormous price
increase for tube gear. That's what happens when you have a very small
market.
The "ultimate" sound system for some people though is still a wax cylinder
and acoustic horn :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
At least now that we have output devices with a greater fT than 800kHz
!

"Now", as in the last 35 years or more?

If you were prepared to pay the premium, I recall some Sanken devices back
around 1980 with fTs of around 10MHz, possibly 20 even ? It's a while
back
you know !

I know. I was using output transistors with ft at or above 1MHz in the early
seventies, as were many commercial amps.

20-40MHz is quite routine now at everyday commercial prices.

It's basically no longer an issue. Output devices are usually selected for
many other considerations.

MrT.