[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"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 !

**A Japanese company called 'Hi-Rel' manufactured a range of triple-diffused
power transistors back in 1975. They possessed an fT in excess of 20MHz (for
PNP and NPN devices) and were commendably linear to boot. They were rated
for 20 Amps. Part numbers: ED203 and EB203. The most interesting thing about
these devices, was the fact that they were released soon after Motorola
claimed that triple diffused NPN/PNP, high power complements were not
possible to manufacture and that Epitaxial Base devices were the only
sensible ones for people to use.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Mr.T]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
Tube manufacture takes skilled workers

I think you'd find it takes considerable 'skill' to run IC fab
equipment but just, perhaps, not as much manual dexterity. And, beyond
that, the 'complexity' of automation allows using fewer humans by
replicating, not to mention exceeding, their skills so you can have
incredibly complex processes with hardly a human in sight.

Not to mention the fact that IF tube production was done in sufficient
volume these days, it could EASILY be done completely by robotic
manufacture.
(Alternatively in some Chinese sweat shop at low cost)
Imagine if ordinary light bulbs were still made by hand blowing glass, hand
winding filaments and hand assembly in Western countries. They'd be
expensive too, big deal!

MrT.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 2:27 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
Imagine if ordinary light bulbs were still made by
hand blowing glass, hand winding filaments and
hand assembly in Western countries. They'd be
expensive too!

And, being very expensive, they'd undoubtedly
sound MUCH better, much warmer!

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

I'm sure they would say the same thing about your opinion.


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.

No, the 'components' of a tube are what make the 'device'


A truism.

and I didn't bring up silicon purity, junction diffusion,
or anything else in the 'making' of transistors.

So you still don't see the connection. :-(


A 'tube' with two triodes inside the envelope is two
devices and a microprocessor die with half a million
transistors has half a million transistors.

It's just a matter of scale - the concept is the same.

And in neither case does wrapping a glass, or plastic, envelope
around them alter that fact.

Never said it did. you missed the point.

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

Why would I when it's utterly irrelevant to the issue?

It's only irrelevant because you can't see the connection.

Which was the simplicity of a thing, in this case the
circuit topology of an audio power amplifier, and not how
easy or difficult it is to make them.

What you ignore is the relatively high degree of integration of the
components in a tubed amp, as compared to what went before. Before tubes
also we had ways of doing the same thing that were also in some sense
simpler.

A tube is very complex compared to the technology that went before it, just
as a power amp IC is very complex compared to the tube that went before it.

- 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.

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.

From the human standpoint, complexity is based on the things that humans can
see and touch. In power amps, those are called discrete components.

A very good SS power amplifier in the 15-40 wpc range can be built with just
7 discrete parts per channel plus power supply. Just check any LM 3875
application note or "gain clone" web site.

A tubed amp with equal or better technical performance is probably mission
impossible, but amplifiers like the Dyna ST35, ST70, Mark II, III etc are
close enough for home audio hobbyist work. I count 24 parts per channel
plus power supply for a ST-70.

Obviously the LM3875 power amp wins the simplicity race with 7 discrete
parts per channel, as compared to 24.


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."

I don't know of any home constructor who is building and evacuating his own
tubes, and I don't know of any home constructor who is masking and diffusing
his own chips. IOW, we have a draw. I suspect that either chips or tubes
could be made by someone with the resources of a well-equipped university
laboratory.


In terms complexity based on what matters to humans, which is discrete
parts, the SS/Chip amp is the obvious winner, and by a factor of more than 3
to 1. In terms of performance, the Chip-based amp is the winner, mostly
because it doesn't have an output transformer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
"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".

In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts count, not to mention the
fact that all of the parts are readily available, a single-chip amplifier
has unequalled simplicity. Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce,
but they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:56:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"
wrote
in message
"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".

In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts count,

We're not talking about the human fallacy of thinking
something is 'simple' because it's "out of sight, out of
mind" hidden inside a black box nor are we talking about
'ease of use' either because it's wrapped inside a black
box with 11 pins sticking out or fully assembled with
RCA, speaker, and power cord connections.

It's not a fallacy. If it is a fallacy, then it was a fallacy for tubes.

'Easy to use'
doesn't have a damn thing to do with amplifier quality or
else audiophiles would all be sporting 1960s Japanese 10
transistor pocket radios.

Irrelevant.

Don't need to 'connect'
anything to those. WOW, must be a terrific amp inside.

Nonsense.

not to mention the
fact that all of the parts are readily available, a
single-chip amplifier has unequalled simplicity.
Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce, but
they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

It is complex to produce, which was also not an issue
till you shot yourself in the foot diverting into the
B.S. of 'previously unheard of' vacuum technology

It is no BS Flipper. Your mistake is that you have confused a complex
technology that you seem to favor, with a simple technology.

The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand,
was circuit complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether
or not you can handle soldering more than 11 pins or go
blind dead and dumb hiding the thing inside black boxes.

I have yet to see a cogent discussion of this topic from you, Flipper. If
you want to say "All I can see is tubes" over and over again which is what
you've been saying by implication, fine.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 30, 12:27*pm, flipper wrote:

The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand, was circuit
complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether or not you can handle
soldering more than 11 pins or go blind dead and dumb hiding the thing
inside black boxes.


Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own and terms other
than those he defines himself. When dealing with that sort of
individual, the only valid response is none after that condition is
established. He is on a crusade to bust myths - in other words, he is
preaching his exclusive brand of revealed religion against that of
others.

By continuing the argument you are accepting his terms as worth the
effort. Are you quite sure that they are?

Unless you are also requiring others believe as you do and share your
precise brand of revealed religion, you will understand that for those
for whom tubes are an enjoyable hobby and just one more aspect of the
audio hobby in general, Arny is a pathetic fool that really wants
nothing more than to take everybody's ball home so they can't play
without his permission and approval - which, as it happens - is the
failure of other preachers as well if not so obviously.

So, let the religionists battle it out, hopefully away from here, and
let the rest of us get on with enjoying ourselves, and tubes, and
their foibles good and bad.

As I have tried to convey several times - the initial post was a
troll, and now 107 posts later it remains a troll with all the usual
popes, imams and shamans taking their usual rigid, singlular and
exclusive positions. The OP is sitting back laughing at what he has
wrought with so little effort.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Worthless Wiecky has an epiphany.

Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own

Well, this is quite something. Another Kroopologist bites the big one.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance
and complete deafness/blindness to any arguments other
than his own and terms other than those he defines
himself.

Yeah Peter, you're so much smarter than I am. Looking at this thread we can
see the form your alleged smartness takes - little but personal attacks and
propaganda. I've been distracted by low-tech ankle-biters such as your self,
but left to my own I've contributed more than my share of solid,
generally-recognized technlogy.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 30, 4:00*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Worthless Wiecky has an epiphany.

Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own

Well, this is quite something. Another Kroopologist bites the big one.

As it happens, "commander", I would take a dozen Arnys over a bit of
false-front dead pond scum such as your puppet-master. At least Arny
is 'real' if utterly without value or interest. You don't even take on
that much reality.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On May 30, 6:35*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

but left to my own I've contributed more than my share of solid,
generally-recognized technlogy.

That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly without
imagination, and utterly without creativity. I believe we might all
agree on at least tha much.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Worthless Wiecky hocks up a big ol' hairball.

Worthless Wiecky has an epiphany.

Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance and complete
deafness/blindness to any arguments other than his own

Well, this is quite something. Another Kroopologist bites the big one.

As it happens, "commander", I would take a dozen Arnys over a bit of
false-front dead pond scum such as your puppet-master.

Sorry, out of the question. I fired him ages ago. Now it's just me and the
rest of the Normals.

At least Arny is 'real' if utterly without value or interest.

I think Mr. **** interests you intensely. You're the one who can't stop
correcting his mistakes.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Wiecky disses TurdBorg.

That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly without
imagination, and utterly without creativity. I believe we might all
agree on at least tha much.

I can agree with you on that, Worthless. By way of enlightening those who
may be unfamiliar with the full breadth and depth of Mr. ****'s oeuvre,
I'll share one of the strangest things Turdy has ever said. Arnii believes
that if one can examine an electronic device and, using schematics if
desired, figure out its operation, one has "equal" knowledge and skill to
the device's designer. It's on this basis that the Krooborg has dared to
insult and demean a long list of Real Audio Guys.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
On May 30, 2:27 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
Imagine if ordinary light bulbs were still made by
hand blowing glass, hand winding filaments and
hand assembly in Western countries. They'd be
expensive too!

And, being very expensive, they'd undoubtedly
sound MUCH better, much warmer!

Well I guess they do LOOK much warmer at least, and undoubtedly some people
would pay extravagant prices, if everyone else was using CFL's.

May happen yet :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance
and complete deafness/blindness to any arguments other
than his own and terms other than those he defines
himself.

Yeah Peter, you're so much smarter than I am. Looking at this thread we
can
see the form your alleged smartness takes - little but personal attacks
and
propaganda. I've been distracted by low-tech ankle-biters such as your
self,
but left to my own I've contributed more than my share of solid,
generally-recognized technlogy.


It's amazing how people who contribute mainly personal insults, can be so
self righteous.
I don't agree with you on this one Arny, but at least I think your record is
far better than many here.
Those who only contribute personal attacks should check their own record on
Google groups before making a complete hypocrite out of themselves IMO.
(Like THAT will ever stop them though :-)

MrT.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , George M. Middius at
wrote on 5/30/08 9:24 PM:



Wiecky disses TurdBorg.

That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly without
imagination, and utterly without creativity. I believe we might all
agree on at least tha much.

I can agree with you on that, Worthless. By way of enlightening those who
may be unfamiliar with the full breadth and depth of Mr. ****'s oeuvre,
I'll share one of the strangest things Turdy has ever said. Arnii believes
that if one can examine an electronic device and, using schematics if
desired, figure out its operation, one has "equal" knowledge and skill to
the device's designer. It's on this basis that the Krooborg has dared to
insult and demean a long list of Real Audio Guys.



How absolutely captivating, George! How utterly insightful!!

Yawn . . . . . . . . . .

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

but left to my own I've contributed more than my share
of solid, generally-recognized technology.

That is to suggest that you are utterly dull, utterly
without imagination, and utterly without creativity. I
believe we might all agree on at least that much.

Well, that explains it all Peter. You find solid generally-recognized
technology to be dull. Hence, your fascination with vacuous,
generally-useless technology.

[Mr.T]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
And what I said is there are those who believe there is audible merit
to circuit simplicity. I believe it's oft stated as "the best
amplifier is a wire with gain."

But many people still argue over the relative merits of wire types.
So you still need to specify EXACTLY what wire
type/brand/construction/conductor/insulation etc, "with gain" !
:-)

Personally if I can't hear a problem, or measure one, I don't give a rats
how the result was obtained.
When "simplicity" means more expensive, more maintenance, and less
performance, count me out.

MrT.

[PhattyMo[_2_]]

wrote:
"In a word: YES...

Of course,that's what the heater is for!! :-p

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Fri, 30 May 2008 14:24:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message

On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:56:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"
wrote
in message
"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".

In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts
count,

We're not talking about the human fallacy of thinking
something is 'simple' because it's "out of sight, out of
mind" hidden inside a black box nor are we talking about
'ease of use' either because it's wrapped inside a black
box with 11 pins sticking out or fully assembled with
RCA, speaker, and power cord connections.

It's not a fallacy.

Arny, surely there must be a few brain cells left in your
head so try waking a couple of them up.

Inability to create a cogent argument noted.

Putting a complex thing inside a box doesn't magically
make it 'simple'. It's a fallacy.

What you don't get Flipper is that the same thing happened with tubes, about
a century ago.

If it is a fallacy, then it was a fallacy for tubes.

If anyone had been stupid enough to think putting a
complex tube device inside a box magically made it
'simple' then, yes, it would be a fallacy for them too.

You seem to have indicted yourself quite nicely, Flipper.

Tubes are incredibly complex in the cosmic scheme of things. To you, simple
seems to mean things that you understand well enough for them to be
"intuitive" to you. But, the common meaning of "intuitive" for most people
is that they already know it. IOW, where you to be trained in modern
technology, chips would seem simple to you. The problem is not the
complexity of chips, but rather your inability to keep up with modern
technology.

'Easy to use'
doesn't have a damn thing to do with amplifier quality
or else audiophiles would all be sporting 1960s
Japanese 10 transistor pocket radios.

Irrelevant.

Amplifier quality was the topic.and don't try to tell me
otherwise because I *wrote* it and know exactly what I
said and meant.

Flipper, we already know that you define "good sound quality" as anything
that some tubed amp of questionable lineage and performance level happens to
spew upon a hapless loudspeaker.

The more enlightened of us define "good sound quality" as the amplified
signal being indistinguishable from the source signal.


Don't need to 'connect'
anything to those. WOW, must be a terrific amp inside.

Nonsense.

Of course it is but then that's was your nonsensical
'point' about 'simple'. Maybe we're making progress since
you now recognize it for the "nonsense" is it.

No Flipper I'm being consistent and positive and modern. You've already
criticized yourself more harshly than I ever would.

not to mention the
fact that all of the parts are readily available, a
single-chip amplifier has unequalled simplicity.
Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce, but
they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

It is complex to produce, which was also not an issue
till you shot yourself in the foot diverting into the
B.S. of 'previously unheard of' vacuum technology

It is no BS Flipper. Your mistake is that you have
confused a complex technology that you seem to favor,
with a simple technology.

No, the problem is you're utterly clueless about what the
subject even is and, as a result, babble B.S. gibberish.

Inability to provide a cogent argument noted.

The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand,
was circuit complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether
or not you can handle soldering more than 11 pins or go
blind dead and dumb hiding the thing inside black boxes.

I have yet to see a cogent discussion of this topic from
you, Flipper.

You haven't seen a damn thing except paranoid visions
dancing among the sleeping brain cells in your head.

How charming of you, Flipper. BTW, does the nym "Flipper" related to a
behavior trait of flipping people off when you can't grasp the higher forms
of reason? Or does it relate to a tendency to flip-flop your position?

If
you want to say "All I can see is tubes" over and over
again which is what you've been saying by implication,
fine.

You, no doubt, saw 'tubes' in the MOSFET amp I posted a link to.

Flipper, I suspect that your advocacy of MOSFET amps comes from some
romantic ideas about them being more "tube like" because MOSFETs are like
tubes, field effect devices. The irony here is that some single-chip power
amps which you have already expressed your undying hatred are also
MOSFET-based.

And what I said is there are those who believe there is
audible merit to circuit simplicity.

Which I have just deconstructed in this thread for being what it is - a
statement of bias not reliable perception.

I believe it's oft stated as "the best amplifier is a wire with gain."

Agreed. But that criteria indicts the majority of tubed amplifiers, because
they can't pass a straight-wire bypass test with a real-world loudspeaker
load.

At least that's what the MOSFET amp site said.

The idea of a good amp being like a straight wire with gain goes back to no
later than the 1950s. In the 1960s Julian Hirsch mentioned the same idea in
Stereo Review. I believe that was before MOSFET audio amps became generally
available.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Wieck
wrote:


Not to worry. Arny is blessed with invincible ignorance
and complete deafness/blindness to any arguments other
than his own and terms other than those he defines
himself. When dealing with that sort of individual, the
only valid response is none after that condition is
established. He is on a crusade to bust myths - in other
words, he is preaching his exclusive brand of revealed
religion against that of others.

Hmm don't you see dialog like this on afternoon TV soap operas?

Unless you are also requiring others believe as you do
and share your precise brand of revealed religion, you
will understand that for those for whom tubes are an
enjoyable hobby and just one more aspect of the audio
hobby in general,

What I know is that tubies have a lot of cherished notions that don't stand
up to informed technical investigation. The OP for this thread was a small
collection of those notions.

Arny is a pathetic fool that really
wants nothing more than to take everybody's ball home so
they can't play without his permission and approval -
which, as it happens - is the failure of other preachers
as well if not so obviously.

Notice the prerequisite personal attack. If you try to inform some people
about the weaknesses of their cherished beliefs, one receives this sort of
response from many of them.

So, let the religionists battle it out, hopefully away
from here, and let the rest of us get on with enjoying
ourselves, and tubes, and their foibles good and bad.

I haven't tried to 'convince' anyone of tube amp merits,
or the lack thereof.

Nahh, you just told us a number of tubie fairy tales.

All I did was say there are those
who believe there's audible merit to circuit simplicity.

The first bogus idea is that circuit simplicity can even have audible merit.
It's a mixture of irrelevant modes - one being circuit design, another being
sound quality. It has long been known that many approaches to the best
possible sound quality, such as OTL tubed power amps, can involve anything
but simple circuits and low parts count. However, it is also known that
simply throwing parts at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it better.
Therefore it is easy for most of us to see that circuit simplicity and
audible merit are irrelevant.

I then pointed out that with classic tubes, a power amp with decent
performance will require about 21 discrete parts, some of them being quite
large, heavy, awkward, hard-to-obtain, and expensive. I found that a
superior alternative can built using one little piece of readily-available
silicon, together with about 6 other inexpensive, readily obtainable parts.
So, even if the stated thesis was relevant, it would still be an effective
critique of tube bigotry.

I didn't even say 'tube' and there's plenty of folks with
that philosophy designing 'simple' SS amps, one of which
I posted a link to.

I've already shown that the concept of simplicity correlating or being a
cause of sound quality is bogus, whether for tubes or SS.


Arny's so hair on fire hell bent to save the world
from the 'tube threat' that he barely even sees what's
written, much less understand it.

Nahh, I'm not saving the world, I'm just tying a few tube bigots up in knots
using their own outdated preferences and false claims.


The hair on fire SS bigot pontificating about 'tube
bigots' makes for comic relief, though.

True the idea that people would be so emotionally involved with tubes that
they would resort to libel and childish nattering is quite comic.

[JANA]

In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add to the sound.
They are accurate, but there is a difference in the way the sound is
heard for a number of reasons.

The tube amplifier uses an output transformer. Some tube amplifiers also
use a driver transformer. Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.
Very high end output transformers will still have some effect on the
sound. The tube amplifier is higher in THD, but at odd harmonics. When
the tube amplifier is over driven, the clipping is not as harsh as on a
tube amplifier. These are the main reasons why musicians like tube
amplifier and say they sound better. Solid state amplifiers generally
have slightly less internal phase delay than tube amplifiers.

Solid state amplifiers generally have no output transformers or driver
transformers. Transistors and especially IC's in general have a faster
response than tubes. The slew rate on the solid state amplifier is much
faster, and it is possible to achieve lower distortion. Because of this,
the solid state amplifier is said to have a harsher sound. In actual
fact, a good solid state amplifier is very accurate compared to a tube
amplifier.

Basic description about slew rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate

A more advanced explanation about slew rate:
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~bm...wRateNotes.pdf

Tutorial About Slew Rate:
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Slew_Rate/SlewRate.htm

Tube amplifiers also tend to have a lower damping factor than solid
state amplifiers. This will effect more of the accuracy or distortions
in the low frequency response. High damping factor will mean that there
is better compliance for controlling the speakers.

As for myself, my preference is a MOSFET amplifier. The performance
characteristics are much like a tube amplifier, except that it has the
slew rate and damping factor of the solid state amplifier.


--

JANA
_____


wrote in message
...
On May 28, 11:03 am, 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

I don't need my amp adding anything to the content. I just want to
hear what was recorded. The fatal flaw in your comment is
"generate". Why should the amp be generating content? A solid state
amp can pass any original harmonic content within human range that is
on the source just as well as a tube amp.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"JANA" wrote in message
news
In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add to the sound.
They are accurate, but there is a difference in the way the sound is
heard for a number of reasons.

The tube amplifier uses an output transformer.

**Most do. Some do not.

Some tube amplifiers also
use a driver transformer. Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.
Very high end output transformers will still have some effect on the
sound. The tube amplifier is higher in THD, but at odd harmonics.

**Not necessrily. It depends on the topology and what the designer intends.

When
the tube amplifier is over driven, the clipping is not as harsh as on a
tube amplifier.

**I presume you mean: "....not as harsh as on a transistor amplifier."
That statement is completely incorrect. It depends on the topology and what
the designer intends. Solid state amplifier can and have been designed to
clip 'gently'.

These are the main reasons why musicians like tube
amplifier and say they sound better.

**Nope. Musicians like SOME tube amps because they:
* May be designed to clip more gracefully than most SS designs.
* May be designed to possess enormous 'headroom'.
* Generally do not current limit in an unpleasant fashion (like SOME SS
designs).
* Have a name on the front which has good 'street cred'.

Solid state amplifiers generally
have slightly less internal phase delay than tube amplifiers.

**Huh?


Solid state amplifiers generally have no output transformers or driver
transformers.

**Usually, but there is no reason why they cannot be so manufactured. It's
just not necessary to do so.

Transistors and especially IC's in general have a faster
response than tubes.

**Absolute nonsense. And, moreover, the frequency response of the devices is
simply not an issue. It is (AGAIN!) the topology which dictates frequency
response.

The slew rate on the solid state amplifier is much
faster, and it is possible to achieve lower distortion.

**Nonsense.

Because of this,
the solid state amplifier is said to have a harsher sound.

**Nonsense. SOME SS amps sound harsher, due to poor implementation of
topology. The devices used are not the issue. How they're used, may well be.

In actual
fact, a good solid state amplifier is very accurate compared to a tube
amplifier.

**Usually, but not always.


Basic description about slew rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate

A more advanced explanation about slew rate:
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~bm...wRateNotes.pdf

Tutorial About Slew Rate:
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Slew_Rate/SlewRate.htm

Tube amplifiers also tend to have a lower damping factor than solid
state amplifiers.

**Due to that pesky output transformer.

This will effect more of the accuracy or distortions
in the low frequency response. High damping factor will mean that there
is better compliance for controlling the speakers.

As for myself, my preference is a MOSFET amplifier. The performance
characteristics are much like a tube amplifier, except that it has the
slew rate and damping factor of the solid state amplifier.

**Your preference is duly noted. And discarded. MOSFETs deliver around ten
times the distortion of a good BJT or Triode. They are, unless operated at
significant Class A levels and/or with lots of global NFB, highly flawed
devices.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"JANA" wrote in message
news
In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add
to the sound. They are accurate,

Then we impose basic logic - all accurate amplifiers sound the same.

but there is a
difference in the way the sound is heard for a number of
reasons.

The differences come when the amplifiers are not accurate. This is borne out
by the discussion below:

The tube amplifier uses an output transformer. Some tube
amplifiers also use a driver transformer.

Some solid state amps used driver transformers. Interestingly enough, the
solid state amps that used driver transformers did not suffer many of the
faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

Some solid state amps used output autotransformers, and again they did not
suffer many of the faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.

It appears that slew rate and rise time are being confused here. Output
transformers can impose a rise time limitation due to lack of high frequency
response. But this is not the same as a slew rate limitation. Slew rate
limiting imposes a lack of high frequency response that increases with
increasing signal level. A normal treble roll-off is independent of power
level. Treble roll-offs due to transformers are usually independent of power
level.

Very high end output
transformers will still have some effect on the sound.

It appears that tubed amplifiers with very good parts and designs can be
sonically accurate, similar to how good SS amps are. Therefore none of their
components will be having an effect on the sound. Either this statement
about output transformers still having some effect on the sound is
incorrect, or the author's opening statement that "...a good vacuum tube
amplifier does not add to the sound." is incorrect. I think he started out
right and went wrong.

The tube amplifier is higher in THD, but at odd
harmonics.

Just plain wrong. The balance of odd and even harmonics in an amplifier are
up to the designer. An amplifier with an unbalanced or single-ended design
will ultimately tend strongly towards producing even harmonics. An
amplifier with an balanced or push-pull design will ultimately tend strongly
towards producing odd harmonics because its basic design tends to cancel out
even harmonics. Tubes, transistors or whatever active device you might have,
these are very strong effects.

When the tube amplifier is over driven, the
clipping is not as harsh as on a tube amplifier.

Again, just plain wrong. The clipping behavior of an amplifier has a lot to
do with inverse feedback. The more inverse feedback, the sharper the
clipping. Back in the days when tubes were all we had, we could make very
nicely clipped square waves whenever we wanted to, using amplifiers that had
lots of inverse feedback.

A tubed amp with lots of inverse feedback will clip very nice and sharply.
And in fact, sharp clean clipping is the best alternative in most cases.
This is because sharp clipping yields the cleanest sound as long as you
don't clip the amp. With SS the ready alternative to sharp clipping is to
simply get a more power amplifier, or turn the volume down a little.

With gradual clipping, you have an amp that is a little dirty well below
maximum power. With sharp clipping you have an amp that is easier to get
clean sound out of - just turn it down a little.

These are the main reasons why musicians like tube amplifier
and say they sound better.

Musical instrument amps and high fidelity amps are two vastly different sets
of requirements. Anybody who tries to apply musical instrument technology to
high fidelity amps is badly confused.

Solid state amplifiers
generally have slightly less internal phase delay than
tube amplifiers.

Generally not true. When you look at solid state maps with no output
transformers and compare them to tubed amps with output transformers which
is the usual case, the SS amp's high frequency advantage comes primarily
from the absence of an output transformer. So its not the absence of tubes
that gives the SS amp its great potential for good high frequency response,
it is the absence of an output transformer. Most SS audio amps have high
frequency response that is intentionally rolled-off to avoid problems with
EMI, etc.

Solid state amplifiers generally have no output
transformers or driver transformers.

Agreed, and the major benefit comes from getting rid of the OPT. However,
tubed amps that lack OPTs have been built and other than parts count and
attendant reliability problems, they can be very good, but at a high price.

Transistors and
especially IC's in general have a faster response than
tubes.

That's why UHF TV stations have tubed RF amplifiers. In the audio range, the
best estimate is that either tubes or transistors as devices have more than
enough high frequency response and are fast enough.

The slew rate on the solid state amplifier is much
faster, and it is possible to achieve lower distortion.

Two irrelevant clauses tied together to make up a misconception. Slew rate
isn't a problem with tubes, after all we had tubed oscilloscopes that
produced very nice square waves up into the MHz. In power amps the limit to
high frequency response is the OPT. But even with OPTs, a very good OPT does
not limit the HF response of the amp in a way that is necessarily audible.

SS amps are easier to build with low distortion because of the well-known
trade-off between gain and distortion. The usual methodology for building a
low distortion amplifier, whether tubed or SS, is to build a very good low
distortion, high gain amplifier, and trade off the gain for low distortion
with loop feedback. It's simply cheaper and easier to build good high gain
amplifiers with SS than tubes. Thus, SS amps more commonly have very low
distortion.

Because of this, the solid state amplifier is said to
have a harsher sound.

What sort of bass-ackwards logic equates harsher sound with low distortion?
This is just plain nuts.

In actual fact, a good solid state
amplifier is very accurate compared to a tube amplifier.

Both tubed and SS amplifiers can be built that are sonically accurate. IOW,
you have a SS amp and a tubed amp that are each very accurate and
good-sounding, and impossible to distinguish based on their Sonics. Thing
is, the good-sounding SS amp can easily to be a very practical thing, and
readily available. The tubed amp is going to be larger, heavier, less
reliable, and far more expensive.

The silliness is obsessing over amplifiers. Amplifiers are a solved problem.
The problem is speakers and rooms. The best use of amplifier technology is
to trade it off for better sounding speakers and rooms.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 5:34 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JANA" wrote in message

news
In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add
to the sound. They are accurate,

Then we impose basic logic - all accurate amplifiers sound the same.

but there is a
difference in the way the sound is heard for a number of
reasons.

The differences come when the amplifiers are not accurate. This is borne out
by the discussion below:

The tube amplifier uses an output transformer. Some tube
amplifiers also use a driver transformer.

Some solid state amps used driver transformers. Interestingly enough, the
solid state amps that used driver transformers did not suffer many of the
faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

Some solid state amps used output autotransformers, and again they did not
suffer many of the faults of tubed amps that use output transformers.

SS amps sometimes used full OPTs and they had the same problems.
Altec's SS models using a 28 volt battery for standby power did. They
do not like to be run into an open load either. But, they make
surprisingly good guitar amps when used with a good tube pre. See
below.


Because of this, there is a lower slew rate.

It appears that slew rate and rise time are being confused here. Output
transformers can impose a rise time limitation due to lack of high frequency
response. But this is not the same as a slew rate limitation. Slew rate
limiting imposes a lack of high frequency response that increases with
increasing signal level. A normal treble roll-off is independent of power
level. Treble roll-offs due to transformers are usually independent of power
level.

When the tube amplifier is over driven, the
clipping is not as harsh as on a tube amplifier.

Again, just plain wrong. The clipping behavior of an amplifier has a lot to
do with inverse feedback. The more inverse feedback, the sharper the
clipping. Back in the days when tubes were all we had, we could make very
nicely clipped square waves whenever we wanted to, using amplifiers that had
lots of inverse feedback.

The OPT fortunately inhibits the sharpness of clipping in most tube
amps. Tube amp clipping is much less likely to tear up tweeters than
is solid state amp clipping. You don't have the smoked tweeters from
underpowered amp clipping with 30-100 watt tube amps you do with
100-200 watt SS amps on many very inefficient speakers today even
though the tube amps clip more than the solid state ones do. many
home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated sustained square wave power
handling capacity of nil.

A tubed amp with lots of inverse feedback will clip very nice and sharply.
And in fact, sharp clean clipping is the best alternative in most cases.
This is because sharp clipping yields the cleanest sound as long as you
don't clip the amp. With SS the ready alternative to sharp clipping is to
simply get a more power amplifier, or turn the volume down a little.

With gradual clipping, you have an amp that is a little dirty well below
maximum power. With sharp clipping you have an amp that is easier to get
clean sound out of - just turn it down a little.

These are the main reasons why musicians like tube amplifier
and say they sound better.

Musical instrument amps and high fidelity amps are two vastly different sets
of requirements. Anybody who tries to apply musical instrument technology to
high fidelity amps is badly confused.


Substitute "electric guitar amplifiers for use by rock players (and
others wanting a rockish sound) " for "musical instrument amplifier"
and yoou have a correct statement. Acoustic guitar, steel guitar, and
many bass guitar applications as well as most keyboard and other
combo amp users want amplification without modification. Hi fi
amplifiers or PA amplifiers work best for this except for form factor.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Jun 1, 5:34 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"JANA" wrote in message

When the tube amplifier is over driven, the
clipping is not as harsh as on a tube amplifier.

Again, just plain wrong. The clipping behavior of an
amplifier has a lot to do with inverse feedback. The
more inverse feedback, the sharper the clipping. Back in
the days when tubes were all we had, we could make very
nicely clipped square waves whenever we wanted to, using
amplifiers that had lots of inverse feedback.

The OPT fortunately inhibits the sharpness of clipping in
most tube amps.

I doubt that a casual glance at a scope trace would allow most people to
sort SS and tubed amps. In fact most good tubed amps produce very nice
sharp-edged square waves.

Tube amp clipping is much less likely to
tear up tweeters than is solid state amp clipping.

That whole line of thinking - that clipping necessarily add high frequency
information to music, has been debunked many times.

You
don't have the smoked tweeters from underpowered amp
clipping with 30-100 watt tube amps you do with 100-200
watt SS amps on many very inefficient speakers today even
though the tube amps clip more than the solid state ones
do.

The reason for that has nothing to do with tubes versus transistors. The
first order effect is that a 200 wpc amp has more than 6 times more power
than a 30 wpc amp. The first order effect predominates.

many home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated
sustained square wave power handling capacity of nil.

That would be a problem for speaker designers to solve. The good news is
that the problem has been solved many times.

[Mr.T]

"JANA" wrote in message
news
In actual fact a good vacuum tube amplifier does not add to the sound.
They are accurate, but there is a difference in the way the sound is
heard for a number of reasons.
snip

.... Then goes on to contradict himself and explain why many tube amplifiers
might NOT in fact be accurate!
(some of which is actually true)

Having a bet either way? Or simply pointing out (not very clearly), that
most valve amps are not in fact accurate and therefore not to be considered
"GOOD vacuum tube amplifiers" by most people?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
many home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated sustained square wave
power handling capacity of nil.

What a completely unqualified, nonsensical statement!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
many home speaker tweeters have a demonstrated
sustained square wave power handling capacity of nil.

That would be a problem for speaker designers to solve. The good news is
that the problem has been solved many times.

Every time in fact!
Never seen a functioning speaker that couldn't handle any square wave at
*some* power level!

MrT.