[Andre Jute]

The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The
amplifier is single-ended, zero negative feedback, built with Western
Electric signal and power tubes and a Mullard tube rectifier. There are
(counting by the Gaincard method which leaves the attenuator and power
supply out of the count!) six components in the signal path: 3
resistors, a cap and two tubes. It is a truly silent amplifier (It
sacrifices half the power for that silence) and in particular the
output is free of any odd harmonics. The circuit with a single WE 417A
tube doing both input and driver duty is at:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg
The companion, somewhat simpler and less expensive "standard good" 300B
SE amplifier in the ultrafi set, the 300B SE amplifier "Populaire" with
two stages of 6SN7 tubes, has been previously published at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg
Both amplfiers are described in The KISS Amp section of Jute on Amps
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm
From the introduction: "THE KISS AMP 300B project is an attempt to take
the tube amp designer by the hand and lead him through all the highways
and byways of designing an ultrafi amp, including the thought
processes, the math and the development. It is half-engineering course,
half metaphysics, half bloodyminded prejudice and alltogether
infuriatingly complex because the simplicity of KISS has a very high
price. It has its own index page for the text and another for the
illustrations. You will find the majority of the most useful core
articles in the old Jute on Amps site in The KISS Amp 300B files,
rearranged and rewritten to make the interdependence of tube design
decisions manifest."
Suitable speakers for these amplifiers are also shown, the expensive
first
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and then the almost ridiculously cheap
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg
More of my amplifiers, both solid state and tube (valve) are at Jute on
Amps
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/JUTE%20ON%20AMPS.htm
You are also invited to visit my overall netsite which has information
on a couple of of my professions, as a novelist and as a typographere,
and some of my other interests: music both live and recorded which I
reviewed for many years for papers around the world, watches,
bicycling, cooking, etc.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

Many helped along the way by a cheery "Thanks!", or a private note
telling me not to succumb before the assaults of the silicon slime and
the other useless egomaniacs who create nothing except flamewars on the
very few remaining productive members of RAT. (For proof, read on in
the rest of this thread.)

Among those who provided relevant technical advice I must in particular
and in alphabetical order thank Steve Bench, John Byrns, Doug Bannard
and Patrick Turner. Even more admirable than their knowledge is their
patience! Controversial opinions, errors and omissions are mine, of
course.

Pay due respect to high voltage and live long!

Andre Jute
Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Peter Wieck]

Andre Jute wrote:
The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized.

OK... I can accept that. Now, has it been built? More importantly, does
it work?

Given the overall accuracy and credibility of the OP, I would believe
the latter two only if independently witnessed and photographed
together with a copy of a recent newspaper headline. And even then I
would be skeptical.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The
amplifier is single-ended, zero negative feedback, built with Western
Electric signal and power tubes and a Mullard tube rectifier. There are
(counting by the Gaincard method which leaves the attenuator and power
supply out of the count!) six components in the signal path: 3
resistors, a cap and two tubes.

Hi Andre,

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

In any case, six components give or take for the signal to pass through
sounds like too many for good sonics. In my "7119 PP Potato 2 Minimal"
amp the signal passes through only two components depending on exactly
how you count.

It is a truly silent amplifier (It
sacrifices half the power for that silence) and in particular the
output is free of any odd harmonics.

What is the power output of your "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"?

The circuit with a single WE 417A
tube doing both input and driver duty is at:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

d

Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

d

Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

LOL !

You nearly had me going there. That's the 'hum trim' control.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:15:23 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

d

Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

LOL !

You nearly had me going there. That's the 'hum trim' control.

Graham

It is also negative feedback, whether or not that is the prime
purpose.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Andre Jute]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

Thanks for the effort, Pearce. I wasn't seriously putting forward the
Gaincard method of counting, just throwing it in for discussion while I
get on with the business of designing and building my next amp.

However, the grid leak resistor which you call the "47k feedback r"
raises an interesting point of difference between the silicon crowd and
the zero negative feedback ultrafidelista faithful. You intend to mean
by negative feedback *any* feedback. By convention tubies in general
and ultrafidelista in particular by negative feedback mean global or
universal or loop negative feedback, certainly nothing contained within
one stage of any of the classical topologies (including those newly
revived like the mu stage). Even a cathode follower, surely a feedback
device!, is kosher to the ZNFB crowd, and they have often resented me
for pointing it out as much as the silicon slime has resented me for
pointing out *their* wishful thinking and other depredations on the
immutable laws of physics. (Hey, there are some tubies who still want
to lynch me ten years later for puncturing their bubble on SRPP, which
until I made an irrefutable analysis they happily promoted for thirty
years as a constant current-loaded triode, which of course it isn't.)

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

You counted the "47k feedback r" (the grid leak, without which the amp
won't work) twice.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

It is rather interesting that you don't ask for the noise figures of my
tube amp before you start spouting condemnations based on your
prejudicial preference for silicon bodged nearly right with excessive
negative feedback.

Perhaps you should at least draw the loadline on the tube transfer
curves and calculate the distortion before you spout off, Pearce. If
you know how, of course. You might surprise yourself. (I hesitate to
suggest that you build the design and measure for yourself; I wouldn't
want you to electrocute yourself on unaccustomed high voltage or burn
yourself with your new soldering iron.)

d

Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

They're humbusters for the AC filaments. You do know that DC filaments
on DHT sound like ****, don't you, Pearce? Now go on, tell me about the
joys of regulation.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Always great to hear from you, Pearce. It gives me a warm glow of
superiority that a famous engineer like you, a proven hostile to tube
amps, can find only twee tiny quibbles when I publish a design.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

You do know that DC filaments on DHT sound like ****, don't you

Do tell more !

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 14 Jan 2007 15:48:00 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:07:06 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:23:13 -0600, John Byrns
wrote:

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

A much more interesting number is those components that can do
something to the signal. Those are either the ones in the direct
signal path or those that have a signal voltage across them. Some
components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Now, counting properly, components in the direct signal path are

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r
200uf B1 decoupler

That's 12

Thanks for the effort, Pearce. I wasn't seriously putting forward the
Gaincard method of counting, just throwing it in for discussion while I
get on with the business of designing and building my next amp.

However, the grid leak resistor which you call the "47k feedback r"
raises an interesting point of difference between the silicon crowd and
the zero negative feedback ultrafidelista faithful. You intend to mean
by negative feedback *any* feedback. By convention tubies in general
and ultrafidelista in particular by negative feedback mean global or
universal or loop negative feedback, certainly nothing contained within
one stage of any of the classical topologies (including those newly
revived like the mu stage). Even a cathode follower, surely a feedback
device!, is kosher to the ZNFB crowd, and they have often resented me
for pointing it out as much as the silicon slime has resented me for
pointing out *their* wishful thinking and other depredations on the
immutable laws of physics. (Hey, there are some tubies who still want
to lynch me ten years later for puncturing their bubble on SRPP, which
until I made an irrefutable analysis they happily promoted for thirty
years as a constant current-loaded triode, which of course it isn't.)


My error on the 47k - apologies tendered.

But then you beg the question (and I mean that in the true sense of
the logical fallacy), when you start to claim that feedback isn't
feedback because you define it thus. Well, I have news for you.
Feedback IS feedback, however you apply it. If the output signal is
capable of comparison with the input and thereby reducing some of its
error, you have feedback - live with it and don't try your nonsense
with me. You may get away with it with your dullard mates, so stick
with them.

The signal handling components with first order effects are

Battery
10 anode load
200uF B2 decoupler
47k grid leak
56uf cathode decoupler
1k cathode load

That makes 18 total.

You counted the "47k feedback r" (the grid leak, without which the amp
won't work) twice.

Buggered if I can see the relevance of the number though. Any signal
that hits this amp has already been through a few hundred other
components. Of course the whole thing makes a bit of sense when you
consider that the components in this amp are doing a
disproportionately huge amount of damage to the signal. Which they
are. Ultrafi is an interestingly ironic name, don't you think?

It is rather interesting that you don't ask for the noise figures of my
tube amp before you start spouting condemnations based on your
prejudicial preference for silicon bodged nearly right with excessive
negative feedback.

Why would I give a toss about the noise figure of a power amp? It
didn't even occur to me that you might screw that up.

Have you?

Perhaps you should at least draw the loadline on the tube transfer
curves and calculate the distortion before you spout off, Pearce. If
you know how, of course. You might surprise yourself. (I hesitate to
suggest that you build the design and measure for yourself; I wouldn't
want you to electrocute yourself on unaccustomed high voltage or burn
yourself with your new soldering iron.)

d

Sorry, miscounted. I hadn't spotted the two 100 ohm resistors and 100
ohm pot forming the series feedback network on the output valve were
carrying signal. Hang - this amp is not meant to have any feedback -
what are they doing there?

They're humbusters for the AC filaments. You do know that DC filaments
on DHT sound like ****, don't you, Pearce? Now go on, tell me about the
joys of regulation.


So you are claiming that an unbypassed cathode resistor is NOT a
voltage feedback system? Your technical abilities plumb yet greater
depths.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Always great to hear from you, Pearce. It gives me a warm glow of
superiority that a famous engineer like you, a proven hostile to tube
amps, can find only twee tiny quibbles when I publish a design.


When you publish a design claiming it to have no feedback, and I can
show that it does indeed use feedback, you can expect me to speak.
Bull**** always stinks.

When you claim there are only six components in the signal path and I
count 17 (yes, still apologies for the miscount and misidentification
- apropos of which you might want to redraw the schematic to make that
57k look a bit less like a feedback resistor), you can expect me to
speak. Even you should be able to count a bit better than that.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

Some components in the signal path have essentially zero signal voltage
across them and are thereby incapable of altering the signal.

Like coupling caps - LOL ! Who mentioned Teflon caps ?

Graham

[Andre Jute]

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The
amplifier is single-ended, zero negative feedback, built with Western
Electric signal and power tubes and a Mullard tube rectifier. There are
(counting by the Gaincard method which leaves the attenuator and power
supply out of the count!) six components in the signal path: 3
resistors, a cap and two tubes.

Hi Andre,

Can you explain in more detail the "Gaincard method" of counting
components in the signal path? Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to
be including the output transformer in your count, I still can't
duplicate your count for the "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"

Let's take Don Pearce's list, which, whatever his motives, seems
reasonable enough to me:

Input pot
4 by 220R grid stopper
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer
47k feedback r (Pearce must be referring to the grid leak resistor)
200uf B1 decoupler

Now, the Gaincard method, which I checked into when I designed a
minimum silicon amp
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
while I waited for you and Patrick to finish educating Pinkerton so
that he could enter the design contest in which he disgraced himself,
counts only components directly in the signal line from input to
output, and ignores the attenuator and the power supply. That would
leave one with:

1 grid stopper (4x 220R grid stoppers in parallel, counted as one as
the gainclone boys do)
First valve
Coupling cap
220R grid stopper
Second valve
transformer

Hmm. That's six components by the Gaincard method; I must have
subliminally revolted against such wishful thinking and defiantly
included the attenuator as well. Still, even if I include the
attenuator, that's two less than the Gancard tally of nine. One might
argue that a grid stopper soldered to the socket itself is a continuous
part of a component which is not counted, and thus not count it. The
truth is that I don't really care how many components I use, as long as
they are the right number and quality for the sound I want; didn't
Einstein say a thing should be as simple as is necessary but no
simpler. The key thing is to know when too much has arrived and to step
back from it.

In any case, six components give or take for the signal to pass through
sounds like too many for good sonics. In my "7119 PP Potato 2 Minimal"
amp the signal passes through only two components depending on exactly
how you count.

Showoff! Reeling in shock at such parsimony, I went looking for the
circuit on your site. When will you be publishing it? It sounds
fascinating.

It is a truly silent amplifier (It
sacrifices half the power for that silence) and in particular the
output is free of any odd harmonics.

What is the power output of your "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi"?

3.8W. I know, it doesn't look like very much from a 300B, but that is
the price of silence, of loading the plate with a 5K6 primary impedance
to get the noise down and the excellent harmonic distribution which you
first pointed out back when you compared the output stage of an earlier
version of the more affordable 6SN76SN7300B version of this amp, the
T44 Populaire,
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg
with the amp entered against it in an earlier design competition, the
Bubbaland 300B.

The circuit with a single WE 417A
tube doing both input and driver duty is at:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg

Regards,

John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Nice to see you back, John. I was thinking of discussing my next
project (a completely differential amp to drive electrostatic
earphones, what Stax calls "earspeakers on another group now that the
mouthfoamers have driven out so many of the capable RATs, but if you're
back perhaps we can inject some relevant interest. Mind you, my
dissection partner, yeah, all those years ago, had a macabre sense of
humour; he once told a female student, "Pass up that footpump so I can
inflate this cadaver and have sex with it." RAT's a bit like that these
days.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Nick Gorham]

Andre Jute wrote:
The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The

This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal
ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output
stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply?

--
Nick

[Andre Jute]

Nick Gorham wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The

This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal
ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output
stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply?

--
Nick

Aha! At last, a substantive point. Where in my amp would you take off
the ground for the power supply, Nick? Same question to everyone who's
ever built a tube amp; don't just assume Nick will give the same answer
you will. Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored
frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers.

I'll explain what I actually do, what I consider optimum when possible,
and what others have done when we have your answer and reasoning to
hand.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Nick Gorham]

Andre Jute wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The

This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal
ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output
stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply?

--
Nick


Aha! At last, a substantive point. Where in my amp would you take off
the ground for the power supply, Nick? Same question to everyone who's
ever built a tube amp; don't just assume Nick will give the same answer
you will. Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored
frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers.

I'll explain what I actually do, what I consider optimum when possible,
and what others have done when we have your answer and reasoning to
hand.


Well, its a loaded question, as without building and testing, I am not
certain that I would use the common mode choke. Or if I did and found it
offered improved noise performance I would use a WE or ultrapath bipass
arangement to avoid the problem. Without that, I would see what the
issue was with grounding after the choke, with the expectation that it
would possibly introduce switching noise from the mains TX, which may
well defeat the use of the CM choke in the first place.

Personally I would use a series regulator in the supply (either
referenced to a voltage ref, or just as a shunt) and not the CM choke,
as I have found that they sound better than anything else I have tried.

So, what was your findings?

--
Nick

[Peter Wieck]

Nick Gorham wrote:

So, what was your findings?

Nick:

You need to understand that Mr. McCoy's fantasy amplifier not much more
than a mare's nest of wires and cobbled parts obtained as "samples" for
other purposes than their proposed present use. That explains
peculiarities in the power-supply, the lack of a mains-generated bias
supply, dropping resistors on the filament supplies and so forth. Also,
as it happens, the presence of feedback despite the no-feedback claim.
You may also be dead-sure that it has never seen a signal applied that
actually resulted in something happening at a speaker... at least that
was planned anyway.

After all, transformers with "correct" filament supplies are readily
available. Even from Lundhal. That should be your first clue. And if an
amp is based on rather expensive boutique tubes, it would just about
make sense that the rest of the parade would be chosen with similar
care.

You are micturating in a windward direction if you expect to get any
sort of cogent answers based on actual results from this particular
concatenation of anecdotes.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Nick Gorham wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

The "KISS Amp WE300B SE Ultrafi" (1) has been finalized. This is a
project that was designed step by step on rec.audio.tubes. The

This may have been covered, in which case, sorry, but why is the signal
ground point taken back at the rectifier? Doesn't that make the output
stage signal loop include the choke and snubbers in the supply?

--
Nick


Aha! At last, a substantive point. Where in my amp would you take off
the ground for the power supply, Nick? Same question to everyone who's
ever built a tube amp; don't just assume Nick will give the same answer
you will. Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored
frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers.

I'll explain what I actually do, what I consider optimum when possible,
and what others have done when we have your answer and reasoning to
hand.


Well, its a loaded question, as without building and testing, I am not
certain that I would use the common mode choke. Or if I did and found it
offered improved noise performance I would use a WE or ultrapath bipass
arangement to avoid the problem. Without that, I would see what the
issue was with grounding after the choke, with the expectation that it
would possibly introduce switching noise from the mains TX, which may
well defeat the use of the CM choke in the first place.

Personally I would use a series regulator in the supply (either
referenced to a voltage ref, or just as a shunt) and not the CM choke,
as I have found that they sound better than anything else I have tried.

So, what was your findings?

--
Nick

Nick

I wrote you a long letter which fortunately was not delivered and then
actually looked at the circuit. What happened is that I added the
snubbers over the chokes at the last moment, before sending the circuit
to the net. Before that the power filter had a star ground, the input
had a star ground, both were the same star ground, so it didn't really
matter where I parked the earth while I did major surgery on the
schematic to make space for the snubbers (1), and then I just
overlooked moving it again. It is exactly for this kind of correction
that I post the schematic to RAT and UKRA before making any other
public announcement. (It's a pity that some resident quarterwits take
that as a license to indulge in childishness, but strictly for such
self-selecting fools I do a little sleight of hand with (Gain) cards
and simple stuff about bike computers they can look up, then they go
off on a wild rabbit chase and fall over their own feet at the same
time, as intended, much to the amusement of the rest of us.)

In more "normal" or simple supplies I routinely use the earthy end of
the bleeder at the end of the supply as a star ground. You can see a
one here,
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg
where the bleeder is the ali-cased resistor behind the right-hand
battery box and its right end is the star earth for all sections.

Thanks for your help. I'd like you to contribute when we discuss my
next project.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) The choke snubbers seem to have little sonic benefit. They protect
the longevity of the chokes and the power tranny, all of them expensive
items.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 14 Jan 2007 16:01:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored
frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers.

Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most
important, and definitely *the most* ignored for
typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial)
designs.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On 14 Jan 2007 16:01:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored
frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers.

Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most
important, and definitely *the most* ignored for
typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial)
designs.

In pro-audio it's been well to the fore since the very beginning of the sector.
There are no secrets about good grounding practice.

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:57:58 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most
important, and definitely *the most* ignored for
typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial)
designs.

In pro-audio it's been well to the fore since the very beginning of the sector.
There are no secrets about good grounding practice.

Production sound uses balanced interconnections between
multiple pieces of equipment. Internally, the same issues
arise in the same ways, because the signal path is
unbalanced internally.

And, of course, power supplies are "unbalanced" from a
signal point of view.

This is definitely *not* a done deal; it's, instead, an
important and mostly overlooked component of the signal
path.

There are no secrets about good grounding practice, but
there are also no magic bullets. All grounding practices
are compromises among various competing goals.

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Andre Jute]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 16:01:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Grounding is one of the last, possibly the last, unexplored
frontiers in hi-fidelity tube amplifiers.

Hopefully not the last, but certainly one of the most
important, and definitely *the most* ignored for
typical homebrew (and, sadly, too many commercial)
designs.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

On the evidence in this thread, I'd say filament supplies make another
unfinished subject, right up there with grounding. -- Andre Jute

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 18 Jan 2007 18:16:15 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

On the evidence in this thread, I'd say filament supplies make another
unfinished subject, right up there with grounding.

It's certainly a difficult subject for a newsgroup discussion.
Maybe it's the restriction to a plain text format, and maybe
(much more likely, actually) it's my poor ability to convey
(without a lot of handwaving or even a coupla graphs) arcana
about an unfamiliar topic, but I've had very mixed results
(an _Annie Hall_ reference; only funny if you loved
the movie) discussing the difference between AC and DC
filament supplies with two very bright guys on this very
thread.

Not enough points of reference; the bane of newsgroup
discussions everywhere, to say nothing of intergenderbanter.

It's a stone beotch but the valves big enough and linear
enough to be interesting to many of us hifi snobs are filamentary
triodes. The lack of a separate cathode is a huge pain in the
patootie, so work-arounds are a very important discussion.
Fortunately, all the real work was done before we were born;
just a matter of getting the word out.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[[email protected]]

Just one question - why the battery?


OK 2 questions... why the 4 paralleled input resistors? Noise?

[Eiron]

wrote:

Just one question - why the battery?

It's useful to have four fully charged AA cells in a fixed place.
You never know when you will need them for torch, camera etc.

As for their use in the amp - a resistor and capacitor would be better.

--
Eiron.

[Andre Jute]

wrote:
Just one question - why the battery?

This is the circuit under discussion:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg

All components have sonic signature. Some have very little, or are
difficult to use for sound shaping.

There is absolutely no point in building an amp this expensive unless
for some purpose beyond the bragging rights of "I have Western Electric
300Bs in my amp, which of course I built myself." A good purpose is to
take charge of the quality of your sound, rather than leave it in the
hands of some zero-culture, long-since deaf, totally uncivilized,
supercilious, smug silicon slime, of which we can see ample samples on
these conferences. (There are also some very cultured and agreeable
silicon designers but they are successful and don't need my help.)

The WE417A driver tube was chosen for its particular signature. I had
already designed a much more precise reference SE300B amp for Western
Electric tubes with two 6SN7 stages, of which the most popular version
is he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg
But in the T39 I was stepping back, building an amp for hedonists, not
soulless technicians. The 417A is very suitable for hedonists, very
linear (but not as linear as a 6SN7), quite a bit warmer in the manner
of the double digit veteran directly heated triodes but much more
widely available. Count what besides the 417A is in that circuit. The
attenuator is a DACT, built by robots on Swiss goldplated switches with
SMD resistors: zero signature, as it should be. I have no belief in
anything more than marginal soundshaping with resistors; Kiwame are
slightly but perceptibly warmer than the common Beyschlagg I also like,
and the rest leave me indifferent to the difference between them, if
any; I believe in overspeccing my resistors to run them cool and so
avoid various kinds of resistor noise which can be important in small
signal circuits.

So that leaves the tube itself, whose sound we can shape by the value
of the resistor in the plate circuit and whatever we decide to put in
the cathode circuit. Taking the plate circuit first, we can lower the
resistor value and thereby make the sound dirtier at the volume
extremes, which to the uninitiated might sound like more bass
(analogous to what you hear on boomboxes on the street or from little
passing hatchbacks owned by wannabe gangsta but of course not degraded
quite that far). That isn't quite my style, so I load the plate up to
the maximum I can within the available power supply, thereby
linearizing the response. I should explain that my style is first to
extract the maximum silence that good engineering allows, which from
tubes is much more impressive than you might imagine when you read the
silicon slime who hang out here to tell us how wrong we are because
they can't get any other employment. After that I back off to a
suitable level of hedonism. This isn't quite euphonious distortion, it
is more like a sense of balance and perspective, and an understanding
of psychoacoustics (I'm by training an economist and psychologist).

At this point we can then choose from four ways to implement a cathode
circuit. One, by constant current sink, I dismiss immediately as too
complicated for an amp announced as KISS (keep it simple, stupid); in
my next project I shall return to CCS because there their complication
is the least of the evils. That leaves three ways of doing it: a
resistor alone, a resistor bypassed by a cap, and battery bias.

Of these, the bypassed resistor is my instinctive fave. It is simple,
it is selfadjusting, and if you spend the time and the money on
development and components, you will eventually choose the right
capacitor; I have long since done my homework and know what I will use.
Open another circuit:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/t...17acircuit.jpg
This is a complete amp built only from the first stage of the T39 (in
fact it was made by removing the 300B from a T39). It should now become
clear to you that if I substitute the battery with a resistor and a
cap), the cap becomes the sole determinant of the sonic quality of the
stage. With so little in the circuit, the cap really looms large. An
unbypassed resistor has feedback which changes the sound adversely by
making it harder, more crystalline and by tilting the response towards
the bass when in fact I want to tilt the 417A's "natural" tendency the
other way -- I just want a slightly warm amp, not a hot, gushy amp.
That leaves a battery, which, while not a soundshaping element under my
control (in that there is only one choice of operating conditions for a
417A with battery bias if you already decided the plate voltage), is at
least perfectly neutral. The battery also has a tendency to stabilize
everything around it which is a good thing as I have already paid a
heavy price in efficiency for ballasts and other devices to stablilize
important electrical points and any"free" margin is welcome.

So, by a process of elimination, I am left only with the battery. This
thought process is described in
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm

If you study the T68bis "Minus Zero" circuit even cursorily, you will
immediately see that the other big sonic influence, besides a putative,
potential, possible cathode bypass cap, is the power supply. But that
is fully developed and fixed in a desirable sonic already, and is
anyway a large loose cannon on deck if you lose control of it, so you
don't want to mess with success if instead you can do the job by
working with one or at most two cathode circuit components, which
brings us back to the battery decision, which by its impedance in turn
makes any remaining solecism of the power supply a moot point.

All roads lead to Rome. In the T68bis you can see how all currents must
pass through that battery. It is the very dream of every control freak,
though the wannabe control freaks on RAT and UKRA lack the subtlety to
understand what is happening.

OK 2 questions... why the 4 paralleled input resistors? Noise?

The WE417A has wonderful sonics once the designer grasps how to handle
it; in the hands of the usual pretenders it quickly turns to expensive
noise because nobody told them it is a radio frequency tube. Almost all
tubes are, of course, but the 417A is especially efficient in the RF.
It has four grid pins which can pick up radio rubbish, so each one
requires a grid stopper and the signal can be put in to any of them,
though one is better than the others by far for simple reasons of
physics that may be determined by observation.

HTH.

If this is more information than you wanted, next time don't ask such
a(n only apparently) simple question!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[[email protected]]

On 14 Jan 2007 23:51:59 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


wrote:
Just one question - why the battery?

This is the circuit under discussion:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg

All components have sonic signature. Some have very little, or are
difficult to use for sound shaping.

There is absolutely no point in building an amp this expensive unless
for some purpose beyond the bragging rights of "I have Western Electric
300Bs in my amp, which of course I built myself." A good purpose is to
take charge of the quality of your sound, rather than leave it in the
hands of some zero-culture, long-since deaf, totally uncivilized,
supercilious, smug silicon slime, of which we can see ample samples on
these conferences. (There are also some very cultured and agreeable
silicon designers but they are successful and don't need my help.)

The WE417A driver tube was chosen for its particular signature. I had
already designed a much more precise reference SE300B amp for Western
Electric tubes with two 6SN7 stages, of which the most popular version
is he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T44bis-'Populaire'-crct.jpg
But in the T39 I was stepping back, building an amp for hedonists, not
soulless technicians. The 417A is very suitable for hedonists, very
linear (but not as linear as a 6SN7), quite a bit warmer in the manner
of the double digit veteran directly heated triodes but much more
widely available. Count what besides the 417A is in that circuit. The
attenuator is a DACT, built by robots on Swiss goldplated switches with
SMD resistors: zero signature, as it should be. I have no belief in
anything more than marginal soundshaping with resistors; Kiwame are
slightly but perceptibly warmer than the common Beyschlagg I also like,
and the rest leave me indifferent to the difference between them, if
any; I believe in overspeccing my resistors to run them cool and so
avoid various kinds of resistor noise which can be important in small
signal circuits.

So that leaves the tube itself, whose sound we can shape by the value
of the resistor in the plate circuit and whatever we decide to put in
the cathode circuit. Taking the plate circuit first, we can lower the
resistor value and thereby make the sound dirtier at the volume
extremes, which to the uninitiated might sound like more bass
(analogous to what you hear on boomboxes on the street or from little
passing hatchbacks owned by wannabe gangsta but of course not degraded
quite that far). That isn't quite my style, so I load the plate up to
the maximum I can within the available power supply, thereby
linearizing the response. I should explain that my style is first to
extract the maximum silence that good engineering allows, which from
tubes is much more impressive than you might imagine when you read the
silicon slime who hang out here to tell us how wrong we are because
they can't get any other employment. After that I back off to a
suitable level of hedonism. This isn't quite euphonious distortion, it
is more like a sense of balance and perspective, and an understanding
of psychoacoustics (I'm by training an economist and psychologist).

At this point we can then choose from four ways to implement a cathode
circuit. One, by constant current sink, I dismiss immediately as too
complicated for an amp announced as KISS (keep it simple, stupid); in
my next project I shall return to CCS because there their complication
is the least of the evils. That leaves three ways of doing it: a
resistor alone, a resistor bypassed by a cap, and battery bias.

Of these, the bypassed resistor is my instinctive fave. It is simple,
it is selfadjusting, and if you spend the time and the money on
development and components, you will eventually choose the right
capacitor; I have long since done my homework and know what I will use.
Open another circuit:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/t...17acircuit.jpg
This is a complete amp built only from the first stage of the T39 (in
fact it was made by removing the 300B from a T39). It should now become
clear to you that if I substitute the battery with a resistor and a
cap), the cap becomes the sole determinant of the sonic quality of the
stage. With so little in the circuit, the cap really looms large. An
unbypassed resistor has feedback which changes the sound adversely by
making it harder, more crystalline and by tilting the response towards
the bass when in fact I want to tilt the 417A's "natural" tendency the
other way -- I just want a slightly warm amp, not a hot, gushy amp.
That leaves a battery, which, while not a soundshaping element under my
control (in that there is only one choice of operating conditions for a
417A with battery bias if you already decided the plate voltage), is at
least perfectly neutral. The battery also has a tendency to stabilize
everything around it which is a good thing as I have already paid a
heavy price in efficiency for ballasts and other devices to stablilize
important electrical points and any"free" margin is welcome.

So, by a process of elimination, I am left only with the battery. This
thought process is described in
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...mp%20INDEX.htm

If you study the T68bis "Minus Zero" circuit even cursorily, you will
immediately see that the other big sonic influence, besides a putative,
potential, possible cathode bypass cap, is the power supply. But that
is fully developed and fixed in a desirable sonic already, and is
anyway a large loose cannon on deck if you lose control of it, so you
don't want to mess with success if instead you can do the job by
working with one or at most two cathode circuit components, which
brings us back to the battery decision, which by its impedance in turn
makes any remaining solecism of the power supply a moot point.

All roads lead to Rome. In the T68bis you can see how all currents must
pass through that battery. It is the very dream of every control freak,
though the wannabe control freaks on RAT and UKRA lack the subtlety to
understand what is happening.

OK 2 questions... why the 4 paralleled input resistors? Noise?

The WE417A has wonderful sonics once the designer grasps how to handle
it; in the hands of the usual pretenders it quickly turns to expensive
noise because nobody told them it is a radio frequency tube. Almost all
tubes are, of course, but the 417A is especially efficient in the RF.
It has four grid pins which can pick up radio rubbish, so each one
requires a grid stopper and the signal can be put in to any of them,
though one is better than the others by far for simple reasons of
physics that may be determined by observation.

HTH.

If this is more information than you wanted, next time don't ask such
a(n only apparently) simple question!


Not too much at all - it was a great read! ( I din't have time yet to follow
the links but I will.)

I also build amps, have been since the 60s ( hence the moniker) and noise is
very important to me, since lots of recordings I have are very quiet (read weak)
and amp noise can be overwhelming.

My choice for power supply is hefty sand diodes and hundreds of µf of
capacity... I believe it eliminates the PS from the equations. I also spider
wire everything, no series de-coupling for me... ( except if you count the
multi-cap distribution resistors!.) OK I lied... I also float the caps from
the chassis, I like to have the final word in where the earth point is...

One thing - did you put a scope to the battery? Is there any signal visible on
it or is it a good ground?

Thanks

[Peter Wieck]

wrote:

One thing - did you put a scope to the battery? Is there any signal visible on
it or is it a good ground?

You need to keep in mind thjat Mr. McCoy has not built it yet.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 13 Jan 2007 21:53:17 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg

There's a typo in the posted schematic; earth ground
in the B+ supply is shown on the wrong side of the
filtering (dual-winding) choke. Otherwise, copacetic!

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Andre Jute]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On 13 Jan 2007 21:53:17 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg

There's a typo in the posted schematic; earth ground
in the B+ supply is shown on the wrong side of the
filtering (dual-winding) choke. Otherwise, copacetic!

Thanks, Chris. That problem crept in when I put in the snubbers on the
chokes. Before, that whole circuit was starred and its star coincided
with the signal circuit star, so it didn't matter where I put the
symbol, as I explained to Nick (in a post that hours later I still
can't see).

I've now moved the earth to the other side of the chokes and all the
snubbers and posted an amended circuit to avoid misunderstandings. It
is for precisely this sort of information that I publish the circuit
first to RAT, so that the knowledgeable sharpeyed can point details
that through overfamiliarity I missed.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

Thanks again! (No footnotes; you can stop here.)

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Robert Morein]

In article , "Andre Jute"
wrote:

I've now moved the earth to the other side of the chokes and all the
snubbers and posted an amended circuit to avoid misunderstandings. It
is for precisely this sort of information that I publish the circuit
first to RAT, so that the knowledgeable sharpeyed can point details
that through overfamiliarity I missed.

Apology accepted, with the proviso that you change "overfamiliarity" (sic)
to the more accurate "profound stupidity".

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

[Andre Jute]

Brian McCarty, pretending to be Robert Morein, wrote:
In article , "Andre Jute"
wrote:

I've now moved the earth to the other side of the chokes and all the
snubbers and posted an amended circuit to avoid misunderstandings. It
is for precisely this sort of information that I publish the circuit
first to RAT, so that the knowledgeable sharpeyed can point details
that through overfamiliarity I missed.

Apology accepted, with the proviso that you change "overfamiliarity" (sic)
to the more accurate "profound stupidity".

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

Yo, McCarty, I feel sorry for you. If Bob Morein is really such an
inferior person as you claim, how come he bust a con on which you
worked years? If Bob Morein is really as incompetent as you claim, how
come only the minority of psychopathic lepers in even the hostile
environment of the Usenet believes you?

I feel sorry for you, McCarty. I really do. You're a loser, you were
born a loser, you'll die hungry.

BTW, if you were smart, instead of crossing Robert Morein, you would
have recruited him. He's a holy fool and anyone who can harness the
force of such can be rich. I know, I worked in advertising. You're too
thick and slow for your own good, McCarty. You'll be no loss to the
gene pool.

Andre Jute

[Peter Wieck]

Andrew Jute McCoy blathered:

BTW, if you were smart, instead of crossing Robert Morein, you would
have recruited him. He's a holy fool and anyone who can harness the
force of such can be rich. I know, I worked in advertising. You're too
thick and slow for your own good, McCarty. You'll be no loss to the
gene pool.

Always ready to advise exploitation. Somehow that is exactly in your
character.

Morein may be a fool, he may even be "holy" as you suggest as he
certainly tilts at many windmills and has the general attitude of the
obsessed. All-and-at-the-same-time, he is at least human. A
characteristic that you lack to any discernable degree.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA