[jamesgangnc]

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

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
...


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

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


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

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




Which was?

Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

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

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

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

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

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

Plus they are expensive.

The good ones are expensive, big time!

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

Agreed.

There is no "advantage" to the output transformer.

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

The transformer doesn't "improve" the amp.

Agreed.

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

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

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

Agreed.

The advantage of that circuit is obvious.

Agreed,

[Peter Wieck]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draw your own conclusions.

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

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[jakdedert]

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yeah, well....

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

jak

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

wrote:
"In a word: YES...

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

Continued: http://easyurl.net/TubesTubes

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.




Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

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

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

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

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

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
...


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Solid state devices aren't ideal either.

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

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

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

Good transformers are not "impossible."

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

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

There is no "advantage" to the output transformer.

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a 100W OTL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg ****s on another Kroopologist.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

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

Don't forget to gargle, Turdbucket.

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

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

[Peter Wieck]

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

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

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

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

"Spirited exchange"?

Give me a break.

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

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

Need there be anything more?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

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

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

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

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

"Spirited exchange"?

Give me a break.

a) nothing but 'revealed religion' is exchanged.

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


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

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

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

Good example of that being the OP.

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

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

A cessation of self-righteousness posturing.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message

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

"flipper" wrote in message


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

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

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

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

LOL good one.

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

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

[Mr.T]

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

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

MrT

[Mr.T]

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

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

MrT.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Whoa!

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

[dizzy]

RapidRonnie wrote:

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

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

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

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

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , George M. Middius at
wrote on 5/29/08 1:36 PM:



The Krooborg ****s on another Kroopologist.

See the second paragraph in my reply to jak.

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

Don't forget to gargle, Turdbucket.

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

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



Very helpful and articulate post, George. As usual.

[[email protected]]

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

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


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

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

Yes, but not by mass!

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr.T]

"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.

[BretLudwig]

" 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."


Here's an interesting question: can you fully duplicate the performance
of the best All American 5 table radios with the same number of solid
state active devices?

Could you even do it with any 5 ICs?

To get the dynamic range of the tube front end you are going to have to
use a differential JFET or MOSFET front end, you'll need a regulated power
supply, the LO will use an RF amp, the mixer will need two internal diodes
surely, and a bunch if a Gilbert cell is used.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Arny Krueger]

"BretLudwig" wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com

Arny wrote, and Bret quoted very badly:

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 missionimpossible, 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.

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."

Here's an interesting question: can you fully duplicate
the performance of the best All American 5 table radios
with the same number of solid state active devices?

Philips TEA 5170, which includes AM, FM, and FM stereo. Add your choice of
power amp chips, depending on desired power levels.

Could you even do it with any 5 ICs?

2 or 3, per the data sheet for the Philips part above.

To get the dynamic range of the tube front end you are
going to have to use a differential JFET or MOSFET front
end, you'll need a regulated power supply, the LO will
use an RF amp, the mixer will need two internal diodes
surely, and a bunch if a Gilbert cell is used.

Looks like the TEA 5170 will do the job of a 5 tube AC/DC radio, add stereo
FM, and takes only about about a dozen external parts plus power supply.

[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.

[BretLudwig]

"Arny wrote, and Bret quoted very badly:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
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 missionimpossible, 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.
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."
Here's an interesting question: can you fully duplicate
the performance of the best All American 5 table radios
with the same number of solid state active devices?

Philips TEA 5170, which includes AM, FM, and FM stereo. Add your choice
of
power amp chips, depending on desired power levels.

Could you even do it with any 5 ICs?

2 or 3, per the data sheet for the Philips part above.

To get the dynamic range of the tube front end you are
going to have to use a differential JFET or MOSFET front
end, you'll need a regulated power supply, the LO will
use an RF amp, the mixer will need two internal diodes
surely, and a bunch if a Gilbert cell is used.

Looks like the TEA 5170 will do the job of a 5 tube AC/DC radio, add
stereo
FM, and takes only about about a dozen external parts plus power supply.
"


Oh, car radios have three chips now. I didn't say could you build one
that would work but that would do everything as well as the AA5. The
better AA5s were excellent receivers that had excellent sensitivity and
good selectivity and even good image rejection at lower levels when the
bleedthrough to the pentagrid converter stage through the cabinet wasn't
the problem.

Today's common car and portable radios are dog**** on AM. Even deluxe
DXer models like the CCradio and GE Superadio are not better than the
best 5 tube AA5s. I can often get WSM on a 1959 Westinghouse with all
original tubes when my Superadio III just gets garble.

The dynamic range of the RF amp stages and the excellent AVC of a remote
cutoff pentode take a lot of doing to beat solid state. It takes a lot of
circuitry to beat that single tube and few bother.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[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]

"BretLudwig" wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com

The dynamic range of the RF amp stages and the excellent
AVC of a remote cutoff pentode take a lot of doing to
beat solid state.

I seriously doubt that.

The AM band is not that far removed from high audio frequencies. SS mic
preamps have more dynamic range and far less cross-modulation distortion
than tubed units, and by a lot.

It takes a lot of circuitry to beat that single tube and few bother.

Unless you can document this, its just wishful thinking on your part, Bret.
And I' not talking junk science such as what we got from Russell Hamm.

[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 . . . . . . . . . .