[John Byrns]

A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. What we don't know is what sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost as the
actual QUAD II. Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not, have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 7, 3:38*am, John Byrns wrote:
A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *

Ah, My Dear John,
I probably should not say to you that the idea of troll comes to mind,
but I would not dare suggest that your questions resemble something
which might have emanated from a troll. Yes, I have a woeful mind.

I seem to always run out of Itching Powder to sprinkle down the
underpants of trolls whenever the word troll appears in my brain
circuits. So, instead of such powderesque solutions, I'll have to try
to answer your questions with words which have never failed me too
often.

If cost was no object, the sky is the limit, and I'm not going to be
sucked into suggesting something that uses tubes but has OPTs with
Unobtanium Cores, and silver wire which was ****ed upon by a naked
virgin at midnight under a full moon with 100 Priests of the Order Of
OrdioFiles chanting the correct mantras while looking the other way
while lil' virgie girlie does her business. But the samples of how
things could be done better are all outlined and detailed at my
website. Such amplifiers are fit to be ****ed upon by The Holy Virgin
at midnight, to imbue the repose needed just in case the mystical
harmony of Elect Trons is upset or distracted by ill-ease in minds of
the thousands of Dissagreers who read these pages.

Quad-II is basically a flawed over simplified circuit which should
have had two twin triodes for its input driver. These could have been
arranged as a Williamson or as Leak type of set up and would have
produced less THD and wider OLG in the drive amp. Numerous samples are
at my website. But because they employ a few transistors which were
available in 1955, and to allow best application of the principles I
use in my simplest schematics like say the 5050 or 8585 amps at my
website, then a negative rail would have been needed to allow a
suitable high value resistance from LTP commoned cathodes so that the
LTP triodes, say 12AU7, could have had grids at 0V bias but cathode R
= 39k taken to -250Vdc. Some slight difference in the RLdc to each
12AU7 anode is needed to get perfect ac balance, but easily doable.
PSU would need to be better than Quad arranged, so there'd be a CLC
filtered anode supply with RC filtered screen and drive amp supply.
OPT would have to be radically re-designed along the lines of what I
suggest at my website, ie, about twice the weight, 1.4 times the
volume, and a normal very desirable thing, and not the lowest common
denominator rubbish Quad crammed into a can to make a bitta junk look
chic for 1955.

What we don't know is what sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Its beyound me to say everything here about what i would have done had
I been offered the position of CEO at Quad in 1955 with te power to
rub accountan'ts noses in a bucket of poop if the were to suggest
something that's peave me so. But methinks I'd have a picture of an
executioner's axe on my office door with a Beware The Compromise You
Might Suggest writ on large letters. Ya gotta nip the dumbers down in
the bud to keep quality high. Make the arsoles feel nervous. Always
welcome their resignations when you say no to *******s.
But apart from this kind of fobbing off of quality bandits, i'd be
offering terrific stuff, but it might mean some increase in production
cost but with a lowering of the profit margins ( and I suggest they
probably were quite high ). If nobody recognised what I was trying to
do with quality I'd just close the business and retire. But I'd be the
same person as I am now and I's probably be happy with the honour of
producing quality and if I could keep my earnings to below the level
of taxable threshold, ie, equal to todays $6,400 as I have been doing
for many years now, and getting around on a bicycle, which transfering
the expertise at low cost into the product, then maybe i'd get away
with it all without becoming bankrupt. If the BBC said to me to get my
amp prices below Leak's prices or else no more lavish orders, then i'd
probably respond by intensifying a campaign to export product to the
USA with an including a model Q-4066 with 4 x KT66 to satidfy taste in
the USA. I'd look around for real brains to help me who were like me,
happy to work for **** all and while producing fabluous things without
the usual problems of British Shortcomings of 1955; the itemised list
of these would fill a book.


Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not, have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? *How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

I've not obtained a fused OPT which is good for nothing and worth
carefully opening up to find out how ****in badly the crap had been
wound. But I am confident i'd find utter crap compared to anything I
have designed. I know it does not comply with anything remotely like
best practice as spelled out so elegantly in RDH4, and by Walker's
friend, Mr Williamson. Is possible Quad didn't employ a Quality
Extracticator aka as Bean Counter, and the function of such a person
found so often in so many companies was none other than Walker
himself.
after all, Walker said all amps sound the same if they measure the
same, and he jumped straight into solid state to dump tubes as quickly
as British Inertia and British Reluctance To Change allowed.

Last year I conferred with a colleague of mine who makes and sells
more tube amps than I do. I design all his OPTs. He has them wound by
a Chinese born resident of Sydney who is quite happy winding anything
I might detail on a Bobbin Layout Sheet as they appear at my website.
Most tranny winder tradesmen winders I've had the displeasure to meet
have vomited all over me when I tell them exactly what I want. I got
tired of the dry cleaning bills and negative response from each one.
But anyway, Mr China is a living wonder, and is happy winding some
10KVA 3 phase motor winding for a ship while its in Sydney Harbour, or
winding a replacement tranny for Quad-II. So I have two trannies now
which comply with my expections of wide BW and low iron and copper
losses. To fit them onto a Quad-II chassis, it means the tube
rectifier and screen choke is dumped, and this allows more room for 2
x 6550/KT88, and 2 mini nine pin sockets moved from where these are
now. The new OPT is not to be potted, but could be. It is placed
across the whole chassis now occupied by 2 x EF86 and the horrid
existing toy OPT which Quad gave us. If my revisions had been
undertaken in 1955, the tube rectifier would have had to be retained
and room made for CLC anode B+ filter so the chassis would have had to
have been made 3" longer while width and height kept constant.

Some years ago Quad issued their Quad-2-Forty with 2 x KT88. AFAIK,
this lacklustre and poorly made amp with a very nice paint job was
produced in China and each of plan L x W dimensions are about 10%
larger than Quad-II. Someone with business savvy decided to employ a
British Designer with supposed impeccable credentials and Splendid
Reputation among British audiophiles who read Stereophile which is
bribed to give great reviews while carry adds for the product perhaps.
All amplifier design and construction is not much determined by any
engineer, but by accountants and promotions managers and business
planners. Hence Andy Grove was roped into the design for the Quad-II-
Forty. He just replicated the Walker circuit almost exactly the same,
except for some slightly different R values, and use of a pair of
metal can WW2 style 6SH7 input pentodes to replace EF86. I've had to
service these amps and lemme tell ya folks, the Chinese have done it
yet agin and failed to follow through with anywhere near enough
prototype development which one would expect to happen for amplifiers
which have a very cheap Chinese ex-factory price but an extra-
ordinarily high retail price wherever this tarted up junk is sold in
hi-fi stores. The Chinese know the West is a soft touch for tarty junk
and they refuse to put in the hard yards to EARN the quality status
which I could endorse. Once you have to service such stuff it all
becomes so painfully clear what was not done properly. But that's not
a big concern for those in the Quad company owners, they know their
buying public is techically ignorant, and slavish to brandnames, and
prejudiced in favour of Olde British Knowhow, and Olde British
Brandnames, and easily conned by slick advertising campaigns. If
someone were to make a Wolsley motor car styled like 1955, but with a
few mod cons, they'd be buyers. But unfortunately the Quad-II-40
hasn't got many mod cons, and its OPT is little better than the
original. So what could have been so much better, and smaller and more
compact, isn't, and is a perpetuation of the die hard junkish status
quo.

I fear the same crap traditions have been perpetuated in the Quad 80
with 4 x KT88 as designed by guess who? Paravicini of course. And I
have had to re-engineer his smoke producing creations fulla
crapology.

There are at least 3 things governing human behaviour, sex, money, and
agrandisement. As tube amp designers get older, the sex thing
diminishes to zero,( although many wank off alone.) They often might
not make much money, but they have the unique ability to appear at the
right place at the right time just like the top fashion designers who
design clothes you'll never buy for your wife. But the urge to be
grand, to have esoteric status, to see one's ego triumph in the face
of so many doubters becomes paramount. The route to being a buffoon is
assured if you keep your fingers jammed into your ears when those with
valid criticisms speak their minds.

There are so many buffoons involved with the production of hi-end gear
at absurdly high prices that humble down to earth types like myself
can actually make and sell something with real quality which has not
had the dumbing down by accountants and factory managers who are
allergic to making real quality and to promotion plans for mass sales.
I'd always welcome capital investment but financial backers have the
nasty rotten habit of never putting money where their mouth is and
never taking responsibility for failure so that they want ownership of
my house before they'd give me one cent to rent a decent workspace
where a team of people could work properly. I'm too old to be
embarking on such a risky business of tube amp production. One amp at
a time is plenty for me and I get to keep my house. But when a young
man is 25, he owns no house, and if he embarks on a dream which could
fail, and he gets finance because he has a nice smile, he's not
worrying about what he may lose. But he probably would have boundless
energy, and say NO to anything I suggested he do. He learns wisdom
through suffering.

I look forward to completing my pair of Reformed Quads made as they
should have been done when Quad decided to produce the Quad-II-Forty.
I know they'll perform far better than Quad-II, and the later Quad-II-
Forty.

Patrick Turner.




--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"John Byrns"
A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. What we don't know is what
sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and
were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost
as the
actual QUAD II. Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?


** Nice wind up !!!

The Turneroid toy robot is off AND running .....




..... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 7, 8:17*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"John Byrns"





A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed..

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *What we don't know is what
sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and
were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost
as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? *How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

** Nice wind up *!!!

The Turneroid toy robot is off * AND *running .....

I ran out of words now though, enough is enough.....

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 8, 1:41*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:17*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:





"John Byrns"

A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *What we don't know is what
sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and
were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost
as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? *How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

** Nice wind up *!!!

The Turneroid toy robot is off * AND *running .....

I ran out of words now though, enough is enough.....

Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee, Golly, our dear Mr John remains quiet. I can almost hear his
brain whirring away to compose something in reply to me, and brains
fitted with retro style thought aids including PP 845 Power Thought
stages can sometimes be heard working from metres away because of
slight electrostatic effects on surrounding tissues but I
digress...... .

I ran up a couple of drawings for revisions of the EF86 input/driver
stage in Quad-II and if one EF86 is retained, but strapped in triode,
and the other replaced by 6CG7 as an LTP, and NFB applied in the
conventional manner from OPT sec to V1 cathode, maybe with the
existing network then the gains will be about right. The list of R&C
parts is about the same. One could direct couple the V1 triode anode
to one grid of 6CG7 LTP, but then you have reduced Ea for each 6CG7
triode because B+ can only be about +370Vdc, and 6CG7 cathodes would
be at about +110Vdc, so the Ea = +140V approx only, and not enough for
optimal operation. The LTP THD is much reduced if the 6CG7 can have
higher value RLs rather than lower ones so Eg1 bias should be low as
possible, even taken to a negative supply of say -100V, with a common
cathode resistance taken to - 250Vdc. This could easily have been done
in 1960 with taps off the HT winding at about 200Vrms and using a 6X5
or mini rectifier tube. I'm not sure if 6X5 was around in1950 in time
for My Hypothetical Quad-II Design project while having Honary
Appointment as Chief Execution Officer in Quad's Amplifier Department,
with brown chair and office in broom cupboard under stair case. I'd
not be in the office much, but down there on the shop floor with
sleeves rolled up and workin with the blokes and shielas to perfectify
prototypes, and pity 'elp any ****in office clod in clean clobber who
come out to disturb us. But I digress.

In Quad-II, the use of a ratbag 40uF and 180 ohm R&C common cathode
bias network is a mean trick played upon Quad buyers, and it helped to
cause premature death in KT66. But Walker and thousands of his well to
do palsy-walsies may have owned shares in tube making companies so if
KT66 malfunctioned sooner than later they got richer. They could
afford highly priced KT66 replacements for the quite expensive Quad-II
amps.
From 1950, and if I could have looked into Quad's future and to about
1996 and the production of the Quad-II Forty with KT88, I'd have seen
the use of individual R&C bias networks on each KT88 cathode. It took
some 46 years to get some improvement in bias stability. British
Inertia is difficult to move. Getting some well respected British
brandname to Change Something which involves the Ruinous Expense of
one ****in lousy R and C was a tall order it seemed. OMG, change! That
horrible C word!

Anyway, the use of two bias networks allows the CT of the CFB winding
to be grounded, where it naturally belongs. Very little Vdc is
developed across the CFB windings as they are 10% of total primary
turns. With such a small amount of Vdc across the CFB winding and with
separate RC biasing, there is no reason why OP tube grid biasing Rg
could not be taken to the CFB winding ends thus naturally
bootstrapping them. The existing KT66 bias Rg = 680k, and absurdly
high value which allows **** to happen when some reverse positive grid
current begins to develop in tubes as they age, even though they are
serviceable, and cabable of many more years if only Rg was a lot lower
in R value. But using high value Rg encourages tubes to be replaced
and profits to be made. How can hospitals make a profit unless you
encorage punters to smoke and need medical attention? Hmm, too sides
to this, depending on who pays the medical bills. If one happens to be
a Beurokrat in the Dept of Defense, one would agitate that Govt owned
hospitals be kept free of patients to make them profitable so more
billions of pounds could be spent on nuclear subs to make Britain last
2 hours longer against the Russians who had enough nuclear weapons of
which about 25% were reliable enough to land someplace on the British
Motherland. Just where the other 75% might go off due to Soviet vacuum
tube powered missile electronics is anyone's guess, but such matters
were a Whitehall Wurry. But I digress.
Of course, someone @ somewhere, probably an accountant, decided
profits in electronics companies could be increased if KT66 were
banished entirely and so they were banished. By 1960 suitable power
transistors had become available.
Anyway the use of the grounded CFB winding allows the biasing Rg to be
a lower value, say 100k instead of 680k, thus Eg1 would rise
positively very much as the tube ages. The bootstrappng makes the 100k
look like about 270k to the drive amp. Its still a lowish R value
which seriously reduces the gain of an EF86 pentode which has such a
high Ra and feeble Gm as set up in original Quad-II. But if the driver
amp is a 6CG7 LTP, Ra is about 10k at Ia = 3mA, and the 270k is easily
driven. Did any such idea occur to our dear Mr Walker? Don't ask me.
I once tried 12AT7 SET V1 input triode with 12AU7 LTP with transistor
CCS and this 1999 schematic is at my website. trioded EF86 + 6CG7
would be just as good, or 6BX6 in triode as V1 if one wanted more
gain; many tube combos are better than Walker's EF86 concoction. And
of course the orginal Quad circuit does not allow bootstapping of KT66
Rg to ends of grounded CFB winding because the Rg are tied up with the
NFB network. Bloody awkward and a PFB bodge if you wanna know. But
without a bjt CCS in 1950, to get the LTP to work best the negative
rail should be used. No trouble with silicon diodes though and one can
get -400Vdc at say 6 mA for the LTP easily. The negative rail could
allow fixed bias which then much improves class AB operation but in
1950, F'bias was a pest because nearly everyone forgot to adjust the
bias or they just let their amps cook and die without service so that
by 1965 they swapped over to the STEREO SS Quad amp systems.

Patrick Turner.

[Engineer[_2_]]

On Jun 7, 3:35*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:38*am, John Byrns wrote:

A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed..

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *

Ah, My Dear John,

(big snip... just to save bandwidth!)

I look forward to completing my pair of Reformed Quads made as they
should have been done when Quad decided to produce the Quad-II-Forty.
I know they'll perform far better than Quad-II, and the later Quad-II-
Forty.

Patrick Turner. --

(snip)

A great read... thanks!
Cheers,
Roger

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 8, 12:01*pm, Engineer wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:35*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 7, 3:38*am, John Byrns wrote:

A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *

Ah, My Dear John,

(big snip... just to save bandwidth!)

I look forward to completing my pair of Reformed Quads made as they
should have been done when Quad decided to produce the Quad-II-Forty.
I know they'll perform far better than Quad-II, and the later Quad-II-
Forty.

Patrick Turner. --

(snip)

A great read... thanks!
Cheers,
Roger
When I get the pair of Reformed Quads re-engineered I'll be left with
two functional and original OPTs. I think I might melt out the potting
compound if its possible, saving for reuse, then see if I can re-
arrange the sec windings to get a waste free arrangement of sec
windings to give me an 8k0 : 4 ohm load match. I have another amp with
OPTs meant for 10W from a pair of 6GW8, but they are now powered by a
pair of 6CM5 in triode, and the use of the triodes with Quad OPTs with
the higher TR would allow pure class A for any load over 4 ohms -
ideal for the music quality, and winding losses become lower.

I'm always up to my neck in projects.

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 7, 3:38*am, John Byrns wrote:
A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *

Ah, My Dear John,
I probably should not say to you that the idea of troll comes to mind,
but I would not dare suggest that your questions resemble something
which might have emanated from a troll. Yes, I have a woeful mind.

I seem to always run out of Itching Powder to sprinkle down the
underpants of trolls whenever the word troll appears in my brain
circuits. So, instead of such powderesque solutions, I'll have to try
to answer your questions with words which have never failed me too
often.

If cost was no object, the sky is the limit, and I'm not going to be
sucked into suggesting something that uses tubes but has OPTs with
Unobtanium Cores, and silver wire which was ****ed upon by a naked
virgin at midnight under a full moon with 100 Priests of the Order Of
OrdioFiles chanting the correct mantras while looking the other way
while lil' virgie girlie does her business. But the samples of how
things could be done better are all outlined and detailed at my
website. Such amplifiers are fit to be ****ed upon by The Holy Virgin
at midnight, to imbue the repose needed just in case the mystical
harmony of Elect Trons is upset or distracted by ill-ease in minds of
the thousands of Dissagreers who read these pages.

Quad-II is basically a flawed over simplified circuit which should
have had two twin triodes for its input driver. These could have been
arranged as a Williamson or as Leak type of set up and would have
produced less THD and wider OLG in the drive amp. Numerous samples are
at my website. But because they employ a few transistors which were
available in 1955, and to allow best application of the principles I
use in my simplest schematics like say the 5050 or 8585 amps at my
website, then a negative rail would have been needed to allow a
suitable high value resistance from LTP commoned cathodes so that the
LTP triodes, say 12AU7, could have had grids at 0V bias but cathode R
= 39k taken to -250Vdc. Some slight difference in the RLdc to each
12AU7 anode is needed to get perfect ac balance, but easily doable.
PSU would need to be better than Quad arranged, so there'd be a CLC
filtered anode supply with RC filtered screen and drive amp supply.
OPT would have to be radically re-designed along the lines of what I
suggest at my website, ie, about twice the weight, 1.4 times the
volume, and a normal very desirable thing, and not the lowest common
denominator rubbish Quad crammed into a can to make a bitta junk look
chic for 1955.

What we don't know is what sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost
as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Its beyound me to say everything here about what i would have done had
I been offered the position of CEO at Quad in 1955 with te power to
rub accountan'ts noses in a bucket of poop if the were to suggest
something that's peave me so. But methinks I'd have a picture of an
executioner's axe on my office door with a Beware The Compromise You
Might Suggest writ on large letters. Ya gotta nip the dumbers down in
the bud to keep quality high. Make the arsoles feel nervous. Always
welcome their resignations when you say no to *******s.
But apart from this kind of fobbing off of quality bandits, i'd be
offering terrific stuff, but it might mean some increase in production
cost but with a lowering of the profit margins ( and I suggest they
probably were quite high ). If nobody recognised what I was trying to
do with quality I'd just close the business and retire. But I'd be the
same person as I am now and I's probably be happy with the honour of
producing quality and if I could keep my earnings to below the level
of taxable threshold, ie, equal to todays $6,400 as I have been doing
for many years now, and getting around on a bicycle, which transfering
the expertise at low cost into the product, then maybe i'd get away
with it all without becoming bankrupt. If the BBC said to me to get my
amp prices below Leak's prices or else no more lavish orders, then i'd
probably respond by intensifying a campaign to export product to the
USA with an including a model Q-4066 with 4 x KT66 to satidfy taste in
the USA. I'd look around for real brains to help me who were like me,
happy to work for **** all and while producing fabluous things without
the usual problems of British Shortcomings of 1955; the itemised list
of these would fill a book.


Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? *How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

I've not obtained a fused OPT which is good for nothing and worth
carefully opening up to find out how ****in badly the crap had been
wound. But I am confident i'd find utter crap compared to anything I
have designed. I know it does not comply with anything remotely like
best practice as spelled out so elegantly in RDH4, and by Walker's
friend, Mr Williamson. Is possible Quad didn't employ a Quality
Extracticator aka as Bean Counter, and the function of such a person
found so often in so many companies was none other than Walker
himself.
after all, Walker said all amps sound the same if they measure the
same, and he jumped straight into solid state to dump tubes as quickly
as British Inertia and British Reluctance To Change allowed.

Last year I conferred with a colleague of mine who makes and sells
more tube amps than I do. I design all his OPTs. He has them wound by
a Chinese born resident of Sydney who is quite happy winding anything
I might detail on a Bobbin Layout Sheet as they appear at my website.
Most tranny winder tradesmen winders I've had the displeasure to meet
have vomited all over me when I tell them exactly what I want. I got
tired of the dry cleaning bills and negative response from each one.
But anyway, Mr China is a living wonder, and is happy winding some
10KVA 3 phase motor winding for a ship while its in Sydney Harbour, or
winding a replacement tranny for Quad-II. So I have two trannies now
which comply with my expections of wide BW and low iron and copper
losses. To fit them onto a Quad-II chassis, it means the tube
rectifier and screen choke is dumped, and this allows more room for 2
x 6550/KT88, and 2 mini nine pin sockets moved from where these are
now. The new OPT is not to be potted, but could be. It is placed
across the whole chassis now occupied by 2 x EF86 and the horrid
existing toy OPT which Quad gave us. If my revisions had been
undertaken in 1955, the tube rectifier would have had to be retained
and room made for CLC anode B+ filter so the chassis would have had to
have been made 3" longer while width and height kept constant.

Some years ago Quad issued their Quad-2-Forty with 2 x KT88. AFAIK,
this lacklustre and poorly made amp with a very nice paint job was
produced in China and each of plan L x W dimensions are about 10%
larger than Quad-II. Someone with business savvy decided to employ a
British Designer with supposed impeccable credentials and Splendid
Reputation among British audiophiles who read Stereophile which is
bribed to give great reviews while carry adds for the product perhaps.
All amplifier design and construction is not much determined by any
engineer, but by accountants and promotions managers and business
planners. Hence Andy Grove was roped into the design for the Quad-II-
Forty. He just replicated the Walker circuit almost exactly the same,
except for some slightly different R values, and use of a pair of
metal can WW2 style 6SH7 input pentodes to replace EF86. I've had to
service these amps and lemme tell ya folks, the Chinese have done it
yet agin and failed to follow through with anywhere near enough
prototype development which one would expect to happen for amplifiers
which have a very cheap Chinese ex-factory price but an extra-
ordinarily high retail price wherever this tarted up junk is sold in
hi-fi stores. The Chinese know the West is a soft touch for tarty junk
and they refuse to put in the hard yards to EARN the quality status
which I could endorse. Once you have to service such stuff it all
becomes so painfully clear what was not done properly. But that's not
a big concern for those in the Quad company owners, they know their
buying public is techically ignorant, and slavish to brandnames, and
prejudiced in favour of Olde British Knowhow, and Olde British
Brandnames, and easily conned by slick advertising campaigns. If
someone were to make a Wolsley motor car styled like 1955, but with a
few mod cons, they'd be buyers. But unfortunately the Quad-II-40
hasn't got many mod cons, and its OPT is little better than the
original. So what could have been so much better, and smaller and more
compact, isn't, and is a perpetuation of the die hard junkish status
quo.

I fear the same crap traditions have been perpetuated in the Quad 80
with 4 x KT88 as designed by guess who? Paravicini of course. And I
have had to re-engineer his smoke producing creations fulla
crapology.

There are at least 3 things governing human behaviour, sex, money, and
agrandisement. As tube amp designers get older, the sex thing
diminishes to zero,( although many wank off alone.) They often might
not make much money, but they have the unique ability to appear at the
right place at the right time just like the top fashion designers who
design clothes you'll never buy for your wife. But the urge to be
grand, to have esoteric status, to see one's ego triumph in the face
of so many doubters becomes paramount. The route to being a buffoon is
assured if you keep your fingers jammed into your ears when those with
valid criticisms speak their minds.

There are so many buffoons involved with the production of hi-end gear
at absurdly high prices that humble down to earth types like myself
can actually make and sell something with real quality which has not
had the dumbing down by accountants and factory managers who are
allergic to making real quality and to promotion plans for mass sales.
I'd always welcome capital investment but financial backers have the
nasty rotten habit of never putting money where their mouth is and
never taking responsibility for failure so that they want ownership of
my house before they'd give me one cent to rent a decent workspace
where a team of people could work properly. I'm too old to be
embarking on such a risky business of tube amp production. One amp at
a time is plenty for me and I get to keep my house. But when a young
man is 25, he owns no house, and if he embarks on a dream which could
fail, and he gets finance because he has a nice smile, he's not
worrying about what he may lose. But he probably would have boundless
energy, and say NO to anything I suggested he do. He learns wisdom
through suffering.

I look forward to completing my pair of Reformed Quads made as they
should have been done when Quad decided to produce the Quad-II-Forty.
I know they'll perform far better than Quad-II, and the later Quad-II-
Forty.


Hi Patrick,

I am disappointed that you have no suggestions for improving the quality of the
QUAD II design in the context of the time it was built, other than reducing
profit to allow for the use of a more expensive circuit.

I wonder if the profit was really as great as you seem to believe, there are
considerable expenses to be born by a manufacturer beyond the simple costs of
pushing Iron out of the factory gate.

The reason I asked about the construction of the QUAD Output Transformer is
because the following web schematic seems to suggest that QUAD used 13 sections
in the winding of their Output Transformer, hardly something that seems like a
"bean counter" would let pass!

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...%20amplifier%2
0-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 8, 1:41*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:17*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:

"John Byrns"

A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being
designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design
of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern
technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *What we don't know is
what
sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and
were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory
cost
as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps
not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? *How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

** Nice wind up *!!!

The Turneroid toy robot is off * AND *running .....

I ran out of words now though, enough is enough.....

Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee, Golly, our dear Mr John remains quiet. I can almost hear his
brain whirring away to compose something in reply to me, and brains
fitted with retro style thought aids including PP 845 Power Thought
stages can sometimes be heard working from metres away because of
slight electrostatic effects on surrounding tissues but I
digress...... .

I ran up a couple of drawings for revisions of the EF86 input/driver
stage in Quad-II and if one EF86 is retained, but strapped in triode,
and the other replaced by 6CG7 as an LTP, and NFB applied in the
conventional manner from OPT sec to V1 cathode, maybe with the
existing network then the gains will be about right. The list of R&C
parts is about the same. One could direct couple the V1 triode anode
to one grid of 6CG7 LTP, but then you have reduced Ea for each 6CG7
triode because B+ can only be about +370Vdc, and 6CG7 cathodes would
be at about +110Vdc, so the Ea = +140V approx only, and not enough for
optimal operation. The LTP THD is much reduced if the 6CG7 can have
higher value RLs rather than lower ones so Eg1 bias should be low as
possible, even taken to a negative supply of say -100V, with a common
cathode resistance taken to - 250Vdc. This could easily have been done
in 1960 with taps off the HT winding at about 200Vrms and using a 6X5
or mini rectifier tube. I'm not sure if 6X5 was around in1950 in time
for My Hypothetical Quad-II Design project while having Honary
Appointment as Chief Execution Officer in Quad's Amplifier Department,
with brown chair and office in broom cupboard under stair case. I'd
not be in the office much, but down there on the shop floor with
sleeves rolled up and workin with the blokes and shielas to perfectify
prototypes, and pity 'elp any ****in office clod in clean clobber who
come out to disturb us. But I digress.

In Quad-II, the use of a ratbag 40uF and 180 ohm R&C common cathode
bias network is a mean trick played upon Quad buyers, and it helped to
cause premature death in KT66. But Walker and thousands of his well to
do palsy-walsies may have owned shares in tube making companies so if
KT66 malfunctioned sooner than later they got richer. They could
afford highly priced KT66 replacements for the quite expensive Quad-II
amps.
From 1950, and if I could have looked into Quad's future and to about
1996 and the production of the Quad-II Forty with KT88, I'd have seen
the use of individual R&C bias networks on each KT88 cathode. It took
some 46 years to get some improvement in bias stability. British
Inertia is difficult to move. Getting some well respected British
brandname to Change Something which involves the Ruinous Expense of
one ****in lousy R and C was a tall order it seemed. OMG, change! That
horrible C word!

Anyway, the use of two bias networks allows the CT of the CFB winding
to be grounded, where it naturally belongs. Very little Vdc is
developed across the CFB windings as they are 10% of total primary
turns. With such a small amount of Vdc across the CFB winding and with
separate RC biasing, there is no reason why OP tube grid biasing Rg
could not be taken to the CFB winding ends thus naturally
bootstrapping them. The existing KT66 bias Rg = 680k, and absurdly
high value which allows **** to happen when some reverse positive grid
current begins to develop in tubes as they age, even though they are
serviceable, and cabable of many more years if only Rg was a lot lower
in R value. But using high value Rg encourages tubes to be replaced
and profits to be made. How can hospitals make a profit unless you
encorage punters to smoke and need medical attention? Hmm, too sides
to this, depending on who pays the medical bills. If one happens to be
a Beurokrat in the Dept of Defense, one would agitate that Govt owned
hospitals be kept free of patients to make them profitable so more
billions of pounds could be spent on nuclear subs to make Britain last
2 hours longer against the Russians who had enough nuclear weapons of
which about 25% were reliable enough to land someplace on the British
Motherland. Just where the other 75% might go off due to Soviet vacuum
tube powered missile electronics is anyone's guess, but such matters
were a Whitehall Wurry. But I digress.
Of course, someone @ somewhere, probably an accountant, decided
profits in electronics companies could be increased if KT66 were
banished entirely and so they were banished. By 1960 suitable power
transistors had become available.
Anyway the use of the grounded CFB winding allows the biasing Rg to be
a lower value, say 100k instead of 680k, thus Eg1 would rise
positively very much as the tube ages. The bootstrappng makes the 100k
look like about 270k to the drive amp. Its still a lowish R value
which seriously reduces the gain of an EF86 pentode which has such a
high Ra and feeble Gm as set up in original Quad-II. But if the driver
amp is a 6CG7 LTP, Ra is about 10k at Ia = 3mA, and the 270k is easily
driven. Did any such idea occur to our dear Mr Walker? Don't ask me.
I once tried 12AT7 SET V1 input triode with 12AU7 LTP with transistor
CCS and this 1999 schematic is at my website. trioded EF86 + 6CG7
would be just as good, or 6BX6 in triode as V1 if one wanted more
gain; many tube combos are better than Walker's EF86 concoction. And
of course the orginal Quad circuit does not allow bootstapping of KT66
Rg to ends of grounded CFB winding because the Rg are tied up with the
NFB network. Bloody awkward and a PFB bodge if you wanna know. But
without a bjt CCS in 1950, to get the LTP to work best the negative
rail should be used. No trouble with silicon diodes though and one can
get -400Vdc at say 6 mA for the LTP easily. The negative rail could
allow fixed bias which then much improves class AB operation but in
1950, F'bias was a pest because nearly everyone forgot to adjust the
bias or they just let their amps cook and die without service so that
by 1965 they swapped over to the STEREO SS Quad amp systems.

Hi Patrick,

OK, this is more like it, I have liked your idea bootstrapping the output tube
grid resistors, by using separate cathode bias networks for each tube, ever
since I conceived of the idea 22 years ago.


Te problem with providing the signal to drive the grid of V2 in the paraphase,
when the output tube grid resistors are bootstrapped, is easily resolved by
using two additional resistors and a capacitor to implement a floating paraphase
circuit. The down side of this is that it increases the load on the driver
tubes, negating the gain from bootstrapping.

While the LTP is fine for a Leak or Marantz style circuit, I question whether it
can be made to work in the QUAD circuit without a negative voltage supply for
the tail circuit, and a negative supply seems like it would push up the cost and
complexity considerably. The negative supply would have to be half wave unless
you use two 6X5s.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"John Byrns"


** Can you learn to trim ??

[Patrick Turner]

Replying via google is awkward because they won't display the full
texts of postings if they are over only 3,000 characters which limits
what anyone can say consisely. Still, better than Farcebook or
****ter.

But I did mention a mountain filla stuff about Quad and British
electronics of the 1950s and my website which contains all the info
anyone needs to make a good amp.

Hi Patrick,

I am disappointed that you have no suggestions for improving the
quality of the
QUAD II design in the context of the time it was built, other than
reducing
profit to allow for the use of a more expensive circuit.

**Well, I had numerous suggestions. I'm dissapointed that you are
dissapointed because I am dissapointed with the dissapointing quality
of Quad-II amplifiers made during a depressingly dissapointing period
of grey dull British History when many Brits were plum puckered out
after WW2. The grey paint on Quad amps sums up the gloominess of
Britain in 1950.

I wonder if the profit was really as great as you seem to believe,
there are
considerable expenses to be born by a manufacturer beyond the simple
costs of
pushing Iron out of the factory gate.

** Quad stuff was only affordable by the relatively wealthy who were a
small minority. Quad stuff has always been expensive and remains
expensive when compared to say Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz, et
all. In Oz, Quad stuff was only ever bought by people with high
incomes, doctors, lawyers, chief engineers, or graziers who for 10
years after WW2 got fabulous prices for their meat and wool. But
ordinary folks on small average wages bought what they could to do the
same job as Quad but often not as good. A few smart arses thumbed
their noses at Quad, Leak and the other high priced stuff and the
learnt enough in a few days to build the kits that were available here
and they soldered them together at night after work. They were not
bone lazy and stupid like many of today's ppl who watch TV or play
computer games and who are utterly useless doing anything real or
anything technical.
So the smarties knew how to laugh at the prices being charged for the
hi-end brands of the day. They saved thousands of dollars by DIY. I
did the same by buying a small house and doubling the size of it with
my own labour. I also made all my own furniture and a sound system for
a small fraction of what everyone else was spending.

The reason I asked about the construction of the QUAD Output
Transformer is
because the following web schematic seems to suggest that QUAD used 13
sections
in the winding of their Output Transformer, hardly something that
seems like a
"bean counter" would let pass!


http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%2...%201%20power%2...
0-%20cct%20components%20voltages%20etc.jpg

**Unfortunately, this link won't work for me, seems like its full of
%20 where there should be none. But this business about "13 sections"
usually means sweet FA because the average know nothing idiot
reviewing OPT winding patterns has never actually wound an OPT and
assumes that one layer of wire is one section, and if there were a
total of 13 layers of wire, he might conclude there were 13 sections
which is MOST unlikely in the case of the Quad-II POS OPT. A good OPT
for Quad-II would have 14 layers of fine wire with 12 layers devoted
to an anode winding with CT, and 2 layers devoted to a cathode winding
so the CFB percentage of total primary turns = 14.28%. There would be
at least 4 layers of secondary wire spread evenly through the 14
layers of primary so you'd have a total of 18 layers of wire which
would make up 5 primary sections and 4 primary sections. The secondary
layers would be divided up into sub-windings to allow various
wasteless patterns of wire to give load matches of 8k0 : 3.5, 7, 14
ohms, which allows for the lower than nominal impedance of
loudspeakers.

**All of what I have to say in the shirt&trouser full of information
about OPT design and construction and load matching at my website
could have been placed right under the nose of Mr Walker in 1955 but
perhaps he would have brushed it aside and been insulted by a nobody
from Australia telling him HOW and WHY he ought to have made his POS
amps!!!!! But had he given in to me and left me in charge of amp
constructions it would have freed the man to concentrate on his ESL
speakers which were so very very good compared to everyone else's
attempts to build ESL speakers.

**I'm grateful that nobody has strapped me into a time machine and
pulled the lever to send me back to 1950 and to the factory at
Huntington in the UK. I reckon I would have had to shoot half the
staff in the ****in place before I'd convince the remainder to begin
to move in a direction which would not be so ****in dissapointing.

**Patrick Turner.

Regards,


John Byrns

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 9, 12:58*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"John Byrns"

** Can you learn to trim ??

He's not the only one who fails to trim as he goes while forgetting
that many ppl who might try to read Usenet Groups can't get it direct
and have to go via Google, which fails so dismally to display groups
the way they used to be shown when one could go direct.

But long posts are all there to be read if you want to by clicking
'readmore' prompts. If you click to reply, you can't see all of a long
post to which you may want to reply to. So while reading a post, one
must click the 'read more' prompts, then select&copy the text to which
you want to reply. Then hit 'reply', and delete what's there, paste in
what you've copied, and reply as I have done today with a long post,
which means I am trimming quite a lot as well.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

I reply again to Dear John,

In my last reply to you about Quad-II I mentioned that I'd threaten to
shoot staff if they wouldn't pull their British 1950's socks up and
use an additional rectifer tube&socket for a negative rail. I also
said the best place for paraphase is in the bin.

So then why not just settle for a Williamson front end? The use of
12AT7 for input and concertina will be fine, and a 12AU7 balanced amp.
12BH7 would even be better. There are enough 9 pin mini sockets. The
only mod needed to make the Willy balanced amp balance properly is a
longer common cathode R of about 3k9 to 0V. If Ia for the two triodes
is 8mA and you have an extra 1k for biasing the bal amp grids, so that
total Rk = 4k9, the commoned cathodes are at about +40Vdc. In my
better Quad, B+ at C1 will be about +460Vdc and maybe two 32uF caps
are needed in series. Ea for the OP stage with 30V cathode bias would
be would be +420V. At OPT CT there would be +450V, and so the B+ for
bal amp can be +400V with RC filtering, giving the effective B+ supply
for bal amp at +360V, just enough to get a decent wide Va swing on
each bal amp anode. Input stages with 12AT7 are not critical and will
work fine from B+ = +300Vdc with RC filtering. I'd have more CFB than
Quad used, 14.28% is real good, but Vg drive to each KT66 would be
about 56Vrms, but with less THD and wider BW than any EF86 POS driver
amp could do. Thus the paraphase is avoided, the negative rail is
avoided, and THD reduced.
Screen supply to KT66 would be +330Vdc with cathode biasing giving
about 30 Vdc. Eg2 thus = 300Vdc, and screens are comfortabaly biased.
So staff need not be shot, and although nervous, may go home to their
wives and still feel mentally well enough to cook dinner and hold
hands by the coal fire afterwards. The Williamson does use slightly
more R&C parts but these were not too expensive in 1950 and if the
accountant still disagreed, then he really is worth shooting.

The Quad-II OPT does not need to be all that larger to be +20dB better
than it is, and because so many different E&I core shapes were
available in 1952 then we might say the OPT would be made to the same
height as it is now, but extend right across the chassis where the
EF86 are now located. It needs to extend along the chassis towards the
PT by about 12mm, and then you have enough volume to make things
really wonderful. Now to accomodate a tube rectifier and a CLC with
16uF-5H-16uF before the CT of OPT, the choke should be made to have a
can height the same as the PT and OPT height, with the plan area about
equal to what's needed for an octal tube, so that's 50mm of chassis
length. There is no reason why a choke could not be made to have a
very long shape. To get the two KT66 plus two mini nine pin tubes you
need about another 75mm of chassis length. So all up, the chassis does
have to be about 75mm longer than it is for the music to survive its
passage better. There would be adequate room for 6SN7 if wanted. With
increased space under the chassis there is room for the existing type
of caps plus MORE. While rather ridiculously sized by 2011 standards,
we could possibly assume they may have been the best available in
1952. Upping the B+ might be dangerous, OK, use series pairs of caps
with lower voltage rating, and larger capacitance for the size.

So a more better Quad-II of 1952 could have been a better Williamson.
Instead of the usual UL connected tubes which were later much favoured
instead of Quad's CFB acoustical connection to allow full tetrode
power, the acoustical should be retained. Instead of the class AB RLa-
a load of 4k : 8, 16ohms the OPT should have been made for a 8k0 :
3.5, 7, 14 as I mentioned in my last post. The higher the load, the
higher the KT66 internal gain hence the more effective the CFB
becomes, even when working in class AB1. In existing Quad-II, with Ea
= 350V, for pure class A one must strap the OPT to suit "8" ohms,
which is really 9 ohms, and use about 18 ohms sec load so that RLa-a
is really a suitable class A1 load of around 9k including winding
resistance. But with winding losses you get about 16 W of pure class
A, and hardly any more than a Willy amp gives in triode.
With Ea at 420V, Ia may only be 50mA, and RLa-a must be about 15k0,
and if Pda = 42W and class A efficiency is 42%, a likely figure, then
you have 17W available with lower winding losses. But in class AB1,
the PO can be 37W with 6k7 RLa-a, with the first 8 watts in pure class
A. So we would want the amp to do well in class AB, even though it
rarely ever would have to, and would barely ever need to have fixed
bias which was a true nightmare for ppl in 1952, as it is now, because
people just don't get biasing, they say its fixed, but why the ****
does it need to be adjusted? Leak had separate R&C biasing networks
for each OP tube. Now ppl can say well that means trouble, all that
higher voltage and caps and oh how unreliable they all are. Sure they
are if some idiot uses 680k to bias KT66 grids and if ppl insist on
never getting their amps serviced until the sound went to **** and
there were clouds of smoke from a Quad or Leak stuffed under a bench
out of sight and out of mind. I read a book written in 1961 in the US
by a professor about the reliability of electronics in the armed
services, mainly navy and air force. Electronics failures were very
common and had there been a nuclear war in 1953, maybe only 1/3 of
anything would have worked, so we'd have had only 1/3 of a nuclear war
instead of a full boot type of nuclear war. Vacuum tubes wer blamed by
nearly all service personal but what really caused the failures was
the surrounding circuits being expected to do more than real
capabilities alowed, and high temperature, high moisture and salt air
environments. So when you remove the idiot factor perpetuated by
design engineers and accountants, the electronics were remarkably good
if only you could keep them cool, dry, free of salt air, and idiots.
There was never enough money for the ideal aircraft carrier.
So, because class AB will sooner or later be demanded from the amp,
there should be a relatively hum free B+ supply to the OPT CT. I've
suggested 16uF-5H-16uF. But LC resonance of 18Hz is a bit high and
16uF-10H-32uF would be much better with Fo at 9Hz.

There is a bit more about what I may faced after opening the door to
get out of the time machine after having been forcably been sent back
to 1950 to cajole the Quad company into improving its product.

I fear my time travel would be in vain. I'd be up against 1,001 buyers
of quad gear who would point to Leak and maybe other brands. These
companies were falling over themselves to extract and dump the quality
of their amps, yet still get sales orders from the ever expanding BBC.
how do you increase supply? reduce quality and stretch out the use of
the same amount of labour. Just how good do you have to make a
monitoring amp in a BBC studio? Well, not very good. Its amazing how
bad so many amps could be in the non critical sections of the
organisation. I'd need a machine gun to get anywhere. I think I'd
quickly conclude the Poms ain't worth it, and try to get a 10 pound
passage on a ship to Oz, and start all over again in Oz, just making a
few amps a year for ppl who like real good stuff. I'd have easily made
better gear than what was being made in Oz in 1955.
Some Americans would be very interested though, and they had more
spending money than the Poms in 1952, and there were more of 'em. But
yanks were always razor sharp dealers, and soon I'd be smoothly ripped
off without even feeling anything, all my ideas stolen, so I'd have to
just be happy in Oz.

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jun 6, 6:38*pm, John Byrns wrote:
...back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed...what sort
of design you would produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Excellent question, John. Pity Patrick has no answer that wouldn't add
to the cost or require parts not available then. The genius of Peter
Walker stands unassailed and unassailable.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.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

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed.

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. What we don't know is what
sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and
were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost
as the
actual QUAD II. Any comments on what you would have done differently?


Having met, and worked personally with both Mr Peter Walker
and his son Ross, when PW produced his audio demonstration
direct-do-disc recording, back in the late 70s at Decca Studios
in London, I am pretty sure that by his gentlemanly conduct,
engineering expertise and strong personality, he produced exactly
the amplifier that he envisaged without any "bean counters" having
any say in the matter, except to calculate the production costs, and
from them the dealer and retail prices.

Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?


Sowter UK have done this and offer a replacement transformer,
albeit of different physical dimensions.

Regards to all
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 10, 12:12*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 6, 6:38*pm, John Byrns wrote:

...back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed...what sort
of design you would produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Excellent question, John. Pity Patrick has no answer that wouldn't add
to the cost or require parts not available then. The genius of Peter
Walker stands unassailed and unassailable.

What traddle Andre. There were far better amplifiers you could buy
than Quad-II. And any determined DIYer could easily make a better amp
than Quad-II. In Oz, because Quad-II was so damn expensive, and so
overated, real hi-fi enthusiasts made their own amps and bought the
best range of OPTs from A&R in Melbourne. They easily exceeded the
Quad-II quality.

But I have, on numerous occasions built simple amps better than Quad-
II.

There is no real answer to John's question that I make a better amp
but keep down to the terrible Quad-II quality level. Only unreal
answers everyone is imagining. Could you or John do it better than
Quad?

And just what were Quad's factory costs compared to the price in the
shops? To every question there is an equal and opposite question which
may be asked. Shop prices were bloody high as hell, that's what
everyone I ever heard say about supposed hi-end imported audio gear.
Quad's main line was "..like a straight peice of wire with gain."
Marketting. I can't be conned though.

But what is or isn't value is an inconsistent idea among the
population. I have blokes bring me their broken Quad amps in need of
much revisions and some don't want to pay more than peanuts. They say
they love music. But if their missus wants a new kitchen for 30 grand,
what then? They borrow the dough, otherwise no ****y-****y. The new
kitchen happens but dinner tastes the same! Where was the value in
expense?

Humans are vexatious.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 10, 5:12*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message

...

A couple of questions for Mr. Turner, with respect to the Bean Counters
employed
by Acoustical/QUAD back in the days when the QUAD II was being designed..

First question, we know much of what you feel is wrong with the design of
the
QUAD II, and how you would design an amplifier using the modern technology
available today, and with cost not an object. *What we don't know is what
sort
of design you wold produce if you were employed by QUAD in the day and
were
tasked with designing the "QUAD II" while maintaing the same factory cost
as the
actual QUAD II. *Any comments on what you would have done differently?

Having met, and worked personally with both Mr Peter Walker
and his son Ross, when PW produced his audio demonstration
direct-do-disc recording, back in the late 70s at Decca Studios
in London, I am pretty sure that by his gentlemanly conduct,
engineering expertise and strong personality, he produced exactly
the amplifier that he envisaged without any "bean counters" having
any say in the matter, except to calculate the production costs, and
from them the dealer and retail prices.

His mind contained the bean counter gene. He didn't need to employ
anyone to tell him how to minimise costs.

But Quad-II is not a real wonderful amp. It has many shortcomings, and
I only give credit where it is due.
The vast majority of British people in 1950s were unable to afford
much and they got what they paid for, mainly junk. Grey boring dumbed
down junk, the result of parsimonious use of iron, copper, and R&C and
glassware. But it was a start. And only 15 years after WW2, tubes were
chucked out big time and ppl went to transistors and stereo. From
frying pan to fire for many.


Second question, you may have addressed this in the past, or perhaps not,
have
you reverse engineered the Output Transformer used in the QUAD II? *How
sophisticated was the design, how much interleaving was incorporated?

Sowter UK have done *this and offer a replacement transformer,
albeit of different physical dimensions.

Sowter is a very secretive man, and hates anyone telling him to wind
any tranny **exactly** how they want it.
A few years ago I emailed him about a design for a bobbin I sent him.
Nah, he couldn't do it, or wouldn't do it.
Anyway, after a few emails about just exactly how he would do
something equivalent I realised he just has his great big pile of
designs and he didn't quite appear to understand enough about them to
inspire my confidence. I've seen and heard good music though many
wonderful Sowter OPTs though. Sure he may have a replacement for the
Quad-II OPT. But I just wont buy anything for the top dollar and
freight cost to Oz unless I know what's inside it. I wind my own as a
result. To replace a Quad-II OPT **properly** the size must be larger,
and take up the room where the EF86 are so you have to chuck out the
choke and rectiffier tube, revise the PSU entirely, and the EF86 and
KT66 are moved around. Its not a Quad any more, but that's not a bad
thing.

Patrick Turner.



Regards to all
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Flipper replied to my long post after an enjoyable read with......

""That's some of the funniest gibberish you've posted to date and
it's
amazing how much you can write without getting anything right. ""

Now how would you answer John's questions?

Take your time, in your own words........


Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Humans are vexatious.

Only to the inherently vexed.

I'm not. I don't worry too much about the inconsistencies in people's
behaviours.

But you still have not told us how you'd have done things at Quad in
1950.

Let us know when you get any ideas.

I suspect you find ordinary conversation difficult without thinking
the other person is talking giberish. You are one of the few I know
like that.

Patrick Turner

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 11, 2:12*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Flipper replied to my long post after an enjoyable read with......

""That's some of the funniest gibberish you've posted to date and
it's
amazing how much you can write without getting anything right. ""

Now how would you answer John's questions?

There is nothing for me to 'answer' because I'm not the one running
around calling it a P.O.S., nor have I claimed I could do 'better'
under the circumstances, nor am I afflicted with the delusion that
jackbooted 'bean counters' dictated his design.

Peter Walker probably didn't need a bean counter to tell him what he
already could work out for himself, ie, make something acceptable to
the British Public of the 1950s. You are blind if you think Quad-II
was perfect, or as good as possible. It wasn't, and had it been
perfect it would have cost more to make and to buy in the shops.

I'm not surprised you can't think of a better way to build an amp even
if limited to 1950s level of inventions. Maybe you fear sticking your
neck out. There are a few here who might chop your head off at the
drop of a hat.

If I'd worked at the McIntosh works in 1950 I might have caused a bit
of a stir as well.......

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 11, 5:12*pm, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:

Humans are vexatious.

Only to the inherently vexed.

I'm not. I don't worry too much about the inconsistencies in people's
behaviours.

You perpetually do... and babble incessantly about it too.

But you still have not told us how you'd have done things at Quad in
1950.

Let us know when you get any ideas.

I already told you there is nothing for me to 'answer' because I'm not
the one running around calling it a P.O.S.

I suspect you find ordinary conversation difficult without thinking
the other person is talking giberish. You are one of the few I know
like that.

No, I'm just one of the few honest enough to tell you.

I'll have to be honest now too. You don't make any sense, you won't
answer questions, and you have NOTHING to add to the coverstations,
and no suggestions to how Quad-II could be improved. So I guess you
are jarging ths jargon, ie, giberizing away about nothing, in your own
way. What sort of a brain do you have that can blithely accept
everything is just fine with a 60 year old amp design? I'd like to
give you a Morris Oxford Brittish made car to drive for a year. If you
thought that was the bees knees and nothing more was ever needed then
it'd confirm your inability to percieve the world as others.

What you think is honesty, isn't.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 13, 12:41*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner





wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:12*pm, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:

Humans are vexatious.

Only to the inherently vexed.

I'm not. I don't worry too much about the inconsistencies in people's
behaviours.

You perpetually do... and babble incessantly about it too.

But you still have not told us how you'd have done things at Quad in
1950.

Let us know when you get any ideas.

I already told you there is nothing for me to 'answer' because I'm not
the one running around calling it a P.O.S.

I suspect you find ordinary conversation difficult without thinking
the other person is talking giberish. You are one of the few I know
like that.

No, I'm just one of the few honest enough to tell you.

I'll have to be honest now too. You don't make any sense, you won't
answer questions,

The hell I won't.

Such a stubborn man you are then!!!!

I am here to answer questions, enter dialog, but you remain determined
to stay aloof, think of only yourself and your limited view of the
world and the amplifiers with in that world.

You just don't like the answers.

Who would? but you haven't given many anwsers.

and you have NOTHING to add to the coverstations,

Actually, I gave the results of simulations with the pentode floating
paraphase showing it's balance is as good as the others, given the
technology of the time.

Simulations are not measuring a real circuit. Do the work to gain
respect please!!!

and no suggestions to how Quad-II could be improved.

As the saying goes, "not my job." As I have explained to you twice
now, I am not the one running around calling it a P.O.S.

And you are BLIND to the limitations and shortcomings of 1950s
amplifiers.

IMO it doesn't need 'fixing' to be a fine example of 1950's technology
because it is already a fine example of 1950's technology.

If the US Defense Department thought like you the Air Force would
still be flying P51s. What a fine plane. No need to change a thing.
You just do not understand than many of us might like old Quads, but
ONLY if they meet modern expectations, and for that one has to re-do
the wings and fit a jet engine etc. Otherwise they sit there gathering
dust while better amps get used.

Oh, some ancient 90 year old Jap guys like paying $3,000 for a Mint
pair of Quad-IIs. But they buy what their sons and grand kids would
never buy. And often for the idiotic vanity of gaining status by
aquisition. "Oh look at me, I've arrived; Quads on the shelf". Puttin
on the agony, puttin on the style. Total BS. What about the ****in
music?

So I guess you
are jarging ths jargon, ie, giberizing away about nothing, in your own
way. What sort of a brain do you have that can blithely accept
everything is just fine with a 60 year old amp design? I'd like to
give you a Morris Oxford Brittish made car to drive for a year. If you
thought that was the bees knees and nothing more was ever needed then
it'd confirm your inability to percieve the world as others.

That is just so 'you'. Is English your second language?

Let us all know when you have designed and built some fine amps.

Patrick Turner.

[John L Stewart]

Got news for you Pat. Disagreeing with you isn't 'dishonest'.


Patrick Turner.[/quote]

Flipper appears to have 'flipped out'. What to do??

Perhaps his present meds are not doing the job intended. Could the group take up some monetary contributions so that Flipper can get something more suitable?

Cheers, John

[John Byrns]

In article ,
John L Stewart wrote:

Got news for you Pat. Disagreeing with you isn't 'dishonest'.

-
Patrick Turner.-

Flipper appears to have 'flipped out'. What to do??

Perhaps his present meds are not doing the job intended. Could the group
take up some monetary contributions so that Flipper can get something more
suitable?

John, how do you figure that flipper appears to have flipped out? Flipper seems
to be making perfect sense.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John L Stewart" wrote in message
...

Got news for you Pat. Disagreeing with you isn't 'dishonest'.

-
Patrick Turner.-

Flipper appears to have 'flipped out'. What to do??

On what do you base that hypothesis?
His posts seem perfectly sensible.

Perhaps his present meds are not doing the job intended. Could the group
take up some monetary contributions so that Flipper can get something more
suitable?

That's a pretty uncharitable statement, John.
Not worthy of you :-((

Iain

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Iain Churchus"
"John L Stewart"

Flipper appears to have 'flipped out'. What to do??

On what do you base that hypothesis?
His posts seem perfectly sensible.


** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....



..... Phil

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches"
"John L Stewart"

Flipper appears to have 'flipped out'. What to do??

On what do you base that hypothesis?
His posts seem perfectly sensible.


** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....

If you are referring to the mode of transport, then
the plural is "buses" (Oxford Dictionary)

Flipper was perfectly correct when he stated
that even during the early days of tape recording
in WW2, the quality was better than disc
transcription.

People at listening stations in the UK were
baffled by hearing Hitler's radio broadcasts from
Berlin, which they took be live, when they knew
for a fact that he was elsewhere. They also
ascertained that the messages were not coming
from disc as the quality was appreciably beter.

This subject was covered recently in an interesting
WW2 documentary on Discovery History Channel.

Regards to all
Iain








.... Phil

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Iain Churchus"


** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....


Flipper was perfectly correct when he stated
that even during the early days of tape recording
in WW2, the quality was better than disc
transcription.


** WW2 was never in the discussion.

The early to late 50s were.




..... Phil

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churchus"


** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....

Not only do you repeatedly misspell my surname,
but you are also pretty useless at the declension of
nouns in English :-)

Flipper was perfectly correct when he stated
that even during the early days of tape recording
in WW2, the quality was better than disc
transcription.


** WW2 was never in the discussion.

The early to late 50s were.

True, but that does not alter the fact that even the
earliest broadcast tape recorders (Magnetofon)
running at 76cms were superior to disc transcriptions,
just as Flipper stated.

Iain

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Iain Churchus Stinking ****wit "


** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....

Flipper was perfectly correct when he stated
that even during the early days of tape recording
in WW2, the quality was better than disc
transcription.


** WW2 was never in the discussion.

The early to late 50s were.


True, but that does not alter the fact that even the
earliest broadcast tape recorders (Magnetofon)
running at 76cms were superior to disc transcriptions,

** What arrogant bull****.

An argument based on Hitler's speeches alone is utterly insane.


just as Flipper stated.


** He never did, you stinking liar.

When tape equipment is removed from the process of making LPs, as it was for
" digital" recordings sold in the early 1970s by Denon and others and also
for all the " Direct to Disk " records - sound quality took a *very
dramatic* leap forward.

Such LPs became the standard for hi-fi demos and are a perfect demonstration
of how even the very much better tape recorders of the 1970s were still way
inferior to good old vinyl.

Transcription disks are even better ( ie lower noise) than any vinyl
pressing made from them.

My god you are one CLUELESS TURD.




..... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 15, 4:57*am, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:28:46 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:





"Iain Churchus Stinking ****wit "

** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....

Flipper was perfectly correct when he stated
that even during the early days of tape recording
in WW2, the quality was better than disc
transcription.

** WW2 was never in the discussion.

* The early to late 50s were.

True, but that does not alter the fact that even the
earliest broadcast tape recorders (Magnetofon)
running at 76cms were superior to disc transcriptions,

** What arrogant bull****.

An argument based on Hitler's speeches alone is utterly insane.

just as Flipper stated.

** He never did, you stinking liar.

When tape equipment is removed from the process of making LPs, as it was for
" digital" *recordings sold in the early 1970s by Denon and others and also
for all the " Direct to Disk " records *- *sound quality took a *very
dramatic* leap forward.

I remember Rye Cooder's "Bop until you Drop" album of around 1978 with
digital recording. Very dynamic.

But most ppl could not tell any difference if the signal had ever been
digitised before it found its way to an LP or CD.



A 70's LP master disc is not a 40's transcription disc, which had
virtually vanished as a broadcast distribution medium by the mid 50's
due to tape and the LP.

Frankly, this fuss about transcription discs is irrelevant to the
topic of consumer Hi-Fi because they weren't available to the general
public whereas tape and LPs were.

As for the 'chicken and egg' thing, Walker himself sort of describes
it.

http://www.quadesl.org/History/Quad_...d_history.html

"In 1937 or '38 I made a high fidelity amplifier, push-pull, 25 Watt,
triode, direct-coupled, with feedback. Oh yes, very good. But you
couldn't really sell these things, partly because the records in those
days were all 78 with a lot of scratch. People said, 'What's all that
frying bacon noise?'

Then of course hi-fi came in, mainly with the LP record, and since we
were already in the business one could get pushed up with it - doing
the right thing by luck at the right moment."

So we may have overestimated Walker's prescience. Rather than 'seeing
the writing on the wall' his own description is sort of a common
engineering fascination with 'high tech' but he couldn't really sell
that 'technically terrific stuff' to the average consumer until there
was something to put into it.

This sounds like Walker talking.

The average consumer in 1938 wasn't very rich and didn't have much and
couldn't buy much and maybe his or her only experience of music was
via a picture theatre or the AM radio or 78 - or playing the piano at
home and singing around it with friends - REAL DIY. There WERE
concerts to go to, bands to join, and people formed folk msic groups.
AM radio direct broadcasts were not too bad though for most.

Now we have rap and a whole pile of "musical" noise which is best left
unpurchased and un-listened to in order for sanity to prevail. Great
fidelity though. Perfectly re-produced ****. All those digital effects
such as altering a singer's pitch to make then sound like they are not
off key are conveyed perfectly to us. The consumers of big cities
never really socialise with anyone around and rarely go to concerts -
too much fear, anxiety, distrust and alienation. And the majority
still does not mind crap sound. Walker may have sold 96,000 Quad-II
amps, but how many millions of ppl became aware of Quad products and
didn't buy them?

Patrick Turner.


Such LPs became the standard for hi-fi demos and are a perfect demonstration
of how even the very much better tape recorders of the 1970s were still way
inferior to good old vinyl.

Transcription disks are even better ( ie lower noise) *than any vinyl
pressing made from them.

My god you are one *CLUELESS *TURD.

.... *Phil- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper the total ****wit "


When tape equipment is removed from the process of making LPs, as it was
for
" digital" recordings sold in the early 1970s by Denon and others and
also
for all the " Direct to Disk " records - sound quality took a *very
dramatic* leap forward.

A 70's LP master disc is not a 40's transcription disc,

** So ****ing what ?

The point about disc quality being better than tape remains the same.


Frankly, this fuss about transcription discs is irrelevant to the
topic of consumer Hi-Fi

** You raised it - ****head.

And it is relevant to radio broadcasts that are of course listed to at home.


Such LPs became the standard for hi-fi demos and are a perfect
demonstration
of how even the very much better tape recorders of the 1970s were still
way
inferior to good old vinyl.

Transcription disks are even better ( ie lower noise) than any vinyl
pressing made from them.

My god you are one CLUELESS TURD.


..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper the total ****wit "


When tape equipment is removed from the process of making LPs, as it was
for
" digital" recordings sold in the early 1970s by Denon and others and
also
for all the " Direct to Disk " records - sound quality took a *very
dramatic* leap forward.

A 70's LP master disc is not a 40's transcription disc,

** So ****ing what ?

The 'so what' is you can't use one as a testament to the other because
the simple fact is they are not the same thing.

** There is no significant difference.

Acetate or vinyl coated on a metal plate and cut by a standard disk lathe
produces the same result as the very best LPs.


By the mid 50s tape and LP had replaced the transcription disc

** So ****ing what ?

By 1970, vinyl LPs made without tape were the very best ever made available.

If tape were inherently superior to vinyl

- this would NOT BE POSSIBLE !!

****HEAD !!



Frankly, this fuss about transcription discs is irrelevant to the
topic of consumer Hi-Fi

** You raised it - ****head.

No, I 'raised' the story of Bing Crosby using tape for his radio
broadcasts as a testament to it's fidelity.


** But never proved that WAS the actual case by any means.

My god you are one CLUELESS ****ING TURD.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"flipper the total ****wit "

A 70's LP master disc is not a 40's transcription disc,

** So ****ing what ?

The 'so what' is you can't use one as a testament to the other because
the simple fact is they are not the same thing.

** There is no significant difference.

Acetate or vinyl coated on a metal plate and cut by a standard disk lathe
produces the same result as the very best LPs.

They aren't the same lathes and cutters

** They mostly are the just the same.

and a 40's transcription disc is NOT an 'LP' nor is it an LP master.


** But it is virtually the same and so has the same qualities.


By the mid 50s tape and LP had replaced the transcription disc

** So ****ing what ?

Why do you think they were GONE?


** Tape is more convenient and cheaper to use.

Editing is simple, tape can be erased and re-used.

That's why Bing liked it.

You stupid ****ing ass.



Hate to burst your bubble


** I would love to burst your pointy retarded head.



..... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

The average consumer in 1938 wasn't very rich

"Average" isn't "rich" by definition, which is why I keep telling you
that cost matters.

Cost defines what ppl buy,

I don't do ****ty amps at low cost, and I don't mind low sales
figures.

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

Flipper
and a 40's transcription disc is NOT an 'LP' nor is it an LP master.

Phil
** But it is virtually the same and so has the same qualities.

As different as chalk and cheese. Cutter head technology was
then still fairly primitive, most transcription discs (at least the
ones I have seen) were cut at fixed pitch with no radius compensation
so the sound quality deteriorated towards the centre of the disc.



Flipper
By the mid 50s tape and LP had replaced the transcription disc

Phil:
** So (snip) what ?


Flipper
Why do you think they were GONE?

Phil
** Tape is more convenient and cheaper to use.
Editing is simple, tape can be erased and re-used.
That's why Bing liked it.

Editing between takes was a huge advantage,
and of course linear tape had consistent quality
compared with transcription discs (se above)

Also, the portability of tape was a huge advantage
Copies could easily me made, and sent to other
radio stations for broadcast.

Transcription discs were inferior in every way and
disappeared very quickly

Iain







Hate to burst your bubble


** I would love to burst your pointy retarded head.



.... Phil

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

Acetate or vinyl coated on a metal plate and cut by a standard disk lathe
produces the same result as the very best LPs.

First of all, do not confuse two totally different materials - acetate
and vinyl. The latter is used only for pressings.

Acetates, or disc masters, used in cutting comprise of a fine layer of
nitro-cellulose laquer spun on to both sides of a 14" auminium disc.
The mastering engineer may decide and choose by visual comparison
which side is better. Only one is used.

Furthermore, your statement above is nonsense.
The LP, which is three or four electro-mechanical
processes further down the line, is greatly inferior
to the acetate master which has a lower noise floor,
and is almost totally free of ticks. Anyone who has
had the chance to compare an acetate with a vinyl
pressing (as I have, hundreds of times) cannot fail
to notice the difference.

A test cut is usually made for comparison with the
master tape. Acetates used for mastering are subject
to careful visual inspection, by *never* played. Due to
the softness of the material, the groove wall detiorates
very rapidly.

Flipper:
Frankly, this fuss about transcription discs is irrelevant to the
topic of consumer Hi-Fi


Phil:
** You raised it -

Flipper
No, I 'raised' the story of Bing Crosby using tape for his radio
broadcasts as a testament to it's fidelity.

Indeed. Crosby had a very high level of aural perception.
In the late forties, he worked in close co-operation with
Alexander Poniatov, the founder of Ampex. Bing could
see the superiority of even the elementary Ampex 200
tape recorder over transcription discs.

Cutter head technology at that time was not "high fidelity"
and 14" transcription discs were cut at 33 1/3 or 16rpm.
The quality was inferior to tape, and there were no editing
possibilities between takes.

I have been priviledged to work as an engineer on two of his
albums. On "Southern Memoir" he did not want to overdub
his vocals afterwards, as is the standard practice, to allow
for unlimited retakes over a backing track. He wanted
to sit with the band and sing live,. He maintained this was
the way to produce the best result. He asked, "Can I sit with
the saxophones, and added with a wink, "Don't worry, I
won't screw up"

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 4:57 am, flipper wrote:


Now we have rap and a whole pile of "musical" noise which is best left
unpurchased and un-listened to in order for sanity to prevail.

Patrick, you sound like a grumpy old pensioner, repeating
the complaints of older people of at least three generations.
I can remember my gradfather telling me how his parents
had tried to forbid him from dancing the charleston:-)

But then, a generation later, he told my father not to listen to
"that fearful racket" (jazz). My father in turn asked me,
"What do you hear in that rubbish" (he was referring to
Elvis Presley: "All Shook Up")

Great
fidelity though. Perfectly re-produced ****. All those digital effects
such as altering a singer's pitch to make then sound like they are not
off key are conveyed perfectly to us.

Digital technology has given us post production tools that were
previously only dreamed of. So why should we not use then? I
agree that there is no technical substitute for talent. But then,
in general terms, the level of acceptance of the public is pretty
low. That's a fact of life.

The consumers of big cities
never really socialise with anyone around and rarely go to concerts -
too much fear, anxiety, distrust and alienation.

I don't know where you live, but in this city of 500 000 people,
concerts are well attended, and people queue up to support
live performances.

Here in the EU great emphasis is placed on music, arts and
culture. Every time I visit Prague (Czech Republic) I am amazed
by the number of concerts etc. Last time I was there, I had a
choice of fifteen classical/baroque/light music concerts, and that
was on a Wednesday night! Every second young person is
carrying a violin case.- They can't all contaon Thomson machine
guns!!

And the majority
still does not mind crap sound.

The use of CD of in cars, and the prevalence of mp3
players with ear-buds have probably lowered the standards
of expectation. Also, few people these days have a
dedicated listening room - music has become like wallpaper
so that to many people "listening" is a secondary task while
they do something else.

But I wonder if that really matters, as long as they listen
and enjoy the process.

Walker may have sold 96,000 Quad-II
amps, but how many millions of ppl became aware of Quad products and
didn't buy them?

Don't you think that sales of 96 000 units was a
remarkble achievement at that time? Quad had
an enviable reputation.

There seem to be no comparable figures for the other
major UK manufacturers, Leak, Radford, Armstrong,
Bradmatic, Bryan, Clarke and Smith, Kerr McCosh etc
etc etc.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churchus Stinking ****wit "


** The busses don't stop where this dude lives....

Flipper was perfectly correct when he stated
that even during the early days of tape recording
in WW2, the quality was better than disc
transcription.


** WW2 was never in the discussion.

The early to late 50s were.


True, but that does not alter the fact that even the
earliest broadcast tape recorders (Magnetofon)
running at 76cms were superior to disc transcriptions,

** What arrogant bull****.

An argument based on Hitler's speeches alone is utterly insane.

Just a simple example.


just as Flipper stated.


** He never did, you stinking liar.

Phil, do try to get control of yourself.


When tape equipment is removed from the process of making LPs, as it was
for " digital" recordings sold in the early 1970s by Denon and others and
also for all the " Direct to Disk " records - sound quality took a *very
dramatic* leap forward.

You yourself said we were discussing the situation in the early 1950s so
why are you suddenly taking about LPs and 1970s Denon?


Such LPs became the standard for hi-fi demos and are a perfect
demonstration of how even the very much better tape recorders of the 1970s
were still way inferior to good old vinyl.

That's incorrect. The recording industry standard tape recorder
even as far back as 1965 was the Studer C37. It had a SNR
of -70dB (published spec) even without Dolby A.

You will be hard pressed (no joke intended:-) to find a vinyl
pressing that can offer 60dB. If you want to try, DGG and Decca
SXL (classical) pressings are the quietest.

Iain

[Phil Allison[_3_]]

"Iain Churchus"


** **** off LIAR