general question about audio amplifiers

[James Beck]

In article <ui213195ij5rujlb33aqdufi09me3oo2f5@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:25:18 GMT, James Beck
jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

In article <2h1v21p3eba15huhk2ud15tpb910i2n60t@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:05:48 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:



In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.


But there is some rationality to sea salt.

John


Yep, there is more than just NaCl in it.

Jim


A relative-by-marriage used to be head chemist for a big salt mine in
Louisiana. Every day he'd go to work, analyze some samples, and file a
report: yep, it's still salt. He got bored, took up selling drugs, and
now he's a successful and respected mobster, sort of the cajun Tony
Soprano.

John


I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is

as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".

Jim

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"James Beck" <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9a5ca3d6eb31a1989af7@news.west.earthlink.net...

I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".

The identity of a good number of those nutricious micro things will
depend on where the nearest sewage outflow is and what people
in the nearest city eat.

If I was buying sea salt, I would want to know precisely
where the water came from and what protection the
evaporation ponds were given. All the more so now
that avian borne diseases are becoming a threat.

Do you suppose sea salt vendors would do anything so
artificial as sterilizing their product with unnatural heat?

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[James Beck]

In article <dx0Yd.33$Lb7.325@news.uswest.net>,
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com says...

"James Beck" <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9a5ca3d6eb31a1989af7@news.west.earthlink.net...
I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".


The identity of a good number of those nutricious micro things will
depend on where the nearest sewage outflow is and what people
in the nearest city eat.

If I was buying sea salt, I would want to know precisely
where the water came from and what protection the
evaporation ponds were given. All the more so now
that avian borne diseases are becoming a threat.

Do you suppose sea salt vendors would do anything so
artificial as sterilizing their product with unnatural heat?

I know several of the brands give fairly good descriptions as to how
they ensure the quality of the product. I wouldn't worry about
pathogens as much as chemical contaminants. Salt is the original food
preservation system. Not too many "germs" could handle the salt
concentrations in the ponds let along the desiccation that occurs when
the pond dries out and the salt pulls the moisture out of their little
membranes.

Jim

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.

---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:02:39 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:52:50 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.


That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.


Oh, don't be bitter.

---
Sweet of you to notice...

--
John Fields

 

[krw]

In article <m391311vv7s86u2i2jsv20jmmuu1set4fo@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:


What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.

---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.

Perhaps it's that warm glow they give off on cold snowy nights.

--
Keith

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m391311vv7s86u2i2jsv20jmmuu1set4fo@4ax.com...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.

Just to help cultivate your sense of humility,
(and without suggesting it is lacking), I offer
this reconstructed sequence of our discussion:

Q: Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on
a vacuum tube than they would be on a transistor amplifier?

A(by LB): Only when the amp is underpowered for the signal
it is being asked to pass.

S(by JF): Not 'only'. The transient response of the output
transformers has a lot to do with it as well.

Q(by LB): Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is usually going to
smooth out the content that a high fidelity amplifier would have
passed? If that is the basis of your contention, then I must
point out that transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass
filters, either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe you[r]
could explain your contradiction.

R(by JF): [contrasting with magnitude frequency response]
The transient response, on the other hand, deals with the behavior
of the transformer when subjected to complex input signals and is
affected by, among other things, the leakage reactance and
interwinding capacitance in ways which wouldn't be readily
apparent when exciting the transformer with a single spectral line.

R(by LB): What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion that
transformer transient response uniformly tends to smooth output
waveforms.

R(by JF): I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks
think tube sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever
the reason. Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have
been knocked off, perhaps because some of the edge rates have
been slowed down, perhaps not.

At this point, I don't know whether we disagree or not. I have
to ignore parts of our discussion to take either position.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com

Above views may belong only to me.

 

John Larkin wrote:

On 9 Mar 2005 13:49:54 -0800, mike-nospam@darrettenterprises.com
wrote:

Hello,

A family friend swears by using vacuum tube audio amplifiers, saying
that although they are less efficient, they produce a "warmer, less
tiring" sound than the traditional electronic amplifiers do.


So solid-state is now "the traditional electronic amplifier", and
tubes are new? To some people, I guess.

Perhaps I mis-spoke; I should have said "the (usual, or more common)
electronic amplifier" instead.

Is this really true?

Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on a vacuum
tube
than they would be on a transistor amplifier?

This is notoriously subjective, like wine tasting. It would be
interesting to have him do a blind listening comparison and see if he
can tell the difference. Some tube amps *do* have a lot of
distortion,
and some people do like the resulting sound. Tube amps have bad
damping factors, so speakers boom more, and some people like that,
too.

John

A lot of people have made some very interesting comments on this
thread. Some of it is above my understanding; I'm not sure what a
transformer is used for inside an amp, for instance.

Tube clipping of the waveform would modify the sound, and I guess
that's what our family friend means by his "warmer, less tiring" sound.
He's not much of a sea salt enthusiast, if anyone's wondering.
Personally, I like the standard sodium chloride, with the FDA-approved
traces of sodium iodide. The cheaper the better.

Mike

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:56:40 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:02:39 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:52:50 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.


That's unfair and isn't a fact at all; it's strictly your caustic
opinion.


Oh, don't be bitter.

---
Sweet of you to notice...

Sounded like a verbal assault to me.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:54:11 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:


What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.

---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.

It's the way those nice smooth organic glass bottles gently mellow the
flow of electrons, not like those jaggy, angular, crystalline
semiconductor things.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bob Masta]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:31:44 GMT, James Beck
<jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".

AFAIK, all salt deposits are from ancient oceans, so it's *all*
"sea salt". just some from older seas than others!

Best regards,


Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com

 

[James Beck]

In article <4231a012.3355849@news.itd.umich.edu>, NoSpam@daqarta.com
says...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:31:44 GMT, James Beck
jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:



I wonder what the trace mineral/micro-nutrient content of mined salt is
as compared to sea salt. I've seen some pretty funky colored "sea"
salts. Grey from France (Fleur de Sel) , pink from Hawaii, black (very
sulphurous) from India. The evaporating pond probably has more to do
with the trace minerals than the ocean location does, but I don't know
that for a "fact".


AFAIK, all salt deposits are from ancient oceans, so it's *all*
"sea salt". just some from older seas than others!

Best regards,

I guess that is true, but how it is created can be different. The
current gourmet salts are created from shallow pools evaporating in the
sun. That couldn't account for the gigantic chunks of salts found in
deposits. There is some fundemental difference in how the salt was
separated from the water and the conditions that occurred when that
happened. If you want to get REALLY down to details, it is all space
salt, created in the depths of some old star, try that as a marketing
gimmick. Wait, I'm too late! Astor brand salt!

Jim

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:34:18 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m391311vv7s86u2i2jsv20jmmuu1set4fo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.


Just to help cultivate your sense of humility,
(and without suggesting it is lacking), I offer
this reconstructed sequence of our discussion:

Q: Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on
a vacuum tube than they would be on a transistor amplifier?

A(by LB): Only when the amp is underpowered for the signal
it is being asked to pass.

S(by JF): Not 'only'. The transient response of the output
transformers has a lot to do with it as well.

Q(by LB): Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is usually going to
smooth out the content that a high fidelity amplifier would have
passed? If that is the basis of your contention, then I must
point out that transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass
filters, either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe you[r]
could explain your contradiction.

R(by JF): [contrasting with magnitude frequency response]
The transient response, on the other hand, deals with the behavior
of the transformer when subjected to complex input signals and is
affected by, among other things, the leakage reactance and
interwinding capacitance in ways which wouldn't be readily
apparent when exciting the transformer with a single spectral line.

R(by LB): What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion that
transformer transient response uniformly tends to smooth output
waveforms.

R(by JF): I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks
think tube sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever
the reason. Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have
been knocked off, perhaps because some of the edge rates have
been slowed down, perhaps not.

At this point, I don't know whether we disagree or not. I have
to ignore parts of our discussion to take either position.

---
You seem to think that a sense of humility is something which one
should cultivate when communicating with you in order to allow your
viewpoints to become dominant. I have no evidence, so far, that your
intellectual prowess merits that kind of consideration.

Just as an example, your statement that you'd have to ignore parts of
our discussion belies the fact that, since the discussion has already
occurred, no matter what you claim you can't ignore any part of it.

Also, on sci.electronics.design you seem to be back-pedalling while
trying to maintain your position as an authority about something.
Anything...

What might that be? We've seen nothing from you but idle chatter. No
schematics, no math, not even verbal descriptions of circuitry, just
half-baked opinions about how you think things should and shouldn't be
done and why.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

--
John Fields

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
message news:jeu631hju37s1dj1kosn2j4m0dbm0lpons@4ax.com...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:34:18 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m391311vv7s86u2i2jsv20jmmuu1set4fo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:47:54 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion
that transformer transient response uniformly
tends to smooth output waveforms. I expect
that in the case of soft limiting, but I see little
reason to predict that the uneven phase response
of a transformer, together with the phase response
of whatever is done to preceeding stages to get
the magnitude response straightened out, will act
to produce smoother outputs.
---
I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it.


Just to help cultivate your sense of humility,
(and without suggesting it is lacking), I offer
this reconstructed sequence of our discussion:

Q: Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on
a vacuum tube than they would be on a transistor amplifier?

A(by LB): Only when the amp is underpowered for the signal
it is being asked to pass.

S(by JF): Not 'only'. The transient response of the output
transformers has a lot to do with it as well.

Q(by LB): Do you believe that, within the nearly linear output
range of a tube amp, the output transformer is usually going to
smooth out the content that a high fidelity amplifier would have
passed? If that is the basis of your contention, then I must
point out that transistor amplifiers can also act as low pass
filters, either intentionally (treble control) or not. If your
contention is not about frequency response, maybe you[r]
could explain your contradiction.

R(by JF): [contrasting with magnitude frequency response]
The transient response, on the other hand, deals with the behavior
of the transformer when subjected to complex input signals and is
affected by, among other things, the leakage reactance and
interwinding capacitance in ways which wouldn't be readily
apparent when exciting the transformer with a single spectral line.

R(by LB): What triggers my skepticism is the suggestion that
transformer transient response uniformly tends to smooth output
waveforms.

R(by JF): I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks
think tube sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever
the reason. Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have
been knocked off, perhaps because some of the edge rates have
been slowed down, perhaps not.

At this point, I don't know whether we disagree or not. I have
to ignore parts of our discussion to take either position.

---
You seem to think that a sense of humility is something which one
should cultivate when communicating with you in order to allow your
viewpoints to become dominant.

Actually, I think a sense of humility is a prequisite for
any competent but human engineer. And it is not a
bad thing for people generally to cultivate.

I have no evidence, so far, that your
intellectual prowess merits that kind of consideration.

The issue is not my prowess. The issue is how to
reconcile a set of inconsistent positions. I had
actually thought, incorrectly it seems, that you
would be able to see the inconsistency rather
than trying to bluster your way out. You could
take my prior post as a compliment.

Just as an example, your statement that you'd have to ignore parts of
our discussion belies the fact that, since the discussion has already
occurred, no matter what you claim you can't ignore any part of it.

The fact is that you have come down on both sides
of the issue with respect to whether the frequency
response (which includes the transient response)
of a tube amp transformer will generally tend to
smooth waveforms presented to it. You initially
disagreed with my position on that, and later let
loose of your initial position, but have never quite
managed to acknowledge the change.

Also, on sci.electronics.design you seem to be back-pedalling while
trying to maintain your position as an authority about something.
Anything...

I have never claimed to be an authority, so for
the sake of discussion, I will translate your
exaggeration into "have acted as if knew"
about something. ("Anything"?)

So, acknowledging an error is "back-pedalling"
and somehow inconsistent with believing oneself
to have relevant knowledge of some subject. I
suspect that view may explain a lot here.

What might that be? We've seen nothing from you but idle chatter. No
schematics, no math, not even verbal descriptions of circuitry, just
half-baked opinions about how you think things should and shouldn't be
done and why.

Funny, but I recall using the favored Ascii
schematic editor just so I could post a few
circuits here. And I've written enough
expressions to falsify your "no math" charge
unless you are trivially referring to some kind
of algebraic transformations all laid out. And
on several occasions, including a post today,
I have described the operation of portions of
a circuit.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

I cannot speak for the horse, but I decline, thanks.

So, did you or did you not contradict my claim
that output waveforms will be smoother from a
vacuum tube than they would be from a solid
state amp only when the amp is underpowered
for the signal it is being asked to pass?

And did you or did you not, after a discussion
about transformer transient response, finally
abandon the "smoother" position for tube amps
operating in their near linear output range?

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:59:07 -0600, John Fields wrote:

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

ROFL!

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:10:45 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
message news:jeu631hju37s1dj1kosn2j4m0dbm0lpons@4ax.com...

You seem to think that a sense of humility is something which one
should cultivate when communicating with you in order to allow your
viewpoints to become dominant.

Actually, I think a sense of humility is a prequisite for
any competent but human engineer. And it is not a
bad thing for people generally to cultivate.

---
So, by not refuting my statement, you agree with it?
---

I have no evidence, so far, that your
intellectual prowess merits that kind of consideration.

The issue is not my prowess.

---
The issue, at this point, is whether your intellectual prowess merits
consideration as having come from a source which should be approached
humbly. I.e., accepted without question. So far I have seen no
evidence that that should be the case.
---

The issue is how to
reconcile a set of inconsistent positions. I had
actually thought, incorrectly it seems, that you
would be able to see the inconsistency rather
than trying to bluster your way out. You could
take my prior post as a compliment.

---
Or a passive-aggressive suggestion to change my POV by adopting a
modus vivendi which would make you more comfortable.
---

Just as an example, your statement that you'd have to ignore parts of
our discussion belies the fact that, since the discussion has already
occurred, no matter what you claim you can't ignore any part of it.

The fact is that you have come down on both sides
of the issue with respect to whether the frequency
response (which includes the transient response)
of a tube amp transformer will generally tend to
smooth waveforms presented to it. You initially
disagreed with my position on that, and later let
loose of your initial position, but have never quite
managed to acknowledge the change.

---
The _fact_ is that my position was, and still is, that if one were to
use a tube amplifier and a solid-state amplifier with identical power
outputs and spectral responses and use them to drive identical
loudspeaker loads, the transformer required to do the impedance
transformation from the output of the tube amp into its load would
make the acoustic output from that loudspeaker different from one
being driven by the solid-stae amp. Smoother? That's _your_ claim,
not mine, and I won't buy into it because you haven't defined what you
mean by 'smoother'.
---

Also, on sci.electronics.design you seem to be back-pedalling while
trying to maintain your position as an authority about something.
Anything...

I have never claimed to be an authority, so for
the sake of discussion, I will translate your
exaggeration into "have acted as if knew"
about something. ("Anything"?)

---
Perhaps you've never claimed to be, but since you _act_ as though you
think you are, so my statement stands. Besides, the grammar of your
"translation" is atrocious.
---

So, acknowledging an error is "back-pedalling"
and somehow inconsistent with believing oneself
to have relevant knowledge of some subject. I
suspect that view may explain a lot here.

---
Well, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining your
intransigence. Your method of acknowledging an error, as I read it,
seems to go like this: "OK, I was wrong but..." where the ellipses is
a lot of weaseling around trying to make it seem like you weren't
_sooooo_ wrong after all. More like it was just an oversight or a
slight slip, really hardly what you'd call a _real_ mistake...

Yeah... That's the ticket...
---

What might that be? We've seen nothing from you but idle chatter. No
schematics, no math, not even verbal descriptions of circuitry, just
half-baked opinions about how you think things should and shouldn't be
done and why.

Funny, but I recall using the favored Ascii
schematic editor just so I could post a few
circuits here. And I've written enough
expressions to falsify your "no math" charge
unless you are trivially referring to some kind
of algebraic transformations all laid out. And
on several occasions, including a post today,
I have described the operation of portions of
a circuit.

---
OK.
---

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

I cannot speak for the horse, but I decline, thanks.

So, did you or did you not contradict my claim
that output waveforms will be smoother from a
vacuum tube than they would be from a solid
state amp only when the amp is underpowered
for the signal it is being asked to pass?

---
Using the term "smoother" in the way I think you mean it, with the
transformer being interposed between the output of the tube amp and
its loudspeaker load, The output from the transformer will be
smoother than that of the solid state amp even if both amps are fully
powered and capable of passing the signal from input to output without
distortion so, yes, consider your claim that the output will be
smoother _only_ when the amps are underpowered to be contradicted
_and_ refuted.
---

And did you or did you not, after a discussion
about transformer transient response, finally
abandon the "smoother" position for tube amps
operating in their near linear output range?

---
If this is what you're talking about:

"I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it."

I don't see where you think that my argument that some people like
tube sound better than solid state sound indicates that I've abandoned
any position at all.

Notice that everything I've said so far about "smoothness" is based
upon what what I think you mean when you use that term. If you
disagree with any of the conclusions I've drawn so far, then define
what you mean by "smoother" and perhaps you'll have some ground to
stand on from which you can argue meaningfully.

--
John Fields

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3tr83119d34p1tl2gu9mlfbcfneul0qi18@4ax.com...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:10:45 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
message news:jeu631hju37s1dj1kosn2j4m0dbm0lpons@4ax.com...

You seem to think that a sense of humility is something which one
should cultivate when communicating with you in order to allow your
viewpoints to become dominant.

Actually, I think a sense of humility is a prequisite for
any competent but human engineer. And it is not a
bad thing for people generally to cultivate.
---
So, by not refuting my statement, you agree with it?

No, of course not. I am claiming that a sense of
humility is worthwhile for everybody, myself
included. I have no interest in some sort of
domination by means other than rational and
correct argument. I would just as soon be
shown wrong and learn something as prevail.

I suggest we drop this branch. My comment,
as you could see for yourself if you were in a
better mood, was not maliciously intended,
nor was it intended to incite you. If not for
my dislike of little smilies all over the place,
there would have been one on that paragraph.

I have no evidence, so far, that your
intellectual prowess merits that kind of consideration.

The issue is not my prowess.
---
The issue, at this point, is whether your intellectual prowess merits
consideration as having come from a source which should be approached
humbly. I.e., accepted without question. So far I have seen no
evidence that that should be the case.

That's really going over the top, John. Any
humility I have brought up has been only in
reference to the attitude most people need
to have in order to recognize an error or
inconsistency in their position. I take your
suggestion that I am demanding or asking
for unthinking acceptance of my statements
as truth to be insulting. As for "evidence",
I wonder how that could exist for a claim
of infallibility.

The issue is how to
reconcile a set of inconsistent positions. I had
actually thought, incorrectly it seems, that you
would be able to see the inconsistency rather
than trying to bluster your way out. You could
take my prior post as a compliment.
---
Or a passive-aggressive suggestion to change my POV by adopting a
modus vivendi which would make you more comfortable.

Huh? What makes you think I seek comfort
here? As for some kind of settlement, I had
no idea whether you were still disagreeing with
me, (as I stated in the post that set you off).

Just as an example, your statement that you'd have to ignore parts of
our discussion belies the fact that, since the discussion has already
occurred, no matter what you claim you can't ignore any part of it.

The fact is that you have come down on both sides
of the issue with respect to whether the frequency
response (which includes the transient response)
of a tube amp transformer will generally tend to
smooth waveforms presented to it. You initially
disagreed with my position on that, and later let
loose of your initial position, but have never quite
managed to acknowledge the change.

---
The _fact_ is that my position was, and still is, that if one were to
use a tube amplifier and a solid-state amplifier with identical power
outputs and spectral responses and use them to drive identical
loudspeaker loads, the transformer required to do the impedance
transformation from the output of the tube amp into its load would
make the acoustic output from that loudspeaker different from one
being driven by the solid-stae amp.

I think we agree on that, at least. In fact, I have
made no argument to contravene such a position.

Smoother? That's _your_ claim,
not mine, and I won't buy into it because you haven't defined what you
mean by 'smoother'.
Uh, no, that is not my claim. If you review our

subthread more carefully, (or my recent extract
of it), you should be able to see that "smoother"
has been your claim, not mine. Perhaps that is
the whole, comical root of this little tempest.

Also, on sci.electronics.design you seem to be back-pedalling while
trying to maintain your position as an authority about something.
Anything...

I have never claimed to be an authority, so for
the sake of discussion, I will translate your
exaggeration into "have acted as if knew"
about something. ("Anything"?)
---
Perhaps you've never claimed to be, but since you _act_ as though you
think you are, so my statement stands.

Guilty as charged. I act is if I believe what I know
to be true, until shown otherwise. What would you
prefer? That I pose every statement as some sort
of weak hypothetical? For your benefit, I would be
happy to agree that there is an implicit qualifier in
front of every factual statement I make: "Unless I
am mistaken and become aware of it, I believe:".

Besides, the grammar of your "translation" is atrocious.

Readily granted.

So, acknowledging an error is "back-pedalling"
and somehow inconsistent with believing oneself
to have relevant knowledge of some subject. I
suspect that view may explain a lot here.
---
Well, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining your
intransigence. Your method of acknowledging an error, as I read it,
seems to go like this: "OK, I was wrong but..." where the ellipses is
a lot of weaseling around trying to make it seem like you weren't
_sooooo_ wrong after all. More like it was just an oversight or a
slight slip, really hardly what you'd call a _real_ mistake...

Yeah... That's the ticket...

Believe what you like. I disagree with your characterization,
but cannot imagine how to debate such notions with you.

[snip some slight silliness and agreement]

So, did you or did you not contradict my claim
that output waveforms will be smoother from a
vacuum tube than they would be from a solid
state amp only when the amp is underpowered
for the signal it is being asked to pass?
---
Using the term "smoother" in the way I think you mean it, with the
transformer being interposed between the output of the tube amp and
its loudspeaker load, The output from the transformer will be
smoother than that of the solid state amp even if both amps are fully
powered and capable of passing the signal from input to output without
distortion so, yes, consider your claim that the output will be
smoother _only_ when the amps are underpowered to be contradicted
_and_ refuted.

This is too much, now. After I try to get to the root
of your contradiction, and before we ever got there as
far as I can tell, you insisted "I'm not arguing 'smoother'".
Maybe you can make that argument, and maybe it can
be considered a refutation once made, but I have not
yet seen it.

And did you or did you not, after a discussion
about transformer transient response, finally
abandon the "smoother" position for tube amps
operating in their near linear output range?

---
If this is what you're talking about:

"I'm not arguing "smoother", I'm arguing that some folks think tube
sound sounds _better_ than transistor sound, whatever the reason.
Perhaps it's because some of the crispy corners have been knocked off,
perhaps because some of the edge rates have been slowed down, perhaps
not. I don't know, but if they like it, so be it."

I don't see where you think that my argument that some people like
tube sound better than solid state sound indicates that I've abandoned
any position at all.

Ok, when it comes from you I will not interpret
"I am not arguing X" in an argument about X as
any abandonment of your position on X. I may
have read more into your words than was there.

As for "some people like tube sound better", that
is not anything I have denied or argued against.
Nor do I know of any obvious way to relate a
position on that subject to this "smoother" notion
that is different from soft limiting. (Given what I
have read about the phase sensitivity of human
hearing, I doubt there is such a relation.)

Notice that everything I've said so far about "smoothness" is based
upon what what I think you mean when you use that term.

I've considered trying to get that better defined, too,
but for any of the usual meanings, my skepticism
still applied. If it is going to involve only phase
response, (given that we are holding the magnitude
response constant in this discussion by implicit
agreement), then I am unable to come up with a
definition that resembles anything (I believe to be)
commonly meant by the term.

If you
disagree with any of the conclusions I've drawn so far, then define
what you mean by "smoother" and perhaps you'll have some ground to
stand on from which you can argue meaningfully.

My hopes for a meaningful argument here are
severely limited at this point. If you are not
arguing some ill-defined "smoother", then I am
not up to wanting to revive such an argument.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[rpbc]

It's easy to settle this question with a simple experiement I have
conducted many times for different individuals who have all come to the
same conclusion. All you need is a vacuum tube, and a metal can TO3 type
transistor, and a hard floor surface, concrete is best. Drop each one,
the transister, then the tube from an equal height and the tube definitely
has the warmer sound... the transistor is harsh, more tinny by
comparison. Anyone listening to a side by side comparison will agree.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

<mike-nospam@darrettenterprises.com> wrote in message
news:1110404994.842576.145560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Hello,
Hi.
A family friend swears by using vacuum tube audio amplifiers, saying
that although they are less efficient, they produce a "warmer, less
tiring" sound than the traditional electronic amplifiers do.

Is this really true?

Good places to ask this, after reading their FAQs,
would be rec.audio.tech and rec.audio.opinion .
This is undoubtedly covered in a FAQ.

Some people like the distortion of some tube
based amplifiers. Some imagine they like it.
The simple fact is that if such sound was all
that desirable, it would be on CD's and such
for the benefit of those with low distortion
audio systems.

Tube based amps will limit more softly than
simple implementations of transistor based
amplifiers. But again, if that characteristic
was so desirable, it would be effected by
non-linear shaping circuits in solid-state
gear. The fact that such gear has not been
marketed (much, at all?) indicates that it
is not an important technical feature.

In fact, most people to whom such gear
would be marketed would still prefer
vacuum tube amps, magnetic bracelets,
and sea salt.

Would, for example, the output waveforms be smoother on a vacuum tube
than they would be on a transistor amplifier?

Only when the amp is underpowered for
the signal it is being asked to pass.

Thanks in advance for not flaming me too badly.

You can take my FAQ reading suggestion as a
not too bad flame, if you like.

Mike Darrett
www.darrettenterprises.com

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.