Re: "SET dogma maximizes distortion" -- Arnie Krueger Lie No 51291

Trevor, all that is bull***. Where in the RDH does it say SET
designers set out deliberately to "maximize" distortion? You're
supporting an absolutely idiotic troll by Krueger.

If you want to publish your list of beefs with SET in new thread with
page numbers from the RDH4, we can discuss the actual difficulties in
SET applications courteously and logically in a format we can all learn
from. Note that what you say about damping of SE vs PP is the reverse
of what is true. I am sure it is not ignorance but a slip.

However, if you actually mean to argue that we deliberately make
distortion as large as possible, as the wretched Krueger claims, I
can't be bothered to talk to idiots.

I look forward to your separate thread of logical discussion with
references.

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Patrick Turner" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:43A4380B.9CF48311@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> >> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> > "Andre Jute" <fiultra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > news:1134778106.166754.107450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > >> the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Is this a troll Krueger or do you really believe your own dumb ***?
> >> >
> >> > **Nope. It's actually close to the truth. Please refer to the Radiotron
> >> > Designer's Handbook, for further information. If you want me to provide
> >> > page/section numbers, let me know.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Trevor Wilson
> >> > www.rageaudio.com.au
> >>
> >> Amazing. I have several copies of the RDH so I can read it anywhere,
> >> like a bible. I have never seen anywhere in the RDH anything to support
> >> Krueger's claim. I'll deconstruct Krueger's silly claim later.
> >> Meanwhile, could I suggest politely that you compare Krueger's claim
> >> carefully to those pages before you embarrass yourself by posting page
> >> numbers on which I shall demonstrate clearly that Krueger's claim is
> >> not supported, in fact, quite the opposite. I wouldn't want a
> >> fellow-Australian, even a silicon-head, publicly to fall into the same
> >> trap as a recklessly blustering American like the thief Bret Ludwig.
> >> Your disgrace may reflect badly on Patrick and Phil and me and several
> >> perfectly decent, if misguided, fellow-countrymen on RAO.
> >
> > Andre, pehaps you are not aware of the wars of words I have had with
> > Trevor
> > Wilson
> > at aus.hi-fi on the subject of SET amps about which he refuses to be
> > rational,
> > and about which he foams at the mouth.
>
> **LOL! Please feel free to RATIONALLY rebuke the following statements about
> SE(T) amplifiers. In your answer, please feel free to liberally quote the
> RDH4 to support any arguments you may make.
>
> ---
> * ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
> automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things being
> approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
> supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.
>
> * ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp (at or
> near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so on.
> Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power problems can
> be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull topology.
>
> * SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.
>
> * SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of noise than PP amps.
>
> * SE amps have a higher damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may lead
> to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.
> ---
>
> And, before you issue your standard cop-out (The one which reads: "I've
> already answered these questions"), humour all of us and respond to each
> point. If you can't, or won't, then supply your alleged Google cite. I'm
> waiting.
>
>
>
> > I have long since become quite immune to feeling any embarrassment or lack
> > of
> >
> > comradeship with any fellow countrymen since the Net is an International
> > forum,
> > and i wouldn't call myself a nationalist.
> >
> > I'd rather try to be right than popular.
>
> **Except you refuse to discuss the actual technical problems which are
> endemic to SE(T) amplifiers.
>
> >
> > I have many times pointed out the reasons why
> > ** WELL DESIGNED** SET amps can be considered true hi-fi amps.
>
> **Indeed you have. What you have failed to do, however, is discuss why a PP
> amp is superior in every way. Moreover, you seem to disregard what the RDH4
> says on the subject.
>
> >
> > Trevor tries to quote RDH4, but makes gross errors of context, and is
> > unable
> > to
> > construct a valid argument of several coherent pages long to support
> > his beliefs about SE amplifiers.
>
> **OK. Here's your chance. Prove me wrong. In your answer, please feel free
> to quote from the RDH4.
>
> >
> > There are few samples of SET amps using anything larger than a 2A3 in
> > RDH4.
> > It is principally an engineers handbook, with little concerns for
> > any of the audiophile concerns held now.
>
> **Huh? You feel that the RDH4 is a useless text in the area of amplifier
> design?
>
> >
> >
> > Millions of radios and TV sets used SE pentodes with NFB because they
> > offered
> >
> > hi-fi, and completely adequate performance desired by the buyers.
> > Deluxe versions of the above gear used PP amps, wow, and ppl paid a
> > pretty penny for 8 watts instead of 4 watts.
>
> **Indeed. SE amplifiers were fine for the 1930s. We've since moved on,
> however. PP has convincingly and completely eliminated SE designs from the
> market place.
>
> >
> > Almost no audio amplifiers used a lone large octal SE output tube in 1955.
> > Nearly everyone who had hi-fi amps in 1955 was proud of their
> > Quads, Leaks, Radfords, or home made Williamsons or Mullard designs which
> > were all PP amps with NFB.
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > There is virtually nothing in RDH4 about using 300B, 211 or 845 or any
> > other
> > big tube
> > in SE mode at all.
>
> **Does that mean that what the RDH4 has to say about SE(T) amplifiers is
> irrelevant?
>
> >
> > Many PP amps can measure and sound grim compared to
> > an SE design.
>
> **Sure. It's not hard to design a bad PP (or SET) amplifier. What's your
> point?
>
> >
> > But I could be wrong, perhaps you'll have more luck educating
> > Trevor to the reasons why some of us enjoy SET amplifier topology.
>
> **I know excatly why a tiny minority of people enjoy listening to SE(T)
> amplifiers. You do too, in all probability.
>
> >
> >
> > Trevor has not designed or built any amplifiers for 30 years.
>
> **Even if that were true (which it is not), I fail to see why you STILL
> refuse to discuss the severe limitations presented by SE(T) amplifiers.
>
>
> >
> > He is quite a nice man most of the time, but he wouldn't know how to
> > design any amp even if his life depended on it.
>
> **And again. If I am such a dunderhead, then tell me where I am wrong about
> SE(T) amplifiers.
>
> Go on. Educate me.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

.