Re: Vacuum Tubes - Are They Warmer Sounding?

"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d2r144dreik60k3u5hqsj2m6v2ilsndim1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 14:24:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:9k8044p9m1slenr8h9vj6p9ufav4vm4fpq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:56:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote
>>>> in message news:6a8uolF35v55nU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:wsWdnQJphtwkdaPVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 21st century, the single-chip power amplifier
>>>>>> is a paragon of simplicity.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Not really. It is an exceedingly complex device,
>>>>> which happens to be simple to use. It is disingenuous
>>>>> to call such devices "simple".
>>>>
>>>> In human terms, which is ease of use and low parts
>>>> count,
>>>
>>> We're not talking about the human fallacy of thinking
>>> something is 'simple' because it's "out of sight, out of
>>> mind" hidden inside a black box nor are we talking about
>>> 'ease of use' either because it's wrapped inside a black
>>> box with 11 pins sticking out or fully assembled with
>>> RCA, speaker, and power cord connections.
>>
>> It's not a fallacy.
>
> Arny, surely there must be a few brain cells left in your
> head so try waking a couple of them up.

Inability to create a cogent argument noted.

> Putting a complex thing inside a box doesn't magically
> make it 'simple'. It's a fallacy.

What you don't get Flipper is that the same thing happened with tubes,
about 
a century ago.

>> If it is a fallacy, then it was a fallacy for tubes.

> If anyone had been stupid enough to think putting a
> complex tube device inside a box magically made it
> 'simple' then, yes, it would be a fallacy for them too.

You seem to have indicted yourself quite nicely, Flipper.

Tubes are incredibly complex in the cosmic scheme of things. To you,
simple 
seems to mean things that you understand well enough for them to be 
"intuitive" to you. But, the common meaning of "intuitive" for most people

is that they already know it. IOW, where you to be trained in modern 
technology, chips would seem simple to you. The problem is not the 
complexity of chips, but rather your inability to keep up with modern 
technology.

>>> 'Easy to use'
>>> doesn't have a damn thing to do with amplifier quality
>>> or else audiophiles would all be s****ting 1960s
>>> Japanese 10 transistor pocket radios.

>> Irrelevant.

> Amplifier quality was the topic.and don't try to tell me
> otherwise because I *wrote* it and know exactly what I
> said and meant.

Flipper, we already know that you define "good sound quality" as anything 
that some tubed amp of questionable lineage and performance level happens
to 
spew upon a hapless loudspeaker.

The more enlightened of us define "good sound quality" as the amplified 
signal being indistinguishable from the source signal.

>
>>> Don't need to 'connect'
>>> anything to those. WOW, must be a terrific amp inside.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Of course it is but then that's was your nonsensical
> 'point' about 'simple'. Maybe we're making progress since
> you now recognize it for the "nonsense" is it.

No Flipper I'm being consistent and positive and modern. You've already 
criticized yourself more harshly than I ever would.

>>>> not to mention the
>>>> fact that all of the parts are readily available, a
>>>> single-chip amplifier has unequalled simplicity.
>>>> Admittedly the chip itself is complex to produce, but
>>>> they are also pretty much old-tech these days.

>>> It is complex to produce, which was also not an issue
>>> till you shot yourself in the foot diverting into the
>>> B.S. of 'previously unheard of' vacuum technology

>> It is no BS Flipper. Your mistake is that you have
>> confused a complex technology that you seem to favor,
>> with a simple technology.

> No, the problem is you're utterly clueless about what the
> subject even is and, as a result, babble B.S. gibberish.

Inability to provide a cogent argument noted.

>>> The issue, which everyone but you seems to understand,
>>> was circuit complexity: what the electrons 'see' whether
>>> or not you can handle soldering more than 11 pins or go
>>> blind dead and dumb hiding the thing inside black boxes.

>> I have yet to see a cogent discussion of this topic from
>> you, Flipper.

> You haven't seen a damn thing except paranoid visions
> dancing among the sleeping brain cells in your head.

How charming of you, Flipper. BTW, does the nym "Flipper" related to a 
behavior trait of flipping people off when you can't grasp the higher
forms 
of reason? Or does it relate to a tendency to flip-flop your position?

>> If
>> you want to say "All I can see is tubes" over and over
>> again which is what you've been saying by implication,
>> fine.

> You, no doubt, saw 'tubes' in the MOSFET amp I posted a link to.

Flipper, I suspect that your advocacy of MOSFET amps comes from some 
romantic ideas about them being more "tube like" because MOSFETs are like 
tubes, field effect devices.  The irony here is that some single-chip
power 
amps which you have already expressed your undying hatred are also 
MOSFET-based.

> And what I said is there are those who believe there is
> audible merit to circuit simplicity.

Which I have just deconstructed in this thread for being what it is - a 
statement of bias not reliable perception.

> I believe it's oft stated as "the best amplifier is a wire with gain."

Agreed. But that criteria indicts the majority of tubed amplifiers,
because 
they can't pass a straight-wire bypass test with a real-world loudspeaker 
load.

> At  least that's what the MOSFET amp site said.

The idea of a good amp being like a straight wire with gain goes back to
no 
later than the 1950s.  In the 1960s Julian Hirsch mentioned the same idea
in 
Stereo Review. I believe that was before MOSFET audio amps became
generally 
available.