output transformers

[Paul Barker]

The problem is I'm rather sensetive to Plajurism. Over the years I have done much studying on courses where you would be thrown off for plajurism.

I could site many examples where someone has picked up on what someone else has discussed and built a webpage around it but not credited the source.

I think that is wrong.

Over the years I have always attributed the ideas I discussed with the source. Seldom does anyone else. It upsets me that people don't reference their material, that's all.

[Darren]

'

As I said earlier, from pulling a valve out of a PSE amp it improved the sound - and Greg is right to remind us that then the 2A3PSE was actually pretty weedy with only one valve unless using it with v.efficient speakers.

I actually object to this statement, the 2a3 is a darn good valve. It's a true top of the class example of thermonic quality.

But if you want to drive insensitive speakers with it and it doesn't work too well, don't blame the valve. This is no more than a simple miss-match of components.

Looking for a "better" valve to drive your lazy speakers does not make it a better valve at all.

I'll give an example, many, inc the industry opt for the 300B as it gives out a healthy 8W or so in SE. This does indeed drive most speakers better and yes it will sound better than the 2a3 in this scenario.

But that does not make the 300B a better valve. Far from it, the 2a3 is far, far superior.

There are other valves we could consider of course, as well as other ways to crack the nut.

[pre65]

Hi-it seems to me that if posts are not read properly,then any reply based on what one THOUGHT was said is pretty well nonsensical.

The good thing about the written word is that it can be read many times,if necessary to clarify the writers original intentions.

Now to my mind,having very nearly purchased a 2A3 PSE as WAD were folding up,describing the usage of one valve on its own as "weedy" is a statement of FACT in those particular circumstances,not a condemnation of the valve as a whole.

Andrew is well known as a keen user of that valve in many guises not least his current experiments with Amity.

So please,lets not start getting excited about what MIGHT have been said.

[andrew Ivimey]

Groan ....................... there is no appropriate smiley to attach. I'm leaving the country.

[Nick]

Yes, it has to be said, that people seem to be taking offense at what they believe people have said, not the best way to get on I would have thought. Andrews comment was clearly

the 2A3PSE was actually pretty weedy with only one valve

If I remember at the time, I think the problems with that amp were many, not least a rather (IMHO ok?) uninspiring driver stage.

[pre65]

Hi-i wonder how many of those 2A3 PSE amps are still in use ?

I gather from what Greg has said that he still has one.

[Darren]

Yes that is a good point Nick,

Just didn't want people to generalise from that post that the 2a3 valve itself failed in some way. Labeling a component based on one amplifier design is surely wrong?

The thread is about paralleling valves and the generalisation is that the 2a3 can't cut the mustard on it's own. Both yourself, I and others know this is not the case.

If we can't expand on what is exactly said in a post then it's going to get pretty boring around here.
Also if actual experience is only allowed to be expressed by a few limited parties, then the information is gonna become pretty constrained.
There is no right and wrong way, but if threads are going to be forced to stay rigidly on track then I can't see the point on having "open" discussions?

Might as well write a web page and say this is how it is?

Instead perhaps my reply should have read:

Don't be put off by the WAD 2a3PSE, this was considered a compromised design by some. Many have found that the 2a3 is a worthy valve combined with a better array of components.

Maybe my crime is stating what I believe?
The fact that this comes from practical experience and not theory that this and most forums are mostly filled with, seems to have no bearing on on the usefulness of such a post?

I find that rather odd.

By all means fill the forum with theory, but arn't we supposed to be building amps to listen to the music? Surely perfect graphs and charts don't precede the aural pleasure?

[richardcooper2k]

i agree that the discussion shouldn't be narrowed and constrained

the problem is when people take things personaly and make statements which are hard for other people not to take personally. when egos are pricked they tend to in turn prick other egos.

the problem with pricked egos is that they are only interested in protecting their own perspective so any willingness to considor other opinions is impaired. so open disscussion goes down the plug hole. this is a reason why 'appropriate phrasing' makes a difference whilst still communicating our what we have to say

if folk really are interested in exploring stuff here then pricking egos and allowing your own to be pricked is not the way to go.

i thought that was what a lot of the complaints about the other place were about

[Darren]

'

Paul and Darren, you aren't adding anything constructive. You are saying you did something a very long time ago and sound pretty smug about it.

I need to hear other people's viewpoints and examples.

Exactly,

I don't post here too often, I don't normally have the time.

I responded to Andrew I with something that I personally believed would help with the general discussion.

I was then told I was adding nothing constructive, and in the same message he asked for people to give their own experiences???

Go figure?
anyways, it's another day move on..............

[ed]

mmmm

I have been trying to be a good budhist for the last 30 years....For the whole of that time I've had one consideration when somebody has said something to me that sounded offensive...My first and most important thought has been: Why did they say that to me :-

a. did I mishear that
b. did they make a mistake in phrasing that
c. am I misunderstanding that

if the answer to all those questions is no then they must be trying to offend me and if thats the case then what did I do to warrant that.. I must search for the reason and apologise.....sometimes I don't find a reason but I still try and apologise.

I'm not trying to sign anybody up....but that thought process is not difficult

[pre65]

Hi Ed-what a wonderful way of thinking !

I am so glad you posted that !

Having a contrary opinion from another should be the source of good debate where facts (and opinions ) can be put forward to substantiate ones position without either party needing to feel attacked.

I'm sure the "2A3 preservation society" will be glad to know Darren is on their side.

[richardcooper2k]

hi ed, i used to live in a buddhist community

i'm all for taking responsibility of myself

but not sure about wether taking responsibility for others is helpful to them or me

i think it's better to encourage them to do it themselves

[ed]

Hi Richard

is it responsibility of.... or responsibility for ???

but I so totally agree either way....

What I have a problem with is:
Is there any encouragement in silence when one is on a forum?

[richardcooper2k]

sorry, i meant for, not of

and yes we should all stop typing and just notice the electrons and fields all around us, and the nice pink flowers in the fields, and....

[Nick]

Anyway, I think we are all still frends .

I do think its interesting that there is so much emphasis plased on load lines and getting it "spot on", and the reality is that it doesn't seem to make much if any difference (as long as its within limits of course).

My own take on this (and I think its what Paul has been saying) is that once the real world gets involved (ie a speaker) there are so many other things going on, that somethink as simple as the reflected impedance on paper has little or no bearing.

But just to loook at the other side, the 211 I have been playing with is using a 6sn7 in the driver stage, the 6sn7 is swinging a lot of volts, so I gave it 500v B+ and a load resistor that allows it to have nice low looking distortion from the lines. And it does. Problem is, the distortion its producing is matching very closely the distortion the 211 is producing, so I was getting almost PP cancelation. Sounds a good think you might think, BUT, first its only 2nd thats being cancled, 3rd is still there, so I was getting 0.07% 2nd at 4w which is great, but still getting 0.15% 3rd, wich would be fine, if the 2nd was there as well.

SO I have intentionally picked a llower than optimal load resistor, to break the two valves out of the cancelation, and restore the 2nd, 3rd ratio, and it sounds better for it.

I think though (and this is where its OT), the biggest problem with the cancelation, is it only creats this NULL point, for a precise 211 load line, so its only real for a perfect resistive load. Put a real speaker on, then you get nasty effects where the distortion specta is all over the place as the frequency and phase dependent load line moves in and out of matching the 6sn7. The 6sn7 having a resistive load, remains constant under these conditions. And by forcing more distortion from the driver, I think I remove the variable distortion spectra that I was getting.

Hmm, just had a thought, I wonder if this is partly why a choke load sounds better. The eliplical load line it produces might be a better and more equal match to the transformer loaded output stage. But thats only one of my idle muses though, so don't quote me