Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does anyone else do this?

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 28, 2005 5:57:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
from what they are today.

More about : question

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 28, 2005 9:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

with the price of pc's today its cheaper to build or buy a new one .
any computer over five years old should be replaced, or at least
upgraded. just my opinion mike
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 28, 2005 10:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 28 Aug 2005 13:57:06 -0700, djs0302@aol.com wrote:

>When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
>make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
>component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
>hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
>took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
>than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
>want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
>it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
>installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
>it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
>from what they are today.

Generally, it goes the other way for me. Upgrading leaves me with
extra parts and after awhile I throw together a PC to play with linux
or give to a computerless friend or even use as an MP3/CD player in a
spare room. But right off the bat buying spare parts, no. Although I
will say that during my build before my current one I bought two hard
drives and just backed up from one to the other regularly and then
backed up to cd less regularly. Had the main drive failed, I'd have
still had a drive to use.

Bob
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 28, 2005 10:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

djs0302@aol.com wrote:

> When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
> make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
> component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
> hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
> took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
> than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
> want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
> it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
> installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
> it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
> from what they are today.
>

FYI, you didn't 'have' to get a hard drive under 8 gig. Your system, as it
stands, would just not *use* more than 8 gig on a larger drive.
Alternately, you could have used the driver program that usually comes with
a new drive to use the larger capacity on the system even though it's BIOS
can only handle 8 gig. The program is a boot time BIOS 'patch' for the
larger size.

No, I don't buy 'spares' as it's always possible to find a replacement, one
way or the other.

Case in point. Just for the fun of it I'm building a vacuum tube amplifier
with 40 year NOS tubes so I'm not too worried about 10 year old computers ;) 
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 29, 2005 4:19:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

djs0302@aol.com wrote:

> When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be
> able to make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not
> a certain component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old
> computer whose hard drive was failing. I still use it to
> connect to the internet It took me quite a while to find a
> replacement hard drive that was smaller than 8 GB. Anyway, I
> built a second computer last year and I didn't want to take any
> chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for it in
> case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
> installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I
> need it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be
> totally different from what they are today.

If I had money to burn, maybe. Parts become performance-wise
obsolete way too fast.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 30, 2005 5:20:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11h4h8bpt2eh176@corp.supernews.com...
> djs0302@aol.com wrote:
>
>> When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
>> make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
>> component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
>> hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
>> took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
>> than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
>> want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
>> it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
>> installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
>> it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
>> from what they are today.
>>
>
> FYI, you didn't 'have' to get a hard drive under 8 gig. Your system, as it
> stands, would just not *use* more than 8 gig on a larger drive.
> Alternately, you could have used the driver program that usually comes
> with a new drive to use the larger capacity on the system even though it's
> BIOS can only handle 8 gig. The program is a boot time BIOS 'patch' for
> the larger size.
>
> No, I don't buy 'spares' as it's always possible to find a replacement,
> one way or the other.
>
> Case in point. Just for the fun of it I'm building a vacuum tube amplifier
> with 40 year NOS tubes so I'm not too worried about 10 year old computers
> ;) 

I have drawers and shelves full of stuff that I took out of new builds and
said "I can sure use this later"...:-) I certainly don't buy spares. I have
an old Gibson Studio tube (the white one) and a Fender Pro Reverb hybrid
that are both about that old. Both work great and still get used. Hard as
hell to find some of the tubes if I need them.

Ed
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 30, 2005 10:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Medlin wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11h4h8bpt2eh176@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>djs0302@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
>>>make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
>>>component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
>>>hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
>>>took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
>>>than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
>>>want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
>>>it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
>>>installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
>>>it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
>>>from what they are today.
>>>
>>
>>FYI, you didn't 'have' to get a hard drive under 8 gig. Your system, as it
>>stands, would just not *use* more than 8 gig on a larger drive.
>>Alternately, you could have used the driver program that usually comes
>>with a new drive to use the larger capacity on the system even though it's
>>BIOS can only handle 8 gig. The program is a boot time BIOS 'patch' for
>>the larger size.
>>
>>No, I don't buy 'spares' as it's always possible to find a replacement,
>>one way or the other.
>>
>>Case in point. Just for the fun of it I'm building a vacuum tube amplifier
>>with 40 year NOS tubes so I'm not too worried about 10 year old computers
>>;)
>
>
> I have drawers and shelves full of stuff that I took out of new builds and
> said "I can sure use this later"...:-)

I know what you mean and one could argue I have my own personal junk yard ;) 

> I certainly don't buy spares. I have
> an old Gibson Studio tube (the white one) and a Fender Pro Reverb hybrid
> that are both about that old. Both work great and still get used. Hard as
> hell to find some of the tubes if I need them.

Try here http://www.radiodaze.com/tubes.htm

They have just about the best prices and that's where I get mine.

Occasionally http://www.fredsclassicradios.com/tubes.htm has some listed
for a little less but I haven't tried ordering from him as radiodaze was
cheaper for the ones I specifically wanted.

And then there's http://www.tubedepot.com/. Generally more expensive but
they should 'have it' and they also carry the 'new' Russian and Chinese tubes.

I got into this recapping and restoring a '49 Sonora table radio and then I
found some octal sockets in my 'junk yard' so, having never done one
before, I though a tube amp would be a fun, cheap, project what with 5v6s
for 2 bucks at radiodaze. Yes, I know, wrong filament voltage but it's no
big deal to cater for it when you're building it yourself.

Turning out to be a bigger project than I originally thought, though, what
with about 600 spice model variations under my belt by now. LOL (well, I'm
half trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse)

Tubes aren't the problem, at least for run of the mill stuff, it's finding
good output transformers for less than an arm and a leg and the pulls I got
from an old 60's tube stereo console aren't going to give me a 'hi-fi' amp
after it's all said and done but the point was to learn about it on the
cheap, not make a 10 grand 'super tube' amp (tube amps aren't dead they
just went exotic and ridiculously priced).

It's been fascinating to research various 'tricks' they used to do because
it's a different world where the object is to get by with the least since
everything was a significant cost, as opposed to today where popping a half
dozen more transistors on the board is of little concern. Case in point,
they'd inject 60Hz hum at one spot to counter 60Hz hum somewhere else
rather than use a larger filter capacitor because those 'big values' cost
money. And if you don't know that you end up wondering what in God's name
was *that" winding on the output transformer for? They'd also use the
speaker field coil (before it was replaced with a PM) as a power supply
filter choke.

Of course, there's also the ever present thrill that tube voltages can kill
you as opposed to just 'letting the smoke out'.

One thing, though, I do think I'm getting a decent handle on what the cause
of that "tube sound" is. They really are 'different'.


>
> Ed
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 31, 2005 5:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11h9rv69uoejh29@corp.supernews.com...
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>
>> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
>> news:11h4h8bpt2eh176@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>djs0302@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
>>>>make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
>>>>component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
>>>>hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
>>>>took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
>>>>than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
>>>>want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
>>>>it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
>>>>installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
>>>>it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
>>>>from what they are today.
>>>>
>>>
>>>FYI, you didn't 'have' to get a hard drive under 8 gig. Your system, as
>>>it stands, would just not *use* more than 8 gig on a larger drive.
>>>Alternately, you could have used the driver program that usually comes
>>>with a new drive to use the larger capacity on the system even though
>>>it's BIOS can only handle 8 gig. The program is a boot time BIOS 'patch'
>>>for the larger size.
>>>
>>>No, I don't buy 'spares' as it's always possible to find a replacement,
>>>one way or the other.
>>>
>>>Case in point. Just for the fun of it I'm building a vacuum tube
>>>amplifier with 40 year NOS tubes so I'm not too worried about 10 year old
>>>computers ;) 
>>
>>
>> I have drawers and shelves full of stuff that I took out of new builds
>> and said "I can sure use this later"...:-)
>
> I know what you mean and one could argue I have my own personal junk yard
> ;) 
>
>> I certainly don't buy spares. I have an old Gibson Studio tube (the white
>> one) and a Fender Pro Reverb hybrid that are both about that old. Both
>> work great and still get used. Hard as hell to find some of the tubes if
>> I need them.
>
> Try here http://www.radiodaze.com/tubes.htm
>
> They have just about the best prices and that's where I get mine.
>
> Occasionally http://www.fredsclassicradios.com/tubes.htm has some listed
> for a little less but I haven't tried ordering from him as radiodaze was
> cheaper for the ones I specifically wanted.
>
> And then there's http://www.tubedepot.com/. Generally more expensive but
> they should 'have it' and they also carry the 'new' Russian and Chinese
> tubes.
>
> I got into this recapping and restoring a '49 Sonora table radio and then
> I found some octal sockets in my 'junk yard' so, having never done one
> before, I though a tube amp would be a fun, cheap, project what with 5v6s
> for 2 bucks at radiodaze. Yes, I know, wrong filament voltage but it's no
> big deal to cater for it when you're building it yourself.
>
> Turning out to be a bigger project than I originally thought, though, what
> with about 600 spice model variations under my belt by now. LOL (well, I'm
> half trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse)
>
> Tubes aren't the problem, at least for run of the mill stuff, it's finding
> good output transformers for less than an arm and a leg and the pulls I
> got from an old 60's tube stereo console aren't going to give me a 'hi-fi'
> amp after it's all said and done but the point was to learn about it on
> the cheap, not make a 10 grand 'super tube' amp (tube amps aren't dead
> they just went exotic and ridiculously priced).
>
> It's been fascinating to research various 'tricks' they used to do because
> it's a different world where the object is to get by with the least since
> everything was a significant cost, as opposed to today where popping a
> half dozen more transistors on the board is of little concern. Case in
> point, they'd inject 60Hz hum at one spot to counter 60Hz hum somewhere
> else rather than use a larger filter capacitor because those 'big values'
> cost money. And if you don't know that you end up wondering what in God's
> name was *that" winding on the output transformer for? They'd also use the
> speaker field coil (before it was replaced with a PM) as a power supply
> filter choke.
>
> Of course, there's also the ever present thrill that tube voltages can
> kill you as opposed to just 'letting the smoke out'.
>
> One thing, though, I do think I'm getting a decent handle on what the
> cause of that "tube sound" is. They really are 'different'.

They sure are. It is hard to explain the difference from a musical point of
view. I mic the Gibson tube amp through a modern PA system and although it
is small with a 12" Lansing speaker, it is a totally different sound than
what I get from newer solid state amps that are much more powerful. I mic my
Dobro and banjo through it and there is a crispness that I like that I just
don't have with newer stuff.

Ed
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 31, 2005 10:33:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Medlin wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11h9rv69uoejh29@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Ed Medlin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
>>>news:11h4h8bpt2eh176@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>djs0302@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When you build a pc do you buy spare parts for it so you'll be able to
>>>>>make repairs more easily without worrying whether or not a certain
>>>>>component has become obsolete? I have an 8 year old computer whose
>>>>>hard drive was failing. I still use it to connect to the internet It
>>>>>took me quite a while to find a replacement hard drive that was smaller
>>>>>than 8 GB. Anyway, I built a second computer last year and I didn't
>>>>>want to take any chances on not being able to find a new hard drive for
>>>>>it in case the current one failed. So I bought two of them. I
>>>>>installed one and the other I tucked safely away just in case I need
>>>>>it. Who knows, ten years from now hard drives may be totally different
>>>>
>>>>>from what they are today.
>>>>
>>>>FYI, you didn't 'have' to get a hard drive under 8 gig. Your system, as
>>>>it stands, would just not *use* more than 8 gig on a larger drive.
>>>>Alternately, you could have used the driver program that usually comes
>>>>with a new drive to use the larger capacity on the system even though
>>>>it's BIOS can only handle 8 gig. The program is a boot time BIOS 'patch'
>>>>for the larger size.
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't buy 'spares' as it's always possible to find a replacement,
>>>>one way or the other.
>>>>
>>>>Case in point. Just for the fun of it I'm building a vacuum tube
>>>>amplifier with 40 year NOS tubes so I'm not too worried about 10 year old
>>>>computers ;) 
>>>
>>>
>>>I have drawers and shelves full of stuff that I took out of new builds
>>>and said "I can sure use this later"...:-)
>>
>>I know what you mean and one could argue I have my own personal junk yard
>>;)
>>
>>
>>>I certainly don't buy spares. I have an old Gibson Studio tube (the white
>>>one) and a Fender Pro Reverb hybrid that are both about that old. Both
>>>work great and still get used. Hard as hell to find some of the tubes if
>>>I need them.
>>
>>Try here http://www.radiodaze.com/tubes.htm
>>
>>They have just about the best prices and that's where I get mine.
>>
>>Occasionally http://www.fredsclassicradios.com/tubes.htm has some listed
>>for a little less but I haven't tried ordering from him as radiodaze was
>>cheaper for the ones I specifically wanted.
>>
>>And then there's http://www.tubedepot.com/. Generally more expensive but
>>they should 'have it' and they also carry the 'new' Russian and Chinese
>>tubes.
>>
>>I got into this recapping and restoring a '49 Sonora table radio and then
>>I found some octal sockets in my 'junk yard' so, having never done one
>>before, I though a tube amp would be a fun, cheap, project what with 5v6s
>>for 2 bucks at radiodaze. Yes, I know, wrong filament voltage but it's no
>>big deal to cater for it when you're building it yourself.
>>
>>Turning out to be a bigger project than I originally thought, though, what
>>with about 600 spice model variations under my belt by now. LOL (well, I'm
>>half trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse)
>>
>>Tubes aren't the problem, at least for run of the mill stuff, it's finding
>>good output transformers for less than an arm and a leg and the pulls I
>>got from an old 60's tube stereo console aren't going to give me a 'hi-fi'
>>amp after it's all said and done but the point was to learn about it on
>>the cheap, not make a 10 grand 'super tube' amp (tube amps aren't dead
>>they just went exotic and ridiculously priced).
>>
>>It's been fascinating to research various 'tricks' they used to do because
>>it's a different world where the object is to get by with the least since
>>everything was a significant cost, as opposed to today where popping a
>>half dozen more transistors on the board is of little concern. Case in
>>point, they'd inject 60Hz hum at one spot to counter 60Hz hum somewhere
>>else rather than use a larger filter capacitor because those 'big values'
>>cost money. And if you don't know that you end up wondering what in God's
>>name was *that" winding on the output transformer for? They'd also use the
>>speaker field coil (before it was replaced with a PM) as a power supply
>>filter choke.
>>
>>Of course, there's also the ever present thrill that tube voltages can
>>kill you as opposed to just 'letting the smoke out'.
>>
>>One thing, though, I do think I'm getting a decent handle on what the
>>cause of that "tube sound" is. They really are 'different'.
>
>
> They sure are. It is hard to explain the difference from a musical point of
> view. I mic the Gibson tube amp through a modern PA system and although it
> is small with a 12" Lansing speaker, it is a totally different sound than
> what I get from newer solid state amps that are much more powerful. I mic my
> Dobro and banjo through it and there is a crispness that I like that I just
> don't have with newer stuff.
>
> Ed
>
>

That's one of the things I want to experiment with but I might 'erase' part
of it if I increase negative feedback to 'force' a 'better' signal through
the output transformers.

I put 'better' in '' because that's part of the issue: how one defines
'better'.

People talk a lot about clipping but it's not as easy to visualize from
text as it is by looking at the waveforms, like in spice (or 'the real
thing'). This is, IMO, also related to the less than scientific comment
you'll hear folks say that "tube watts sound bigger than solid state watts"
meaning a tube amplifier of x watts seems to be 'louder' than a SS amp of
the same power.

Basically, everything distorts and solid state amps 'solve' this by
employing gaggles of negative feedback but tube amps don't use nearly so
much. That affects clipping: what the amp does when it can't follow the
input signal.

It seems that what one might consider a 'draw back' of tubes is what makes
clipping less of a problem. Mainly that tube gain drops off as plate
voltage decreases, as in a large signal swing near the tube's maximum power
capability. That tends to flatten the signal and does, of course, introduce
distortion but it's a gradual distortion that seems to be less offensive to
the ears.

However, solid state amps, typically with heavy feedback, attempt to keep
the signal 'correct' right up to the point where it immediately goes to
hell in a hand basket introducing catastrophic, discordant, distortion.

And it isn't just a matter of putting the feedback in. It seems to be the
'nature' of solid state devices because their gain doesn't vary as much
with the signal itself. I.E. they tend to try amplifying right up to where
there's 'nothing left'.

Now comes the tricky part. It would seem that an easy solution to this
would be to simply not overdrive a solid state amplifier, so there's no
clipping, and the supposed 'problem' becomes moot.

My theory is that, in essence, you can't do it. That while the 'average'
material may seem to be well within clipping it still contains transient
peaks that do drive into the 'danger zone', so to speak, and that you will
get clipping distortion, hence a 'harsh' sound, introduced on those peaks.
It's like an elephant attacked by gnats. It's a small, seemingly
inconsequential, portion of the whole but enough to be 'noticed'.

The tube amp, however, will 'smooth' those peaks, and also distort, but
it's a more pleasing, 2'nd order, harmonic that tends to sound 'natural'
rather than harsh. Perhaps even 'complimentary'. (There may be some human
perception effects as well since the 2'nd order harmonic is a 'natural' one
so your mind might subconsciously 'fill in' missing elements as it
'expects' them to 'naturally' be, similar to how your eyes fill in missing
information with a TV picture, whereas the un-natural SS distortion is
'confusing' to the ear and discordant)

Which, IMO, is why it seems that 'tube watts are bigger than SS watts."
Trying to crank each to the same watt level will result in the SS amp
introducing harsh harmonics on the transient peaks so you want to turn it
back down. It simply 'sounds bad', even before the 'obvious' clipping,
whereas the tube amp's 2'nd order harmonics sound pleasing so it seems to
be just fine with the same watts. So you have the non-scientific 'human
perception' that you can crank a 1 watt tube amp as 'loud' as a 5 watt SS
amp because it still 'sounds good' even though, in reality, it's distorting.

Or, put simply, tubes seem to operate like a natural, though crude,
compander. You can make the base, average, material 'louder' and they'll
naturally compand the peaks in a pleasing, albeit distorted, manner whereas
the typical SS amp doesn't.

However, wrap a boat load of negative feedback around a tube amp to
compensate for poor components (like my less than stellar output
transformers) and you run the risk of making it sound more like a SS amp
because it's also 'compensating out' the natural companding action of the
tubes. With enough feedback you can make them clip like a knife blade
slicing off the wave tops, just as in a SS amp.

There's also the issue that feedback, while 'correcting' for distortion,
also introduces new distortion of it's own and it may not be 'better' to
reduce the more pleasing 2'nd harmonics to infinitesimally small levels
while adding even an infinitesimal amount of discordant distortion. I.E.
Even a minuscule amount of bad distortion may be a whole lot worse than
large levels of 'pleasing' distortion, the elephant and gnats syndrome, so
'numbers', as real and 'scientific' as they are, don't necessarily reflect
'perception'.

Anyway, lots of things to look at ;) 
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 2, 2005 7:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> That's one of the things I want to experiment with but I might 'erase'
> part of it if I increase negative feedback to 'force' a 'better' signal
> through the output transformers.
>
> I put 'better' in '' because that's part of the issue: how one defines
> 'better'.
>
> People talk a lot about clipping but it's not as easy to visualize from
> text as it is by looking at the waveforms, like in spice (or 'the real
> thing'). This is, IMO, also related to the less than scientific comment
> you'll hear folks say that "tube watts sound bigger than solid state
> watts" meaning a tube amplifier of x watts seems to be 'louder' than a SS
> amp of the same power.
>
> Basically, everything distorts and solid state amps 'solve' this by
> employing gaggles of negative feedback but tube amps don't use nearly so
> much. That affects clipping: what the amp does when it can't follow the
> input signal.
>
> It seems that what one might consider a 'draw back' of tubes is what makes
> clipping less of a problem. Mainly that tube gain drops off as plate
> voltage decreases, as in a large signal swing near the tube's maximum
> power capability. That tends to flatten the signal and does, of course,
> introduce distortion but it's a gradual distortion that seems to be less
> offensive to the ears.
>
> However, solid state amps, typically with heavy feedback, attempt to keep
> the signal 'correct' right up to the point where it immediately goes to
> hell in a hand basket introducing catastrophic, discordant, distortion.
>
> And it isn't just a matter of putting the feedback in. It seems to be the
> 'nature' of solid state devices because their gain doesn't vary as much
> with the signal itself. I.E. they tend to try amplifying right up to where
> there's 'nothing left'.
>
> Now comes the tricky part. It would seem that an easy solution to this
> would be to simply not overdrive a solid state amplifier, so there's no
> clipping, and the supposed 'problem' becomes moot.
>
> My theory is that, in essence, you can't do it. That while the 'average'
> material may seem to be well within clipping it still contains transient
> peaks that do drive into the 'danger zone', so to speak, and that you will
> get clipping distortion, hence a 'harsh' sound, introduced on those peaks.
> It's like an elephant attacked by gnats. It's a small, seemingly
> inconsequential, portion of the whole but enough to be 'noticed'.
>
> The tube amp, however, will 'smooth' those peaks, and also distort, but
> it's a more pleasing, 2'nd order, harmonic that tends to sound 'natural'
> rather than harsh. Perhaps even 'complimentary'. (There may be some human
> perception effects as well since the 2'nd order harmonic is a 'natural'
> one so your mind might subconsciously 'fill in' missing elements as it
> 'expects' them to 'naturally' be, similar to how your eyes fill in missing
> information with a TV picture, whereas the un-natural SS distortion is
> 'confusing' to the ear and discordant)
>
> Which, IMO, is why it seems that 'tube watts are bigger than SS watts."
> Trying to crank each to the same watt level will result in the SS amp
> introducing harsh harmonics on the transient peaks so you want to turn it
> back down. It simply 'sounds bad', even before the 'obvious' clipping,
> whereas the tube amp's 2'nd order harmonics sound pleasing so it seems to
> be just fine with the same watts. So you have the non-scientific 'human
> perception' that you can crank a 1 watt tube amp as 'loud' as a 5 watt SS
> amp because it still 'sounds good' even though, in reality, it's
> distorting.
>
> Or, put simply, tubes seem to operate like a natural, though crude,
> compander. You can make the base, average, material 'louder' and they'll
> naturally compand the peaks in a pleasing, albeit distorted, manner
> whereas the typical SS amp doesn't.
>
> However, wrap a boat load of negative feedback around a tube amp to
> compensate for poor components (like my less than stellar output
> transformers) and you run the risk of making it sound more like a SS amp
> because it's also 'compensating out' the natural companding action of the
> tubes. With enough feedback you can make them clip like a knife blade
> slicing off the wave tops, just as in a SS amp.
>
> There's also the issue that feedback, while 'correcting' for distortion,
> also introduces new distortion of it's own and it may not be 'better' to
> reduce the more pleasing 2'nd harmonics to infinitesimally small levels
> while adding even an infinitesimal amount of discordant distortion. I.E.
> Even a minuscule amount of bad distortion may be a whole lot worse than
> large levels of 'pleasing' distortion, the elephant and gnats syndrome, so
> 'numbers', as real and 'scientific' as they are, don't necessarily reflect
> 'perception'.
>
> Anyway, lots of things to look at ;) 

Seems to be....:-) Actual volume is not what I look at. I actually take the
sound from the tube amp and send it via microphone through a SS system to
the main speakers. The SS system does reproduce the sound very correctly. It
is very obvious that you have a lot (in tonnage) more experience with the
inner workings than I have. I tend to look much more at the end product
moreso than how it happens.....:-). In many cases, the distortion from the
tubes is what I want. Sometimes it is just the crisp sound. Much depends on
what instrument I have in my hands and type of music I am playing. I have a
Crate brand SS studio amp that has "overdrive" settings that, to me anyway,
seems to try and recreate a tube amp sound, albeit poorly. Kind of like your
definition of "bad distortion". The main downside of tube amps is their
tendancies to feedback more than solid state, but is not very difficult to
solve by setting them up correctly on stage or the room you are playing.
Finding the best physical location is the main thing. It may be that there
is more EMF/RFI emulation from the tube amps or something to that effect.
You could probably explain that better than I.......hehe...... I wouldn't
trade my old 40-some year old tubers for any of the newer stuff.

Ed
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 3, 2005 2:26:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Medlin wrote:

<snip>
>>
>>Anyway, lots of things to look at ;) 
>
>
> Seems to be....:-) Actual volume is not what I look at.

Volume is just one way of attempting to describe the difference and I'm not
entirely sure 'volume' doesn't matter to your setup.

> I actually take the
> sound from the tube amp and send it via microphone through a SS system to
> the main speakers.

Do you mean patched in via a microphone input or by using a physical
microphone 'listening' to the tube amp's speaker?

> The SS system does reproduce the sound very correctly.

Well, or so the spec's say ;) 

> It
> is very obvious that you have a lot (in tonnage) more experience with the
> inner workings than I have.

Thanks but, believe me, I'm just beginning and people have been trying to
figure it out ever since transistors first appeared.

The SS camp will argue that numbers don't lie. The 'golden ear' crowd will
argue that ears don't lie.

I'm not the first to suggest that neither is lying and that maybe they're
simply not looking at the same thing.

> I tend to look much more at the end product
> moreso than how it happens.....:-).

Exactly. And in that respect you have a lot more tonnage than I do ;) 

> In many cases, the distortion from the
> tubes is what I want.

Right. I didn't get into that part but it seems obviously related. Since
tubes distort differently then they naturally sound different when
(intentionally) distorting.

> Sometimes it is just the crisp sound. Much depends on
> what instrument I have in my hands and type of music I am playing. I have a
> Crate brand SS studio amp that has "overdrive" settings that, to me anyway,
> seems to try and recreate a tube amp sound, albeit poorly. Kind of like your
> definition of "bad distortion".

That's an area I've read about but not done any models on: tube 'simulators'.

If my theory is correct then would seem to be impossible because it
presumes you introduce the 'right distortion' with the simulator and then
depend on the remaining SS amp to be 'accurate' but if it's adding 'bad
distortion', even when not (intentionally) over-driven, then it doesn't
really work like tubes that don't add the additional 'SS' component on
their own.

Not a trivial problem as I'd like to find some way to eliminate the output
transformer using SS devices, a hybrid amp, and, so far, I can't find any
mechanism that doesn't effectively erase the tube's soft clipping
characteristic on the output stage.

> The main downside of tube amps is their
> tendancies to feedback more than solid state, but is not very difficult to
> solve by setting them up correctly on stage or the room you are playing.
> Finding the best physical location is the main thing. It may be that there
> is more EMF/RFI emulation from the tube amps or something to that effect.
> You could probably explain that better than I.......hehe......

That physical location seems to be the key sounds to me like tube
microphonics. I.E. The thing physically vibrating from the sound and since
it's basic amplifying function depends on the physical location of the
internal parts, filament, grid, plate etc., that feeds back into it.

Might be interesting to test that by encasing the tube components (only) in
a 'sound proof' box and see if location still matters in the same way. (If
you're ever tempted to try it just remember you couldn't run it that way
for very long without the tubes rapidly cooking themselves inside a closed box)

> I wouldn't
> trade my old 40-some year old tubers for any of the newer stuff.

My nephew is dabbling in music and I was tempted to build a tube guitar amp
for him but, being a typical 14 year old, he seems enamored with the
'watts' number and I can't make a 'gigawatt' tube amp with 'inexpensive' parts.

> Ed
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 3, 2005 6:58:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11hi5vpiaa2bl4f@corp.supernews.com...
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>>Anyway, lots of things to look at ;) 
>>
>>
>> Seems to be....:-) Actual volume is not what I look at.
>
> Volume is just one way of attempting to describe the difference and I'm
> not entirely sure 'volume' doesn't matter to your setup.
>
>> I actually take the sound from the tube amp and send it via microphone
>> through a SS system to the main speakers.
>
> Do you mean patched in via a microphone input or by using a physical
> microphone 'listening' to the tube amp's speaker?

I use a short mic stand a foot or so in front of the amp's speaker.
Physically patching it to a SS system does not give the same sound.......I
don't know exactly why, but about everyone does it the same way. (even Eric
Clapton....:-).


>
>> The SS system does reproduce the sound very correctly.
>
> Well, or so the spec's say ;) 

The sound is not really reproduced I guess.......Just moved from the amp to
a sound system. Something that is necessary in today's musical world. It is
just not possible for a small tube amp to fill a relatively large room.

>
>> It is very obvious that you have a lot (in tonnage) more experience with
>> the inner workings than I have.
>
> Thanks but, believe me, I'm just beginning and people have been trying to
> figure it out ever since transistors first appeared.
>
> The SS camp will argue that numbers don't lie. The 'golden ear' crowd will
> argue that ears don't lie.
>
> I'm not the first to suggest that neither is lying and that maybe they're
> simply not looking at the same thing.
>
>> I tend to look much more at the end product moreso than how it
>> happens.....:-).
>
> Exactly. And in that respect you have a lot more tonnage than I do ;) 

hehe......Probably correct there. Since 50 it has gotten a lot tougher to
see the belt buckle.......:-)


>
>> In many cases, the distortion from the tubes is what I want.
>
> Right. I didn't get into that part but it seems obviously related. Since
> tubes distort differently then they naturally sound different when
> (intentionally) distorting.
>
>> Sometimes it is just the crisp sound. Much depends on what instrument I
>> have in my hands and type of music I am playing. I have a Crate brand SS
>> studio amp that has "overdrive" settings that, to me anyway, seems to try
>> and recreate a tube amp sound, albeit poorly. Kind of like your
>> definition of "bad distortion".
>
> That's an area I've read about but not done any models on: tube
> 'simulators'.
>
> If my theory is correct then would seem to be impossible because it
> presumes you introduce the 'right distortion' with the simulator and then
> depend on the remaining SS amp to be 'accurate' but if it's adding 'bad
> distortion', even when not (intentionally) over-driven, then it doesn't
> really work like tubes that don't add the additional 'SS' component on
> their own.

Agreed. Intentionally overdriving the output of a solid state amp (or adding
"effects" to it) is a poor way to actually simulate how a tube amp output
works.


>
> Not a trivial problem as I'd like to find some way to eliminate the output
> transformer using SS devices, a hybrid amp, and, so far, I can't find any
> mechanism that doesn't effectively erase the tube's soft clipping
> characteristic on the output stage.

Hybrid music amps were very popular in the late 60s through the mid-late
70s. I have a couple around here, but have not dug into them to see exactly
whether the input or output side is SS. Now I am kind of interested to see.

>
>> The main downside of tube amps is their tendancies to feedback more than
>> solid state, but is not very difficult to solve by setting them up
>> correctly on stage or the room you are playing. Finding the best physical
>> location is the main thing. It may be that there
>> is more EMF/RFI emulation from the tube amps or something to that effect.
>> You could probably explain that better than I.......hehe......
>
> That physical location seems to be the key sounds to me like tube
> microphonics. I.E. The thing physically vibrating from the sound and since
> it's basic amplifying function depends on the physical location of the
> internal parts, filament, grid, plate etc., that feeds back into it.
>
> Might be interesting to test that by encasing the tube components (only)
> in a 'sound proof' box and see if location still matters in the same way.
> (If you're ever tempted to try it just remember you couldn't run it that
> way for very long without the tubes rapidly cooking themselves inside a
> closed box)

You seem to be on the correct road. In most cases, the feedback begins
barely audible, and seems to feed on it's own harmonics and gets louder
pretty fast. If you have powered up guitars standing around it will soon
begin to vibrate the strings and soon you have the "Jimi Hendrix"
effect........:-)


>
>> I wouldn't trade my old 40-some year old tubers for any of the newer
>> stuff.
>
> My nephew is dabbling in music and I was tempted to build a tube guitar
> amp for him but, being a typical 14 year old, he seems enamored with the
> 'watts' number and I can't make a 'gigawatt' tube amp with 'inexpensive'
> parts.

Relatively small tube amps are used today and mics used to send the sound
through SS systems all the time. The good part of all this is that today's
SS sound systems are a whole lot smaller and lighter than the old days. I
would imagine that your nephew has a fairly high wattage SS amp that would
work fine with a small tube amp. All he needs is a good mic and go at it. If
he is just sitting around the house he doesn't need that. A young rock
guitar player would probably really enjoy some of the sounds that he can get
from the old stuff.
>
>> Ed
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 4, 2005 2:03:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Medlin wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11hi5vpiaa2bl4f@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Ed Medlin wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>Do you mean patched in via a microphone input or by using a physical
>>microphone 'listening' to the tube amp's speaker?
>
>
> I use a short mic stand a foot or so in front of the amp's speaker.
> Physically patching it to a SS system does not give the same sound.......I
> don't know exactly why, but about everyone does it the same way. (even Eric
> Clapton....:-).

Well, if Clapton does it that's good enough for ME ;)  (not really kidding
either)

That's what I thought and your comment about patching it in not working the
same fits. As one informative article I read noted, it's where the tube
interfaces with physical devices, e.g. the speaker, that the big difference
takes place.


>>>The SS system does reproduce the sound very correctly.
>>
>>Well, or so the spec's say ;) 
>
>
> The sound is not really reproduced I guess.......Just moved from the amp to
> a sound system. Something that is necessary in today's musical world. It is
> just not possible for a small tube amp to fill a relatively large room.

A big tube amp would. It's just that everything is easier and cheaper with SS.


>>>It is very obvious that you have a lot (in tonnage) more experience with
>>>the inner workings than I have.
>>
>>Thanks but, believe me, I'm just beginning and people have been trying to
>>figure it out ever since transistors first appeared.
>>
>>The SS camp will argue that numbers don't lie. The 'golden ear' crowd will
>>argue that ears don't lie.
>>
>>I'm not the first to suggest that neither is lying and that maybe they're
>>simply not looking at the same thing.
>>
>>
>>>I tend to look much more at the end product moreso than how it
>>>happens.....:-).
>>
>>Exactly. And in that respect you have a lot more tonnage than I do ;) 
>
>
> hehe......Probably correct there. Since 50 it has gotten a lot tougher to
> see the belt buckle.......:-)

Hehe. Well, I meant your music experience. Mine is with trumpet/coronet and
we don't need no 'amps'. We just blow harder ;) 

<snip>

>
>>Not a trivial problem as I'd like to find some way to eliminate the output
>>transformer using SS devices, a hybrid amp, and, so far, I can't find any
>>mechanism that doesn't effectively erase the tube's soft clipping
>>characteristic on the output stage.
>
>
> Hybrid music amps were very popular in the late 60s through the mid-late
> 70s. I have a couple around here, but have not dug into them to see exactly
> whether the input or output side is SS. Now I am kind of interested to see.

I'd bet the output stage is SS because that's where you save the money.
Unfortunately, that's where 'the sound' is.

For example, a cheap 10-15 watt 'guitar grade' (not 'Hi-Fi') output
transformer will run, oh say, 20 to 30 bucks but for less than 4 you can
get an entire 30 Watt IC amp, e.g an LM1875, with 'oh wow super Hi-Fi'
..015% distortion specs.

For comparison, a fellah who designs (exorbitantly priced) custom Hi-Fi
tube amps was just recently agog at how unbelievably wonderful his latest
creation sounded. Seems the particular tube it employed was simply
'magical'. The amp's measured distortion was 1%, 15 times 'worse' than the
4 buck I.C.


<snip>

>>
>>Might be interesting to test that by encasing the tube components (only)
>>in a 'sound proof' box and see if location still matters in the same way.
>>(If you're ever tempted to try it just remember you couldn't run it that
>>way for very long without the tubes rapidly cooking themselves inside a
>>closed box)
>
>
> You seem to be on the correct road. In most cases, the feedback begins
> barely audible, and seems to feed on it's own harmonics and gets louder
> pretty fast. If you have powered up guitars standing around it will soon
> begin to vibrate the strings and soon you have the "Jimi Hendrix"
> effect........:-)

Ah yes, the Jimmy Hendrix sound.

Well, (positive) feedback usually starts off barely audible and then grows.
That's 'what it is'. It (somehow) 'hears' it's own output and if the gain
is high enough so that the output from what it 'heard' is louder still then
it also hears the louder sound, amplifies it again, and the cycle
perpetually repeats until the amp's power limit is reached (or the speakers
blow, or something burns up, or... hehe).

It's 'obvious' when it's via a microphone. Simply move it close to the
speaker and the 'circle' is made but I'm not sure about your guitar amp
case. Tube microphonics is one guess but it could also be from the guitar
(strings) pickup. (They vibrate too, you know <grin>). But you said the
amp's position was what mattered and tube microphonics is a known problem.
You'll even see that in the tube spec sheets, as in 'this one has low
microphonics'. The 'old Pros' will also warn about certain brands having
poor microphonics in a particular tube type.

Frankly, I'd expect microphonics to be a hell of a problem on stage as that
isn't exactly what one would call a 'low noise environment'.

Kinda reminds me of the old days classic home 'space saver' mistake of
putting a turntable on top the speaker cabinet. Long live vinyl


>>>I wouldn't trade my old 40-some year old tubers for any of the newer
>>>stuff.
>>
>>My nephew is dabbling in music and I was tempted to build a tube guitar
>>amp for him but, being a typical 14 year old, he seems enamored with the
>>'watts' number and I can't make a 'gigawatt' tube amp with 'inexpensive'
>>parts.
>
>
> Relatively small tube amps are used today and mics used to send the sound
> through SS systems all the time. The good part of all this is that today's
> SS sound systems are a whole lot smaller and lighter than the old days. I
> would imagine that your nephew has a fairly high wattage SS amp that would
> work fine with a small tube amp. All he needs is a good mic and go at it. If
> he is just sitting around the house he doesn't need that. A young rock
> guitar player would probably really enjoy some of the sounds that he can get
> from the old stuff.

I might build one for him anyway after I get this 'first time' thing done
and see if it works worth spit ;) 

He has a small SS 15 watter, I think it is. Someone in his band has 'the
big one', whatever that is.

If it's going to be mic'ed then I suppose even a 1 watt job would suffice
but when I first broached the subject he seemed to be clueless about 'tube
sound'.

Shoot, now you got me thinking about that again because, as one of my
prelim experiments, I gapped and rewound the secondary of a wall wart
transformer for use as a test OPT and it might work well enough for a 1-2
watt guitar amp.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 4, 2005 9:21:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11hkp0cc3v0pf18@corp.supernews.com...
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>
>> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
>> news:11hi5vpiaa2bl4f@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Ed Medlin wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you mean patched in via a microphone input or by using a physical
>>>microphone 'listening' to the tube amp's speaker?
>>
>>
>> I use a short mic stand a foot or so in front of the amp's speaker.
>> Physically patching it to a SS system does not give the same
>> sound.......I don't know exactly why, but about everyone does it the same
>> way. (even Eric Clapton....:-).
>
> Well, if Clapton does it that's good enough for ME ;)  (not really kidding
> either)
>
> That's what I thought and your comment about patching it in not working
> the same fits. As one informative article I read noted, it's where the
> tube interfaces with physical devices, e.g. the speaker, that the big
> difference takes place.
>
>
>>>>The SS system does reproduce the sound very correctly.
>>>
>>>Well, or so the spec's say ;) 
>>
>>
>> The sound is not really reproduced I guess.......Just moved from the amp
>> to a sound system. Something that is necessary in today's musical world.
>> It is just not possible for a small tube amp to fill a relatively large
>> room.
>
> A big tube amp would. It's just that everything is easier and cheaper with
> SS.

The big tube amps are very heavy and tough to move and thus easier to bang
against something and loosen tubes and, frankly, are nothing but hernia
routes..........

<snip>
> Hehe. Well, I meant your music experience. Mine is with trumpet/coronet
> and we don't need no 'amps'. We just blow harder ;) 
>
> <snip>
> It's 'obvious' when it's via a microphone. Simply move it close to the
> speaker and the 'circle' is made but I'm not sure about your guitar amp
> case. Tube microphonics is one guess but it could also be from the guitar
> (strings) pickup. (They vibrate too, you know <grin>). But you said the
> amp's position was what mattered and tube microphonics is a known problem.
> You'll even see that in the tube spec sheets, as in 'this one has low
> microphonics'. The 'old Pros' will also warn about certain brands having
> poor microphonics in a particular tube type.
>
> Frankly, I'd expect microphonics to be a hell of a problem on stage as
> that isn't exactly what one would call a 'low noise environment'.

With some experience, it isn't too bad. We didn't use monitors (speakers
facing you to hear what you are singing) back then because that put it over
the hill as far as feedback. They came along when SS became more prevelant.

>
> Kinda reminds me of the old days classic home 'space saver' mistake of
> putting a turntable on top the speaker cabinet. Long live vinyl

Vinyl is making a huge comeback. Not long ago it was impossible to even find
a turntable.

<snip>
> I might build one for him anyway after I get this 'first time' thing done
> and see if it works worth spit ;) 
>
> He has a small SS 15 watter, I think it is. Someone in his band has 'the
> big one', whatever that is.

Probably something like my main sound system. 100wpc 8ch input. Everything
ends up on it some way or another. Today's smaller speaker systems are a
great thing. No more monolithic speaker boxes like the old days.

>
> If it's going to be mic'ed then I suppose even a 1 watt job would suffice
> but when I first broached the subject he seemed to be clueless about 'tube
> sound'.

Depends on what kind of speaker you are going to match it with. Mine is a
30w peak (this is where it gets sketchy because I don't know what "average"
is) matched with a 12" Lansing speaker. I am sure the speaker has been
changed at least twice. You might see if you can come up with some info on
Gibson studio sized amps from the 50s-60s. They had it down pat. About all
of them where white or beige in color from the factory.

>
> Shoot, now you got me thinking about that again because, as one of my
> prelim experiments, I gapped and rewound the secondary of a wall wart
> transformer for use as a test OPT and it might work well enough for a 1-2
> watt guitar amp.

Try it. Your nephew might see the light......:-)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 5, 2005 2:44:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Medlin wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11hkp0cc3v0pf18@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Ed Medlin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
>>>news:11hi5vpiaa2bl4f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ed Medlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>
> The big tube amps are very heavy and tough to move and thus easier to bang
> against something and loosen tubes and, frankly, are nothing but hernia
> routes..........

I didn't say it was 'easy' ;) 

>
> <snip>
>
>>Hehe. Well, I meant your music experience. Mine is with trumpet/coronet
>>and we don't need no 'amps'. We just blow harder ;) 
>>
>><snip>
>>It's 'obvious' when it's via a microphone. Simply move it close to the
>>speaker and the 'circle' is made but I'm not sure about your guitar amp
>>case. Tube microphonics is one guess but it could also be from the guitar
>>(strings) pickup. (They vibrate too, you know <grin>). But you said the
>>amp's position was what mattered and tube microphonics is a known problem.
>>You'll even see that in the tube spec sheets, as in 'this one has low
>>microphonics'. The 'old Pros' will also warn about certain brands having
>>poor microphonics in a particular tube type.
>>
>>Frankly, I'd expect microphonics to be a hell of a problem on stage as
>>that isn't exactly what one would call a 'low noise environment'.
>
>
> With some experience, it isn't too bad. We didn't use monitors (speakers
> facing you to hear what you are singing) back then because that put it over
> the hill as far as feedback. They came along when SS became more prevelant.

That all fits with it being tube microphonics.


>>Kinda reminds me of the old days classic home 'space saver' mistake of
>>putting a turntable on top the speaker cabinet. Long live vinyl
>
>
> Vinyl is making a huge comeback. Not long ago it was impossible to even find
> a turntable.

I've still got my Dual 1219 but I can't find a needle for the stupid
cartridge. LOL So my operational turntable is a linear tracking BSR XL-1400.


> <snip>
>
>>I might build one for him anyway after I get this 'first time' thing done
>>and see if it works worth spit ;) 
>>
>>He has a small SS 15 watter, I think it is. Someone in his band has 'the
>>big one', whatever that is.
>
>
> Probably something like my main sound system. 100wpc 8ch input. Everything
> ends up on it some way or another. Today's smaller speaker systems are a
> great thing. No more monolithic speaker boxes like the old days.

Oh pooh. Where's the fun in kicking over a small speaker box? Need
something 'big' to smash up ;) 


>>If it's going to be mic'ed then I suppose even a 1 watt job would suffice
>>but when I first broached the subject he seemed to be clueless about 'tube
>>sound'.
>
>
> Depends on what kind of speaker you are going to match it with. Mine is a
> 30w peak (this is where it gets sketchy because I don't know what "average"
> is) matched with a 12" Lansing speaker. I am sure the speaker has been
> changed at least twice. You might see if you can come up with some info on
> Gibson studio sized amps from the 50s-60s. They had it down pat. About all
> of them where white or beige in color from the factory.

Yeah. Gee whiz, I thought I actually knew something about speakers and then
I find out that 'guitar' speakers don't keep the coil in the magnetic field
like 'hi-fi' speakers do because that gives them a natural overload damping
(exit the magnetic field so drive falls off). Which makes 'matching' them
to the amp important.

I'm not sure that would matter so much to a 1W job though. What would
probably matter more is the SPL: how much sound per watt. 95 SPL speakers
on a 1 watt amp would be as loud as 85 SPL speakers on a 10 watt amp.

>>Shoot, now you got me thinking about that again because, as one of my
>>prelim experiments, I gapped and rewound the secondary of a wall wart
>>transformer for use as a test OPT and it might work well enough for a 1-2
>>watt guitar amp.
>
>
> Try it. Your nephew might see the light......:-)

I probably will, sooner or later, but I looked up my notes and the
'reasonable' response was with a fairly large amount of local feedback,
which I remember now was the point of the experiment. Might not be so great
for the 'tube' sound. However, I did just order some 70 volt 10 watt line
transformers that I have an 'idea' about on how to use them as a decent
tube OPT and their spec'd response is about right for a guitar amp.
September 5, 2005 4:32:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

No, I can't say I buy spares. I guess you could call my Dual RAID 1
setup spares, as two hard drives are mirrors of the others and can't
hold any additional data.

But, and this is just my opinion;

Old machines should be scrapped. Anything running something older
then a P-3 really can't perform, except in the most mundane ways.
That said, I still have a K6-2 450 out there the grandparents use and
love. But upgrading has strickly been a larger hard drive, a new
cooler for the processor, and better video. If it requires more then
that, it's history.

For the same amount of time I'd spend trying to keep an old war horse
alive, I can build something new. The smallest celeron will quite
easily wipe the floor with any war horse. Why waste time on
something once it's reliability quotient is well in the red.
September 5, 2005 4:32:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

No, I can't say I buy spares. I guess you could call my Dual RAID 1
setup spares, as two hard drives are mirrors of the others and can't
hold any additional data.

But, and this is just my opinion;

Old machines should be scrapped. Anything running something older
then a P-3 really can't perform, except in the most mundane ways.
That said, I still have a K6-2 450 out there the grandparents use and
love. But upgrading has strickly been a larger hard drive, a new
cooler for the processor, and better video. If it requires more then
that, it's history.

For the same amount of time I'd spend trying to keep an old war horse
alive, I can build something new. The smallest celeron will quite
easily wipe the floor with any war horse. Why waste time on
something once it's reliability quotient is well in the red.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 5, 2005 9:33:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

dannysdailys wrote:
> No, I can't say I buy spares. I guess you could call my Dual RAID 1
> setup spares, as two hard drives are mirrors of the others and can't
> hold any additional data.
>
> But, and this is just my opinion;
>
> Old machines should be scrapped.

For the folks who figure every computer should be able to do 'everything'
and don't mind waiting their turn or having to always trot back to 'the
place it lives' then that might be true, although still a waste.

But the vast majority of what I do is 'information' related, as opposed to
games, and I have an 'old workhorse' just about everywhere, networked, so I
can get information where ever I am without disturbing anyone else's activity.


> Anything running something older
> then a P-3 really can't perform, except in the most mundane ways.
> That said, I still have a K6-2 450 out there the grandparents use and
> love. But upgrading has strickly been a larger hard drive, a new
> cooler for the processor, and better video. If it requires more then
> that, it's history.
>
> For the same amount of time I'd spend trying to keep an old war horse
> alive, I can build something new. The smallest celeron will quite
> easily wipe the floor with any war horse. Why waste time on
> something once it's reliability quotient is well in the red.
>

'Upgrading' and "keep an old war horse alive" are not the same thing and,
no, you can't build a new one for what it costs to "keep an old war horse
alive".
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 5, 2005 11:33:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hi To all!! My name is Martin (but all my friends call me Tincho). I´m
from Argentina, and I really need help.

Í´m experiment some troubles with an old PC that I´m trying to bring
back to life. It´s a Celeron 300 Mhz, with 64 MB of RAM.

My problem focus in the power switch from the front of my PC. This is
how it´s seems:

/1 -----p1

\2 -----p2

"1" & "2" are slash connectors and "p1" & "p2" are horizontal
connectors.

My problem is that I have 4 wires coming from the power supply box:
black, white, blue and brown....and I don´t remember how I suppose to
connect this wires with this switch.....

Can somebody help me, please????. I don´t wish to burn nothing!!!

And from another hand, I wish to buy a hard disk (80 GB) and I wish a
strong hard disk, and fast (of course). Can you tell me what I need
to choose?.

Thanks!!!!

Tinchazo.
!