Essentially for guitar amps. 11.4 meg PDF. Found this on another forum and got permission to post it here. Don't knock it, it's free.
https://acrobat.com/#d=UjgTcfpvfqvboIiQLKn5rQ
https://acrobat.com/#d=UjgTcfpvfqvboIiQLKn5rQ
Last edited:
A "micro-review"... I just skimmed through it. It would be useful to beginners wanting to design and build a hifi amp too. It seems more accessible than the Morgan Jones book, It only uses math up to high school algebra, is well written and you can't beat the price.
Thanks to the poster here and to the author.
Thanks to the poster here and to the author.
He likes an Ampeg circuit I also like so great book. Hehe.
However, he wouldn't like this forum. Some tasty quotes:
"Capacitors have no tone"
"As a matter of interest, we note that the production of vacuum tubes is totally dependant upon the opinions of the people who believe that tube sound qualities are superior and are willing to pay HUGE sums of money
to support those opinions. We mention this as an indication of how important opinions can be and how the market - especially influenced by the internet - influences opinions.
Large sums of money are spent, not on overt advertising, but on advertising disguised as user opinion. Take care, especially avoid "reviews" that state that differences in similar vacuum tubes produce audible differences in musical quality.
The human ear is the most unreliable, ever-changing, non-traceable, un-standardized measurement device one could devise. The adjectives that "reviewers" use to describe subtle differences in quality offer a clue to the substance of their observations.
Objective, double-blind scientific tests universally reveal that "reviews" are biased from the knowledge of what is being tested and why. In other words, there is probably an agenda. An interesting article, written by a highly respected designer can be found here:"
Douglas Self Site
However, he wouldn't like this forum. Some tasty quotes:
"Capacitors have no tone"
"As a matter of interest, we note that the production of vacuum tubes is totally dependant upon the opinions of the people who believe that tube sound qualities are superior and are willing to pay HUGE sums of money
to support those opinions. We mention this as an indication of how important opinions can be and how the market - especially influenced by the internet - influences opinions.
Large sums of money are spent, not on overt advertising, but on advertising disguised as user opinion. Take care, especially avoid "reviews" that state that differences in similar vacuum tubes produce audible differences in musical quality.
The human ear is the most unreliable, ever-changing, non-traceable, un-standardized measurement device one could devise. The adjectives that "reviewers" use to describe subtle differences in quality offer a clue to the substance of their observations.
Objective, double-blind scientific tests universally reveal that "reviews" are biased from the knowledge of what is being tested and why. In other words, there is probably an agenda. An interesting article, written by a highly respected designer can be found here:"
Douglas Self Site
Last edited:
It's too bad I'm not allowed to post a single word "OUCH!" in all caps for emphasis at the beginning of a one word phrase, it seems that the forum software prevents this. This really ought not to be the case - obviously the software ought to be smart enough to parse an entire sentence for all caps, but one word?? A little too controlling IMHO..
In any event, whilst the comments above are not all ones I would entirely agree with, there is a lot of good technical content here.
I'm particularly disturbed by his comments about reviewers as I have always tried to review things in an impartial manner. I'm not perfect I'll admit so perhaps I am as brainwashed as he represents or in collusion with the purveyors of fashion..
Funny I started buying a lot of certain NOS tubes because they seemed more parametrically consistent, measured and sounded better.. Not to mention my preference for JJ 300B over a lot of competing brands, both more and less expensive..Oh well.. 😀
Last edited:
Skimmed the book quickly this evening. I think it is a very nice one for beginners.
What I really liked is his design of dummy load for power amps with paint can filled with cooking oil. I think I'll make one 🙂
What I really liked is his design of dummy load for power amps with paint can filled with cooking oil. I think I'll make one 🙂
Heathkit sold a similar design for testing ham radio transmitters for like 50 years. It was called the "Cantenna" and could handle a killowatt of power.
May be he can learn? That capacitors can have an affect on sonics has a basis in fact. Sound of Capacitors
Since when has it ever been any different? During the 1970s, you had a whole bunch of short wave receivers being sold with way excessive front end gain. That, too, was driven by popular opinion, not technical merits (above 40M, you just don't need amplification ahead of the first detector since noise riding in on the antenna is greater than the noise of that first detector). If enough people demand it, you can be sure it will be offered. Even if it offends your technical sensibilities, someone else will surely cater to that demand if you won't.
Beware that site. Doug Self has an agenda of his own.
He also has a blind spot big enough to fly a 747 through: if you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist. He is every bit as bad as the Subjectivists he's always complaining about.
I'm looking forward to find out why he is hoping to address 'the jazz guitarists'. What about all the real guitarists out there?
🙂
🙂
Beware that site. Doug Self has an agenda of his own.
He also has a blind spot big enough to fly a 747 through: if you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist. He is every bit as bad as the Subjectivists he's always complaining about.
It is notable that attempts to make any amplifiers based on D. Self's "Blameless" recommendations often end in disappointment, due to dull and uninteresting performance.
for instance:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/142166-new-amplifier-uld-extreme-8.html#post1944679
He seems to have such contempt for the experience of listening to music, that I amuse myself my imagining Doug saying to his wife "I'll just put a record on the distortion analyser, so we can both enjoy it."
I have to admit they play better than me and have nicer guitars.
I don't agree with the text I quoted but liked what he said about the human ear. It's very easy to fool the human senses, Plato explained that better though. Anyway, book is OK. Despite the fact he only talks about tubes because he plays Jazz he also says that some hifi tube amps built in the 50's have a quality of sound that rivals modern solid state ones.
Code:
"It is notable that attempts to make any amplifiers based on D. Self's "Blameless" recommendations often end in disappointment, due to dull and uninteresting performance.
/CODE]
I agree it often ends up like that. Since they don't trust their ears measuring devices become god-like tools for them. Funny.<snip>
Beware that site. Doug Self has an agenda of his own.
He also has a blind spot big enough to fly a 747 through: if you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist. He is every bit as bad as the Subjectivists he's always complaining about.
Agree with everything you posted. Yes DS has quite the agenda, I bought his book as a reference back in the days when I was a professional MI electronics designer. Found it useful for various technical references and grounding considerations, and made my pcb designer/eng. tech read parts of it for this reason.
His designs measure flawlessly but IMO do not sound very good at all.. Kind of like the Sigma Drive [kelvin feedback connections right at the speakers] Kenwood integrated I purchased back in the early 1980s that had absolutely unbelievable measured performance and is without doubt the very worst sounding amplifier I have ever owned - and it was expensive.
Last edited:
Substitute "CD" ["perfect sound forever"] for "record" because with all of its imperfections a record is too flawed a medium to be considered "blameless." 😛
Thanks for the link - an interesting document!
I got a chuckle out of a couple of things:
"As a consequence of De Forest’s invention, long-distance communication was born." (page 8) Um, what about the telegraph? Wasn't it long distance communication? Not to mention semaphore or smoke signals.
"At the front of major stores was a large self-service tube tester and underneath the tester was a cabinet full of replacement tubes. Someone was usually standing in front of the tester with a paper bag of television or musical amplifier (hi-fi/stereo) tubes to test." (page 12)
Yep, that was me! What a nerdy kid. One of my favorite pastimes was pulling all the tubes out of everything I could find and going to "test" them. My father was amazingly tolerant of this practice. The good old days. [/rose colored glasses]
I got a chuckle out of a couple of things:
"As a consequence of De Forest’s invention, long-distance communication was born." (page 8) Um, what about the telegraph? Wasn't it long distance communication? Not to mention semaphore or smoke signals.
"At the front of major stores was a large self-service tube tester and underneath the tester was a cabinet full of replacement tubes. Someone was usually standing in front of the tester with a paper bag of television or musical amplifier (hi-fi/stereo) tubes to test." (page 12)
Yep, that was me! What a nerdy kid. One of my favorite pastimes was pulling all the tubes out of everything I could find and going to "test" them. My father was amazingly tolerant of this practice. The good old days. [/rose colored glasses]
In all fairness, he did admit that his work wasn't polished. So obviously he meant long distance radio communications. Even that is doubtful since transatlantic radio was accomplished by Marconi, using cat whisker detectors. Of course, that also meant very high powered arc transmitters.
Armstrong's regen receiver did, indeed, make longer distances possible with reasonable-sized transmitters.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.