Perfectus Amps

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 minute ago, Rob181 said:

Fixed that...

And I already have...

OK, I accept that you acknowledge that what I wrote was factually correct. 

[acg]

5 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Most importantly, Earle builds the best output transformers I have ever seen. Bar none. There may well be superior output transformers, but I have yet to see one. And, further: The output transformer is the single most important item in a valve amplifier. 

 

 

Trevor, what magic does Earle weave into his OPT's that are not present in Lundahl, Intact, Black Art, Sowter, Tribute transformers for example?  I am interested.   Those guys seem to manage to be able to wind single ended trannies with ample bandwidth at maximum rated power even onto amorphous or mumetal cores. 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 minute ago, acg said:

 

Trevor, what magic does Earle weave into his OPT's that are not present in Lundahl, Intact, Black Art, Sowter, Tribute transformers for example?  I am interested.   Those guys seem to manage to be able to wind single ended trannies with ample bandwidth at maximum rated power even onto amorphous or mumetal cores. 

Interleaves. Lots of them.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Guest Muon N']

@Zaphod Beeblebrox  Is that the only way to get good bandwidth in an output transformer? I personally think not.

 

Edit: i think from what i have heard it can be done with just a few interleaves.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Muon N'

[acg]

22 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Interleaves. Lots of them.

 

He is not the only one in my list that interleaves.   Do you have experience with the Lundahl SE OPT's for example?   They are cleverly designed and constructed and measure as well as anything out there in all the metrics that seem to count. 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by acg
Spelling

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 minute ago, Muon N' said:

@Zaphod Beeblebrox  Is that the only way to get good bandwidth in an output transformer? I personally think not.

I don't pretend to know a great deal about designing valve audio amplifiers. I know a little, however and I've spoken to some designers who know their stuff. ALL acknowledge that using lots of interleaves is the best (and, far and away, THE most expensive) way of designing high performance audio output transformers. 

 

All of the fancy materials (silver wire, exotic lamination materials, etc) count for naught, if the transformer has insufficient interleaves. 

[Guest Muon N']

1 minute ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I don't pretend to know a great deal about designing valve audio amplifiers. I know a little, however and I've spoken to some designers who know their stuff. ALL acknowledge that using lots of interleaves is the best (and, far and away, THE most expensive) way of designing high performance audio output transformers. 

 

All of the fancy materials (silver wire, exotic lamination materials, etc) count for naught, if the transformer has insufficient interleaves. 

Have to agree to disagree here.

 

i also am no transformer guru but from listening to some that know I believe some can achieve a wide bandwidth with only a few interleaves.

 

*shrug*

 

Likely more than one way to skin a OPT

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Just now, acg said:

 

He is not the only one in my list that interleaves.

ALL good audio transformer manufacturers use interleaves. The more the better (within reason). As I recall, Earle builds his with upwards of 21 interleaves. The most I've ever seen (apart from one of Earle's creations) used 13 interleaves. I am certain other manufacturers use more, but I've not seen any. 

 

Just now, acg said:

 

 

   Do you have experience with the Lundahl SE OPT's for example?   They are cleverly designed and constructed and measure as well as anything out there in ask the metrics that seem to count. 

 

I'd like to point out that we have drifted significantly off-topic. 

 

My complaint was with Bill's derogatory comments about Earle's amplifiers. Earle builds superb amplifiers, using some of the finest output transformers on the planet. Better than Lundahl? Dunno. I doubt that Lundahl put as much care into their product as Earle does. 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Just now, Muon N' said:

Have to agree to disagree here.

 

i also am no transformer guru but from listening to some that know I believe some can achieve a wide bandwidth with only a few interleaves.

 

*shrug*

 

Likely more than one way to skin a OPT

Lots of interleaves is not just about bandwidth. 

[Guest Muon N']

1 minute ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Lots of interleaves is not just about bandwidth. 

But you were talking about bandwidth! Unless I'm thinking of another past thread where you were promoting many interleaves.

 

Anyway, Earle makes nice amps, but there are others that also make nice amps, and transformers. In my view of course!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Just now, Muon N' said:

But you were talking about bandwidth! Unless I'm thinking of another past thread where you were promoting many interleaves.

Was I? Care to cite?

 

Just now, Muon N' said:

 

Anyway, Earle makes nice amps, but there are others that also make nice amps, and transformers. In my view of course!

Of course there are. And again, my issue lies with the needlessly derogatory comments from another member about Earle's superb products. 

[Guest Muon N']

1 minute ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Was I? Care to cite?

 

Of course there are. And again, my issue lies with the needlessly derogatory comments from another member about Earle's superb products. 

Like I said in that where you quoted me, it could have been another thread where you where promoting Earle's transformer design.

 

Don't take my comments as derogatory as you have done with Bill's, I recommend Earle's amps to some folk on occasion where i see that it fits their needs.

 

Was it derogatory by Bill? or was it a subjective preference by that member?

[acg]

8 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Lots of interleaves is not just about bandwidth. 

It's not really about bandwidth at all... more about reducing stray capacitances. 

 

The best way to limit bandwidth is to skimp on core size... which is common I  cheap products. 

[Wimbo]

I like whats going on up there on the border. Very refreshing. Keep it up lads.

[bhobba]

6 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Actually, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Bill's approach. Let me elaborate:

Hypocrisy - incredibly lazy comparison?

 

You claimed I didn't say which amp I compared it to, you even asked was it in the same system.   I clearly answered all those questions in the first post.  I leave it to others to judge who is lazy.    I would appreciate the reading of posts before making statements calling me lazy and hypocritical.  You raised a reasonable question - which time machine - fair enough and I answered no - I did not know the model - but I was clear it was on the same system - yet you questioned that.

 

Maybe the lazy was referring to not doing a blind comparison - you are welcome to do some and post the results.   I have participated and been involved in them - as explained in another post - hardly anyone posts blind results for the  reason I mentioned - as you would know if you have done them.

 

Zaph I suggest taking greater care with reading posts before accusing others of hypocritical lazy behavior.  Aside from misleading people who don't read the whole thread, it is simply not good posting practice.  If you notice points like not mentioning which Time Macine  model a simple - hey Bill what model was it is all that's required - why you want to go beyond that beats me. Drawing the conclusion I am hypocritical and lazy is a rather long bow and I suggest you think more carefully in future before penning your posts. 

 

People like Rob know me - they know I was simply passing on something I heard that impressed me so much I ordered one on the spot.  That and further listening of the amp I have now got is all its about.  I know a number of Hi Fi people and often ask them do they post here on stereonet - some do - but others say they once did but got sick and tired of the 'lets have a go' attitude you find in some threads.   It turns people off - which IMHO is sad - this is a great forum for people pass on their experiences and what not.   I am used to it - but others are not.  Its simply not good for the forum IMHO.

 

Thanks 

Bill

 

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

2 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Hypocrisy - incredibly lazy comparison?

 

You claimed I didn't say which amp I compared it to, you even asked was it in the same system.   I clearly answered all those questions in the first post.  I leave it to others to judge who is lazy.    I would appreciate the reading of posts before making statements calling me lazy and hypocritical.  You raised a reasonable question - which time machine - fair enough and I answered no - I did not know the model - but I was clear it was on the same system - yet you questioned that.

There are FOUR different models. Two of which are push pull. Then you went on to compare a SET amp with a push pull pentode amp. Again, you are comparing apples with house-bricks. 

 

2 minutes ago, bhobba said:

 

Maybe the lazy was referring to not doing a blind comparison - you are welcome to do some and post the results.   I have participated and been involved in them - as explained in another post - hardly anyone posts blind results for the  reason I mentioned - as you would know if you have done them.

Since you didn't even know which Weston amp you compared the Perfectus to, I can validly call that lazy. I won't even get into blind testing, which I consider the gold standard.

 

2 minutes ago, bhobba said:

 

Zaph I suggest taking greater care with reading posts before accusing others of hypocritical lazy behavior.  Aside from misleading people who don't read the whole thread, it is simply not good posting practice.  If you notice points like not mentioning which Time Macine  model a simple - hey Bill what model was it is all that's required - why you want to go beyond that beats me. Drawing the conclusion I am hypocritical and lazy is a rather long bow and I suggest you think more carefully in future before penning your posts. 

Which model Time Machine? 

 

2 minutes ago, bhobba said:

 

People like Rob know me - they know I was simply passing on something I heard that impressed me so much I ordered one on the spot.  That and further listening of the amp I have now got is all its about.  I know a number of Hi Fi people and often ask them do they post here on stereonet - some do - but others say they once did but got sick and tired of the 'lets have a go' attitude you find in some threads.   It turns people off - which IMHO is sad - this is a great forum for people pass on their experiences and what not.   I am used to it - but others are not.  Its simply not good for the forum IMHO.

 

Thanks 

Bill

 

 

I have zero problem with you passing on your opinions about a new and interesting product. None, whatsoever. What I took issue with is your derogatory comments about another product, which possibly used entirely different topology. 

 

Again: Apples vs. house-bricks. Very sloppy. 

[Smp]

18 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Hypocrisy - incredibly lazy comparison?

 

You claimed I didn't say which amp I compared it to, you even asked was it in the same system.   I clearly answered all those questions in the first post.  I leave it to others to judge who is lazy.    I would appreciate the reading of posts before making statements calling me lazy and hypocritical.  You raised a reasonable question - which time machine - fair enough and I answered no - I did not know the model - but I was clear it was on the same system - yet you questioned that.

 

Maybe the lazy was referring to not doing a blind comparison - you are welcome to do some and post the results.   I have participated and been involved in them - as explained in another post - hardly anyone posts blind results for the  reason I mentioned - as you would know if you have done them.

 

Zaph I suggest taking greater care with reading posts before accusing others of hypocritical lazy behavior.  Aside from misleading people who don't read the whole thread, it is simply not good posting practice.  If you notice points like not mentioning which Time Macine  model a simple - hey Bill what model was it is all that's required - why you want to go beyond that beats me. Drawing the conclusion I am hypocritical and lazy is a rather long bow and I suggest you think more carefully in future before penning your posts. 

 

People like Rob know me - they know I was simply passing on something I heard that impressed me so much I ordered one on the spot.  That and further listening of the amp I have now got is all its about.  I know a number of Hi Fi people and often ask them do they post here on stereonet - some do - but others say they once did but got sick and tired of the 'lets have a go' attitude you find in some threads.   It turns people off - which IMHO is sad - this is a great forum for people pass on their experiences and what not.   I am used to it - but others are not.  Its simply not good for the forum IMHO.

 

Thanks 

Bill

 

 

A well considered post Bill, +1.............particularly the final two paragraphs.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Smp

[bhobba]

48 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Don't take my comments as derogatory as you have done with Bill's, I recommend Earle's amps to some folk on occasion where i see that it fits their needs.

I too have posted many positive things about Earls amps and recommended them to others.   I even purchased one - but sold it - not because it wasn't any good  - it was - it was just I found it made certain music, in fact the music I listen to, sound divine, but I also do a fair bit of two channel HT listening and found some other amps better for that.   I have now decided to solve the issue with two different systems - one for HT and one for music so these kind of amps are now back in consideration for me. 

 

The person on whose system I heard it got a Time Machine partly on my recommendation.  As I said - love you Earl - and I do - but I preferred this amp because it didn't have the slight bloom I find in Valve amps - it was different to any other valve amp I have heard.

 

Does that mean Earls amp's are bad and I wont be suggesting them to others - of course not - all it means is check out this amp as well and people may be interested in my journey of listening to a piece of gear that impressed me.   That's all.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited February 11, 2018 by bhobba

[Guest Muon N']

@bhobba I heard your mono blocks from Earle at Mike's that time, and indeed they did sound nice.

 

Edit: now back to the amps the thread is about

Edited February 11, 2018 by Muon N'

[bhobba]

6 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Which model Time Machine? 

Zaph - you are like me - a member of long standing.  I already admitted I do not know which model.  As I said all that required is - a hey Bill.  There is no need to harp on it and call me lazy.

 

Don't you know this - lets have a go, stir up controversy etc type posts turn people off?  It's simply not good for the forum IMHO.

 

I hasten to add Zaph has every right to do it - I just don't think its good for this thread or the forum as whole.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

2 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Zaph - you are like me - a member of long standing.  I already admitted I do not know which model.  As I said all that required is - a hey Bill.  There is no need to harp on it and call me lazy.

 

Don't you know this - lets have a go, stir up controversy etc type posts turn people off?  It's simply not good for the forum IMHO.

 

I hasten to add Zaph has every right to do it - I just don't think its good for this thread or the forum as whole.

 

Thanks

Bill

OK. Done.

[Mendes]

20 minutes ago, Smp said:

A well considered post Bill, +1.............particularly the final two paragraphs.

+2

[bhobba]

28 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

@bhobba I heard your mono blocks from Earle at Mike's that time, and indeed they did sound nice.

Yes they were good - on the right material actually divine would be a better word.   Mike when he first heard them it was on that kind on material (Diana Krall etc) and rang me late at night gushing (that quite unusual for Mike) and even did a post on his forum stating it was one of the two best amps he ever heard and he has heard a LOT.   This is not a lets put Earl down thread - its simply my journey with an interesting bit of audio gear that impressed me greatly.

 

Now please can we discuss this amp - its what the thread is about.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited February 11, 2018 by bhobba

[bzr]

7 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

 

Actually, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Bill's approach. Let me elaborate:

 

Bill, allegedly, compared A Perfectus amp with a Weston Acoustics amp. He was uncertain of which Weston amp he owned/compared. The Perfectus amp was (I assume) a SET amp. The Weston amp may have been a push pull amp. Further: The Weston amp may have been a Pentode amp. Now, I have been around amplifiers for a very long time (both valve and SS) and I can tell you, without any shadow of doubt that a SET amp sound very different to a push pull triode amp and INCREDIBLY different to a push pull pentode amp. Comparing those technologies is like comparing apples to house-bricks. 

 

Further: I am unfamiliar with Perfectus amplifiers. They may well be very fine performing products. I am, however, familiar with a couple of Weston Acoustics amps. They are very fine performing products, beautifully and very carefully built. Most importantly, Earle builds the best output transformers I have ever seen. Bar none. There may well be superior output transformers, but I have yet to see one. And, further: The output transformer is the single most important item in a valve amplifier. 

 

So, here's the nub of the problem: Bill performed an incredibly lazy comparison (it was hardly a comparison), which a novice may find compelling enough to disregard a Weston Acoustics amplifier. I say that apples would be compared with apples (rather than house-bricks) and, ideally, a proper, controlled test would be done, before condemning an excellent product. I believe that Bill has done an extreme disservice to Earle's products. Very, very unfairly. 

 

 

rubbish! Building one product up to tear another down & still haven't heard or seen it! Come on.!! Apples & house bricks make the same noise flying through the air now Trevor!!! Behave or I'll tell ya mum!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Muon N']

2 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Yes they were good - on the right material actually divine would be a better word.   Mike when he first head them it was on that kind on material (Diana Krall etc) and rang me late at night gushing (that quite unusual for Mike) and even did a post on his forum stating it was one of the two best amps he ever heard and he has heard a LOT.   This is not a lets put Earl down thread - its simply my journey with an interesting bit of audio gear that impressed me greatly.

 

Now please can we discuss this amp - its what the thread is about.

 

Thanks

Bill

I said the same in that post, maybe you missed the edit.