Amplifier issues

[RJH]

My 20 year old Rose valve preamp has started making a 'whooshing' sound,
varies in intensity, with a steady rush of background hiss. Might it be
the valves? Everything lights up, and I've had the back off and all
looks in order.

For now, I'm using an older(er) NAD 3020 integrated amp in preamp mode.
It works fine, but sounds 'soft' by comparison with the Rose (when it
worked) - 'smooth' treble and a quite overblown bass. I did notice this:

https://flic.kr/p/rjtZuf

when I got it out the cupboard - but I'm guessing all that mess is glue?
Anything look untoward?


--
Cheers, Rob

[Don Pearce]

That brown stuff is glue - cheaper than proper clamps I suppose. The
symptoms do sound very much like bad caps.

Audio amplifiers definitely should not have a "sound" though. They are
supposed to be transparent apart from making things louder. If I were
you I would ditch all the suspicious old stuff and simply buy
something new.

d

[Phil Allison]

RJH wrote:
>
> My 20 year old Rose valve preamp has started making a 'whooshing' sound,
> varies in intensity, with a steady rush of background hiss. Might it be
> the valves? Everything lights up, and I've had the back off and all
> looks in order.

** After 20 years, it is time you replaced all the valves.

I can find no details on the net about the unit other than it uses four small valves, possibly ECC83s or 12AX7s.

The noise you describe is a typical valve fault.


.... Phil

[Brian Gaff]

Some whooshing sounds can be just corrosion on the valve pins or sockets,
but it could be almost anything of course including drying out capacitors
causing either noise or instability, or a dodgy high value resistor.

Even switches have been known to case it.

A careful wiggle and prod might indicate if its valve related or switch
related.
Use something insulated obviously.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:mdvj7i$2go$1...@dont-email.me...

[RJH]

Yes, thanks. I think I might keep the NAD and see about fixing the caps.
Seem to be a number of guides online, and I've not much to lose.


--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

On 14/03/2015 00:18, Phil Allison wrote:
> RJH wrote:
>>
>> My 20 year old Rose valve preamp has started making a 'whooshing' sound,
>> varies in intensity, with a steady rush of background hiss. Might it be
>> the valves? Everything lights up, and I've had the back off and all
>> looks in order.
>
>
> ** After 20 years, it is time you replaced all the valves.
>

Yes, I'd better bite the bullet I suppose. Prices seem to vary widely (4
x National ECC82) - this seems to be about the cheapest:

http://www.rapidonline.com/electronic-components/ecc82-double-triode-valve-35348

> I can find no details on the net about the unit other than it uses four small valves, possibly ECC83s or 12AX7s.
>

It's a Rose RV23-S. I got it on ebay for less than £100 IIRC, with
matching power amp, new.

I think they closed about 10 years back. Look very nicely made to me.

> The noise you describe is a typical valve fault.
>

Grand, thanks.


--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

On 15/03/2015 20:58, RJH wrote:
> On 14/03/2015 00:18, Phil Allison wrote:
>> RJH wrote:
>>>
>>> My 20 year old Rose valve preamp has started making a 'whooshing' sound,
>>> varies in intensity, with a steady rush of background hiss. Might it be
>>> the valves? Everything lights up, and I've had the back off and all
>>> looks in order.
>>
>>
>> ** After 20 years, it is time you replaced all the valves.
>>
>
> Yes, I'd better bite the bullet I suppose. Prices seem to vary widely (4
> x National ECC82) - this seems to be about the cheapest:
>
> http://www.rapidonline.com/electronic-components/ecc82-double-triode-valve-35348
>

Ordered from Rapid last night, arrived lunchtime, amp now working fine.

Many thanks for your help.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Phil Allison]

** Valves are made to plug into sockets for a reason ...




.... Phil

[Trevor Wilson]

**On a related matter: I used to love speaking to customers who were
considering purchasing Brand X valve amp. When prompted, they claimed
that it came with a very generous (1, 2, 3) year warranty. "How long was
the warranty on the valves." I would ask. "Oh, 90 days." Was the usual
reply. "How much to replace all those KT88s?" "Dunno, maybe a couple of
grand."

Imagine trying to sell a solid state amp, but only providing a 90 day
warranty on the transistors...

Sheesh!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[tony sayer]

In article <4a99bc27-b5ba-4dc9...@googlegroups.com>, Phil
Allison <palli...@gmail.com> scribeth thus

Yep .. EY51 anyone;)....

--
Tony Sayer

[Woody]

"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WrdGUwFE...@bancom.co.uk...

As young as that? You're never alone with a 5L4G or 807!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

[tony sayer]

>>>>
>>>> Ordered from Rapid last night, arrived lunchtime, amp now working
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for your help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>** Valves are made to plug into sockets for a reason ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>.... Phil
>>>
>>
>> Yep .. EY51 anyone;)....
>>
>
>As young as that? You're never alone with a 5L4G or 807!
>
>

Yess .. used to have four of they 807 paralled up on 207 metres on the
medium raveband, then graduated to 813's then QQV06-40A's then solid-
state;)..
--
Tony Sayer

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

>
> > ** Valves are made to plug into sockets for a reason ...
>
>
> **On a related matter:

** I bet it is not.

> I used to love speaking to customers who were
> considering purchasing Brand X valve amp. When prompted, they claimed
> that it came with a very generous (1, 2, 3) year warranty. "How long was
> the warranty on the valves." I would ask. "Oh, 90 days." Was the usual
> reply. "How much to replace all those KT88s?" "Dunno, maybe a couple of
> grand."

** As if they would all fail at once after only 90 days.

Massive straw man fallacy.

The only kind of logic TW ever uses.

Still hate the Sony CDP101 - Trev ?

Course you do.

> Imagine trying to sell a solid state amp, but only providing a 90 day
> warranty on the transistors...

** Another idiotic straw man fallacy.

TW breathes and dines on them.

The life blood of all snake oil salesmen, worldwide.




.... Phil

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/03/2015 11:26 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >
>>> ** Valves are made to plug into sockets for a reason ...
>>
>>
>> **On a related matter:
>
>
> ** I bet it is not.
>
>
>> I used to love speaking to customers who were
>> considering purchasing Brand X valve amp. When prompted, they claimed
>> that it came with a very generous (1, 2, 3) year warranty. "How long was
>> the warranty on the valves." I would ask. "Oh, 90 days." Was the usual
>> reply. "How much to replace all those KT88s?" "Dunno, maybe a couple of
>> grand."
>
>
> ** As if they would all fail at once after only 90 days.

**Unlikely, but big power valves rarely last 5 years in many big power
amps. Those same amplifiers are often supplied with a '5 year warranty'.
Since the valves are not covered, that makes the warranty virtually
worthless. It is a con-job. As are most valve amps.

>
> Massive straw man fallacy.
>
> The only kind of logic TW ever uses.
>
> Still hate the Sony CDP101 - Trev ?

**The CDP101 was a pretty decent player back in 1983. Later models are
significantly better, sound-wise. See if you can locate a Marantz CD80
(ca. 1990) and have a good listen. Easily outperforms your CDP101
(sonically). In fact, the CD80 will easily outperform almost ANY player
at any price.

>
> Course you do.
>
>
>
>> Imagine trying to sell a solid state amp, but only providing a 90 day
>> warranty on the transistors...
>
>
> ** Another idiotic straw man fallacy.

**Why? Valves are the active devices in a valve amp. Transistors are the
active devices in a solid state amp. Why should valves be excluded from
the warranty on a product? THAT is the real con. Valve amp buyers have
been sucking up the lies for years.

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > >
> >>> ** Valves are made to plug into sockets for a reason ...
> >>
> >>
> >> **On a related matter:
> >
> >
> > ** I bet it is not.
> >
> >
> >> I used to love speaking to customers who were
> >> considering purchasing Brand X valve amp. When prompted, they claimed
> >> that it came with a very generous (1, 2, 3) year warranty. "How long was
> >> the warranty on the valves." I would ask. "Oh, 90 days." Was the usual
> >> reply. "How much to replace all those KT88s?" "Dunno, maybe a couple of
> >> grand."
> >
> >
> > ** As if they would all fail at once after only 90 days.
>
> **Unlikely,

** Then why post the rediculous tripe you just did.

> Those same amplifiers are often supplied with a '5 year warranty'.
> Since the valves are not covered, that makes the warranty virtually
> worthless.

** Warranties never cover "wear and tear".

Valves inherently have a limited life and if operated near their dissipation limits a very limited one. So a 90 day warranty on them I perfectly fair.


> It is a con-job.

** Not it isn't.

> As are most valve amps.

** No they aren't.

> > Massive straw man fallacy.
> >
> > The only kind of logic TW ever uses.
> >
> > Still hate the Sony CDP101 - Trev ?
>
>
> **The CDP101 was a pretty decent player back in 1983.

** As if a clown like you has any idea on the matter.

> >> Imagine trying to sell a solid state amp, but only providing a 90 day
> >> warranty on the transistors...
> >
> >
> > ** Another idiotic straw man fallacy.
>
> **Why?

** See above.

The obvious fallacy is in comparing chalk and cheese and then complaining they are not the same.

> Valves are the active devices in a valve amp. Transistors are the
> active devices in a solid state amp.

** And there the similarity ends.

> Why should valves be excluded from
> the warranty on a product?

** See above.

> THAT is the real con.

** No, you are wrong.

> Valve amp buyers have
> been sucking up the lies for years.

** No-one has ever claimed valves last for ever or even for a long time.

But 20 years from four 12AU7s is a fair run.

I often see small valves in guitar amps that are even older and still going fine. But output valves are *consumables* and everyone knows and accepts it.

You have no actual point - as usual.


BTW: Was this line of bullshit something you dreamt up to help sell those ME piles of crap to audiophools ?

Betcha it was.


... Phil

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/03/2015 10:50 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> ** Valves are made to plug into sockets for a reason ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **On a related matter:
>>>
>>>
>>> ** I bet it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I used to love speaking to customers who were considering
>>>> purchasing Brand X valve amp. When prompted, they claimed that
>>>> it came with a very generous (1, 2, 3) year warranty. "How long
>>>> was the warranty on the valves." I would ask. "Oh, 90 days."
>>>> Was the usual reply. "How much to replace all those KT88s?"
>>>> "Dunno, maybe a couple of grand."
>>>
>>>
>>> ** As if they would all fail at once after only 90 days.
>>
>> **Unlikely,
>
> ** Then why post the rediculous tripe you just did.
>
>
>> Those same amplifiers are often supplied with a '5 year warranty'.
>> Since the valves are not covered, that makes the warranty
>> virtually worthless.
>
> ** Warranties never cover "wear and tear".
>
> Valves inherently have a limited life and if operated near their
> dissipation limits a very limited one. So a 90 day warranty on them I
> perfectly fair.

**Electrolytic capacitors have a limited life and are routinely
replaced, under warranty.

>
>
>> It is a con-job.
>
> ** Not it isn't.

**Of course it is. A typical valve amp has a REAL warranty period of 90
days. The 5 year (or whatever is advertised) is just bullshit.

>
>> As are most valve amps.
>
> ** No they aren't.
>
>
>>> Massive straw man fallacy.
>>>
>>> The only kind of logic TW ever uses.
>>>
>>> Still hate the Sony CDP101 - Trev ?
>>
>>
>> **The CDP101 was a pretty decent player back in 1983.
>
> ** As if a clown like you has any idea on the matter.

**I listened extensively to the CDP101 and the superior CDP701 back in
the day. I've also had the opportunity to compare the CDP101 to more
recent players, like the brilliant Marantz CD80.

>
>
>>>> Imagine trying to sell a solid state amp, but only providing a
>>>> 90 day warranty on the transistors...
>>>
>>>
>>> ** Another idiotic straw man fallacy.
>>
>> **Why?
>
> ** See above.
>
> The obvious fallacy is in comparing chalk and cheese and then
> complaining they are not the same.

**I don't have a problem with a valve amp manufacturer advertising that
the product has a 90 day warranty. It's the 5 year (or whatever) claims
that are bullshit.

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson is a Fuckwit wrote:

> > ** Then why post the rediculous tripe you just did.
> >

> > ** Warranties never cover "wear and tear".
> >
> > Valves inherently have a limited life and if operated near their
> > dissipation limits a very limited one. So a 90 day warranty on them I
> > perfectly fair.
>

> **Electrolytic capacitors have a limited life

** Which generally exceeds the expected life of the equipment.

> and are routinely replaced, under warranty.

** Cos any failures in the first year or so is not fair wear and tear.

>
> >> It is a con-job.
> >
> > ** Not it isn't.
>
> **Of course it is.

** No it isn't.



> **I listened extensively to the CDP101 ...

** So fucking what ?

You defective brain was involved.

> **I don't have a problem with a valve amp manufacturer advertising that
> the product has a 90 day warranty. It's the 5 year (or whatever) claims
> that are bullshit.

** No they are not.

Go away you ridiculous troll.



.... Phil

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <cmus6b...@mid.individual.net>,

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **I don't have a problem with a valve amp manufacturer advertising that
> the product has a 90 day warranty. It's the 5 year (or whatever) claims
> that are bullshit.

I wonder if the courts in the UK/EU might "have a problem" with such
consumer goods offerred with a 90 day warranty. AIUI The law here tends to
specify that the term should be at least a year or two for 'free' repair or
replacement. A warranty can *add* or *extend* this, but not reduce it.

That said, the laws on such issues are routinely ignored by manufacturers
because they know its a civil matter and most aggreved buyers can be fobbed
off without them being up to taking the matter to court.

I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on the
basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need replacing in
as little as just over 90 days. (And by implication, replaced again on such
a routine short timescale.) No doubt savvy ones do. But do *all* of them
?... The issue is complicated because some makers may soup up the stress on
the valves more than others. So it may not be clear to the buyer what kind
of life to expect for that particular amp design.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Phil Allison]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>
> I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on the
> basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need replacing in
> as little as just over 90 days.

** That is not what the 90 day limit really means !!

Warranties on consumer items do not cover fair wear and tear, the effects of unusual and harsh usage or commercial use.

A 90 day old valve amplifier might have had 24/7 operation and clocked up 2160 hours. In some designs, that would equate to the average expected lifetime of a perfectly good output valve - especially as they ALL come from China and Russia these days.

(IME - the Chinese have no clue or inclination to make reliable valves and Russians workers are too pissed or pissed off to bother trying. )

The nature of the failure is also crucial - the maker is offering 90 days free replacement for any valve that fails *inexplicably*.

That same maker offers NO free replacement for any valve that fails *explicably* - like having broken glass or bent pins.

If most or all the valves are damaged or fail within 90 days - the maker is well justified in assuming serious abuse has occurred and denying warranty.

Some hi-fi valve amplifiers push the output valves to their absolute limits and beyond - particularly Class A designs - while some owners like to push it even further by not allowing good free air circulation during use and mismatching the load impedance.

There is nothing straight forward about the situation and TW is just being a mischievous PITA troll with his idiotic proclamation of it all being a con.

The con artist is TW himself, a notorious one I might add.



... Phil

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <96e50270-54e8-4ae0...@googlegroups.com>, Phil

Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> >
> > I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on
> > the basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need
> > replacing in as little as just over 90 days.


> ** That is not what the 90 day limit really means !!

Which doesn't establish that all UK buyers know about this. I'm also not
sure if this has been tested in a UK court. More than once UK courts have
ruled warranty exclusions or conditions of other kinds to be void.

> Warranties on consumer items do not cover fair wear and tear, the
> effects of unusual and harsh usage or commercial use.

As above, I don't know of a UK court case that agreed this *is* "fair wear
and tear of a consumable" if the valves failed in just over 90 days.

> A 90 day old valve amplifier might have had 24/7 operation and clocked
> up 2160 hours.

Or might not. In the absence of a reliable measurement clocked up to
establish that, the court would have to decide what was likely and
reasonable on the basis of the evidence they did have. Again, I'm not sure
any such case has been carried through in the UK. So their may not even be
case law on the specific question.

Have their been Australian cases on this in court?

[snip]

> There is nothing straight forward about the situation

I agree, that's what makes me raise wonder about the above. So far as I
know, they haven't been resolved in a UK court on the specific issues here.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <54a6bcc...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on the
> basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need replacing
> in as little as just over 90 days. (And by implication, replaced again
> on such a routine short timescale.) No doubt savvy ones do. But do *all*
> of them ?... The issue is complicated because some makers may soup up
> the stress on the valves more than others. So it may not be clear to the
> buyer what kind of life to expect for that particular amp design.

Last valve amps I had were Quad II. They certainly didn't need new output
valves every three months - and neither did the hundreds of valve power
amps the BBC used at the same time either. No one in their right mind
would build such a device. Or certainly not for commercial sales.

--
*When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Phil Allison]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> >
> > > I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on
> > > the basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need
> > > replacing in as little as just over 90 days.
>
>
> > ** That is not what the 90 day limit really means !!
>
> Which doesn't establish that all UK buyers know about this.

** Which is an utter, pedantic irrelevance.

> > Warranties on consumer items do not cover fair wear and tear, the
> > effects of unusual and harsh usage or commercial use.
>
> As above, I don't know of a UK court case that agreed this *is* "fair wear
> and tear of a consumable" if the valves failed in just over 90 days.

** You are sounding like a stuck record and you need to learn to read ahead too.

> > A 90 day old valve amplifier might have had 24/7 operation and clocked
> > up 2160 hours.
>
> Or might not.

** More pedantic, irrelevant and absurdly argumentative crap.


> In the absence of a reliable measurement ...

** Obviously, you have had very little to do with valves.

> > There is nothing straight forward about the situation
>
> I agree, that's what makes me raise wonder about the above.

** You clearly did not even read or comprehend what I wrote.

The 90 day period establishes a threshold to distinguish valves that likely had a built in factory fault and ones that have simply worn out by being subjected to continuous use.

Worn output valves have low cathode emission and many visible signs of the long term effects of heat.

OTOH a valve that has failed early due to a factory fault will likely look perfect and yet not function at all, because the heater is open or the vacuum lost.

A big problem is that valves are *user replaceable* and not a permanent part of a particular amplifier, owners can do what they like with them, swapping them about and hence causing havoc. Such owners have no right to claim on a warranty.

The TRUTH is valve amps are an *anachronism* that still exists only because people *want* to use them, not because they are good value or reliable pieces of electronics.

FYI:

I have been continuously dealing with good and faulty valves, both new from the box and long in service for nearly 50 years.



... Phil

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <54a6e24...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)

<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <54a6bcc...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on
> > the basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need
> > replacing in as little as just over 90 days. (And by implication,
> > replaced again on such a routine short timescale.) No doubt savvy ones
> > do. But do *all* of them ?... The issue is complicated because some
> > makers may soup up the stress on the valves more than others. So it
> > may not be clear to the buyer what kind of life to expect for that
> > particular amp design.

> Last valve amps I had were Quad II. They certainly didn't need new
> output valves every three months - and neither did the hundreds of valve
> power amps the BBC used at the same time either. No one in their right
> mind would build such a device. Or certainly not for commercial sales.

That's what I'd tend to expect from decent makers and designers. And why
I'm a bit puzzled by the idea that it is routine to sell valve power amps
on the basis that the output values aren't covered by the general warranty,
just a "90 days of wear and tear". I doubt saying that would stand up in a
UK court, but I don't know of any cases.

That said, I have no idea what other makers may get up to. Nor what other
countries would do with such a term for consumer retail sale of such
consumer equipment.

[tony sayer]

>
>The 90 day period establishes a threshold to distinguish valves that likely had
>a built in factory fault and ones that have simply worn out by being subjected
>to continuous use.
>
>Worn output valves have low cathode emission and many visible signs of the long
>term effects of heat.
>
>OTOH a valve that has failed early due to a factory fault will likely look
>perfect and yet not function at all, because the heater is open or the vacuum
>lost.
>
>A big problem is that valves are *user replaceable* and not a permanent part of
>a particular amplifier, owners can do what they like with them, swapping them
>about and hence causing havoc. Such owners have no right to claim on a warranty.
>
>The TRUTH is valve amps are an *anachronism* that still exists only because
>people *want* to use them, not because they are good value or reliable pieces of
>electronics.
>
>FYI:
>
>I have been continuously dealing with good and faulty valves, both new from the
>box and long in service for nearly 50 years.
>
>
>
>... Phil
>
>
>

I had to spend a few years in the domestic TV trade years ago and it
always was bloody annoying when some Oik would come in and ask for a
"Picture" or a "Sound" valve..


Got totally pissed of trying to explain to the prat's that more than the
one valve did each and common functions.

Also we were plagued with several Pye group factories around the area
and the other was,

"The man who *works at Pye's says the picture/sound valve has gone have
you got one please";?!..


* Works could, and more often was, working in the stores or sweeping
up;!..
--
Tony Sayer

[Phil Allison]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

>
> That's what I'd tend to expect from decent makers and designers. And why
> I'm a bit puzzled by the idea that it is routine to sell valve power amps
> on the basis that the output values aren't covered by the general warranty,
> just a "90 days of wear and tear".

** Like any other pig ignorant, pommy fuckhead - YOU are just plain puzzled by every fucking thing.

> I doubt saying that would stand up in a
> UK court, but I don't know of any cases.

** See above - fuckhead.


> That said, I have no idea ....

** A 100% general truism - for all retarded, ASD fucked, pommy cunts like Jim Lesurf.

No deliberate insult - just absolute FACT.


.... Phil

[Johny B Good]

Wow, another fiver!

You're "Billy Bass" AICMFP! <http://www2.b3ta.com/fish/>
--
J B Good

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/03/2015 8:33 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <cmus6b...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> **I don't have a problem with a valve amp manufacturer advertising that
>> the product has a 90 day warranty. It's the 5 year (or whatever) claims
>> that are bullshit.
>
> I wonder if the courts in the UK/EU might "have a problem" with such
> consumer goods offerred with a 90 day warranty. AIUI The law here tends to
> specify that the term should be at least a year or two for 'free' repair or
> replacement. A warranty can *add* or *extend* this, but not reduce it.
>
> That said, the laws on such issues are routinely ignored by manufacturers
> because they know its a civil matter and most aggreved buyers can be fobbed
> off without them being up to taking the matter to court.
>
> I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on the
> basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need replacing in
> as little as just over 90 days. (And by implication, replaced again on such
> a routine short timescale.) No doubt savvy ones do. But do *all* of them
> ?... The issue is complicated because some makers may soup up the stress on
> the valves more than others. So it may not be clear to the buyer what kind
> of life to expect for that particular amp design.
>

**Here is one company which supplies a decent warranty on their product:

http://www.mingda.co.uk/

Presumably, there is enough meat in their profit margin to allow such a
generous warranty period for valves. Dunno about the UK, but Chinese
audio products, in Australia, often tend to be hugely over-priced.

[RJH]

On 19/03/2015 16:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <54a6bcc...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on the
>> basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need replacing
>> in as little as just over 90 days. (And by implication, replaced again
>> on such a routine short timescale.) No doubt savvy ones do. But do *all*
>> of them ?... The issue is complicated because some makers may soup up
>> the stress on the valves more than others. So it may not be clear to the
>> buyer what kind of life to expect for that particular amp design.
>
> Last valve amps I had were Quad II. They certainly didn't need new output
> valves every three months - and neither did the hundreds of valve power
> amps the BBC used at the same time either. No one in their right mind
> would build such a device. Or certainly not for commercial sales.
>

I've had valve amps somewhere in the chain for knocking on 20 years, and
this is the first time I don't remember a valve failing Admittedly, no
one amp has been in continuous use. The only one I use regularly is the
preamp. But I did have a monster Beard power amp for a good few years.

My point is the general one that valves can last a very long time. And
that I wasn't sure of valve failure symptoms - hence the original post.
If I could have avoided lashing out 40 quid, I would.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Don Pearce]

Valves are like pretty much any electronic part. The closer you run
them to their maximum ratings, the shorter their lifetime. Sure it is
possible to design an amplifier in which you can only guarantee the
valves for ninety days. But you are a twat if you do, and you deserve
the small claims courts hitting you with Fitness For Purpose clause in
the Sale Of Goods Act.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but here in the UK
it is not possible to abrogate one's warranty obligations by printing
some kind of disclaimer on the product. Statutory warranties can only
be altered in favour of the customer.

d

[Phil Allison]

Don Pearce wrote:


> Valves are like pretty much any electronic part.

** Absolutely incorrect.

Valves are quite unique.

> The closer you run
> them to their maximum ratings, the shorter their lifetime.

** Absolutely false too.

> Sure it is
> possible to design an amplifier in which you can only guarantee the
> valves for ninety days.

** Not what a 90 day warranty on valves even means.

24 x 90 hours is long enough to wear out some output valves out when operating in class A as do most hi-fi amps including all SET amps.

> and you deserve
> the small claims courts hitting you with Fitness For Purpose clause in
> the Sale Of Goods Act.

** As if a colossal TWAT like YOU has any idea about that.

> I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but here in the UK
> it is not possible to abrogate one's warranty obligations by printing
> some kind of disclaimer on the product.

** Valves are user replaceable consumables - everyone knows that.

They are fragile, easily damaged by simple mistakes and very easily abused.

A 90 day warranty is generous and the industry standard for decades.

Valve dealers generally offer no warranty period at all.

Obviously you have SFA experience with valves.

FOAD.


... Phil

[Don Pearce]

This kind of misguided thinking ended in the UK some time around 1944
when Colossus was built at Bletchley Park. It was found that by
underrunning the valves and not disturbing them, thousands of them
could be kept going for extended periods. I guess the news never
reached Australia.

d

[Phil Allison]

> This kind of misguided thinking

** Your kind of fuckwit thinking is a criminal matter.

> It was found that by
> underrunning the valves and not disturbing them,

** So Don's fuckwit thinking that comes from a massive irrelevance from 1944.

What you posted previously was idiotic.

This new crap is 10 times worse.

Are being mentally retarded and senile your only excuses ?

FFS FOAD.




... Phil

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <f34dfdd7-bc2e-4e17...@googlegroups.com>,

Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 24 x 90 hours is long enough to wear out some output valves out when
> operating in class A as do most hi-fi amps including all SET amps.

Going back to valve days, plenty equipment in the BBC was on 24/7.
Including power amps.

Do you really think they'd have been happy changing output valves every
few months?

Sounds like all you've known is crap design valve amps. Nothing new there.

--
*WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?

[RJH]

On 21/03/2015 07:15, RJH wrote:
> On 19/03/2015 16:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <54a6bcc...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I also wonder if *all* buyers of valve power amps knowingly do so on the
>>> basis that the output values are 'consumables' and might need replacing
>>> in as little as just over 90 days. (And by implication, replaced again
>>> on such a routine short timescale.) No doubt savvy ones do. But do *all*
>>> of them ?... The issue is complicated because some makers may soup up
>>> the stress on the valves more than others. So it may not be clear to the
>>> buyer what kind of life to expect for that particular amp design.
>>
>> Last valve amps I had were Quad II. They certainly didn't need new output
>> valves every three months - and neither did the hundreds of valve power
>> amps the BBC used at the same time either. No one in their right mind
>> would build such a device. Or certainly not for commercial sales.
>>
>
> I've had valve amps somewhere in the chain for knocking on 20 years, and

> this is the first time I xxxx remember a valve failing Admittedly, no

> one amp has been in continuous use. The only one I use regularly is the
> preamp. But I did have a monster Beard power amp for a good few years.
>
> My point is the general one that valves can last a very long time. And
> that I wasn't sure of valve failure symptoms - hence the original post.
> If I could have avoided lashing out 40 quid, I would.
>

Ahem, corrected
--
Cheers, Rob

[Phil Allison]

Dave Plowman (Nutcase Fuckhead) wrote:

> >
> > 24 x 90 hours is long enough to wear out some output valves out when
> > operating in class A as do most hi-fi amps including all SET amps.
>
>
> Going back to valve days, plenty equipment in the BBC was on 24/7.
> Including power amps.
>
> Do you really think they'd have been happy changing output valves every
> few months?

** The BBC could easily afford to do just that and this is 2105 not 1950 -0you idiotic twat.

FYI:

Took only seconds to find this advice from Acoustic Research.

" Generally, preamplifier tubes last up to 4,000 hours, while power amplifier output tubes will last up to 2,000 hours."

http://www.audioresearch.com/en-us/company/vacuum-tubes

Russian and Chinese valves are ALL you can buy and none match the quality or longevity of the best produced in Europe or America in the 50s, 60s and 70s.



... Phil

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <fa4b127b-39c7-4cdf...@googlegroups.com>,

Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you really think they'd have been happy changing output valves every
> > few months?

> ** The BBC could easily afford to do just that

Regardless if they could afford to or not, they didn't. You'll just have
to take my word for that.

> and this is 2105 not 1950

I was talking of a decade (and more) later. And perhaps you'd tell us of
all the new valves in use now that weren't around then?

> -0you idiotic twat.

Seems you know even less about valves than most things.

--
*PMS jokes aren't funny; period.*

[Phil Allison]

Dave Plowman = a criminal cunt.

> > > Do you really think they'd have been happy changing output valves every
> > > few months?
>
> > ** The BBC could easily afford to do just that
>
> Regardless if they could afford to or not, they didn't.

** Obvious, blatant, lie.

> You'll just have to take my word for that.

** Rather take the word of a serial child molester.

Any of whom are decent folk compared a vile autistic POS like you.

FOAD, ASAP.




... Phil

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <23c30347-cf1f-4f9e...@googlegroups.com>,

Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave Plowman = a criminal cunt.



> > > > Do you really think they'd have been happy changing output valves every
> > > > few months?
> >
> > > ** The BBC could easily afford to do just that
> >
> > Regardless if they could afford to or not, they didn't.


> ** Obvious, blatant, lie.

Please give the dates you worked for the BBC. Mine, from 1962-1976. And at
the start of that, all their speaker amps were valve.

> > You'll just have to take my word for that.


> ** Rather take the word of a serial child molester.

I've no doubt you mix with several of those...

Now how about answering the point about all these new types of valves that
make such a difference from when valves were in common use? Of course you
can't, so just throw your toys out of the pram as usual.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

[Johny B Good]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 14:36:09 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <23c30347-cf1f-4f9e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave Plowman = a criminal cunt.
>
>
>
>> > > > Do you really think they'd have been happy changing output valves every
>> > > > few months?
>> >
>> > > ** The BBC could easily afford to do just that
>> >
>> > Regardless if they could afford to or not, they didn't.
>
>
>> ** Obvious, blatant, lie.
>
>Please give the dates you worked for the BBC. Mine, from 1962-1976. And at
>the start of that, all their speaker amps were valve.
>
>
>> > You'll just have to take my word for that.
>
>
>> ** Rather take the word of a serial child molester.
>
>I've no doubt you mix with several of those...
>
>Now how about answering the point about all these new types of valves that
>make such a difference from when valves were in common use? Of course you
>can't, so just throw your toys out of the pram as usual.

Thanks, Dave! Now I've got a mental picture of Billy Bass foaming and
frothing at the mouth, yeuch!

Phil Allison is "Billy Bass". <http://www2.b3ta.com/fish/>
--
J B Good