Marshall JCM 900 4100 Bias Question

[Jim Pelosi]

Hey guys, I just got a JCM 900 4100, My problem is that it has three new JJ
6L6GC's and 1 old Sovetec 5881, when I first checked the bias using a bias
probe it was at 58 ma so I set it to 38ma at around 487 volts, I was told
would be ok and the 5881 started glowing red and obviously cooked.

I just ordered a new set of JJ's can someone please tell me what the proper
bias setting is for a JCM 900 4100 is so I don't fry another tube or worse a
set of tubes.

Thanks
Jim P

[mainm...@choiceonemail.com]

You should do a search of AGA for Lord Valve's rundown of biasing, but
basically...

plate voltage X cathode current = idle dissipation

and when you change the bias voltage, the change in current draw will
affect the plate voltage, so you need to check that again right after
you adjust the bias pot(s). I usually bias those amps (or any 6L6
based amp) to about 15 watts idle dissipation per tube. You need to
make sure you don't exceed the tube's absolute maximum dissipation
tolerance, or you'll be buying yet another set of replacement tubes
sooner than you'd like.

There are a few other ways to do it, but this method works well for
me, so I use it. If I had a better o-scope and a better signal
generator, I'd probably be using that method more often, but such are
the limits of my budget.

-dave M.

[mykey]

What it is basically you lower the
bias till it just starts to turn red
(slowly) then back it off until the
red just disappears. The hotter you
set it the better it sounds, but the
shorter it lasts. Then if it's adjusted
too cold, it sounds crappy.
But it sounds like you might have bias
failure at one or more tubes, need
to check it with a voltmeter before
plugging any more tubes in.

[Mike Schway]

In article
<8dce7ed1-dfad-4d9d...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mykey <mykeym...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Man, you just don't learn! Granted it's a LOT easier to repair a
900/4100 which has had a catastrophic tube failure than a 6100 (where
you gave the same advice), but I've also seen plenty of 900s with fried
OPTs (they're under-engineered to begin with). Good thing they have HT
fuses.

[Tangential digression::: IMO, the single best thing you can do to a
900 is to replace the OPT with one with more iron. HEAVY metal, get it?
:-) ]

That said, if you're after a thick lush "clean" tone with or plexi-like
pure output tube overdrive, NO flavor of 900 will be the right amp
regardless how it's biased. Better off with a JTM 50 or an 800/1987.

Besides, my experience is that folks who come by the shop wanting more
crunch but otherwise LOVE their 900s are REALLY after preamp distortion
(the spikey, differentiated kind you get from diode intervention), not
output stage saturation. Heating the output stage to near meltdown
won't help this kind of tone at all, it'll just make it sound muddier.

To the OP: 38mA @ 490V (18.6W) sounds spot-on to me, but you really
need a matched set of tubes. 3 JJs and a Sov 5881 doesn't come close.
My guess is that the 5881 was going to run hotter than the JJs at any
bias setting. (confirm this by swapping the 5881 to different
sockets...is it still hotter than the others?)

--Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]
msc...@nas.com |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Premier Spigot]

On Dec 8, 12:31 pm, Mike Schway <msch...@nas.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8dce7ed1-dfad-4d9d-af0a-59308c9ce...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> msch...@nas.com |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Man, you just don't learn!"

No interest. It's the "Mesa" issue. Where *every* one & those like
them, exit the place worse than they arrived. Can you imagine
something like
a Bogner (not too much unlike a Boogie) being fooled around with by
this hack? With this foolishly unintelligent bias procedure, I bet
repeat business is at a min.

[Jim Pelosi]

Hey,

I replaced the 5881 with a second 5881 I used 1/2 amp fuses in mains when
replacing the tube which I assume is 500MA and ok, now I have a loud hum and
that's all. Guess I will be replacing an OT in the near future! All of
this because I replaced a f....... set of tubes and set the bias... un-real!

As for setting bias on an amp via the make your tube glow method, Dude that
is the single most retarded thing I have heard in a long time!

Thanks for the good laugh.

Any thoughts on my next move regarding the future of this piece of crap, I
mean other than putting it in the dumpster?

"Premier Spigot" <bighors...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c2b995a-7928-4e75...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

[Mike Schway]

In article <475b66af$0$15355$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
"Jim Pelosi" <strat...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I replaced the 5881 with a second 5881 I used 1/2 amp fuses in mains when
> replacing the tube which I assume is 500MA and ok, now I have a loud hum and
> that's all. Guess I will be replacing an OT in the near future! All of
> this because I replaced a f....... set of tubes and set the bias... un-real!
>
> As for setting bias on an amp via the make your tube glow method, Dude that
> is the single most retarded thing I have heard in a long time!
>
> Thanks for the good laugh.
>
> Any thoughts on my next move regarding the future of this piece of crap, I
> mean other than putting it in the dumpster?

For one, don't immediately suspect the OPT if you have hum-only output.
In fact it's somewhat unlikely. OTOH, there are many fine reasons for
upgrading the OPT which you may want to address eventually, but the
first item on the agenda is to fix the darned thing.

Hum can come from horribly mismatched tubes, lost ground, open filter
cap, bad preamp tube, bad input jack, etc etc etc.

Sounds like you're getting in over your head here. Looks like it's time
to take it in to a pro.

--Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]

msc...@nas.com |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dave Curtis]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 05:55:18 -0800 (PST), mykey
<mykeym...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Dec 7, 8:13 pm, "Jim Pelosi" <stratma...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys, I just got a JCM 900 4100, My problem is that it has three new JJ
>> 6L6GC's and 1 old Sovetec 5881, when I first checked the bias using a bias
>> probe it was at 58 ma so I set it to 38ma at around 487 volts, I was told
>> would be ok and the 5881 started glowing red and obviously cooked.
>>
>> I just ordered a new set of JJ's can someone please tell me what the proper
>> bias setting is for a JCM 900 4100 is so I don't fry another tube or worse a
>> set of tubes.
>>

WARNING!

Idiot Alert:

>What it is basically you lower the
>bias till it just starts to turn red
>(slowly) then back it off until the
>red just disappears.

NO, NO, NO!!!! INCORRECT!!!!

>The hotter you
>set it the better it sounds, but the
>shorter it lasts. Then if it's adjusted
>too cold, it sounds crappy.
>But it sounds like you might have bias
>failure at one or more tubes, need
>to check it with a voltmeter before
>plugging any more tubes in.

Also likely incorrect.

-DC

[Jim Pelosi]

Agreed on the time for a pro thing, I can do small repairs and retube and
bias but anything other than that and I am lost!

"Mike Schway" <msc...@nas.com> wrote in message
news:mschway-8367F6...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

[roge...@msn.com]

Well, it depends in the voltage on pin 3 of all power tube sockets, but im my experience, if you bias arround 45mA it will be fine, JJ´s take a lot of beatting, no problem

[Lord Valve]

Dude, you just replied to a post that's nearly SIX YEARS OLD.

What have you been smokin', and where do I get some? ;-)

Lord Valve
Expert

[ihawks...@gmail.com]

rogeramps wrote:

"Well, it depends in the voltage on pin 3 of all power tube sockets, but in my experience, if you bias around 45mA it will be fine, JJ's take a lot of beating, no problem"

On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:07:52 AM UTC-7, Lord Valve wrote:

"Dude, you just replied to a post that's nearly SIX YEARS OLD.
What have you been smokin', and where do I get some? ;-)"



> Lord Valve
>
> Expert

AND the most recent quoted post is over a year old....HOWEVER there are still people out here looking for answers and researching Marshall JCM 900 amps. I just got one in for repair that only had two EL34 power tubes and an odd assortment of 12ax7 tubes none of which were what the amp is supposed to have...

the six years too late post was helpful regardless of what he was smokin' :P

[Lord Valve]

The amp is *supposed* to have 12AX7s in it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Or perhaps you have an odd assortment of
"facts" in whatever that shit between your ears is.

> he six years too late post was helpful regardless of what he was smokin' :P

If you say so.

<fart>

[Thors Hammer]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:15:01 -0700 (PDT), ihawks...@gmail.com
wrote:

>if you bias around 45mA it will be fine

...for a couple of ours ;)

A range from 27 to 37 is spot on.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[It's that Guy again...]

>A range from 27 to 37 is spot on.

40, a boink under. Come on, it takes years
of Usenet postings to figure this out. Yup, I
want *THIS* shop fixing my amp..yuk yuk yuk.

AND !!!!!!! a 900 !!!! Come on, you folks should
know this LONG before any '900'. Wankers, all of ya.

JJTj


Enjoying the weapon, sheit getting chops down pat..

http://www.voxwatt.com/z.html

Found a old VOX AC15 wheat..got new tubes..wow..





Well my baby's sick, and I don't know what to do..
YES! my baby's sick, and I don't know what to do..
She's got twist fever and a double case of guitar blues..

Well..she twist on the highway
..twisted in the swiming pool..
..she twist on the highway
..twisted in the swiming pool..
..she twist her breakfast..
..twist right off to school...

WELL..twist on baby..twist me one time more..
YAAA..twist on baby..twist me one time more..
Well, she can twist in the air,
and twist right down to the floor.

She got twist feeling..
She got twist FEEELLL
She got twist FEEELLL !!!!
..oh..feel...yeah..
..she got twist fever
..and I just can't leave her alone...

OUCH !

Well, I took her to a doctor
gonna find out what to do..
YES, took her to a doctor
gonna find out what to do..
Well, the doctor couldn't fix her
..cause the doctor is a twister too..

She got twist feelllll..
She got twist feel.
She got twist FEEELLL !!!!
..oh..feel...well..
..she got twist fever
..and I just can't leave her alone...

oh oh oh..

[RS]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:50:25 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>ihawks...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [Marshall JCM 900 amps.] I just got one in for repair that only had two

>EL34 power tubes and an odd assortment of 12ax7 tubes

>The amp is *supposed* to have 12AX7s in it.
>
>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>Or perhaps you have an odd assortment of
>"facts" in whatever that shit between your ears is.

Perhaps you have forgotten...you don't know shit about electronics
either. Just thought I'd drop in to remind you.

><fart>

Ol' smelly Valve is goin' over big in the jazz guitar group! Quite
the display. Get in the van, Grampa. It's time to go for a little
ride.

[RS]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:43:03 -0400, It's that Guy again...
<paidto...@cash.con> wrote:

> THOR wrote:
>>A range from 27 to 37 is spot on.
>
>40, a boink under. Come on, it takes years
>of Usenet postings to figure this out. Yup, I
>want *THIS* shop fixing my amp..yuk yuk yuk.
>
>AND !!!!!!! a 900 !!!! Come on, you folks should
>know this LONG before any '900'. Wankers, all of ya.
>
>JJTj

Moral of the story: Don't have your amp biased by Thorskin
Electronics. God help this newsgroup.

[RS]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:30:59 -0700, Rick N. Backer
<ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>Oh, Thorskin. Darn, I thought it was Foreskin. Silly me.

No, it's Thorskin. He hates when people call him Foreskin.
So be nice.

[Defiant]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:44:44 -0400, RS wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:50:25 -0600, Lord Valve
> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>ihawks...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [Marshall JCM 900 amps.] I just got one in for repair that only had two
>>EL34 power tubes and an odd assortment of 12ax7 tubes
>
>>The amp is *supposed* to have 12AX7s in it.
>>
>>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>Or perhaps you have an odd assortment of
>>"facts" in whatever that shit between your ears is.
>
> Perhaps you have forgotten...you don't know shit about electronics
> either. Just thought I'd drop in to remind you.

Says the guy who doesn't understand op-amp impedance behavior.....

[Lord Valve]

RS wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:50:25 -0600, Lord Valve
> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >ihawks...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [Marshall JCM 900 amps.] I just got one in for repair that only had two
> >EL34 power tubes and an odd assortment of 12ax7 tubes
>
> >The amp is *supposed* to have 12AX7s in it.
> >
> >You have no idea what you are talking about.
> >Or perhaps you have an odd assortment of
> >"facts" in whatever that shit between your ears is.
>
> Perhaps you have forgotten...you don't know shit about electronics
> either. Just thought I'd drop in to remind you.

Fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger. <shrug>

[RS]

"Impedance behavior"...LOL! If that's the case, why did you run away
last time? I thought we were having a constructive conversation.

Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
(gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
actually know something about electronics.

But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?

-"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
- Lord Valve on 'impedance behavior'

[Lord Valve]

I never said any such thing. Go fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger.

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:20:22 -0600, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>RS wrote:
>>
>> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
>> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
>> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
>> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
>> actually know something about electronics.
>>
>> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
>> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
>>
>> -"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
>> - Lord Valve on 'impedance behavior'
>
>I never said any such thing. Go fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger.

The latest Valve mantra. Interesting theme.

Not only did you say it, but you were 'correcting' someone who had
already posted correct information. Then you blamed it on Vicodin.
If the Vicodin is still making you forgetful, I could find a link for
you.

You and Defecant got this Road Warrior "Master-Blaster" thing goin'
on, but it seems you can't quite figure out which one of you is the
big stupid guy on the bottom. Tough call. After all, you did send
him in to fight your battles, and apparently didn't quite understand
what happened when he got shredded. Coup de grace indeed.

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:50:14 -0700, Rick N. Backer
<ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:20:22 -0600, Lord Valve
><detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>I never said any such thing. Go fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger.
>>

>ROTFLMSWBO. Someone piss in your corn flakes this mornin'?

Valve gets stuck on these odd phrases that must occupy all remaining
brain cells. He can't seem to think of anything clever to say when
he's flustered, so they just automatically pop out like a weird Pez
dispenser.

Lick a dead hospital rake!

[Bruce Morgen]

Rick N. Backer <ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>Did you hear the joke about the Rabbi who was making wallets out of
>Thorskins? If you rub 'em, they turn into suitcases.

A homeless man finally got a
job circumcizing elephants,
and his buddy asked him how
the pay was, to which he
replied, "The salary ain't
much, but the tips are just
tremendous."

[Lord Valve]

RS wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:20:22 -0600, Lord Valve
> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >RS wrote:
> >>
> >> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
> >> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
> >> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
> >> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
> >> actually know something about electronics.
> >>
> >> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
> >> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
> >>
> >> -"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
> >> - Lord Valve on 'impedance behavior'
> >
> >I never said any such thing. Go fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger.
>
> The latest Valve mantra. Interesting theme.
>
> Not only did you say it, but you were 'correcting' someone who had
> already posted correct information. Then you blamed it on Vicodin.
> If the Vicodin is still making you forgetful, I could find a link for
> you.

No, you couldn't - because I didn;t say it.

Put the link right here, asswipe:

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:27:06 -0600, Lord Valve

Did you think you erased it? Here ya go:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.music.guitar/w-7R5pX3304

About 1/3 of the way down. Note that you were correcting someone who
had just posted the correct info, so it was staring you in the face.
How much Vicodin does it take to post crap like this?:

(excerpt from thread about -correct speaker impedance-)
->> JR wrote:
->> Electric/electronic theory shows that maximum
->> power is transferred from one device to another when the output
->> impedance of the sender equals the input impedance of the
->> receiver.

-> Drug-addled Valve wrote:
-> Nope.
-> In fact, a ten-to-one (or greater) upward mismatch, source to
-> destination, is often specified in order to prevent excessive
-> loading of the signal source.

You also didn't understand how impedance is measured ("there is no
impedance at frequencies other than 1khz"?)

That's high school level stuff there, Valve. You need to cut back on
the posting marathons and hit the books for a few hours every day.
Make up for about 70 years of lost time.

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:27:06 -0600, Lord Valve

<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>RS wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:20:22 -0600, Lord Valve
>> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >RS wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
>> >> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
>> >> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
>> >> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
>> >> actually know something about electronics.
>> >>
>> >> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
>> >> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
>> >>
>> >> -"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
>> >> - Lord Valve on 'impedance behavior'

Maybe Valve's lifeline, Defecant, can check in about impedance
behavior. Defie, isn't it true that you need to precisely match
impedance on critical stuff like speakers, and on the transformer
winding for the bias tap?

[Lord Valve]

RS wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:27:06 -0600, Lord Valve
> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >RS wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:20:22 -0600, Lord Valve
> >> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>
> >> >> -"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
> >> >> - Lord Valve on 'impedance behavior'
> >> >
> >> >I never said any such thing. Go fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger.
> >>
> >> The latest Valve mantra. Interesting theme.
> >>
> >> Not only did you say it, but you were 'correcting' someone who had
> >> already posted correct information. Then you blamed it on Vicodin.
> >> If the Vicodin is still making you forgetful, I could find a link for
> >> you.
> >
> >No, you couldn't - because I didn;t say it.
> >
> >Put the link right here, asswipe:
>
> Did you think you erased it? Here ya go:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.music.guitar/w-7R5pX3304
>
> About 1/3 of the way down. Note that you were correcting someone who
> had just posted the correct info, so it was staring you in the face.
> How much Vicodin does it take to post crap like this?:

Here's what you said I wrote:

"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."

Here's what I wrote:

"The actual output impedance of the 8-ohm transformer tap
on a typical guitar amplifier is a fraction of an ohm"

Note that the word "speaker" does not appear in it anywhere.
As usual, you made up something for me to have said,
and then responded to it as if I'd actually said it.

You're a liar, and you've been at it for a long, long time.

> excerpt from thread about -correct speaker impedance-)
> ->> JR wrote:
> ->> Electric/electronic theory shows that maximum
> ->> power is transferred from one device to another when the output
> ->> impedance of the sender equals the input impedance of the
> ->> receiver.
>
> -> Drug-addled Valve wrote:
> -> Nope.
> -> In fact, a ten-to-one (or greater) upward mismatch, source to
> -> destination, is often specified in order to prevent excessive
> -> loading of the signal source.
>
> You also didn't understand how impedance is measured ("there is no
> impedance at frequencies other than 1khz"?)

You left the smiley-face off. Naturally. Liar.

>
>
> That's high school level stuff there, Valve. You need to cut back on
> the posting marathons and hit the books for a few hours every day.
> Make up for about 70 years of lost time.

Fuck off, dweeb.

You claim to be an "engineer," but no proof has ever
been provided. I say you're a bullshitter. <shrug>

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:36:14 -0600, Lord Valve

<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>RS wrote:
>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.music.guitar/w-7R5pX3304
>>
>> About 1/3 of the way down. Note that you were correcting someone who
>> had just posted the correct info, so it was staring you in the face.
>> How much Vicodin does it take to post crap like this?:
>
>Here's what you said I wrote:
>
>"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
>
>Here's what I wrote:
>
>"The actual output impedance of the 8-ohm transformer tap
>on a typical guitar amplifier is a fraction of an ohm"

Oh, that's completely different then! Let's see...an 8 ohm speaker is
actually 8 ohms, but an 8 ohm -transformer- is actually a fraction of
an ohm. Got it.

The 'fractional 8-ohm tap' would be necessary in order to have that
ten-to-one upward mismatch that you were looking for.

Your clarification makes you -way- less an idiot. :-)

Seriously, how did you think that was going to make you sound less
retarded? If an 8-ohm transformer is not really 8 ohms, then why
would you need an 8-ohm transformer for an 8 ohm speaker, etc. Why
not just use your 'fractional ohm' transformers for everything? You're
beyond silly.

>Note that the word "speaker" does not appear in it anywhere.
>As usual, you made up something for me to have said,
>and then responded to it as if I'd actually said it.
>
>You're a liar, and you've been at it for a long, long time.

Well well, an accusation like that from The Valve certainly carries
some weight! See above.

>> excerpt from thread about -correct speaker impedance-)

>> -> Drug-addled Valve wrote:
>> -> Nope.
>> -> In fact, a ten-to-one (or greater) upward mismatch, source to
>> -> destination, is often specified in order to prevent excessive
>> -> loading of the signal source.
>>
>> You also didn't understand how impedance is measured ("there is no
>> impedance at frequencies other than 1khz"?)
>
>You left the smiley-face off. Naturally. Liar.

That was not the point, doof. You didn't understand the meaning of
impedance, so naturally you wouldn't know that it was commonly
measured at 1Khz. The previous poster had it right, and you were
ridiculing the correct information.

>> That's high school level stuff there, Valve. You need to cut back on
>> the posting marathons and hit the books for a few hours every day.
>> Make up for about 70 years of lost time.
>
>Fuck off, dweeb.
>
>You claim to be an "engineer," but no proof has ever
>been provided. I say you're a bullshitter. <shrug>

I've corrected you and your tag team partners enough times that you'd
think it would have registered by now.

>"The actual impedance of an 8-ohm transformer is a fraction of an
> ohm"

> "Lord Valve" on impedance behavior

Fixed. Happy now?

You said you were writing a book on electronics at one time. How's
that going? Will that be in the non-fiction section?

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:50:14 -0700, Rick N. Backer
<ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:20:22 -0600, Lord Valve
><detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>>RS wrote:
>>> -"The impedance of an 8 ohm speaker is actually a fraction of an ohm."
>>> - Lord Valve on 'impedance behavior'
>>
>>I never said any such thing. Go fuck a dead rat up the ass, nigger.
>>

>ROTFLMSWBO. Someone piss in your corn flakes this mornin'?

His Thormones are acting up.

[RS]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:49:02 -0700, Rick N. Backer
<ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>Thorazine wore off? You never can tell with these cases.

Yeah, he's been even more of a thoron lately.

[Defiant]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:13:36 -0400, RatShit babbled:

> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:44:44 -0400, RS wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:50:25 -0600, Lord Valve
>>> <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ihawks...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [Marshall JCM 900 amps.] I just got one in for repair that only had two
>>>>EL34 power tubes and an odd assortment of 12ax7 tubes
>>>
>>>>The amp is *supposed* to have 12AX7s in it.
>>>>
>>>>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>Or perhaps you have an odd assortment of
>>>>"facts" in whatever that shit between your ears is.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have forgotten...you don't know shit about electronics
>>> either. Just thought I'd drop in to remind you.
>>
>>Says the guy who doesn't understand op-amp impedance behavior.....
>
> "Impedance behavior"...LOL! If that's the case, why did you run away
> last time? I thought we were having a constructive conversation.

We were trying, but you kept ignoring my questions after you realized
you were full of shit.

>
> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
> actually know something about electronics.

You have a vivid imagination.

>
> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?

A fraction of a watt. I never claimed differently. *YOU*, OTOH, claimed
the closed-loop output impedance of an op-amp isn't "real" impedance.
Just like your claim that a cathode followers output impedance is
equivalent to the cathode resistor.

I would ask you to prove your assertions mathematically, but I know you
won't because you can't.

[Defiant]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:19:04 -0400, RatShit stepped on his crank BIG TIME!:

You either have a serious lack of reading comp skills (which nicely
complements your lack of electronics knowledge) or you are being
purposefully deceitful.

In that linked post, John Rimmer said:

> It's not so much a rating as a property of the voice coil. It's the
> electrical impedance presented to an alternating emf (or voltage if you
> like) with frequency 1kHz

And LV replied:

> Obviously, no impedance is present at frequencies other than 1 KHz. ;-)

Obvious sarcasm. JR implied that electrical impedance exists only at
1KHz, and LV replied sarcastically. Note the smiley. Apparently you
are the only dolt who didn't get it.

Moving on to the 8 ohm comment. LV *never* said the impedance of an 8
ohm speaker is a fraction of an ohm. What he said was:

>The actual output impedance of the 8-ohm transformer tap on a typical

>guitar amplifier is a fraction of an ohm.

He clearly stated the *output* impedance at the 8-ohm TAP of a guitar amp
output transformer is a fraction of an ohm. He NEVER said that was the case
for an 8-ohm speaker.

Like I said, you either totally lack reading comp skills or you are
deliberately lying. So, which is it? Are you stupid, or a liar?

[RS]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>Moving on to the 8 ohm comment. LV *never* said the impedance of an 8
>ohm speaker is a fraction of an ohm. What he said was:

>>The actual output impedance of the 8-ohm transformer tap on a typical
>>guitar amplifier is a fraction of an ohm.
>
>He clearly stated the *output* impedance at the 8-ohm TAP of a guitar amp
>output transformer is a fraction of an ohm. He NEVER said that was the case
>for an 8-ohm speaker.

LOL! Like that matters? I guess you agree with him then.

Here, I'll fix it and we'll see if he sounds more intelligent:

-"The actual impedance of an 8 ohm transformer is a fraction of an
ohm" - "Lord Valve" on "impedance behavior"

Nope, he still doesn't know what he's talking about. But you're
standing by your man! That's what's important.

[Defiant]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:40:47 -0400, RS is *STILL* stepping on his
crank!:

You really are stupid. You utterly *fail* at comprehension! He *never*
said the impedance of an 8 ohm transformer is a fraction of an ohm.
First you claim he was talking about a speaker, then when you get busted
you try to claim he was talking about the transformer. You even put up
a bogus fucking quote while the ACTUAL quote was right above it for all
to see! You must be hoping the rest of the AGA tard squad is as stupid
as you are.

So, is it a failure to comprehend? Or are you being deliberately
deceptive? I suspect it is both, combined with your basic lack of
understanding amplifier output impedance. Your previous comments
on op-amp and CF output impedance would seem to agree with my
assessment: when it comes to electronic theory, you don't know shit.

[Kaie Fabiaen]

>So, is it a failure to comprehend?

That is the trouble with text book reading wankers.

They think, everything is written in stone. Unless one gets 2
deal with on hand gear, that has to work that night, fuck da boik,
no excuses, they just mental jerk off to ###s and old data of
materials that ya can't buy to fit those ##s if ya had a $$$$$$$$..

Even us who have all the old early tube amp data books, before
Aspen, and understand..the 1st thing they say is that like the old
FireSign Theatre truth, Everything you know is wrong. ALL (!!)
of R&R history sounds were built and later digitized on gear that
was falling apart, breaking down, butchered, whatever. Now, they
spread $$ to re-create it. I spend time just laughing at them trying.

Like it or not, wankers, output tranz have so many options that
decide what happens to your ears, it isn't even funny. What makes
a Drake, or a Sowter, or a Partridge, does not & or never will make a
Maquest. The Hammond folks still make one awesome hunk of iron, btw.

Do you think a SE tranz works like a DE? Do you have a clue what an
air gap, an oil gap, ever re-wind *OLD* tranz..? I know that LV has,
and I'd guess RS has, but learn or shut the flock up w/insults..

JJTj



God Bless us, because we is funky...
Making our own rules, no matter the price..
and you best believe...we NEVER think twice...



*> SENT FROM CELL MAKNAMB DOCK9# GHYTT^*L7MjUi(&*HM <*
*> DATE REPLY MODEFINE GIGANEWS 946522^%-MJHTRGX-N7^%TGGII6<*

[Bruce Morgen]

Rick N. Backer <ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>That's okay. Happened to talk to someone who knows our Elvie fairly
>well. He's of your opionion or lesser of the Massa Tubeman from
>Denver. Didn't quite call him a hack but didn't give him much more
>credit than that.

I managed an 5-8 tech shop
for eight years. Lard Vulva
has typical repair tech and
stage roady chops, nothing
more -- lots of product-
specific knowledge, e.g. how
to quickly disassemble and
reassemble gear, a general
idea of typical problems
with particular models, but
nothing that even comes
close to the sort of design
engineering expertise he
implies by calling himself
an electronics "expert."

[RS]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:29:12 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:40:47 -0400, RS is *STILL* stepping on his
>crank!:
>>

>> Here, I'll fix it and we'll see if he sounds more intelligent:
>>
>> -"The actual impedance of an 8 ohm transformer is a fraction of an
>> ohm" - "Lord Valve" on "impedance behavior"
>>
>> Nope, he still doesn't know what he's talking about. But you're
>> standing by your man! That's what's important.

> You even put up
>a bogus fucking quote while the ACTUAL quote was right above it for all
>to see! You must be hoping the rest of the AGA tard squad is as stupid
>as you are.
>
>So, is it a failure to comprehend? Or are you being deliberately
>deceptive? I suspect it is both, combined with your basic lack of
>understanding amplifier output impedance. Your previous comments

Like some kind of froth machine--turn it on and it attempts to cover
the area with foam. Is it sufficient to cover Valve's ass? That's a
tough requirement, but I'll give it to you for trying.

>on op-amp and CF output impedance would seem to agree with my
>assessment: when it comes to electronic theory, you don't know shit.

>You really are stupid. You utterly *fail* at comprehension!

LOL! Yeah, stupid stupid stupid! Assertion by repetition, while
simultaneously trying to deflect attention from Valve's retarded
comments. Knock, knock, Defecant---even Valve isn't deny that he was
talking out his voluminous orifice.

> He *never*
>said the impedance of an 8 ohm transformer is a fraction of an ohm.
>First you claim he was talking about a speaker, then when you get busted
>you try to claim he was talking about the transformer.

This should be interesting... So Valve wasn't talking about the
transformer. What was it that he was referring to then?

Valvie, I'm surprised that you turned your pet weasel loose on this.
You realize he's just highlighting your electronic blunders. You
haven't emailed to tip him off on what's happening yet?

[RS]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
> What Valve said was:
>The actual output impedance of the 8-ohm transformer on a typical

>guitar amplifier is a fraction of an ohm.

And in the previous post you claim he wasn't talking about the
transformer. I hope no one notices!

So to recap: Valve thinks that the 8 ohm rating on a transformer means
that it is actually a fraction of an ohm (IOW, the manufacturer's
rating is meaningless). And Defecant is here to testify to it! These
are the geniuses that are going to argue about electronics theory.
Good luck with that! :-)

Here's a simple one: What exactly does that 8 ohm rating mean then,
and if it's actually a fraction of an ohm, why would you need
different transformers for 4, 8, or 16 ohms. If the objective is to
have as low an impedance as possible, then you'd just need to use
Valvie's "Fractional Ohm Transformer" for every speaker, right?

(These guys don't know even how power transfer works?! WTF?)

[RS]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:48:01 -0700, Rick N. Backer
<ken.w...@shawNO.caSPAM> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:40:47 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Here, I'll fix it and we'll see if he sounds more intelligent:
>>
>>-"The actual impedance of an 8 ohm transformer is a fraction of an
>>ohm" - "Lord Valve" on "impedance behavior"
>>
>>Nope, he still doesn't know what he's talking about. But you're
>>standing by your man! That's what's important.
>

>That's okay. Happened to talk to someone who knows our Elvie fairly
>well. He's of your opionion or lesser of the Massa Tubeman from
>Denver. Didn't quite call him a hack but didn't give him much more
>credit than that.

You may not have been here for Valve's grand Youtube video. It was
about DI (Direct Inject) boxes. He first loudly declared that you
couldn't possibly drive a power amp with a DI box, and anyone who
thought so was an amateur/retard/beginner/hack/blahblah. Then he went
thru all the trouble to produce and post a Youtube video that showed
him driving a power amp with a DI box. Damn!

That was one of his best...a serious hoot! I was in the process of
telling him how badly he had screwed up, but then realized that he'd
run with it. So I kept quiet for a while, and he strutted all over
aga for about a week before someone evidently tipped him off.

Meanwhile the video circulated as a gag reel among some of the
engineers that used to hang here. He delivered a big 'fuck you' or
something at the end that had everyone in tears.

Valvie, you never did say how long it took to make that video?

Also, as it turns out, you apparently think you can drive a speaker
with a 741, but you can't drive a high impedance amp input! How's
that work?

PS: Charlie Brown, Lucy, Football. Never fails! Figure it out.

[RS]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:09:02 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:13:36 -0400, RatShit babbled:

RatShit? Come on, you gotta top "Defecant" before anyone is going to
appreciate that.

>> "Impedance behavior"...LOL! If that's the case, why did you run away
>> last time? I thought we were having a constructive conversation.
>
>We were trying, but you kept ignoring my questions after you realized
>you were full of shit.

>> RS wrote:
>> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
>> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
>> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
>> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
>> actually know something about electronics.

>> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
>> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
>
>A fraction of a watt. I never claimed differently. *YOU*, OTOH, claimed

Your number was 5 mW. OK, here's where we left it...from our previous
exchange:

>> RS:
>> You claimed you could drive a speaker with a 741, and even talked
>> about 'linearity.' And you said you didn't use a resistor to isolate
>> the opamp's output from the 8 ohm load. But the best part is that you
>> suckered Valve again (like the Onion article). You got him to put all
>> his chips on the table and post yet another glorious proclamation of
>> victory (I love those).
>>
>> Now you don't have a circuit. That's what you and Valvie based all of
>> this on. Post it...or don't. Fine with me either way.

[Dead air from Defie...no circuit exists]

>> Since poor Valve bet all his chips on your crowing about getting 5
>> milliwatts out of an opamp, let's start simple:

>> How much voltage is required to get 5 milliwatts out of an 8 ohm
>> speaker? Cmon, you know this one!

[Dead air from Defecant again]

>> OK then, maybe not. Easier yet then:

>> How much voltage will 25ma develop across 8 ohms?

>> Again, forget about linearity or capabilities of the 741 output stage.
>> You know where this is going, right?

That should be easy. Try not to get distracted.

[Defiant]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:57:14 -0400, RatShit deflected:

He was referring to the output impedance of the amplifier. Which
you would know if you had a clue. Instead, you keep deflecting,
hoping nobody will notice.

[Defiant]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:06:17 -0400, RatShit wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> What Valve said was:
>>The actual output impedance of the 8-ohm transformer on a typical
>>guitar amplifier is a fraction of an ohm.


>
> And in the previous post you claim he wasn't talking about the
> transformer. I hope no one notices!

Anyone who can actually read knows he wasn't.

>
> So to recap: Valve thinks that the 8 ohm rating on a transformer means
> that it is actually a fraction of an ohm (IOW, the manufacturer's
> rating is meaningless). And Defecant is here to testify to it! These
> are the geniuses that are going to argue about electronics theory.
> Good luck with that! :-)
>
> Here's a simple one: What exactly does that 8 ohm rating mean then,
> and if it's actually a fraction of an ohm, why would you need
> different transformers for 4, 8, or 16 ohms. If the objective is to
> have as low an impedance as possible, then you'd just need to use
> Valvie's "Fractional Ohm Transformer" for every speaker, right?
>
> (These guys don't know even how power transfer works?! WTF?)

I know how power transfer works. Sadly, you still do not understand
the concept of output impedance.

It's OK, maybe if you keep deflecting and deliberately misquoting LV's
posts your buddies in the AGAtard squad won't realize you're full of shit.

[Defiant]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:28:35 -0400, RavagedSphincter wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:09:02 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:13:36 -0400, RatShit babbled:
>
> RatShit? Come on, you gotta top "Defecant" before anyone is going to
> appreciate that.
>
>>> "Impedance behavior"...LOL! If that's the case, why did you run away
>>> last time? I thought we were having a constructive conversation.
>>
>>We were trying, but you kept ignoring my questions after you realized
>>you were full of shit.
>
>>> RS wrote:
>>> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
>>> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
>>> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
>>> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
>>> actually know something about electronics.
>
>>> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
>>> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
>>
>>A fraction of a watt. I never claimed differently. *YOU*, OTOH, claimed

The rest of that last paragraph, which RavagedSphincter snipped (of course)
read:

>*YOU*, OTOH, claimed the closed-loop output impedance of an op-amp isn't
>"real" impedance. Just like your claim that a cathode followers output
>impedance is equivalent to the cathode resistor.

He refuses to explain his concept of "virtual" output impedance, and how it
differs mathematically from what the rest of us consider output impedance.
Nor will he explain how a CF with the tube driven to cutoff actually defines
the operation of a CF. Instead, he continues to deflect in the vain hope that
nobody will realize he doesn't know shit.

[RS]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>> RS wrote:
>>>> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
>>>> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
>>>> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
>>>> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
>>>> actually know something about electronics.
>>
>>>> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
>>>> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
>>>
>>>A fraction of a watt. I never claimed differently. *YOU*, OTOH, claimed

I told you not to get distracted. 5 milliwatts was the figure. That's
your whole premise for all of this. So post the circuit. I'll use
your own circuit to show you where you're wrong. Then you can tell me
how much you know about opamps and cathode followers.

>He refuses to explain his concept of "virtual" output impedance, and how it
>differs mathematically from what the rest of us consider output impedance.
>Nor will he explain how a CF with the tube driven to cutoff actually defines
>the operation of a CF. Instead, he continues to deflect in the vain hope that
>nobody will realize he doesn't know shit.

"He." Who are you talking to here? I guess you're still trying to
prove yourself to Valve. If you can convince Valve himself that he
wasn't talking about transformers, then he can retract his apologies
and his Vicodin excuses.

[Defiant]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:34:57 -0400, RS wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> RS wrote:
>>>>> Poor ol' Valve, understands nothing about opamps, impedance, etc. So
>>>>> he sends in his champion (you), and gleefully claps his hands while he
>>>>> posts about a coup de grace. Then watches in horror as his mentor
>>>>> (gak) gets shredded, not just by me, but by several people who
>>>>> actually know something about electronics.
>>>
>>>>> But if you want to revisit that: How much wattage did you say you
>>>>> were getting out of a 741 driving a speaker?
>>>>
>>>>A fraction of a watt. I never claimed differently. *YOU*, OTOH, claimed
>
> I told you not to get distracted. 5 milliwatts was the figure. That's
> your whole premise for all of this. So post the circuit. I'll use
> your own circuit to show you where you're wrong. Then you can tell me
> how much you know about opamps and cathode followers.

Deflection again. You demand "proof" from me while never explaining
your ridiculous statements about "virtual" impedance and CF impedance.
You know you stepped in shit, so you will continue to avoid those
thorny points.

>
>>He refuses to explain his concept of "virtual" output impedance, and how it
>>differs mathematically from what the rest of us consider output impedance.
>>Nor will he explain how a CF with the tube driven to cutoff actually defines
>>the operation of a CF. Instead, he continues to deflect in the vain hope that
>>nobody will realize he doesn't know shit.
>
> "He." Who are you talking to here?

Lame deflection. You know damn well "he" refers to *you*. No worries; keep
hoping you can bullshit the clueless.

[RS]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:04:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
<tras...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:34:57 -0400, RS wrote:
>
>> I told you not to get distracted. 5 milliwatts was the figure. That's
>> your whole premise for all of this. So post the circuit. I'll use
>> your own circuit to show you where you're wrong. Then you can tell me
>> how much you know about opamps and cathode followers.
>
>Deflection again. You demand "proof" from me while never explaining
>your ridiculous statements about "virtual" impedance and CF impedance.
>You know you stepped in shit, so you will continue to avoid those
>thorny points.

Ironic, isn't it. Your circuit was the basis for all your thrashing
about CF's and impedance. But it doesn't exist. If you ask nicely,
I'll tell you how I know that.

Besides, saying that you can drive low impedances with a CF cause you
can drive a speaker to 5mW with your 741 "power amp." That's rather
silly, isn't it. That was rather the point of my CF comment, so no
real surprise that you suddenly can't produce that 5mW window-buster.
And therefore no surprise that you didn't understand CF dynamics.

>>>He refuses to explain his concept of "virtual" output impedance, and how it
>>>differs mathematically from what the rest of us consider output impedance.
>>>Nor will he explain how a CF with the tube driven to cutoff actually defines
>>>the operation of a CF. Instead, he continues to deflect in the vain hope that
>>>nobody will realize he doesn't know shit.
>>
>> "He." Who are you talking to here?
>
>Lame deflection. You know damn well "he" refers to *you*. No worries; keep
>hoping you can bullshit the clueless.

Whoosh! The word was "to," Defecant. Are you still trying to
impress Valve? You made him look rather bad last time. You don't want
to do that again.

So...if a vanilla opamp can drive an 8 ohm speaker so well, how well
do you think it would it drive 5600 ohms. Tough question, but I think
you can get this!

[Defiant]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:02:44 -0400, RavagedSphincter sniveled:

> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:04:05 +0000 (UTC), Defiant
> <tras...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:34:57 -0400, RS wrote:
>>
>>> I told you not to get distracted. 5 milliwatts was the figure. That's
>>> your whole premise for all of this. So post the circuit. I'll use
>>> your own circuit to show you where you're wrong. Then you can tell me
>>> how much you know about opamps and cathode followers.
>>
>>Deflection again. You demand "proof" from me while never explaining
>>your ridiculous statements about "virtual" impedance and CF impedance.
>>You know you stepped in shit, so you will continue to avoid those
>>thorny points.
>
> Ironic, isn't it. Your circuit was the basis for all your thrashing
> about CF's and impedance. But it doesn't exist. If you ask nicely,
> I'll tell you how I know that.
>
> Besides, saying that you can drive low impedances with a CF cause you
> can drive a speaker to 5mW with your 741 "power amp." That's rather
> silly, isn't it. That was rather the point of my CF comment, so no
> real surprise that you suddenly can't produce that 5mW window-buster.
> And therefore no surprise that you didn't understand CF dynamics.

Tell you what. Since you're so hung up on it, why don't you tell us
(that would be me and everyone else reading this thread) how much power
a 741 can deliver into an 8 ohm speaker? After I tell you why you're wrong,
we can discuss your CF assertions. Agreed?