What is the most powerful audio output tube?

[boomer#...@none.com]

What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
output?

I have gotten some powerful sound from four 6L6 tubes in push-pull
parallel. but I want more. I know it's possible to use eight 6L6 tubes,
which I believe is called " push-pull parallel - parallel", but I'm
looking into other possible tubes.

At one time, I thought the 807 tube was more powerful than the 6L6, but
after careful research, it's almost identical, but with a different
envelope (plate on the top cap).

I'm looking to get a full 500W RMS (or more) output (per channel), from
all tubes, .... With four 6L6 tubes in PPP, I can only get around 120W
RMS (per channel).

[bitrex]

The output tranny required for 500 watts RMS is going to be a huge piece
of fuck-off iron that will probably set you back the better part of a
grand, at least.

500 watts RMS from four tubes will require you to step up way beyond
6L6es and 807s, I think. You're probably going to want to look at
something like RF power triodes or tetrodes, 813s or the GU-13 if you're
okay with going ex-Soviet.

I am not a pro tube guy though so that's just my guess.

[Tauno Voipio]

807 is the transmitting version of 6L6, so it's no wonder that it looks
similar.

For the power level you're after, you may need real transmitting tubes,
e.g. a pair of 3-500Z's. Please understand that the voltages and
currents encountered at those power levels will be lethal in careless
hands.

--

-TV

[Ralph Barone]

Go big or go home.
http://www.g8wrb.org/tetrodes/

[Baron]

boomer#687...@none.com prodded the keyboard with:

Have a look for a Trix cinema amplifier, they did one that used a pair
of 813's at around 500 W rms 100 volt line out.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

first hit on google for 500w tube amp

http://www.chambonino.com/construct/const9.html

[Big Bad Bob]

On 12/08/16 07:19, boomer#687...@none.com so wittily quipped:

you'd probably do well with 6550, or KT88 (or maybe 8417 if you can find
them) - I think you'd need 6 of them for 500W. Output transformer might
be a bit more difficult.

this page shows the 1650W for 280W and 6 to 8 output tubes

http://www.hammondmfg.com/1608.htm

if you're desperate, you could just bridge two of them to get 560W, or
tweek the circuit and use the 8 ohm output on 4 ohms and run the risk of
frying the transformer at some point...

[mako...@yahoo.com]

> > What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
> > output?
> >
>
>

You want a pair of 6427's like WABC used to run

http://hawkins.pair.com/wabc.shtml

(RMS watts is a misnomer)

m

[Tauno Voipio]

The maximum plate dissipation of a 813 is 100 W, which is a bit too
little for continuous 500 W out. 4 * 813 will stand 400 W on plate,
but 2 * 3-500Z will stand 1 kW.

--

-TV

PS. Been there, done that. I still have a scar due to a transmitter
built with 813's.

[Jim Thompson]

<http://www.radiowrench.com/sonic/so02017.html>

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

There is no fool quite like an audiphool.

[John Larkin]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Tubes/833.jpg


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[John Larkin]

The transformer is the problem, especially if you go with a giant
transmitting tube that runs at high plate voltages.

There have been transformerless audio power amps, using that beast
low-mu triode tube, the one Tek used in their B+ regulators.

Why not use mosfets? Toobs are silly.

[Tim Wescott]

AM Radio stations used some that would do 50,000W, I believe. Is that
sufficient?

You don't want the "most powerful" tube -- you just want one that fits
your wimpy (relative to "big radio") requirements.

If you're serious about this, get this book. It'll provide hours of
drooling entertainment if you're just a fanboy, so it'll still be worth
it:

https://www.tubesandmore.com/products/rca-transmitting-tube-manual-tt-5

There are a lot of tubes that will do your job that are both in that book
and available.

The 1625 is basically an 807 with a different base and a 12V filament --
all other ratings are the same. It's much cheaper than the 807 from
tubesandmore.com. Eight of them (enough to do 500W) is cheaper than a
pair of 813's, and they'll run at a much less lethal plate voltage.

A pair of 4-1000A tubes would be dandy, but I don't know where to find
them (I'm a fanboy, not an expert).

Note that ALL of the tubes I'm mentioning here are radio tubes, not
audiophile tubes -- if you judge an amplifier by more than how hot it
gets and how much it costs, you may not be happy with the sound.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[Dave Platt]

In article <hcSdnRvDjfWQAdTF...@giganews.com>,

Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

>If you're serious about this, get this book. It'll provide hours of
>drooling entertainment if you're just a fanboy, so it'll still be worth
>it:
>
>https://www.tubesandmore.com/products/rca-transmitting-tube-manual-tt-5

Scan available for free at http://w5jgv.com/downloads/RCA-TT-5.PDF
(although the price of the Tubes And More reprint is an excellent one!)

The application tables for AF power amplifier and modulator service
start on page 88. The 7650 and 833A seem to be the brutes of the lot.

[Tauno Voipio]

4CX1000A and friends are more fussy to handle than the glass-envelope
toobs, and an audio amplifier does not need the minimal-RF-impedance
structures of the external-anode ceramic tubes.

--

-TV

[bitrex]

Yeah, not to mention the "instant death" ~1.5kV supply and cap bank that
would be required to feed such a beast.

> There have been transformerless audio power amps, using that beast
> low-mu triode tube, the one Tek used in their B+ regulators.

I think that's the 6080/6AS7. I saw a 50 watt OTL amp that used
something like 8 or 12 of 'em in push pull parallel to hit that.

I can't even imagine what you'd have to throw at that topology to get 500.

> Why not use mosfets? Toobs are silly.

An OTL headphone amp using say a single 6N7 power triode for each
channel and something like a 12AU7 used as a diff-pair gain stage would
be a nice weekend project for maybe half a watt per channel - way more
than required.

You can drive MOSFETs or tubes of the same polarity stacked totem-pole
from a tube diff pair, but the driver design has to be a little clever
to equalize output impedance and gain between the stages:

http://www.tubecad.com/2010/12/29/Low-Voltage%20OTL.png

I'd question my sanity if I started thinking about a 500 RMS watt
all-tube amp though. Well, this guy actually did do something rather crazy:

http://www.chambonino.com/construct/const9.html

Output transformer looks like it weighs about as much as I do.

[Tauno Voipio]

On 8.12.16 19:44, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:19:23 -0600, boomer#6877250 wrote:
>
>> What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
>> output?
>>
>> I have gotten some powerful sound from four 6L6 tubes in push-pull
>> parallel. but I want more. I know it's possible to use eight 6L6 tubes,
>> which I believe is called " push-pull parallel - parallel", but I'm
>> looking into other possible tubes.
>>
>> At one time, I thought the 807 tube was more powerful than the 6L6, but
>> after careful research, it's almost identical, but with a different
>> envelope (plate on the top cap).
>>
>> I'm looking to get a full 500W RMS (or more) output (per channel), from
>> all tubes, .... With four 6L6 tubes in PPP, I can only get around 120W
>> RMS (per channel).
>
> AM Radio stations used some that would do 50,000W, I believe. Is that
> sufficient?
>
> You don't want the "most powerful" tube -- you just want one that fits
> your wimpy (relative to "big radio") requirements.
>
> If you're serious about this, get this book. It'll provide hours of
> drooling entertainment if you're just a fanboy, so it'll still be worth
> it:
>
> https://www.tubesandmore.com/products/rca-transmitting-tube-manual-tt-5
>

Eimac's 'The Care and Feeding of Power-grid Tubes' is also very good,
if it is somewhere to be found.

> A pair of 4-1000A tubes would be dandy, but I don't know where to find
> them (I'm a fanboy, not an expert).

For Class-B push-pull a pair of zero-bias triodes is much easier
to handle, e.g. 3-500Z or 3-1000Z. The kilowatt tubes are a bit
of overkill for 500 W output.

> Note that ALL of the tubes I'm mentioning here are radio tubes, not
> audiophile tubes -- if you judge an amplifier by more than how hot it
> gets and how much it costs, you may not be happy with the sound.

Right - the big tubes are classified as transmitting tubes even when
they are used in high-level AM modulators (where IMHO the biggest
audio outputs are used).

--

-TV

[bitrex]

On 12/08/2016 02:18 PM, bitrex wrote:

> I'd question my sanity if I started thinking about a 500 RMS watt
> all-tube amp though. Well, this guy actually did do something rather crazy:
>
> http://www.chambonino.com/construct/const9.html
>
> Output transformer looks like it weighs about as much as I do.

There's not nearly enough protection on that monster for my liking,
either. If I were crazy enough to build something like that I'd probably
have a dedicated uP on every output tube monitoring all the
voltages/currents of interest and shutting everything down quickly if
something looked amiss.

Those transformers don't look cheap.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 15:51:54 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:

> Go big or go home. http://www.g8wrb.org/tetrodes/

The last toob in that list (1MW) has the comment "the ultimate tube for
QRP" so I'm guessing this person doesn't know his Ps for his Os. Unless
he's aiming for ultimate sarcasm.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

http://www.g8wrb.org/data/Eimac/care_and_feeding_of_power_grid_tubes.pdf

Cheers,
James Arthur

[boB]

How about a high AVERAGE output wattage ?

:)

boB

[bitrex]

The ex-Soviet version GU-48 are pretty cheap on eBay...

[Tim Wescott]

May not be the best sounding result if you're going for audiophoolery.
Low-mu triodes with the grid voltages negative would be best then, or AB1
beam tubes, maybe.

[sdy]

Long time ago we used to run 10KW into a vibrator made by Altec (the speaker company). The two tubes were ceramic with clamps instead of pins, sitting in a water jacket. The water went to a cooling tower on the roof. The vibrator was basicaly a giant speaker coli made of copper tubing with coolant flowing thru it. Also a by de-gaussing coil. They glowed the coolest red.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>
> May not be the best sounding result if you're going for audiophoolery.
> Low-mu triodes with the grid voltages negative would be best then, or AB1
> beam tubes, maybe.
>
> --
> Tim Wescott

It seems to me that the most economical approach to having a tube sounding high power amp would be to build a low power tube amplifier to get the sound desired and follow that with a high fidelity high power class D amplifier. That would give you the sound wanted and not have the problems of a high power tube ampliier. Of course you would have to add a lot of weight to make it suitable for some people.

Dan

[krw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHjcwIoTiY

[Tim Wescott]

I'm not sold on the fidelity of class D amps (but maybe I'm behind the
times).

Toob purists won't sign up for it unless there's a toob in there.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

[krw]

Audiophools never are. ;-)

>
>Toob purists won't sign up for it unless there's a toob in there.

Or have oxygen-free, Litz, speaker cables.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"AM Radio stations used some that would do 50,000W, I believe. Is that
sufficient? "

But that is class C. not quite audiophile I would say.

[boB]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:29:40 -0800 (PST), sdy <sdey...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

That reminds me of a shake table a local company, the amplifier at
least made by Altec (LTV Ling) with noise generator and many channels
of graphic EQ to adjust the shake spectrum. Pretty darn impressive.

Lots of power but don't remember how much if I ever did know...

boB

[upsid...@downunder.com]

Old style amplitude modulated transmitter consisted of high power
audio amplifier (class AB/B) driving the primary of the modulation
transformer. The secondary was connected between the V+ supply and
the anode of the RF tube. This effectively varied the anode voltage of
the class-C RF tube and hence varied the RF output in accordance with
the audio waveform.

The modulation audio amplifier tube and the RF tube had similar power
ratings.

[Phil Allison]

boomer#...@none.com wrote:
>
> What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
> output?
>
> I have gotten some powerful sound from four 6L6 tubes in push-pull
> parallel. but I want more. I know it's possible to use eight 6L6 tubes,
> which I believe is called " push-pull parallel - parallel", but I'm
> looking into other possible tubes.
>
> At one time, I thought the 807 tube was more powerful than the 6L6, but
> after careful research, it's almost identical, but with a different
> envelope (plate on the top cap).
>
> I'm looking to get a full 500W RMS (or more) output (per channel), from
> all tubes, .... With four 6L6 tubes in PPP, I can only get around 120W
> RMS (per channel).
>

** Take a look at the Fender 400PS.

It uses 6 x 6550s or KT88s to get a genuine 435W rms.

Very clever output stage set up, with transformer drive and multiple secondaries each supplying 1/3 of the power.

http://bmamps.com/Schematics/fender/400ps.pdf


.... Phil

[Tauno Voipio]

For 100% plate modulation, the audio amplifier output power must be
one-half the input power of the Class C power amplifier. In addition,
the Class C amplifier must be dimensioned so that it is able to
provide the modulation peak power (4 times carrier power) with double
carrier-level plate voltage.

--

-TV

[Piotr Wyderski]

dca...@krl.org wrote:

> It seems to me that the most economical approach to having a tube sounding high power amp would be to build
> a low power tube amplifier to get the sound desired and follow that
with a high fidelity high power class D amplifier.

http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms/Elec_Compound2.html

Best regards, Piotr

[piglet]

On 08/12/2016 15:19, boomer#687...@none.com wrote:
> What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
> output?
>
> I have gotten some powerful sound from four 6L6 tubes in push-pull
> parallel. but I want more. I know it's possible to use eight 6L6 tubes,
> which I believe is called " push-pull parallel - parallel", but I'm
> looking into other possible tubes.
>
> At one time, I thought the 807 tube was more powerful than the 6L6, but
> after careful research, it's almost identical, but with a different
> envelope (plate on the top cap).
>
> I'm looking to get a full 500W RMS (or more) output (per channel), from
> all tubes, .... With four 6L6 tubes in PPP, I can only get around 120W
> RMS (per channel).
>

I had one of these in my collection:

<http://r-type.org/exhib/aaa1098.htm>

sold it on ebay to some audio guy for lot of money :)

The heater alone consumes 90 watts.

piglet

[mako...@yahoo.com]

nice!

[Roger Hayter]

I think you are fighting a losing battle here. About 10 or 20 years ago
I wrote to the editors of the RSGB magazine complaining about "RMS
power" being used in an article they published and they refused to
publish my letter, apparently on the grounds that I was a boring pedant.
Admittedly AM does get a bit complicated when the peak RF power of an AM
transmitter is a real power (not an instaneous peak of a sinewave)
whereas it represents the peak of an audio waveform of which the power
is not determined by the level of this peak. But there is still no
such thing as RMS power.

--

Roger Hayter

[Michael A. Terrell]

boomer#687...@none.com wrote:
> What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
> output?
>
> I have gotten some powerful sound from four 6L6 tubes in push-pull
> parallel. but I want more. I know it's possible to use eight 6L6 tubes,
> which I believe is called " push-pull parallel - parallel", but I'm
> looking into other possible tubes.
>
> At one time, I thought the 807 tube was more powerful than the 6L6, but
> after careful research, it's almost identical, but with a different
> envelope (plate on the top cap).
>
> I'm looking to get a full 500W RMS (or more) output (per channel), from
> all tubes, .... With four 6L6 tubes in PPP, I can only get around 120W
> RMS (per channel).

http://www.g8wrb.org/data/Eimac/8973.pdf A pair will give you over two
megawatts.

--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 9 December 2016 20:45:22 UTC, Michael Terrell wrote:

> http://www.g8wrb.org/data/Eimac/8973.pdf A pair will give you over two
> megawatts.

650A heater current. I'm not sure my glass 2v accumulators would support that.


NT

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

"only" ~12kW, a couple of BIG stick welders and you are getting there :)

[boomer#...@none.com]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:53:05 -0800 (PST), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> >
>> >(RMS watts is a misnomer)
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHjcwIoTiY

It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer), without having
to watch a frikkin video, which in my case is not possible. Some of us,
myself included do not have access to high speed internet. Videos can be
fun, but why make a video to state something that can be stated in a
paragraph?

[krw]

"RMS" is short for "root means square", or the square-root of the
"average" of the values squared. Power is voltage-squared times
resistance. The power produced by a voltage source is the effective
voltage times the resistance. For DC, the effective voltage is the
same as the voltage. In the case of a sine wave, the "effective"
voltage is the peak to peak voltage divided by SQRT(2). For other
wave shapes the difference between the effective (or RMS) voltage and
the peak voltage is different but the RMS voltage is the effective
voltage.

Now go back to power, (RMS)Voltage * (RMS) voltage / resistance =
power. It makes no sense to say RMS * RMS = RMS. It's not, it's just
"power". RMS has no physical meaning for power.

[boomer#...@none.com]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 17:51:34 -0500, krw <k...@somewhere.com> wrote:

>>It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer), without having
>>to watch a frikkin video, which in my case is not possible. Some of us,
>>myself included do not have access to high speed internet. Videos can be
>>fun, but why make a video to state something that can be stated in a
>>paragraph?
>
>"RMS" is short for "root means square", or the square-root of the
>"average" of the values squared. Power is voltage-squared times
>resistance. The power produced by a voltage source is the effective
>voltage times the resistance. For DC, the effective voltage is the
>same as the voltage. In the case of a sine wave, the "effective"
>voltage is the peak to peak voltage divided by SQRT(2). For other
>wave shapes the difference between the effective (or RMS) voltage and
>the peak voltage is different but the RMS voltage is the effective
>voltage.
>
>Now go back to power, (RMS)Voltage * (RMS) voltage / resistance =
>power. It makes no sense to say RMS * RMS = RMS. It's not, it's just
>"power". RMS has no physical meaning for power.
>

Thanks for the useful info. Is there any method to determine the ACTUAL
power output from an amplifier? Yes, I know that with a sine wave, there
will be bursts of power, with most being from the bass or low end. But
there has to be a way to state the actual Maximum power any amp can
produce. Not only to know the abilities of an amp, but also to choose a
speaker(s) that can handle the maximum power.

If this is all based on mathematics, I am a not very good with math...
(I'm being honest about that).

[Roger Hayter]

Furthermore, if you calculate the power during a cycle of the sine wave
voltage input and plot it instantaneously you get a new sine wave (well
its starting value may make it a cosine wave - but same difference) at
twice the frequency, and not crossing the zero line. So the average
power is the *average* value of that sine wave, which is half its peak,
and the same answer as expression above gives using RMS voltage. If
you measured the RMS amplitude instead of the average amplitude of that
new sine wave you would get totally the wrong answer. So there *is*
such a thing as RMS power but it is a physically meaningless and useless
figure.


--

Roger Hayter

[krw]

"Maximum" power is another misnomer, in this sense anyway. Since the
problem is heat, you want to find the average power over some, perhaps
small, interval. There are a few ways of measuring this. One can put
the speakers in water and measure the temperature rise. ;-) Or,
measure the voltage and current waveforms and multiply the two and
average over the interval of interest.

>
>If this is all based on mathematics, I am a not very good with math...
>(I'm being honest about that).

Simple arithmetic is all that's needed, at least at this level.

[krw]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 01:50:17 +0000, ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Sure. You can take the RMS value of the national debt or what Hillary
spent on losing but the result is pretty meaningless.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Power is voltage-squared times
resistance."

You oopsed that one. It is current squared times resistance, or voltage squared divided by resistance. I say oopsed because I am pretty sure you know that and if you could edit posts here you probably would have. Not as bad as some of my gaffs though, like typing "now" instead of "not" or vice versa. Other than that you wrote a pretty good explanation of it.

However there are other concerns having to do with language that don't really fit with real math. Like unemployment, it is NOT 5 %, "inflation" which is supposed to be the inverse of the value loss of the currency is not calculated correctly, that's just what they call it.
Remember "I can't eat an ipad" ?

They should have probably called it something else but I wouldn't trust any convention of today to do it, like not having a Constitutional convention. But a nutritionalist is now a nutritionist, a croiminologist is now a criminalist, the fovea in your eye is now called the macula.

If they could simply say that now what was called "RMS power" is now called "average power" or "real power" or something like that it would suit me just fine. But once the people who decide such things get busy they get too many bright ideas. They might decide on a slightly different formula at the behest of the manufacturers.

In other words, sometimes you just have to go with it. Sine wave peak voltage at a certain distortion level also specified times 0.707 times itself divided by resistance is what they call RMS power. Even if they rename it right you can't go back through a hundred years of owner manuals and change them all.

And remember the formula only applies to two channel equipment or the front two channels of surround amps etc. They can do whatever they want with the rest. That means pro audio as well, I have seen pro amps that say "450 watts + 450 watts that had about 55 volt power rails. You don't even get that into four ohms, and with only one pair of outputs per channel I doubt they will do too well on a two ohm load.

The standards also do not apply to car audio. Even with separate power supplies and 30 amp fuses to each the limit is around 360 watts per at any impedance load, yet some claim 1,000.

They lie. The FTC tested some new LED lamps and found out that some don't put out near the lumens they claim. The government lets them lie more and more. You get an interest bearing bank account and they tell you the APY, not the APR. The number looks better.

Same with MPG figures for cars, it is always YMMV because they lie. Actually they put it that way in the US so the numbers look better, much of the rest of the world uses litres per kilometer which means the lower number is better.

At least with this mythical "RMS power" you can count on something. Not peak instantaneous power, not music power whatever that means. Like if the same people measure the MPG of a car the same way at least you have a method of comparison.

[krw]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 18:13:28 -0800 (PST), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

>>"Power is voltage-squared times
>resistance."
>
>You oopsed that one. It is current squared times resistance, or voltage squared divided by resistance. I say oopsed because I am pretty sure you know that and if you could edit posts here you probably would have. Not as bad as some of my gaffs though, like typing "now" instead of "not" or vice versa. Other than that you wrote a pretty good explanation of it.

Yes, you're correct. s/times/divided by/

>However there are other concerns having to do with language that don't really fit with real math. Like unemployment, it is NOT 5 %, "inflation" which is supposed to be the inverse of the value loss of the currency is not calculated correctly, that's just what they call it.

You have to look at the definitions. They're not always what you
think they should be but they are what they are.

>Remember "I can't eat an ipad" ?

You wouldn't want to eat a MaxiPad, either. ...or a steel wool pad,
either.

>They should have probably called it something else but I wouldn't trust any convention of today to do it, like not having a Constitutional convention. But a nutritionalist is now a nutritionist, a croiminologist is now a criminalist, the fovea in your eye is now called the macula.
>
>If they could simply say that now what was called "RMS power" is now called "average power" or "real power" or something like that it would suit me just fine. But once the people who decide such things get busy they get too many bright ideas. They might decide on a slightly different formula at the behest of the manufacturers.
>
>In other words, sometimes you just have to go with it. Sine wave peak voltage at a certain distortion level also specified times 0.707 times itself divided by resistance is what they call RMS power. Even if they rename it right you can't go back through a hundred years of owner manuals and change them all.

Sine waves aren't a good measure of audio amp performance. Sound has
a much higher crest factor.

>And remember the formula only applies to two channel equipment or the front two channels of surround amps etc. They can do whatever they want with the rest. That means pro audio as well, I have seen pro amps that say "450 watts + 450 watts that had about 55 volt power rails. You don't even get that into four ohms, and with only one pair of outputs per channel I doubt they will do too well on a two ohm load.

(55V/1.4)^2/4 is about 400W. Allow some clipping...

>
>The standards also do not apply to car audio. Even with separate power supplies and 30 amp fuses to each the limit is around 360 watts per at any impedance load, yet some claim 1,000.

From the above, you must think they use 10mohm speakers. ;-)

>They lie. The FTC tested some new LED lamps and found out that some don't put out near the lumens they claim. The government lets them lie more and more. You get an interest bearing bank account and they tell you the APY, not the APR. The number looks better.
>
>Same with MPG figures for cars, it is always YMMV because they lie. Actually they put it that way in the US so the numbers look better, much of the rest of the world uses litres per kilometer which means the lower number is better.
>
>At least with this mythical "RMS power" you can count on something. Not peak instantaneous power, not music power whatever that means. Like if the same people measure the MPG of a car the same way at least you have a method of comparison.

The bottom line is that you don't know how audio power is measured.
Hint: They don't use sine waves.

[Phil Allison]

boomer#...@none.com wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the useful info. Is there any method to determine the ACTUAL
> power output from an amplifier?
>

** Maker's specs are normally quite correct for any AC powered amplifier.

> Yes, I know that with a sine wave, there
> will be bursts of power, with most being from the bass or low end.

** That has no comprehensible meaning.

> But
> there has to be a way to state the actual Maximum power any amp can
> produce.
>

** See the maker's specs.

> Not only to know the abilities of an amp, but also to choose a
> speaker(s) that can handle the maximum power.

** There is no easy way to do that and a lot depends on what the purpose of the amplifier and speaker is - plus who is going to operate the system.

Unlike amplifiers, most speakers have no fixed limit on max power input - only a limit on the average power they can handle over a period of time. The problem is that speaker maker's never tell you what that is.


... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"The bottom line is that you don't know how audio power is measured.
Hint: They don't use sine waves. "

They used to. So more has changed. Fine, if I buy anything I'll measure it myself from now on, but that is unlikely. The old Phase Linear can blow many speakers and run me out of money to not be able to pay the electric bill.

[Jon Elson]

boomer#687...@none.com wrote:

> What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
> output?
>

4CX25000A would be good! Hmmm, I think the filament runa about 10 V at 170
A, you can run at least 10 KV on the anode at several amps. The output
transformer would be about the size of a small car.

I was at a Greatful Dead concert in 1969 at the Fox Theater in St. Louis,
and they used the modulator out of an AM broadcast transmitter as an audio
amp. The tubes were about a foot in diameter.

Jon

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"(55V/1.4)^2/4 is about 400W. Allow some clipping... "

It's 378. Number one, how much clipping do I allow. Ten percent ? That is hard to take even for regular people let alone anything even close to an audiophile. Also, that 55 volts was measured with no load. The units have basic iron, not a tightly regulated SMPS. No way in hell it maintains that.

>"From the above, you must think they use 10mohm speakers. ;-) "

Watts is volts times amps. The speaker impedance does not matter. I remember when Fostgate had not been bought by Rockford and they rated into eight ohms and used higher rail voltages. After the buyout they started going to the lower impedance load for their power ratings.

You do realize that higher impedance dynamic speakers are more efficient right ? All that lower impedances do is to not make you kick up the voltage as much, but per watt, with all else equal, lower impedance is less efficient per watt. NOT per volt.

In fact even house stereo speaker manufacturers have gotten away from 1 watt/ 1 meter sensitivity ratings because to get the good sound they have to use that choke in the crossove that makes the load more reactive, and plus like in the case of my Boston Acoustics which sounded great, a 3.1 ohm woofer. And it had inductance in front of it to bring out that bottom octave.

So now many of them use @ 2.83 VRMS/1 meter for that spec. And in the meantime most consumer amps cannot handle that load. I have had a few pairs of speakers with good bass that kicked in the current limiting on some amps.

So now you are telling me they don't even use a sine wave ? how the hell do they measure the distortion then ? To have to old rating system it had to be a sine wave because the distortion meter requires a sine wave.

Unless they use the null method but then it has to be phase compensated to be fair, and that is pretty much a bunch of shit.

Generally I take the easy way out. I just use integrated program material, rock usually and crank it into a real load until it clips, and I see the rails dropping and the ripple in it in the envelope on the scope. I take that peak value and just say "Your amp clips at ____ watts". Older amps do better because they didn't have quite the linearity at the upper ranges of their power, and that is what gave us 3dB clipping headroom, because like Pioneer, all of them, they did not want to claim that power rating at 8 % distortion. And it cost them in bigger heatsinks ad all that, but their customers didn't mind the extra watts. Or the extra weight.

<"You have to look at the definitions. They're not always what you
think they should be but they are what they are. "

Then apply the same standards and accept the "RMS watt". I will still be measuring it the same way.

[Phil Allison]

boomer#...

>
>
>
> It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer),
>

** People who see a term being used in trade or commerce etc and think they know what it means from a literal interpretation of the words are called idiots.

A *term* means what the folk USING it intend it to mean.

A bottle of "Steak Sauce" contains no steak, but from the term it ought to be made from steak.

The term "watts RMS" is defined and used to mean the average power output measured with a sine wave signal and specified load.

Only morons reverse the word order and imply that "RMS watts" are a special kind.


.... Phil

[upsid...@downunder.com]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:47:28 -0600, boomer#687...@none.com wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 17:51:34 -0500, krw <k...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer), without having
>>>to watch a frikkin video, which in my case is not possible. Some of us,
>>>myself included do not have access to high speed internet. Videos can be
>>>fun, but why make a video to state something that can be stated in a
>>>paragraph?
>>
>>"RMS" is short for "root means square", or the square-root of the
>>"average" of the values squared. Power is voltage-squared times
>>resistance. The power produced by a voltage source is the effective
>>voltage times the resistance. For DC, the effective voltage is the
>>same as the voltage. In the case of a sine wave, the "effective"
>>voltage is the peak to peak voltage divided by SQRT(2). For other
>>wave shapes the difference between the effective (or RMS) voltage and
>>the peak voltage is different but the RMS voltage is the effective
>>voltage.
>>
>>Now go back to power, (RMS)Voltage * (RMS) voltage / resistance =
>>power. It makes no sense to say RMS * RMS = RMS. It's not, it's just
>>"power". RMS has no physical meaning for power.
>>
>
>Thanks for the useful info. Is there any method to determine the ACTUAL
>power output from an amplifier?

The classical method of measuring arbitrary waveform power up into the
RF, microwave and light frequencies is to feed the unknown waveform to
a resistor.

An other identical resistor is heated by a variable DC source, which
is adjusted until the resistors are at the same temperature. Then jus
measure the DC source voltage and current and multiply them together.

Of course, this is a slow method, so this is a good way for long time
output power measurements.

A more modern method of measuring how much power is actually delivered
into a speaker is to put a small (less than 0.1 ohm) in series with
the speaker. Using a two channel (stereo) ADC, measure the amplifier
output voltage directly from the amplifier terminals on one channel
(L) and the voltage drop (current) across the resistor (R).

Put the resistor in the speaker return wire to avoid ADC common mode
issues.

Assuming the ADC runs at 48 kHz, for each sample first scale both
samples so that they represents Volts resp. Amperes. Then multiple the
L and R channel scaled samples with each other (representing the
instant ious energy for that sample) and add the product to an
accumulator. After 1 second divide the accumulated value by 48000 to
get directly watts. If you want 1 minute average, after one minute,
divide by 2,880,000. Then reset accumulator for next period.

[Roger Hayter]

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

> boomer#...@none.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the useful info. Is there any method to determine the ACTUAL
> > power output from an amplifier?
> >
>
> ** Maker's specs are normally quite correct for any AC powered amplifier.

That may be true in the industrial amplifier market, but in the consumer
market I don't think it is even vaguely true. Such meaningless
expressions as "peak audio power" are common.

>
> > Yes, I know that with a sine wave, there
> > will be bursts of power, with most being from the bass or low end.
>
> ** That has no comprehensible meaning.
>
>
> > But
> > there has to be a way to state the actual Maximum power any amp can
> > produce.
> >
>
> ** See the maker's specs.
>
> > Not only to know the abilities of an amp, but also to choose a
> > speaker(s) that can handle the maximum power.
>
> ** There is no easy way to do that and a lot depends on what the purpose
> of the amplifier and speaker is - plus who is going to operate the system.
>
> Unlike amplifiers, most speakers have no fixed limit on max power input -
> only a limit on the average power they can handle over a period of time.
> The problem is that speaker maker's never tell you what that is.
>
>
> ... Phil

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Maths may be needed to understand the measurements, but very little is
needed to do the actual measurement. The power output of an audio
amplifier is defined as the power produced into a defined load (often
four or eight ohms) as an audio sine wave at a given frequency, or range
of frequencies, with a given degree of distortion. The power in an
audio sine wave can be at most about a quarter of maximum voltage peak
the amplifier can achieve into a suitable load resistance sqared and
divided by that resistance. Because by defiinition we are talking
about power in an audio sine wave. Any power above that would be very
distorted. In theory an amplifier could produce about four times as
much power as a square wave as it could as a sine wave. So to measure
it you need a standard resistive load, a voltmeter and a distortion
measuring meter of some kind. Oh, and a signal generator to drive the
amplifier with an audio signal of the desired frequency.

For a solid state amplifier the supply voltage to the output stage and
for a valve amplifier the designed anode dissipation of the output
valves can give a very good idea of the maximum possible power an audio
amplifier could produce. It is an interesting exercise to compare that
with the claimed power output of an amplifier. At the very least,
comparing this with the claimed power output can give one an idea of
what class of people the makers are trying to sell the amplifier to.

--

Roger Hayter

[Phil Allison]

Roger Hayter wrote:


> > >
> > > Thanks for the useful info. Is there any method to determine the ACTUAL
> > > power output from an amplifier?
> > >
> >
> > ** Maker's specs are normally quite correct for any AC powered amplifier.
>
> That may be true in the industrial amplifier market,
>

** No, it is generally true of audio amplifiers for hi-fi and pro audio.

> but in the consumer
> market I don't think it is even vaguely true.

** Think again.

> Such meaningless
> expressions as "peak audio power" are common.
>
>

** In car audio and portables.

Not "AC powered ".


.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

Roger Hayter wrote:

>
>
> Maths may be needed to understand the measurements, but very little is
> needed to do the actual measurement. The power output of an audio
> amplifier is defined as the power produced into a defined load (often
> four or eight ohms) as an audio sine wave at a given frequency, or range
> of frequencies, with a given degree of distortion.
>

** Correct.

> The power in an
> audio sine wave can be at most about a quarter of maximum voltage peak
> the amplifier can achieve into a suitable load resistance sqared and
> divided by that resistance.

** Wrong - and how very dumb.

> n theory an amplifier could produce about four times as
> much power as a square wave as it could as a sine wave.

** Wrong again, same basic error.

The power ratio is 2:1.

> For a solid state amplifier the supply voltage to the output stage and
> for a valve amplifier the designed anode dissipation of the output
> valves can give a very good idea of the maximum possible power an audio
> amplifier could produce.
>

** Wrong about valve amplifiers.

A pair of output valves can be run in class A, class AB, class B and class B split rail modes.

Efficiency varies from 30% to 75% over that range - so the power output varies by a large factor.

.... Phil

[Roger Hayter]

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

> Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Maths may be needed to understand the measurements, but very little is
> > needed to do the actual measurement. The power output of an audio
> > amplifier is defined as the power produced into a defined load (often
> > four or eight ohms) as an audio sine wave at a given frequency, or range
> > of frequencies, with a given degree of distortion.
> >
>
> ** Correct.
>
> > The power in an
> > audio sine wave can be at most about a quarter of maximum voltage peak
> > the amplifier can achieve into a suitable load resistance sqared and
> > divided by that resistance.
>
> ** Wrong - and how very dumb.
>

Noted.

>
> > n theory an amplifier could produce about four times as
> > much power as a square wave as it could as a sine wave.
>
> ** Wrong again, same basic error.
>
> The power ratio is 2:1.

You are of course correct. I was confused by the rail to rail voltage,
as indeed some advertisers seem to be!

>
>
> > For a solid state amplifier the supply voltage to the output stage and
> > for a valve amplifier the designed anode dissipation of the output
> > valves can give a very good idea of the maximum possible power an audio
> > amplifier could produce.
> >
>
> ** Wrong about valve amplifiers.
>
> A pair of output valves can be run in class A, class AB, class B and class
> B split rail modes.
>
> Efficiency varies from 30% to 75% over that range - so the power output
> varies by a large factor.
>
> .... Phil

I was saying that the maximum possible can be predicted - if the
designer decides to use class A then even this won't be achieved. Just
a rule of thumb to exclude ridiculous claims about "peak music power" or
whatever.


--

Roger Hayter

[upsid...@downunder.com]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:02:34 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Unlike amplifiers, most speakers have no fixed limit on max power input - only a limit on the average power they can handle over a period of time. The problem is that speaker maker's never tell you what that is.

The speaker coil resistance increases with temperature (and hence of
previous power input). The power limit can be calculated by knowing
the coil maximum temperature at a specific power (actually voltage
output for a typical amplifier).

The power limits for a closed speaker is more predictable, but for
bass reflex enclosures, you can easily blow the cone out at 20 Hz (not
to mention 3 Hz, which is typically the frequency, at which the final
amplifier drops to 1, due to the feedback loop) amplifier.

[Phil Allison]

upsid...@downunder.com wrote:


> >
> >Unlike amplifiers, most speakers have no fixed limit on max power
> >input - only a limit on the average power they can handle over a
> >period of time. The problem is that speaker maker's never tell you
> > what that is.
>
>
> The speaker coil resistance increases with temperature (and hence of
> previous power input).

** No fooling.

> The power limit can be calculated by knowing
> the coil maximum temperature at a specific power (actually voltage
> output for a typical amplifier).
>

** Ever see that specified by anyone?

> The power limits for a closed speaker is more predictable, but for
> bass reflex enclosures, you can easily blow the cone out at 20 Hz (not
> to mention 3 Hz, which is typically the frequency, at which the final
> amplifier drops to 1, due to the feedback loop) amplifier.

** You on drugs ?

Or maybe just an incorrigible troll.

Please go away and stay there.

And read this too:

http://sound.whsites.net/articles/speaker-failure.html

See who wrote it??


.... Phil

[Rich S]

"Seems all is fair in a game where reality has been rendered meaningless."
Good one Phil!

[Roger Hayter]

Fair enought, maybe we should let an audio engineer be an audio engineer
and accept the colloquialism. But it does sometimes make if difficult
to discuss RF amplifier power with radio amateurs if people are
determined to look for RMS power.


--

Roger Hayter

[Phil Allison]

Rich S wrote:

>
>
> >
> > And read this too:
> >
> > http://sound.whsites.net/articles/speaker-failure.html
> >
> > See who wrote it??
> >
>
>

> "Seems all is fair in a game where reality has been rendered meaningless."
> Good one Phil!
>

** I suppose I could have said " ...there are lies, damn lies and loudspeaker specifications". But I know that some makers spec their drivers fairly honestly - JBL's professional series for example ( the ones with 4 digit numbers).



.... Phil

[krw]

Nonsense. Music isn't a sine wave. Such a measurement is meaningless
for an amplifier intended for audio. To drive industrial equipment,
perhaps.

[krw]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:44:57 -0800 (PST), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

>>"(55V/1.4)^2/4 is about 400W. Allow some clipping... "
>
>It's 378. Number one, how much clipping do I allow. Ten percent ? That is hard to take even for regular people let alone anything even close to an audiophile. Also, that 55 volts was measured with no load. The units have basic iron, not a tightly regulated SMPS. No way in hell it maintains that.

10% is a "normal" number.

>>"From the above, you must think they use 10mohm speakers. ;-) "
>
>Watts is volts times amps. The speaker impedance does not matter. I remember when Fostgate had not been bought by Rockford and they rated into eight ohms and used higher rail voltages. After the buyout they started going to the lower impedance load for their power ratings.

Silly.

>You do realize that higher impedance dynamic speakers are more efficient right ? All that lower impedances do is to not make you kick up the voltage as much, but per watt, with all else equal, lower impedance is less efficient per watt. NOT per volt.

Red herring.

>In fact even house stereo speaker manufacturers have gotten away from 1 watt/ 1 meter sensitivity ratings because to get the good sound they have to use that choke in the crossove that makes the load more reactive, and plus like in the case of my Boston Acoustics which sounded great, a 3.1 ohm woofer. And it had inductance in front of it to bring out that bottom octave.

Irrelevant.

>So now many of them use @ 2.83 VRMS/1 meter for that spec. And in the meantime most consumer amps cannot handle that load. I have had a few pairs of speakers with good bass that kicked in the current limiting on some amps.

Completely off the reservation.

>So now you are telling me they don't even use a sine wave ? how the hell do they measure the distortion then ? To have to old rating system it had to be a sine wave because the distortion meter requires a sine wave.

Of course not. Music isn't a sine wave. The ratio of the peak to
average power of a sine wave is 3dB. Music tends to be more like
20dB.

>Unless they use the null method but then it has to be phase compensated to be fair, and that is pretty much a bunch of shit.

More nonsense.

>Generally I take the easy way out. I just use integrated program material, rock usually and crank it into a real load until it clips, and I see the rails dropping and the ripple in it in the envelope on the scope. I take that peak value and just say "Your amp clips at ____ watts". Older amps do better because they didn't have quite the linearity at the upper ranges of their power, and that is what gave us 3dB clipping headroom, because like Pioneer, all of them, they did not want to claim that power rating at 8 % distortion. And it cost them in bigger heatsinks ad all that, but their customers didn't mind the extra watts. Or the extra weight.

And just what do you think the peak to average power is of your
"rock"?

><"You have to look at the definitions. They're not always what you
>think they should be but they are what they are. "
>
>Then apply the same standards and accept the "RMS watt". I will still be measuring it the same way.

The terms "RMS" and "watt" has a specific meanings. Put the two
together and it describes something that doesn't have meaning in the
physical world. OTOH, if you want to define "RMS watt" to me the mean
distance between Pluto and Uranus, I'm fine with it (as long as you
specify everything). That doesn't mean the term, itself, makes any
sense.

[Clifford Heath]

On 11/12/16 16:58, Phil Allison wrote:
> A *term* means what the folk USING it intend it to mean.
>
> A bottle of "Steak Sauce" contains no steak, but from the term it ought to be made from steak.

Phew. So it's ok to continue to use baby oil then.
"Contains no actual babies".

Q: How many linguists does it take to change a broken light globe?

A: 3 - one to change it, and two more to argue about what type of
globe emits broken light.

Clifford Heath.

[Unknown]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:58:27 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>boomer#...
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer),
>>
>
>** People who see a term being used in trade or commerce etc and think they know what it means from a literal interpretation of the words are called idiots.
>
>A *term* means what the folk USING it intend it to mean.
>
>A bottle of "Steak Sauce" contains no steak, but from the term it ought to be made from steak.


>
>The term "watts RMS" is defined and used to mean the average power output measured with a sine wave signal and specified load.

Defined where ? And by who ?

Would love to see where RMS power and Average power are defined as
being the same thing.

[Phil Allison]

nor

>
> >>
> >> It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer),
> >>
> >
> >** People who see a term being used in trade or commerce etc and think
> > they know what it means from a literal interpretation of the words are
> > called idiots.
> >
> >A *term* means what the folk USING it intend it to mean.
> >
> >A bottle of "Steak Sauce" contains no steak, but from the term it ought
> >to be made from steak.
>
>
> >The term "watts RMS" is defined and used to mean the average power
> >output measured with a sine wave signal and specified load.
>
>
> Defined where ? And by who ?
>

** By standards bodies like the FTC and by practice by nearly all amplifier makers.

> Would love to see where RMS power and Average power are defined as
> being the same thing.
>

** Consider why the RMS value of a voltage or current is useful - cos it computes the DC equivalent value of those quantities for any waveform.

So for a resistive load: average power = Vrms^2 divided by R.

Same as the DC case where power = V^2 divided by R.

So they are mathematically exactly the same.

" Only morons reverse the word order and imply that "RMS watts" are a special kind."

Are you one of them ?


.... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"distance between Pluto and Uranus, "

Well Pluto isn't showing but...

[Unknown]

Doesn't really matter much which way you say it, RMS watts or watts
RMS. It's commutative.

They're both technically wrong in the normal world of power even
though you can calculate average power using RMS volts and RMS amps
into a resistive load.

If the FTC used this term, then that is flawed as well. I know the
mostly innocuous term was used a long time ago.



>
>
>.... Phil
>
>

[Adrian Tuddenham]

krw <k...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:21:36 -0800 (PST), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>"The bottom line is that you don't know how audio power is measured.
> >Hint: They don't use sine waves. "
> >
> >They used to. So more has changed. Fine, if I buy anything I'll measure
> >it myself from now on, but that is unlikely. The old Phase Linear can
> >blow many speakers and run me out of money to not be able to pay the
> >electric bill.
>

> Nonsense. Music isn't a sine wave....

Most modern 'music' seems to be square waves.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[krw]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:07:52 +0000,
adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

>krw <k...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:21:36 -0800 (PST), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>"The bottom line is that you don't know how audio power is measured.
>> >Hint: They don't use sine waves. "
>> >
>> >They used to. So more has changed. Fine, if I buy anything I'll measure
>> >it myself from now on, but that is unlikely. The old Phase Linear can
>> >blow many speakers and run me out of money to not be able to pay the
>> >electric bill.
>>
>> Nonsense. Music isn't a sine wave....
>
>Most modern 'music' seems to be square waves.

It may seem that way. "New Age" is likely the worst.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 12/08/16 08:55, John Larkin so wittily quipped:

> On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:19:23 -0600, boomer#687...@none.com wrote:
>
>> What is the most powerful audio output tube, as far as RMS wattage
>> output?
>>

[snip]

> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Tubes/833.jpg

big sucker. 4 terminals, so I'm guessing it's a power triode for RF
output, directly heated cathode. Lots of 'issues' powering it up for an
audio amplifier. You'll need a center-tapped cathode supply, for
starters, and a fixed bias supply for the control grid. Since the
control grid [appears to be] on one of the 'cap' electrodes, it's
probably designed to operate at a positive voltage for class C
operation. So a Class 'A' or push-pull 'AB' might not give you the
results you want. I could see AB2 maybe working, but lots of
experimenting involved in making something like *THAT* "fit".

better to use KT88 or similar [like a Marshall amplifier]

http://www.drtube.com/library/schematics/69-marshall-schemas#Major

http://www.drtube.com/schematics/marshall/200w.gif
(a generic schematic)

4 of them gets you 200W. I guess 8-10 would get you 500W with the right
transformer.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

make your own ;)

https://youtu.be/8n4WVRKkmww
https://youtu.be/EzyXMEpq4qw

[Big Bad Bob]

On 12/08/16 11:18, bitrex so wittily quipped:
> I'd question my sanity if I started thinking about a 500 RMS watt
> all-tube amp though. Well, this guy actually did do something rather crazy:
>
> http://www.chambonino.com/construct/const9.html
>
> Output transformer looks like it weighs about as much as I do.

I like it already.

You win!


--
your story is so touching, but it sounds just like a lie
"Straighten up and fly right"

[Phil Allison]

or...@googlegroups.com wrote:


>
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be nice to know why (RMS watts is a misnomer),
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >** People who see a term being used in trade or commerce etc and think
> >> > they know what it means from a literal interpretation of the words are
> >> > called idiots.
> >> >
> >> >A *term* means what the folk USING it intend it to mean.
> >> >
> >> >A bottle of "Steak Sauce" contains no steak, but from the term it ought
> >> >to be made from steak.
> >>
> >>
> >> >The term "watts RMS" is defined and used to mean the average power
> >> >output measured with a sine wave signal and specified load.
> >>
> >>
> >> Defined where ? And by who ?
> >>
> >
> >** By standards bodies like the FTC and by practice by nearly all amplifier makers.
> >
> >
> >> Would love to see where RMS power and Average power are defined as
> >> being the same thing.
> >>
> >
> >** Consider why the RMS value of a voltage or current is useful - cos it computes the DC equivalent value of those quantities for any waveform.
> >
> >So for a resistive load: average power = Vrms^2 divided by R.
> >
> >Same as the DC case where power = V^2 divided by R.
> >
> >So they are mathematically exactly the same.
> >
> >
> >" Only morons reverse the word order and imply that "RMS watts" are a special kind."
> >
> >Are you one of them ?
>
>
>
> Doesn't really matter much which way you say it, RMS watts or watts
> RMS. It's commutative.

** Not it fucking is not - you lying ass.

>
> They're both technically wrong in the normal world of power
>

**FFS dickhead, the context hear is AUDIO amplifier power measurement !!

So you are a moron and a context shifter too.

FOAD


..... Phil

[Unknown]

Power is power no matter how you measure it. You're off on this one
but that's OK.... We are learning a little something new every day,
aren't we Philip dear. :)

> So you are a moron and a context shifter too.
>
> FOAD
>
>
>..... Phil
>

I love you so much Phil ! You are such a sweet sweet man !

Here's a BIG wet sloppy kiss right on your rosy red lips !

MwwwWAAaH !!!! :)

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"I love you so much Phil ! You are such a sweet sweet man !

Here's a BIG wet sloppy kiss right on your rosy red lips ! "

Oh, we've had much worse. I suspect someone killed them.

You cannot really say :

>"Power is power no matter how you measure it. "

There has to be a prescribed method To measure meters you do not use a hammer. To measure volts you do not use a screwdriver. (or your finger)

While this is a misnmer it has been described by the IHF and the US FTC. I believe it is also accepted in most of Europe.

It is not a bad measurement process and standardizes things. If they want to rename it fine. If we want to rename it fine. But the bottom line is that 2.83 volts RMS is considered 1 watt RMS into and 8 ohm load.

I do note that the RMS*RMS screws it up. You can almost take the peak voltage and figure it on the ohms and just take half of that, but that is not exact, it is off a bit.

This is not actually mathematics, it is amplifiers. In mathematics it means root mean squared.

Take how true RMS measurements were done before there were chips that could calculate it. They literally had a light bulb shining on a light detector. Even in more (well slightly) modern equipment they use that method. I have an HP 339A distortion meter, it uses such a scheme.

In a way that kinda proves that there is such a thing as RMS power because that is what lights the light in the CdS photocoupler. The voltage out of the amp going to it produces the current and it is thus calibrated to, umm whatever, but it is.

All true RMS meters used that method until the chips came out that could sample and to the math. But the readings from that 339A do agree with my Fluke 8050A as well as my buddy's 8842 (I think) which is a much higher end meter.

So true RMS is either voltage or current. But under load it still means wattage.

Perhaps the name should be changed but fuck all that. Just accept it. Names are fucked up.

Do you live in a democracy ? If so you can vote to force your neighbor to paint his house any color you want, and to put his Wife out for a gangbang. In a real democracy it is mob rule, and the mo0b is easy to motivate. that is why the US is a republic. Not that it is workig out perfectly but at least we can't vote you out of the neighborhood. Think if Blacks moved into a White neighborhood they could just vote to make them move. Nope. Have to burn their house down. This is Cleveland and that has happened more than once but doesn't seem to make the news and nobody gets busted.

Words just do not seem to have static meanings. Back in the 1970s when the IHF and FTC got involved with power ratings, if you were there, (or Phil) what would you have them call these watts ? Just heating power is no good, of course at a certain THD. But heating is actually what it is.

But then if you used the term "average watts" the consumer might think that each unit puts out a different power level and want to try a bunch of them in the showroom to see which one blew the most speakers. Nobody wanted that.

Yes, people here are and were stupid, but it seems that other countries adopted the standard and the only people who have a problem with it are those who know math. Well if people in the US knew math we would have executed all the politicians and bankers by now. Where is all that money ? Then their answer is that is was really only fake money. Well then why the fuck did the government have to replace it ?

I think in bridged mode my Phase Linear 400/2 might be able to run a washing machine. Try that on a new amp. Things have changed. And to the one who said something to the effect "idiot, power is not measured with a sine wave", then tell me what they do use ow. Because the same power amps these days do not seem to have the Uumph of the ones from the old days. I know some of the esoteric ones do, but they cost out the ass. I mean the stuff at Bestbuy. It simply does not compare, and I know why. It is not even a math problem.

It is called clipping headroom. This is where an amp puts out twice its rated power but at like 5 % distortion, not even clipping. It was hard to keep it linear all the way to the power rails. Now they have pretty much solved that. Of note, in the past, Marantz was one that seemed to solve that in their higher end amps, but they still gave you extra watts. there were a few others. My 400/2 is not that good at it, I can actually see some nonlinearity when it gets near clipping, but that is well over the 200 WPC rating. Manufacturers had to do a tradeoff because as you approch clipping the distortion goes up and the IHF and FTC wanted a distortion rating with that power rating. so rather than using 3 %, they wanted like 0.5 % so they took a lower power rating.

Pioneer was another one that closed that gap a bit. Take a look at the SX-850. The drivers get a higher voltage than the outputs. that is to keep it more linear when it gets near clipping. And this is in response to those IHF/FTC rules.

So change the name, but don't change the standard. Don't change the formula like they do for unemployment and inflation ad all that. Leave the formula alone and just call it like AVG watts or some shit.

Unless someone can come up with a better formula. I am all ears.

[Michael A. Terrell]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 9 December 2016 20:45:22 UTC, Michael Terrell wrote:
>
>> http://www.g8wrb.org/data/Eimac/8973.pdf A pair will give you over two
>> megawatts.
>
> 650A heater current. I'm not sure my glass 2v accumulators would support that.


The 25 W UHF water cooled power tetrode in the RCA TTU-25B
transmitter had a pair of 1.5V, 1000A filaments. The voltage had to be
balanced to a few hundredths of a volt to prevent 60Hz hum in the visual
signal.


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[Phil Allison]

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

> > >
> >> >" Only morons reverse the word order and imply that "RMS watts" are a special kind."
> >> >
> >> >Are you one of them ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Doesn't really matter much which way you say it, RMS watts or watts
> >> RMS. It's commutative.
> >
> >
> >** Not it fucking is not - you lying ass.
> >
> >>
> >> They're both technically wrong in the normal world of power
> >>
> >
> >
> >**FFS dickhead, the context hear is AUDIO amplifier power measurement !!
> >
>
>
> Power is power no matter how you measure it.
>
>

** IF you were not such a lying, pig ignorant pile of putrid diarrhoea you might know that there are numerous ways to rate the output power of an audio amplifier - all giving different numbers.

While " watts RMS " clearly defines just one.


> You're off on this one ...


** Why don't you go straight into HELL - mutherfucker ??


FYI:

Forget posting here again cos I am gonna be on your case.

I despise scumbag trolls like you.



.... Phil

[Unknown]

But Phil, you need to be trolled ! You're a natural for it.

Kissy Kissy !



>
>
>.... Phil
>

[Unknown]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:49:54 -0800 (PST), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

>>"I love you so much Phil ! You are such a sweet sweet man !
>
>Here's a BIG wet sloppy kiss right on your rosy red lips ! "
>
>Oh, we've had much worse. I suspect someone killed them.

>
>You cannot really say :

You are correct. Pretty much in audio anyway. I suppose there is
something to be said for peak power if the power supply can handle it
for a few cycles but bass is where the power is needed unless its a
small amplifier feeding the high frequency side of a biamped system.
So the amplifier better be able to put out high power for quite a
while in the bass case.

>
>>"Power is power no matter how you measure it. "



>
>There has to be a prescribed method To measure meters you do not use a hammer. To measure volts you do not use a screwdriver. (or your finger)

Or your tongue.

>
>While this is a misnmer it has been described by the IHF and the US FTC. I believe it is also accepted in most of Europe.

Accepted, maybe.

>
>It is not a bad measurement process and standardizes things. If they want to rename it fine. If we want to rename it fine. But the bottom line is that 2.83 volts RMS is considered 1 watt RMS into and 8 ohm load.

Only in the audio world. This is why I said power is power above.

>
>I do note that the RMS*RMS screws it up. You can almost take the peak voltage and figure it on the ohms and just take half of that, but that is not exact, it is off a bit.

Yes, I think that's where part of the misnomer comes from. However I
think what they used to mean was continuous average power. That's
from around 30+ years ago and your Flame Linear amplifier. Actually,
the flames got much lower after better output transistors came by like
the MJ15024 and 2SD555 (RIP)

>
>This is not actually mathematics, it is amplifiers. In mathematics it means root mean squared.

Well, it is actually a mathematical way of measuring power but I agree
that is is now engrained in the amplifier market and will stay being
screwed up until the $10,000 RCA cables go away.

>
>Take how true RMS measurements were done before there were chips that could calculate it. They literally had a light bulb shining on a light detector. Even in more (well slightly) modern equipment they use that method. I have an HP 339A distortion meter, it uses such a scheme.
>
>In a way that kinda proves that there is such a thing as RMS power because that is what lights the light in the CdS photocoupler. The voltage out of the amp going to it produces the current and it is thus calibrated to, umm whatever, but it is.
>
>All true RMS meters used that method until the chips came out that could sample and to the math. But the readings from that 339A do agree with my Fluke 8050A as well as my buddy's 8842 (I think) which is a much higher end meter.
>
>So true RMS is either voltage or current. But under load it still means wattage.

Yes, but that usually means average power.

>
>Perhaps the name should be changed but fuck all that. Just accept it. Names are fucked up.

>
>Do you live in a democracy ? If so you can vote to force your neighbor to paint his house any color you want, and to put his Wife out for a gangbang. In a real democracy it is mob rule, and the mo0b is easy to motivate. that is why the US is a republic. Not that it is workig out perfectly but at least we can't vote you out of the neighborhood. Think if Blacks moved into a White neighborhood they could just vote to make them move. Nope. Have to burn their house down. This is Cleveland and that has happened more than once but doesn't seem to make the news and nobody gets busted.
>
>Words just do not seem to have static meanings. Back in the 1970s when the IHF and FTC got involved with power ratings, if you were there, (or Phil) what would you have them call these watts ? Just heating power is no good, of course at a certain THD. But heating is actually what it is.

It was always average watts in reality.

>
>But then if you used the term "average watts" the consumer might think that each unit puts out a different power level and want to try a bunch of them in the showroom to see which one blew the most speakers. Nobody wanted that.
>
>Yes, people here are and were stupid, but it seems that other countries adopted the standard and the only people who have a problem with it are those who know math. Well if people in the US knew math we would have executed all the politicians and bankers by now. Where is all that money ? Then their answer is that is was really only fake money. Well then why the fuck did the government have to replace it ?
>
>I think in bridged mode my Phase Linear 400/2 might be able to run a washing machine. Try that on a new amp. Things have changed. And to the one who said something to the effect "idiot, power is not measured with a sine wave", then tell me what they do use ow.


>Because the same power amps these days do not seem to have the Uumph of the ones from the old days. I know some of the esoteric ones do, but they cost out the ass. I mean the stuff at Bestbuy. It simply does not compare, and I know why. It is not even a math problem.
>

This is one of my biggest problems I have with the latest bogus
ratings system... Actually, not really a "system", just the way the
audio industry does things nowadays. For instance, measuring power
draw by applying pink noise at 1/8th power or so.... 1/8th of what
power ? What is "full" power now ? I think it may be surge average
power for just a few seconds from my measurements.

The other newer difference is noise measurements for small signal
audio. It's all A-Weighted now. Bandwidth limited. Pre-amps and A/D
converters used to be specified flat responds 20 Hz to 20 kHz or so.
Companies started using A weighting to make their specs look better
and now their competition has to do it because the users do not know
any better.


~b

[Unknown]

I will add this one last item on the subject and let it be (except
maybe for trolling Phil some more when required)...

Here is a paper written by a friend from 2002 when we were discussing
this subject.

Spongebob

[Unknown]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:12:20 -0800, TollBob PinkNoise wrote:


Oh, nevermind.

[Phil Allison]

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:



** You're the same poste as the fuckwit boB troll - aren't you ?

A lunatic, ham radio moron with a bad smell.

Fuck off - never come back.

[Phil Allison]

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:




** You're the same poster as the fuckwit boB troll - aren't you ?

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>" For instance, measuring power
draw by applying pink noise at 1/8th power or so.... 1/8th of what
power ? "

Who does this ? It tells nothing.

It sounds as bad as how they rate speakers now. Sometime in the late 1970s when the elcheapo BIG BIG speakers came out that couldn't really much under 70 Hz even with a 15" woofer they changed how they measured the frequency response. Good old Hirsch Houck labs had a decent way which IIRC had a swept frequency. Later they changed to 1/3 octave bands of pink noise.

Now I don't know if the microphones were tuned to reject harmonics but with pink noise all distortion counts. What's more all of them measured at a fairly low level and that mean less cone excursion. You start really pumping speakers and odd order distortion goes through the roof. If they measure that, when you put in say 40 Hz, the output at 80, 120 and so forth counts as good. In other words, the measured frequency response does not mean that the speaker is putting out the same frequency that is put into it. In fact some of the elcheapo tuned port systems are so well tuned that they put out pretty much one note no matter what you put into them. Saw a pair at work that needed tweeters and once I heard them I said don't even bother.

Most people don't even know that in the song by The Who, Who Are You there are two bass notes being played through most of it, one an octave under the other. So many speakers simply reproduce that as one note that when they hear it on a good system it is like a revelation. It was to me because when I first heard it, it was in a car. Later when I heard it at home I noticed it.

Another thing they do now or at least were doing after the 1970s was taking the bass output with a close mic to the woofer and then to the port and summing the output. This is a totally erroneous way of doing it, though it makes the numbers look better. Those outputs are out of phase (polarity actually) and to not add in your listening environment. Actually I prefer a sealed system but they decided to make the cabinets out of the absolute cheapest material possible around then and if you had a strong woofer it would bust out the seams. I know, I've done it. I also have a pair of old Radio Shack Nova 6s that are not ported and I think have better bass than most 12" systems with their 8" woofers. But when I got them the cabinets were busted out, above a certain level the cabinet shook and it sounded like they were blown or bottoming out. I took a bunch of finishing nails and fixed that right up and now they sound pretty good. Not the greatest tweeters in the world but I have heard worse. At least they're not shrill sounding.

Bottom line is that they've been cheating on alot of measurements for a long time now and it is getting worse. And now you say they use a 1/8 th power to rate the power of an amp ? I'd like to see just how the fuck they justify that.

It has been open season on the US consumer for a long time. Look at the drug commercials, the side effects are worse than what they're supposed to treat. I mean foot fungus pills that light damage your kidneys when all you have to do is soak your feet in kerosene once in a while. And all this clinical testing they claim is responsible for the high cost, bullshit. the clinical testing proves it kills people yet they still sell it. Like that smoking cessesion aid that brings on suicidal tendencies, well I guess it work eh ?

Sorry to hijack the thread but I am sick of the lies. Like even the horsepower rating of your car. It is meaningless unless you have peak HP at what RPMs and peak torque at what RPMs. With equal numbers for the peak HP and torque, the one with more difference in the RPMs is better. But unless you have all four numbers they mean nothing. And people don't know that. Maybe in Europe or other places that have decent schools but not in the US.

I am very surprised we put a Man on the moon. I think if Russia was not under the thumb of the Soviets who were a binch of goniffs, they would have beat us, or if Germany was not totally fucked because of losing the war they would have gotten there first. And I'll tell you what, what they did in 1968, I bet they couldn't do today. In fact they can't even build rockets to get up to the satellites, they buy them - get this - from the Russians.

Anyway, I have seen some entries here about the high power tubes, but not yet seen any that screw into a heatsink. I remember seeing pictures at least of some of them, the outer shell is actually the plate, there is very little glass involved if at all. Is that class of tubes simply gone ? I didn't imagine it. But the fact is you can pull a vacuum in aluminum just as well in glass.

Anyone have pictures of those ?

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"** IF you were not such a lying, pig ignorant pile of putrid diarrhoea "

Now that's the Phil we know and

[Phil Allison]

jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >" For instance, measuring power
> draw by applying pink noise at 1/8th power or so.... 1/8th of what
> power ? "
>
> Who does this ? It tells nothing.
>
>

** It tells professional users of such large amplifiers what AC draw to expect in normal, full power operation - you fucking tenth wit.

Got a clue what pink noise even is ?

Got a clue what the peak to RMS ratio is for pink noise ?

Got a clue how limiting the bandwidth affects things ?

Got a clue how it compares with using recorded music instead ?

Ever measure the AC draw of a large amplifier under various test conditions ?

Lemme tell ya something - fuckhead - one of us posting here DOES know and has done such tests, many times.

And it aint any trolling shitheads like YOU.



.... Phil

[krw]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:54:49 -0800, SpngeboB Sinewave wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:49:54 -0800 (PST), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>"I love you so much Phil ! You are such a sweet sweet man !
>>
>>Here's a BIG wet sloppy kiss right on your rosy red lips ! "
>>
>>Oh, we've had much worse. I suspect someone killed them.
>
>>
>>You cannot really say :
>
>You are correct. Pretty much in audio anyway. I suppose there is
>something to be said for peak power if the power supply can handle it
>for a few cycles but bass is where the power is needed unless its a
>small amplifier feeding the high frequency side of a biamped system.
>So the amplifier better be able to put out high power for quite a
>while in the bass case.

Look at "normal" audio on a scope, sometime. You'll see that its
crest factor is *huge*, bass or no bass.

<the rest is broken up too badly to even attempt to read>

[Unknown]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:21:44 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>** You're the same poster as the fuckwit boB troll - aren't you ?
>
> A lunatic, ham radio moron with a bad smell.
>
> Fuck off -

Oh Philbert, you are such a tease...

> never come back.

Sorry, Not that easy






>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Phil Allison]

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:


** Fuck this psycho off the NG now !!

>
> Oh Philbert, you are such a tease...



** You're the same poster as the fuckwit boB troll - aren't you ?

A lunatic, ham radio moron with a bad smell.

Fuck off - never come back.

More to come if you stay.



..... Phil

[Unknown]

Phil, I am so sorry you are so depressed.

You really should see a psychiatrist. It might not be too late.
Your hatred for humans, and not just to me is starting to show just a
little bit

Have a nice day :)

>
>
>
>..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:


** Fuck this damn psycho off the NG now !!

--------------------------------------


** He is the same poster as the fuckwit boB troll and a few others.

A lunatic, ham radio moron with a bad smell.

Fuck him off - never to come back.

More to come if he stays.

[bob]

Phil, I hope you are nicer to animals than psychos like me !

OK, your turn...

[Phil Allison]

bob wrote:


> >
> >** He is the same poster as the fuckwit boB troll and a few others.
> >
> > A lunatic, ham radio moron with a bad smell.
> >
> > Fuck him off - never to come back.
> >
> > More to come if he stays.
> >
>
>
> Phil, I hope you are nicer to animals than psychos like me !
>

** You were stupid enough to post your ham call sign.

So I have many of you personal details, included some photos.

Go away and I will not post them.


.... Phil

[krw]

I hope he's nicer to animals, too. You seem to enjoy poking them.

>OK, your turn...
>

[Unknown]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:19:15 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>bob wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >** He is the same poster as the fuckwit boB troll and a few others.
>> >
>> > A lunatic, ham radio moron with a bad smell.
>> >
>> > Fuck him off - never to come back.
>> >
>> > More to come if he stays.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Phil, I hope you are nicer to animals than psychos like me !
>>
>
>** You were stupid enough to post your ham call sign.

I'm proud to be in more than one field. Variety is the spice of life.

>
> So I have many of you personal details, included some photos.
>
> Go away and I will not post them.
>

Oh NO !!!! Not that ! That picture of me of a ham when I was like,
13 years old in the 1960s as WN7IWN ?

Yeah, that was a great time.


OK. I'll be nice if you will. Might not go away exactly but I
might just tend to ignore you if it makes you happy and joyous.


PS, those who are still interested in LARGE tube amplifiers with
transformers, around 25:30 is a big one or two at 500,000 watt
(rms or average, I don't care), radio station WLW's modulator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHjcwIoTiY


Your turn, Phil.

boB

>
>.... Phil
>

[Unknown]

Well, at least he spoke up for that poor kangaroo the other day which
I thought was nice.


>>OK, your turn...
>>