On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 20:31:34 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:>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 ?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 > >
What is the most powerful audio output tube?
Started by ●December 8, 2016
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote:> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:21:36 -0800 (PST), jurb6006@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
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:07:52 +0000, adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:21:36 -0800 (PST), jurb6006@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.
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
On 12/08/16 08:55, John Larkin so wittily quipped:> On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:19:23 -0600, boomer#6877250@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.jpgbig 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.
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
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"
Reply by ●December 12, 20162016-12-12
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
Reply by ●December 13, 20162016-12-13
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:22:53 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:>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 !! >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 !!!! :)
Reply by ●December 13, 20162016-12-13
>"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.
Reply by ●December 13, 20162016-12-13
tabbypurr@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! ;-)
