Peter,
Only speaking for myself, I never before attacked the DAF amp.
I did suggest to Lars that presnting more meaningful data would lend more
credibility to his arguemnet. The plots presented were meaningless to me.
They neither proved nor disproved the claims. Period.
Rich will never be turned to the "DAF side". He has far to much fun baiting
people into meaningless arguements. The DAF crowd is fertile ground, Rich
has not had so much fun since Tom and Carl bailed out.
Actually, I don't really care one way or another. If a bunch of folks want
to act like religious fanatics and muck around with a stone age design,
fine by me. If it floats your boat, happy paddleing!
By the way, if amplifier efficeincy was really something DAF people were
concerned about, they would all run CW/Morse with a class C final, 75-80%
and cutoff between code elements, not to mention the 12 db processing gain
on the receive side.
'Nuf said, the delete key will henceforth be used for both sides of this
religious debate.
Happy New Year!
Larry - W7IUV
At 10:16 PM 12/30/99 +0100, Peter Sundberg wrote:
>
>Gents,
>
>It seems to me that no matter what anyone say's or present about a DAF amp
>it is constantly being contested by the wise guys.
>
>On the other hand, Rich can say that he once heard a "DAF" amp that sounded
>bad and everyone is then certain that this is the truth, un-contested.
>No matter the guy who ran this so called "DAF" amp turns out to have his
>own "Dude-circuit" to produce the doo-doo.
>
>Running a DAF amp for a couple of years now I can say that it is good
>design and I get NO complaints for splattering or sounding bad. (Using a
>similar tube as in SM3BDZ amp, a QBL5-3500)
>
>Lars, SM3BDZ and Petter, SM3PXO has proven the linearity of the amp by
>presenting plots on the Lars's webpage. We have used our amps on the air
>for years without complaints.
>
>Can't you guys accept that... ??
>
>I think the DAF amp will be the Amp of The Millenium.
>
>/Peter SM2CEW
>
>At 16:11 1999-12-30 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>Hi Lars,
>>
>>I looked at the additional test data on the web page. All I saw was the
>>same test repeated on different bands. I still have trouble with your test
>>data. Please understand, I am not saying your conclusions are incorrect,
>>just that you cannot prove them with the data presented.
>>
>>Over the past 35 years or so, I have spent literally hundreds of hours with
>>my face stuck in the front of spectrum analyzers, and I can say with no
>>doubt at all: If the data looks too good to be true, then it is certainly
>>not true!
>>
>>One thing I don't like is that I see no trash from the exciter. If you
>>cannot measure the IMD from the exciter, then how can you measure the amps
>>contribution? That Kenwood is not perfect, where's the trash?
>>
>>Another clue is the shape of the spectrum. If the setup was correct, with
>>peak hold, sufficient sample time, and multiple tone modulation, (nasty
>>voice or better, music) the displayed spectrum should approximate the
>>filter response of the exciter. Show me the filter response.
>>
>>Assuming no analyzer front end overload, then the setup that produces the
>>worst data is probably true. The one that produces the best data is
>>certainly not.
>>
>>Thanks Lars, keep the info coming.
>>
>>73 and Happy New Year,
>>
>>Larry - W7IUV
>>
>>
>>--
>>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
>>Submissions: amps@contesting.com
>>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>>Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
>Submissions: amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|