Arny Krueger wrote:

Obviously, everything doesn't sound the same all the time,

Take the issue up with pinkerton there.


Guess what Fella, audio equipment has other attributes than
sound quality.

Guess what krueger, sound quality is the foremost attribute to be taken
into consideration. Then comes durability and reliability. Then comes
pleasing esthetics. Then comes price, ease of use, etc.


Examples are size, cost, weight, appearance,
reliability, ease-of-use, and so on.

Agreed. What are your priorities? Tell us.


I don't recall reading any detailed descriptions of your own
personal DBTs, Fella.

Well take that up with your head-doctor.



Actually, being a nerd is a pretty good way to have a high
income.

Was.



You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as
sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes?


Interesting possibility, no?

Interesting IMpossiblity, yes.


BTW Fella, there don't appear to be any such things as $120
Yamaha receivers being sold as new equipment.

Why buy new?


Does this mean
that the rest of your post is equally invalid?

So you validate all the posts around here?



That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly
digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of ****

gear.

I think you really need to check your facts, Fella. BAT uses solid state fellaaaaaa.. etc.

Cheap demogogy, worn out "debating-trade" bul**** snipped.