[Andre Jute]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 24 Sep 2006 16:18:06 -0700, "Andre Jute" wrote:

But fine, you want to reject my explanation, then you must offer a
better reason to explain why triodes are such superior amplification
devices to anything else, so much more pleasing to the ear, so much
more accurate to the cultivated taste.

If, by "you", you mean the newsgroup in general, who "must"
offer a reason, then prepare yourself for quite a...
what's the word? Anyway, Caveat Emptor (Latin for "take
a flashlight into the supposedly empty cave") and
Habeas Corpus (Latin for "habanero sauce is good on the
corpse"). Lotsa misinformation abounds.

I'd say "****'em" but their minds are clearly syphiclically degenerated
(the NFB of the immoral) so touching them physically may expose one to
contamination.

As for "must", sure thing. The most amazing thing about the amateur
flamers on RAT is not their incompetence in both electronics and
polemics but there blind hypocrisy, best seen in their pretension of
being "scientific".

But if by "you" you mean "me", who's been the bitchiest
about the topic, then, no, I don't have any pat answers.
I can offer a couple topics for possible discussion, but
the topic doesn't lend itself to pat answers.

Bring on your topics, Chris. We could do with some fresh air in RAT.

And, I would generally agree about your conclusion, at
least in appropriate circumstances. Not all circumstances
are appropriate, YMMV, yadayada. But, yeah.

Which conclusion? That "triodes sound better" or that "there must be an
electrical explanation"?

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

Andre Jute
"Take the money and run" -- Len Deighton