"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:18:41 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

Indeed - that's why the tests are done blind...........

Idiot, the test removes some expectation effects, but not others.
It is more biased than sighted listening.

What on earth are you selling, pal?


Not a damn thing.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

I rest my case. ;-]

Diagnosis of case: Intellectual herpes.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.

**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a
short
circuit is not zero Ohms?

As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
with a speaker load it might as well be zero.

**Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make
fundamental
errors.

First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics
technician, and so I do know something about electronics.

I think you should limit your discussions to reshelving books and filing
microfiche.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

snip

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded
the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they
sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of
mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down
deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded.

This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist.

Yep. I do a bit of objective work, of course, but the bottom
line easily visible in all of my product reviews is
subjectivism.


Howard,

Having read a couple of your "reviews", your bottom line seems to be utter
incompetence and sheer idiocy.

Cheers,

Margaret

Howard Ferstler said:

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

I'm certainly willing to learn. Now, with this near short
pulling just about all of the juice out of the amp, where
does this speaker load, with a resistance way, way higher
than the near short in parallel with it, get the juice to
make any noise?


Because the "short" would be *in parallel* with the speaker.
as long as the amp is capable of providing the current, the voltage
across both won't fall.

Look up "constant voltage source" in your library (I remember you once
mentioned that you're not capable to use Google).

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

(snip)

In all consumer products-and many capital ones too-there is a quality
curve. The best are made at some point where they have the tech pretty
well down but the pressure to cut costs hasn't set in and there is a
desire not to monkey with the good thing. Once cost cutting sets in,
quality goes out the door because given the time value of money people
perceive that the cheaper one is "good enough" and the delta in price
can be reinvested to replace it: also, the buyer doesn't understand the
difference between the new one and the old one and so the new shiny
warranted one looks pretty good.

You make a lot of good points. I'll add that in the case of a CD
player, there's less demand for CD players of any price because so many
people will want a DVD player instead, because the DVD player will play
CDs and also provide DVD functionality. I don't own any freestanding
CD players now and I doubt I'll ever buy another. I could imagine
buying a Pioneer DVD-A/SACD player or something similar, but that's
as close as I'd get.

(snip)

A lot of this is perception. When the customer perceives that the old
one was better, he gets conservative and less likely to buy, and our
economy is set up so you buy, buy, buy.

Ain't that the truth. And part of the problem is that the newer gear
just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, to the point where replacing
hardware is cheaper, faster, and simpler than repairing old gear. I
realize that's a strange thing to complain about.

(snip)

About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two piece
portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for close
to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and exceeded
in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day auction.
I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't get a
single bid.

While I know little about video cameras, the eBay failure is a little
surprising. eBay is often a good place to buy and sell obscure gear
that's appreciated by the few who know what it is and understand it.
I've seen a number of things on eBay that I assumed that only I and a
few other people would know, appreciate, and want, and these sort of
things often sold for surprisingly (to me) high prices. I've even
seen some hardware that at best, is sort of fun, funky, and odd and
never was particularly good in its day, go for higher prices than I
expected. (Although I suspect the auction format may have something to
do with that.)

But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
good, superbly built gear.

I'm surprised that eBay didn't lead to finding a buyer. Maybe this
is something that nobody wants anymore? You could try posting in
relevant newsgroups and forums thbat are read by the sort of buyers you
seek with a link to your eBay ad. That can be an effective way to reach
your sort of buyers. Or you could place a small ad in a magazine.

I can see how you'd want to hang onto the camera, but when I have
hardware and no takers, I'll give it to a charity store and get a
small tax deduction too. At least the hardware isn't cluttering up my
closet and stands a chance of finding someone who can use it. But
that's your choice, not mine. If I'd kept every piece of cool, but
unused hardware I've owned and enjoyed, I wouldn't have any room
left at home!

Howard Ferstler said:

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.

Here I have two exactly the same Pioneer receivers, which, by your
previous admission, will sound adequate enough.
One of the two has both its tone controls set to 3 o'clock, the tone
controls of the other amp are in straight position.
They both sound different on the same speakers.

Is there something seriously wrong with amp nr. 1 or amp nr. 2?
And why?

Properly align the tone controls on the first receiver,
tweako. Even you should realize that cranking over the tone
controls will make that receiver sound different from the
one with the controls nulled out.

Good.
Now re-read your first paragraph and explain to me why, when a
component sounds different, there's "something seriously wrong" with
it. Please.

Because with audio gear (amps, players, wires, definitely)
the components with fixed outputs or fixed abilities should
be transparent. If a user wants to modify the sound he
should have the ability to do so as an option.


Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
Modifying the sound can be done by other means than just tone
controls.
As a "professional audio clown" you should know that.


Applying the
same colorations to all recordings (as is the case with
those weird amps you build) is like looking at the world
with colored glasses all the time - indoors, outdoors, rain,
or shine.


And according to a certain Howard Ferstler this is OK.
It says so above:

If a user wants to modify the sound he
should have the ability to do so as an option.

This option is available when using one of my amps.


Remember, the two receivers are exactly the same.

There is no way to judge if one (or perhaps even both)
unless the tone controls are nulled out. You did not do
that.


Learn to write.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

said:

Formulae GASP! and a clear explanation!!!!

How *dare* you confuse our resident Professional Audio Clown with
facts?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On 21 Jul 2005 08:58:10 -0700, wrote:

About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two piece
portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for close
to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and exceeded
in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day auction.
I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't get a
single bid.

While I know little about video cameras, the eBay failure is a little
surprising. eBay is often a good place to buy and sell obscure gear
that's appreciated by the few who know what it is and understand it.
I've seen a number of things on eBay that I assumed that only I and a
few other people would know, appreciate, and want, and these sort of
things often sold for surprisingly (to me) high prices. I've even
seen some hardware that at best, is sort of fun, funky, and odd and
never was particularly good in its day, go for higher prices than I
expected. (Although I suspect the auction format may have something to
do with that.)

But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
good, superbly built gear.

I'm surprised that eBay didn't lead to finding a buyer.

To Harry. How much would you take for this piece of gear? I might be
interested if the price is right. And if I don't, I might know someone
(a filmmaker that I know well) that might be interested.

I wouldn't want to pay a lot for it myself, as it would just be
something for me to play around with. I've always been interested in
all forms of photography and this includes film and video. I haven't
bothered to go the "moving picture route" because of the expense of
getting decent gear though.

You can write me privately if you still want to get rid of it.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:32:47 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

I'm certainly willing to learn. Now, with this near short
pulling just about all of the juice out of the amp, where
does this speaker load, with a resistance way, way higher
than the near short in parallel with it, get the juice to
make any noise?

Who says that the near short is pulling nearly all of the juice out of
the amp? I can put a 0.5 ohm resistor across the output terminals of
my amp, with virtually no reduction in volume from the speakers.
Indeed, it's one of my favourite party tricks.... :-)

Don't you understand that, so long as the amp is capable of driving
the 'short', it doesn't matter what the relative resistance of 'short'
and speaker is? It's the *voltage* across the load that counts, and
both 'short' and speaker have *exactly* the same voltage across them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:34:45 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

Define near short and define mute.

It will probably put most amps into current limit.

But not all................. :-)

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers.

A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.

Quite so! :-)

Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still
provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since
they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and
hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand
this.

How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of
it will be passing through the short in parallel.

That's an absolutely shameful statement to be made by someone who
calls himself an audio reviewer. Read up on Thevenin and Norton.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:39:55 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny,
not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your
gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

Define near short and define mute.

It will probably put most amps into current limit.

But not all................. :-)

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers.

A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.

Quite so! :-)

Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still
provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since
they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and
hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand
this.

How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of
it will be passing through the short in parallel.

Howard Ferstler

The only way the current through the speaker is zero is
if the voltage across the speaker is zero or the speaker
is fried and has infinite impedance.
We'll assume the speaker is ok.
Since the speaker and the short are in parallel..
they will both have the same voltage across them.

Clearly the current required to generate a voltage
across a true zero ohm short is infinite (I = V/R)... but a true
zero ohm short is physically impossible (well maybe the
superconductor guys have something close).

Actually, not close, but absolutely zero resistance - that's the whole
point!

So... if the amp hasn't shut down and is producing a voltage
at all across the short (which isn't really a perfect short)
... the same voltage will be present
across the speaker and current will flow thru the speaker.

Quite so. Ferstler is an incompetent - but we knew that.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message
oups.com...


Harry Lavo wrote:

(snip)

About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two
piece
portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for
close
to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and
exceeded
in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day
auction.
I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't
get a
single bid.

While I know little about video cameras, the eBay failure is a little
surprising. eBay is often a good place to buy and sell obscure gear
that's appreciated by the few who know what it is and understand it.
I've seen a number of things on eBay that I assumed that only I and a
few other people would know, appreciate, and want, and these sort of
things often sold for surprisingly (to me) high prices. I've even
seen some hardware that at best, is sort of fun, funky, and odd and
never was particularly good in its day, go for higher prices than I
expected. (Although I suspect the auction format may have something to
do with that.)

But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
good, superbly built gear.

I'm surprised that eBay didn't lead to finding a buyer. Maybe this
is something that nobody wants anymore? You could try posting in
relevant newsgroups and forums thbat are read by the sort of buyers you
seek with a link to your eBay ad. That can be an effective way to reach
your sort of buyers. Or you could place a small ad in a magazine.

I can see how you'd want to hang onto the camera, but when I have
hardware and no takers, I'll give it to a charity store and get a
small tax deduction too. At least the hardware isn't cluttering up my
closet and stands a chance of finding someone who can use it. But
that's your choice, not mine. If I'd kept every piece of cool, but
unused hardware I've owned and enjoyed, I wouldn't have any room
left at home!


Thanks for the suggestions. I might well end up having to give it away as I
downsize my living quarters. But if I can get it into the right hands
first, I'd prefer that route.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with
any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern
electronic
devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most
incensed.

Most incensed? Get a life.

**And I'll tell you again: I am qualified to discuss technical issues
with
audio equipment. You are not.

And I suppose this also qualifies you to tell people that
special amps (ones that you sell) and special wires perform
better than mainstream versions that may cost considerably
less?

**Strawman noted. BTW: When I discuss such things, I always refer to
technical reasons why a product may outperform another. Always.


However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

**And again, you are wrong. Here is where you are wrong (which you have
been
told many times):

* A 'short circuit' is NEVER Zero Ohms. Not ever.

I said "near short." Learn to read.

**I already have. It was me who explained to you that a short circuit is
NEVER zero Ohms. Not ever.

And if it is in parallel
with a speaker load that has way, way more resistance (not
to mention the additional AC impedance added) just how much
current is going to be available to pass through the
speaker?

**I suggest you read the words written by Mr Pinkerton and Mr Pierce. Mr
Pierce, in particular, has written eloquently and succinctly on this topic.


* A study of Thevenin's Theorem will show you where you are wrong.
* Other channels may still operate normally, 'till the protection system
shuts them down.

Here, I will agree with you. But I was talking about the
channel with the short.

**And again, you called me names, after I explained your errors. And
further: The channel with the short can still make sound, under most
conditions.


As for you being correct, for all of my limitations I do not
make silly claims about amplifier and wire "sound" as you
have in the past. I do not offer up a bill of goods to
customers who are perceived as big-spending suckers.

**Strawman noted. For the record: I don't make silly claims about
amplifiers
and wire, either. All my so-called "claims" are backed up by actual
facts. A
point you continue to ignore. SOP.

My take on this is if that special amp of yours sounds
different from mainstream units of decent quality (this
would require a DBT of some kind to make the comparison
worthwhile) there is something wrong with your amp.

**You are entitled to your opinion. One which is rooted in ignorance, I
might add.


Like the subjectivists, I hear what I hear. Unlike most
subjectivists, however, I do not hear the artifacts that you
and your kind claim inhabit amps and wires.

**That you can't hear obvious problems is not, well, my problem. Of
course,
for a defender of Bose, that is not altogether surprising.

I do not know where you got the idea that I am a defender of
Bose. I have reviewed the 901 systems (and published a
review), but my guess is that you never read the review. I
thought it was an interesting system with notable
limitations.

**The Bose 901 is a flawed speaker, designed around faulty logic. It's
survival was based on the litigious nature of Dr Bose, combined with a
superb marketing department and dumb patent issuers. It's present survival
is based solely on Bose's need to keep the illusion alive. Bose sells so few
of the model that it is impossible to justify, based on sales alone. There
never was anything to praise the Bose 901 on. "Helically wound voice coils"
indeed! It's like saying: "The Pontiac GTO uses cylindrical pistons."


Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.

**Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5
year
old
receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will
have
hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver.

So what?

**You're talking about money pits. Typical cheap audio equipment
(particularly surround sound amps) plummet in value very rapidly.

So what? The user has purchased them to use for home
enjoyment and not for investment purposes. Audio gear is not
a commodity. It is a means to an end.

**Cheap audio equipment often turns out to be wasteful and expensive, due to
it's inherent limitations. Often, but not always.


Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in
order to sell it down the line?

**Most do. Unless they buy cheap gear, which goes out with the trash.

Obviously, you hang around with weird audio buffs too much.
Mix it up with some music lovers some time: those who
purchase gear to enjoy and not to resell.

**I do. In fact, I visited one of my best clients last Monday. He is still
using the same amp and preamp I sold him, back in 1988. It still functions
well. A step up from his previous equipment, which was unsatisfying,
unreliable and provided a poor resale, when he finally tired of it.


Oops, I forgot that you are
a hi-fi salesman.

**Indeed. I am also a qualified tech, with 30 odd years hands on
experience.

One could be well-trained as hell and still be a con artist.
Goebbels had a Phd.

Smart shoppers get
an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more
recordings.

**Which becomes obsolete within 18 months.

Well, they may indeed face that problem in the realm of
surround sound. However, you can purchase a LOT of upscale
receivers over the years for what one super amp costs.

**No. Of course, your definition of "super amp" and mine may be quite
different.

Throw
in the money saved by purchasing lamp cord instead of exotic
speaker wires, and that leaves lots of cash for purchasing
recordings.

**You think the difference in cost between 'zip' cord and RG213 is that
significant? Dream on.


OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps.

**No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs.

And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs.

**Possibly.

My guess is that it has problems, assuming that it really
does sound different from good mainstream units.

**Of course your guesses are about as useful as anything else you have to
say.


Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point
beyond which it makes no sense to go.

**Which point would that be? Please, give us your TECHNICAL opinion on
the
relevance of various specifications.

Any full reply would be a long-winded post, and this series
is too long as it is.

**Lack of response, duly noted.

Suffice to say that even rather
mundane receivers have distortion levels low enough to be
essentially transparent with typical speaker loads. What
more would anyone want?


**An amplifier which can deal with REAL speaker loads, up to and past the
point of clipping.


Oops, I forgot, a typical tweako wants an amp (and wires)
that he can puff himself up over, and brag about.

**Some do. Some don't.


The hobby is infested with deluded people.

**Most of us are well aware of your delusions, Howard.

At least I do not con suckers into spending big on overkill
amps and wires.

**You just con people into buying books, written by one who ahs little real
knowledge about the subject.


Many, if not
most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too
much spare cash.

**Indeed. However, these strawman arguments have little to do with
electrostatic speakers. Electrostatics manage some performance parameters
which are simply impossible with other designs.

Read Stanley Lip****z' paper on the limitations of
line-source radiators. It is available as an AES reprint.

**I am aware of the limitations (and strengths) of line source arrays. Are
you aware of the advantages of some electrostatic speakers?


Those performance parameters
come at a cost (amplifier-wise). Make no mistake: Electrostatic speakers
are
not perfect. Far from it. They can often be comprehensively outperformed
by
far less expensive designs.

So why purchase them?

**Because they do some things better than other speakers.

I mean, they have all sorts of
limitations and I see no sonic advantages to them at all.

**Who said they have no sonic advantages? Certainly not me. And certainly
not anyone who has experienced them.


Just
how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.

**Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer?

OK, you tweako sales clerk: just how long a speaker WIRE run
are we talking about?

**As little as 3-4 Metres, depending on the load.

This is claptrap of the highest order. Congratulations: you
win the con-artist award of the day.

**Congratulations on revealing your ignorance of the problems involved.


By the way, I am retired and not a
professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have
published material.

**So what? You write about stuff you have no real knowledge of.

But I do not CON people, pal.

**You've conned publishers.

I do not sell them a bill of
goods when it comes to the so-called sound of amps and wire.
I do not "recommend" that they spend big for zero results.

**That would be a matter of opinion.


That does
not make it a particularly valid point. You write about stuff you PRETEND
to
have knowledge of. I actually sort out problems with system, because I
actually HAVE the knowledge.

This is crap. Your comments about wire performance
automatically show that while you MAY have knowledge in some
areas, you are not above spouting baloney to make money.

**How? How do I make money by suggesting that SOME listeners can benefit
from using low inductance speaker cables? How do I make money, when I
suggest a VERY common type of GENERIC cable, available from dozens of
manufacturers and literally thousands of sources?


**See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and
you
insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty
individual.

It takes a nasty individual to deal with the tweakos and con
artists occupying audio these days. Frankly, I would prefer
that the FBI do the work, but they are occupied elsewhere.

**The problem is you can't argue with knowledgable "tweakos" (to use your
terminology), because you lack the knowledge and experience.

One does not need to be a weatherman to see which way the
wind is blowing. Similarly, one does not need to be an audio
engineer to see when someone is spouting claptrap for cash.

**Strawman noted.


Try
and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know
(or
shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses
and
admit it.

Well, I misunderstood the poster's question and got myself
off on a tangent.

**No one else "misunderstood" it. You "misunderstood" the question,
because:
* You did not READ what was written.
* You don't possess the knowledge to deal with problems of moderate
complexity.

Go read some of my books, as well as some of my entries and
editing work in the new edition of The Encyclopedia of
Recorded Sound (Routledge, 2005), and see if you can
understand some of the stuff I write about basic audio.

**Why? You have amply demonstrated that I can learn nothing useful from any
of your books.


You popped up and I remembered what kind
of person you were and got even further off on a tangent.
People like you do that sort of thing to me.

**What? People who actually know what they're talking about? How curious.
You should listen to me. You might just learn something.

Only if I decided to become a soft-pedaling racketeer in the
audio business.

They do not, and when a con artist like you says that his
very special amp has advantages over them, I roll my eyes
and remember just how much of a bad joke this hobby has
become.

If your amp sounds different from the
crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
they.

**And again, you speak from a position of ignorance.

Nobody is fully free of ignorance, but at least I am honest
in my claims.

**You can't claim honesty as a defence, just because you're ignorant.
That
won't wash.

Well, who is superior: the honest man with limited knowledge
and common sense or the con artist who has knowledge but
uses it for underhanded results?

**Given those two choices (only), I would say the honest man. However, there
are a raft of other choices, in the real world. The person who THINKS he is
honest, advising people, whilst he possesses no real knowledge about the
subject is dangerous and is still a con man. Kinda like if my mechanic
offered to perform a heart bypass surgery on my mum.


For the record, if I was as
ignorant as you claim I would never have been able to get
four books published, nor would Routledge have asked me to
do the technical editing work on The Encyclopedia of
Recorded Sound.

**Really? How many books did L Ron Hubbard manage to get published? Ever
read the Bible? The Qur An? There are many books contining utter rubbish,
which have been and are still being published.


I do not con people into spending big on
overkill items.

**How about your books? They certainly qualify.

They at least do not con people into spending on overkill
and overpriced amps and wires, tweako.

**And they probably don't give many listeners enough knowledge to gain the
best from their systems, either. The writer is simply too ignorant.


Well, I do not remember saying that. But if I did I was
wrong. In any case, there should have been no sound coming
from the speaker hooked up to the offending, near-shorted
line.

**You have been told many times, by many people, that you are wrong in
this
point. When will you learn and admit your error?

Well, just how much current is passing through that speaker
in parallel with the near short?

**That would depend on a great number of factors. These include:
* Source impedance.
* Impedance of the cable.
* Impedance and efficiency of the speakers.
* The location of the short circuit.
* The actual impedance of the short circuit.

Without knowing ALL of the above, with a fair degree of precision, it is
impossible to say.

If no current is flowing
the speaker will not make sound.

**Indeed. However, that is a bold and possibly incorrect assumption.


You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with
customers.

**No. I am waiting for an apology and an admission from you that you are
wrong.

Don't hold your breath. I do not apologize to people like
you.

**Of course. I expected nothing less.


However, I think that most people vastly
overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent
sound levels in normal listening rooms.

**What do you base this opinion on?

Listening to music and measuring the sound level at sane
levels. Yeah, I know that rocko-socko freaks like to crack
plaster, and in that case such idiots may need all the power
they can afford.

**Do you monitor the output with a 'scope, to ensure that Voltage limiting
is not being reached?


Going beyond that
point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements
that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill.

**I agree. In fact, to achieve VERY low levels of THD, other performance
parameters can be negatively affected.

Which is why it is not necessary for amps, including
mainstream jobs, to have ultra-special specs.

I'll wager that under most listening conditions with those
special speakers (with runs that are not ridiculously long)
even YOU would not be able to tell the difference between
heavy lamp cord and your "special" and expensive wire.

**I'm not discussing me. My opions and listening abilities (or lack
thereof)
are not the issue.

Well, I disagree. For me, they are the crux of the issue.

**Why?


And
even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you
would not be able to tell which is best.

**Wrong. Not only could I hear it, but I could produce the measurements
to
prove it. You seem to by under the delusion that some speaker cables are
actually MEASURABLY better than others.

Well, really thin wires would certainly have a higher
resistance. In any case, typical runs of speaker wire of
reasonable thickness just do not have an impact on sound
quality that matters.

**That would depend on a number of factors.


Frankly, it makes
no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird
wire to operate optimally.

**I could say the same thing about my mate's Ferrari.

So would I.

**Then go drive one. You may well be inclined to alter your perception. I
did.


He has to use
expensive petrol, or the manufacturer will void his warranty and the
engine
will be damaged. At least it made no sense to me, until after he let me
take
it for a spin. Hell, I'd even use distilled newborn babies, if it made
the
car run properly. Very sweet ride.

There is no figuring the childish mind.

**Spoken like a man who either:
* Has never driven a Ferrari.
* Has no interest in driving.


Same deal electrostatic speakers. After
you listen to a good pair, properly set up, with decent amplification and
low inductance speaker cables, get back to me. Then we can talk.

Some people like speakers that, when listened to from a
precisely determined sweet spot, sound like super-sized
headphones. Not my cup of tea from a live-music perspective.

**BINGO! Not YOUR cup of tea. That is an opinion you are entitled to. Just
because others do not share your OPINION, that does not make them wrong.
They just have a different opinion.


Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
lamp cord for typical home installations?

**Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their
crappy
surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill.

Ah, crappy surround-sound systems. This is it in a nutshell:
you are basically saying that most people listen to junk,
and so lamp cord is OK.

**Duh. Except for SACD and DVD-A, surround sound schemes are extremely
lossy
systems. Quality is sacrificed.

You need to get out more.

**No. I just speak the facts.


MOST surround sound receiver manufacturers
are aware of this and they make serious compromises in the analogue
sections
of their products.

Perhaps in the phono preamp and tuner sections.

**And the line stages. And the power amp stages. And the power supplies. Try
running a decent 2 channel amp, at 40% and 100% of maximum power for 30 mins
and see what happens. Then do the same thing with a decent 5 (or 6 or 7)
channel amp. Watch what happens.

But that is
not something that interests me that much. In the amp and
control sections, I think that modern receivers of mid-pack
quality can hold their own against the upscale stuff you
worship.

**Without knowing specifics, it is impossible for me to argue with you. Some
"upscale" stuff is appallingly badly designed and manufactured. Some is not.


However, for really discriminating
people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those
demanding exotic speakers. What bunk.

**Really? Do some tests and get back to me.

I have done tests - listening tests.

**What did you test? What speakers? How long was the run? What was the
inductance of the two cables tested?

What you say is so
obviously a con as to be patently outrageous. Then, again,
perhaps you are just deluded.

Do you push the
exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
as in these situations that involve SOME systems?

**Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending
on
the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker
cables.

Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language
can make a con artist feel good about what he does.

**It is a BIG difference.

To you, maybe.

**To anyone with a brain.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Would you like me to find the review for you? My observation on the
sound of a particular piece of Sony equipment is no more dumb than this
entire thread whith you whining bitches clawing at each other, get a
life!

In rec.audio.misc Howard Ferstler wrote:

Well, I do understand that the high-end contingent is mostly
(not entirely, but mostly) populated by freaks.

You appear to be one of them.

"EddieM" wrote in message
...


Clyde said:



Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects,
for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a
test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions
about whether there might be inherent differences
between two items


AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of
parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets
are likely to have minimal preconcptions
over whatever is being tested.




Rao's A #1 repugnant Jerk-off, prone to eating bugs, puke and disgorge:



Which is precisely why DBT's are used for things like cel phones and
hearing aids. They allow subtle differences to be heard if they are
actually present.

The issue of preconceptions has been addressed, simply supply some
audible difference, unbeknownst to the listener and see if it shows up
in the responses.


Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

Tell me, ****in asshole, on what basis and how the ****in preconception
have been addressed, ?



I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you.
What would be the point it has already been explained and you didn't get it.

"EddieM" wrote in message
...
jeffc said:




Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't
support
your fantasizing about measuring equipment. What is it exactly that
makes
you think perfectly normal people can't simply hear things? What are
you SO
afraid of exactly?




The exceptionally indolent imbecile replied:


The fact that people have very short memory of what they hear.



Long-term memory ?

Huh?





The rest of what you said below are well-formed contextual bull****
put forth by your descending colon.

Is that how you post? Remind not to use your keyboard.

Why is it that is so scary about simply using your ears to do a
comparison?
All the rest is bull****. If you want to know if things sound the same
or different, you use your ears, and only your ears.

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Well, you're just plain wrong.

I'm certainly willing to learn. Now, with this near short
pulling just about all of the juice out of the amp, where
does this speaker load, with a resistance way, way higher
than the near short in parallel with it, get the juice to
make any noise?

Howard, you know your way around libraries, yeah? At least
that's the rumor.

See if you can find your way clear to looking up something
called "Ohm's Law." When you've mastered that, check out
"Kirchoff's Current Law."

Once you've done that, try the following:

Imagine a circuit consisting of three resistors hooked
to a voltage source. On one side of the voltage source
one end of one resistor, call it R1, is connected.
On the other side of that resistor, both ends of the other
two resistors, called R2 and R3 are connected, and the
other sides of those resistors are connected to the
other side of the voltage source.

If you actually knew something about the topic on which
you choose to hold forth, you might recognize the following
as a SPICE netlist for the circuit I just described:

Vsrc 1 0 AC SIN 10.0 0.0
R1 1 2 0.5
R2 2 0 4.0
R3 2 0 0.2

Now, if you did indeed know something, you would notice that
R1, which we'll pretend is the resistance of the very thin
wire the OP is using is 0.5 Ohm. And the "speaker" has a
resistance of 4 ohms, and the "near short" whisker has a
resistance of 0.2 ohms.

Real quick, Howard, since you are a "widely published" author
in the field, can you determine from the above description
whether or not ANY signal flows through R2, the "speaker"
in this case. If the value is NOT 0, the speaker WILL make
sound.

(snips of informative information)

Well, Howard, I took a Sony amplifier, which happens to be
built pretty much as I described above and hooked it up pretty
much like what the OP described AND I GOT EXACTLY THE SAME
RESULTS AS THE ORIGINAL POSTER.

Well, Howard?

Howard?

Howard?

Are you still with us?

Do you now understand why, when people know a LOT more than
you, it's because they know a LOT more than you?

Do you NOW see why, Howard, you're such a dumb, arrogant
moron and why it's a good idea either to make at least a
token attempt to understand that which you choose to hold
forth as an expert on, or simply drop the silly pretense,
admit you're clueless, and go take up shuffleboard to fill
out the rest of your retirement in the obscurity you have so
richly earned?

Haven't you done enough damage with your "books" and
"articles?"

Hey, Dick (assuming your commentary really came from Dick
Pierce, an expert I admire considerably),

Regarding the bulk of your comments, thanks very much for
the very well coordinated, easy to read, and helpful package
of information, their sometimes cynical style
notwithstanding. I do indeed now realize that I was wrong
and that my critics (including Trevor) were correct. I
assume that you worked pretty hard at putting that
commentary together, and for that you are to be commended.
You are a darned good teacher.

By the way, I do understand Ohm's Law to a reasonable
extent, but simply had not bothered to hook up an amp and
see that, indeed, enough current would flow through a
speaker in parallel with a near short to allow that speaker
to at least make a little noise. Yeah, I suppose I probably
should have done some testing, but to tell the truth I would
have been paranoid about possibly damaging an amp. Glad you
set things straight, in any case.

On the other hand, regarding your concluding statements
coming near the end of your informative commentary, dealing
with me and my work as a journalist and the so-called
"damage" I have done with my books (assuming that you have
indeed read through one or more of them), well, Dick, that
was a cheap shot, and so **** You, Asshole.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

said:

Formulae GASP! and a clear explanation!!!!

How *dare* you confuse our resident Professional Audio Clown with
facts?

Yes, he did a fine job of setting me straight, and for that
I am grateful.

Unfortunately, he then went on to behave like an obnoxious
and insulting bully. He made claims about my journalistic
and book-writing work (which mostly involves introducing
amateurs to the hobby, warning them about con artists, and
reviewing recordings), and yet my guess is that he has never
read any of my published stuff, particularly the books.

In other words, what we have is a strong technical mind
encapsulated in the body of a computer-keyboard thug.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler said:

Hey, Dick (assuming your commentary really came from Dick
Pierce, an expert I admire considerably),

snip

On the other hand, regarding your concluding statements
coming near the end of your informative commentary, dealing
with me and my work as a journalist and the so-called
"damage" I have done with my books (assuming that you have
indeed read through one or more of them), well, Dick, that
was a cheap shot, and so **** You, Asshole.


That must have hurt. Badly.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:32:47 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

I'm certainly willing to learn. Now, with this near short
pulling just about all of the juice out of the amp, where
does this speaker load, with a resistance way, way higher
than the near short in parallel with it, get the juice to
make any noise?

Who says that the near short is pulling nearly all of the juice out of
the amp? I can put a 0.5 ohm resistor across the output terminals of
my amp, with virtually no reduction in volume from the speakers.
Indeed, it's one of my favourite party tricks.... :-)

That trick would certainly make me nervous. In any case, do
two wires shorted together still have a resistance as high
as 0.5 ohm?

Don't you understand that, so long as the amp is capable of driving
the 'short', it doesn't matter what the relative resistance of 'short'
and speaker is? It's the *voltage* across the load that counts, and
both 'short' and speaker have *exactly* the same voltage across them.
--

I see that now. Indeed, I pretty much started to see it a
while back but was at a loss about how to bail out of a
situation I should have never gotten into. I should stick to
pointing out common-sense issues to neophytes (and writing
introductory books and articles on audio or doing record
reviews) and not get involved with situations that put me in
a bit over my head.

In any case, with all of the turbulence this series has
stirred up I do hope the original poster has at least solved
his problem.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Stewart. While it was not
quite as detailed as the longer one submitted Pierce, it
certainly was more civil.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler said:


Formulae GASP! and a clear explanation!!!!

How *dare* you confuse our resident Professional Audio Clown with
facts?

Yes, he did a fine job of setting me straight, and for that
I am grateful.

Unfortunately, he then went on to behave like an obnoxious
and insulting bully. He made claims about my journalistic
and book-writing work (which mostly involves introducing
amateurs to the hobby, warning them about con artists, and
reviewing recordings), and yet my guess is that he has never
read any of my published stuff, particularly the books.

In other words, what we have is a strong technical mind
encapsulated in the body of a computer-keyboard thug.


Yup, that definitely did hurt.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Margaret von B." wrote:

Howard,

Having read a couple of your "reviews", your bottom line seems to be utter
incompetence and sheer idiocy.

Cheers,

Margaret

Which ones, and where in them did I go wrong? Knowing that
will help me to straighten out my act.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Shockingly Introspective croaked:

Unfortunately, he then went on to behave like an obnoxious
and insulting bully.

You don't say. Can you imagine? Just because he thinks he knows something
somebody else doesn't. Somebody being snotty and nasty and hostile, just because
of a question about audio? It's simply outrageous.

All I can say is that it's a good thing such behavior isn't widespread. Don't
you agree, Harold?

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Hey, Dick (assuming your commentary really came from Dick
Pierce, an expert I admire considerably),

irrelevant blather snipped

On the other hand, regarding your concluding statements
coming near the end of your informative commentary, dealing
with me and my work as a journalist and the so-called
"damage" I have done with my books (assuming that you have
indeed read through one or more of them), well, Dick, that
was a cheap shot, and so **** You, Asshole.

Howard Ferstler


Well Howard, the wakeup call had to come sooner or later. I'm sure that it
is *particularly* painful when a person you so admire basically repeated
*my* earlier statement about the damage you have caused with your
incompetence and arrogance.

How about that public apology and reparations I also mentioned, Howard?


Cheers,

Margaret

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

And if it is in parallel
with a speaker load that has way, way more resistance (not
to mention the additional AC impedance added) just how much
current is going to be available to pass through the
speaker?

**I suggest you read the words written by Mr Pinkerton and Mr Pierce. Mr
Pierce, in particular, has written eloquently and succinctly on this topic.

I did, and they, and you are right and I was wrong. Sorry to
have pulled your chain so hard, although I still disagree
with you emphatically about that amp of yours, as well as
about wires.

Incidentally, given how I have treated you I cannot fault
you for striking back hard. Also, Pinkerton's reply was to
the point and quite civil, and I acknowledge that he was on
the mark.

Pierce was on the mark, too, and with a degree of expertise
that would honor a college professor. Unfortunately, the
latter part of his response was not much more than a cheap
shot that I resent considerably.

Ironically, I wonder what Pierce thinks of your opinion
regarding that special amp of yours or the effects of
speaker wires? While he had an apparent field day insulting
me (after posting that to the point and expertly written
explanation of his), he has said nothing at all about your
claims regarding that special amp. Given that he has
bothered to read all of my comments, I assume that means he
agrees with you about its abilities. Congratulations.

I do not know where you got the idea that I am a defender of
Bose. I have reviewed the 901 systems (and published a
review), but my guess is that you never read the review. I
thought it was an interesting system with notable
limitations.

**The Bose 901 is a flawed speaker, designed around faulty logic.

I agree. The direct/reflection concept misses the point of
what speakers should be able to do with standard recordings
in home-listening situations. It still works for some
people, obviously, and does so because it fakes things
rather nicely, at least with some recordings.

It's
survival was based on the litigious nature of Dr Bose, combined with a
superb marketing department and dumb patent issuers. It's present survival
is based solely on Bose's need to keep the illusion alive. Bose sells so few
of the model that it is impossible to justify, based on sales alone. There
never was anything to praise the Bose 901 on. "Helically wound voice coils"
indeed! It's like saying: "The Pontiac GTO uses cylindrical pistons."

Actually, the pair I reviewed were not in my main listening
room, which is 18 x 22 feet, with an 8.5 foot ceiling.
Instead, they were installed in a rather large room at a
friend's place (21 x 31 feet, with a 8-10 foot cathedral
ceiling) and in that area they actually sounded quite good
with certain program materials. Note that he located them
several feet out from the front wall, instead of a foot or
two away. I would have trouble living with them, myself, but
they certainly sounded better in that room than some of the
other speakers I have auditioned in my own main room.

**Which becomes obsolete within 18 months.

Well, they may indeed face that problem in the realm of
surround sound. However, you can purchase a LOT of upscale
receivers over the years for what one super amp costs.

**No. Of course, your definition of "super amp" and mine may be quite
different.

No doubt, given your comments on that very special super amp
you promote.

And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs.

**Possibly.

My guess is that it has problems, assuming that it really
does sound different from good mainstream units.

**Of course your guesses are about as useful as anything else you have to
say.

Nobody is correct about everything 100% of the time, and I
admit that I got off on the wrong track considerably when it
came to the issue of speaker-wire shorts.

However, I have reviewed a number of amps (subjective
reviews, just like the tweakos do, but with very different
conclusions) and I continue to marvel that you say that the
reason so many "conventional" models sound the same, with
identical distortions, is their lack of a proper NFB design.
Supposedly, your amp corrects this problem and it sounds
more accurate than all other amps (be they rather expensive
or rather cheap, like those in typical receivers) that have
different topologies but do not follow the NFB structure of
your amp.

Suffice to say that even rather
mundane receivers have distortion levels low enough to be
essentially transparent with typical speaker loads. What
more would anyone want?

**An amplifier which can deal with REAL speaker loads, up to and past the
point of clipping.

I think that you make the job of an amp much more mysterious
than it happens to be.

Oops, I forgot, a typical tweako wants an amp (and wires)
that he can puff himself up over, and brag about.

**Some do. Some don't.

In many cases, even those who do not brag to others will
stand in front of their philosophical mirror and feel good
about themselves. Sometimes not bragging makes them feel
even better.

At least I do not con suckers into spending big on overkill
amps and wires.

**You just con people into buying books, written by one who ahs little real
knowledge about the subject.

The books are guidelines for newcomers and are designed to
clue the reader into proper ways to sanely purchase gear and
also deal with people like you. In any case, just how many
of my books have you even looked over?

**Indeed. However, these strawman arguments have little to do with
electrostatic speakers. Electrostatics manage some performance parameters
which are simply impossible with other designs.

Read Stanley Lip****z' paper on the limitations of
line-source radiators. It is available as an AES reprint.

**I am aware of the limitations (and strengths) of line source arrays. Are
you aware of the advantages of some electrostatic speakers?

I really cannot think of any. I suppose some people like to
listen primarily in the direct field, but the Lip****z paper
indicated that this is where the line-source speaker really
goes to hell.

Those performance parameters
come at a cost (amplifier-wise). Make no mistake: Electrostatic speakers
are
not perfect. Far from it. They can often be comprehensively outperformed
by
far less expensive designs.

So why purchase them?

**Because they do some things better than other speakers.

What things?

I mean, they have all sorts of
limitations and I see no sonic advantages to them at all.

**Who said they have no sonic advantages? Certainly not me. And certainly
not anyone who has experienced them.

Some people like the direct-field sound. The problem is that
fixed-length line sources are at their weakest under those
conditions.

By the way, I am retired and not a
professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have
published material.

**So what? You write about stuff you have no real knowledge of.

But I do not CON people, pal.

**You've conned publishers.

This assumes you have read the books and articles and have
spotted errors that show I was conning people: readers and
publishers.

Go read some of my books, as well as some of my entries and
editing work in the new edition of The Encyclopedia of
Recorded Sound (Routledge, 2005), and see if you can
understand some of the stuff I write about basic audio.

**Why? You have amply demonstrated that I can learn nothing useful from any
of your books.

Well, reading them would give you the opportunity to post
quotes from the books and then demolish them. "On page XX
Ferstler claims that people should do XXXXX, and this is
patently wrong. Here's why."

Well, just how much current is passing through that speaker
in parallel with the near short?

**That would depend on a great number of factors. These include:
* Source impedance.
* Impedance of the cable.
* Impedance and efficiency of the speakers.
* The location of the short circuit.
* The actual impedance of the short circuit.

Without knowing ALL of the above, with a fair degree of precision, it is
impossible to say.

I agree 100%.

**No. I am waiting for an apology and an admission from you that you are
wrong.

Don't hold your breath. I do not apologize to people like
you.

**Of course. I expected nothing less.

Actually, I do now apologize for being wrong about the
short/speaker sound issue, and attacking you in that area.
However, I do not apologize in the least for what I said
regarding your special amp and the impact of special wires.

Some people like speakers that, when listened to from a
precisely determined sweet spot, sound like super-sized
headphones. Not my cup of tea from a live-music perspective.

**BINGO! Not YOUR cup of tea. That is an opinion you are entitled to.

And I have stated just that in several of my speaker reviews
and commentary articles. I cut speaker builders a lot of
slack. Speaker sound can indeed interact strongly with
taste.

MOST surround sound receiver manufacturers
are aware of this and they make serious compromises in the analogue
sections
of their products.

Perhaps in the phono preamp and tuner sections.

**And the line stages. And the power amp stages. And the power supplies. Try
running a decent 2 channel amp, at 40% and 100% of maximum power for 30 mins
and see what happens. Then do the same thing with a decent 5 (or 6 or 7)
channel amp. Watch what happens.

Assuming a good receiver with at least 100 wpc on those 6 or
7 channels, what civilized person listens that loud?

**Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending
on
the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker
cables.

Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language
can make a con artist feel good about what he does.

**It is a BIG difference.

To you, maybe.

**To anyone with a brain.

Go glassy-eyed audio buffs, rejecting a "recommendation"
from a high-end audio salesman is practically an admission
of having a tin ear. No buff would chance that, and every
slick salesman knows this.

Howard Ferstler

ScottW wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of
it will be passing through the short in parallel.

Howard Ferstler

The only way the current through the speaker is zero is
if the voltage across the speaker is zero or the speaker
is fried and has infinite impedance.
We'll assume the speaker is ok.
Since the speaker and the short are in parallel..
they will both have the same voltage across them.

Clearly the current required to generate a voltage
across a true zero ohm short is infinite (I = V/R)... but a true
zero ohm short is physically impossible (well maybe the
superconductor guys have something close).

So... if the amp hasn't shut down and is producing a voltage
at all across the short (which isn't really a perfect short)
... the same voltage will be present
across the speaker and current will flow thru the speaker.

ScottW

I agree, and I was previously wrong. The SPL will be darned
low, however, and would that speaker be playing loud enough
to be heard if all of the other speakers are playing at
normal, unshorted levels?

Howard Ferstler

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:39:55 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny,
not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your
gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

Define near short and define mute.

It will probably put most amps into current limit.

But not all................. :-)

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers.

A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.

Quite so! :-)

Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still
provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since
they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and
hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand
this.

How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of
it will be passing through the short in parallel.

Howard Ferstler

The only way the current through the speaker is zero is
if the voltage across the speaker is zero or the speaker
is fried and has infinite impedance.
We'll assume the speaker is ok.
Since the speaker and the short are in parallel..
they will both have the same voltage across them.

Clearly the current required to generate a voltage
across a true zero ohm short is infinite (I = V/R)... but a true
zero ohm short is physically impossible (well maybe the
superconductor guys have something close).

Actually, not close, but absolutely zero resistance - that's the whole
point!

So... if the amp hasn't shut down and is producing a voltage
at all across the short (which isn't really a perfect short)
... the same voltage will be present
across the speaker and current will flow thru the speaker.

Quite so. Ferstler is an incompetent - but we knew that.

Stewart, you disappoint me. Nobody, including me (and even
you) is 100% incompetent.

OK, so the speaker will be making a small amount of noise.
Now, will that noise be audible over the much louder sound
of the other speaker(s) who are not working in circuits that
are partially shorted?

Howard Ferstler

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:34:45 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

Well, you're just plain wrong.

Define near short and define mute.

It will probably put most amps into current limit.

But not all................. :-)

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers.

A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.

Quite so! :-)

Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still
provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since
they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and
hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand
this.

How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of
it will be passing through the short in parallel.

That's an absolutely shameful statement to be made by someone who
calls himself an audio reviewer. Read up on Thevenin and Norton.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

OK, so the speaker will be making a SMALL amount of sound.
But will that sound be audible if the other channel(s) are
playing at normal levels? In other words, will masking
effects essentially make it seem as if the speaker is not
playing at all?

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

Because with audio gear (amps, players, wires, definitely)
the components with fixed outputs or fixed abilities should
be transparent. If a user wants to modify the sound he
should have the ability to do so as an option.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
Modifying the sound can be done by other means than just tone
controls.

Sure. I use dbx dynamic range enhancers and bass
synthesizers with SOME pop materials and also with SOME (non
DD or DTS) movie sources. I also use DSP to synthesize
additional channels with two-channel sources. All sorts of
options are there.

However, you STILL want the amps to do nothing more than
amplify. Having them color all source materials in the same
way is, as I noted, akin to looking through the world full
time while wearing colored sun glasses.

As a "professional audio clown" you should know that.

Note that I am retired.

Applying the
same colorations to all recordings (as is the case with
those weird amps you build) is like looking at the world
with colored glasses all the time - indoors, outdoors, rain,
or shine.

And according to a certain Howard Ferstler this is OK.
It says so above:

If a user wants to modify the sound he
should have the ability to do so as an option.

This option is available when using one of my amps.

But it cannot be adjusted. And switching amps to color the
sound that way sounds like an awkward way to achieve goals
that should be very simple.

Face it. You like toys, and toy playing is your primary
goal.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

Hey, Dick (assuming your commentary really came from Dick
Pierce, an expert I admire considerably),

snip

On the other hand, regarding your concluding statements
coming near the end of your informative commentary, dealing
with me and my work as a journalist and the so-called
"damage" I have done with my books (assuming that you have
indeed read through one or more of them), well, Dick, that
was a cheap shot, and so **** You, Asshole.

That must have hurt. Badly.

Normally, comments here roll off of my back. Those
concluding Pierce's otherwise informative commentary did
not. I rather doubt he has read any of my stuff (books or
articles), other than the complementary biographical sketch
I did of him for The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound. I write
(or wrote) for neophytes and basic hobby types and not for
engineers.

Fortunately, since I am pretty much retiring from the
audio-writing game his comments (and opinions of me) at
least cannot get me cashiered. I will leave it with the
likes of Pierce to continue to deal with the lunatic fringe.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:
OK, so the speaker will be making a small amount of noise.
Now, will that noise be audible over the much louder sound
of the other speaker(s) who are not working in circuits that
are partially shorted?

Let's see the scenario: User hooks up left and right speakers,
turns receiver on, puts on a CD, turns it on, and, damn! one
speaker doesn't seem to be working! Maybe the balance control
is off, so user turns the balance control to the defective
channel, in an attempt to increase the amount of drive to that
speaker. Of course, the user has probably more attenuated the
signal to the good channel. But there's that other channel,
playing weakly. Now, the user turns the volume control up, and
it gets a little louder than shuts off.

And, by the way, even if the amplifier DID shut down both channels
on an overload on one, the user would never know the difference
if he's turned the balance control far enough that the good
channel is silenced, would he?

Would he?

Ever tried to diagnose a stereo with one channel not working?

What would Howard do?

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

Formulae GASP! and a clear explanation!!!!

How *dare* you confuse our resident Professional Audio Clown with
facts?

Yes, he did a fine job of setting me straight, and for that
I am grateful.

Unfortunately, he then went on to behave like an obnoxious
and insulting bully. He made claims about my journalistic
and book-writing work (which mostly involves introducing
amateurs to the hobby, warning them about con artists, and
reviewing recordings), and yet my guess is that he has never
read any of my published stuff, particularly the books.

In other words, what we have is a strong technical mind
encapsulated in the body of a computer-keyboard thug.

Yup, that definitely did hurt.

It would have hurt even more if I were still in the
audio-writing business. As an "outsider" I can now take Mr.
Pierce's insults with a grain of salt. Well, almost.

The problem is that in so many ways we are on the same side.
God help the enthusiast who thinks he is an ally of Mr.
Pierce.

Howard Ferstler

George Middius wrote:

Brother Horace the Shockingly Introspective croaked:

Unfortunately, he then went on to behave like an obnoxious
and insulting bully.

You don't say. Can you imagine? Just because he thinks he knows something
somebody else doesn't.

But he does know plenty, and that is the mystery for me. He
could have just set me straight with the basic information
he posted (I knew I was in a pickle well before his last
message, but I could not figure out how to gracefully get
out of it), but then he went on to impugn my journalistic
and book-writing integrity, as if all of the stuff I have
said about audio as a hobby and people like you both here
and in print was wrong. I will speculate that other than the
complementary biographical sketch of him that I did for The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (he read the draft prior to
me sending it to the publisher) he has never read any of my
books or magazine articles. Yet he made it sound as if I was
the biggest promoter of audio claptrap in the business.

Somebody being snotty and nasty and hostile, just because
of a question about audio? It's simply outrageous.

All I can say is that it's a good thing such behavior isn't widespread. Don't
you agree, Harold?

I certainly do, Middius. Thank god for all of us that
high-end audio is such an insignificant institution. For me,
leaving the business has been notably painless and free of
remorse. I miss it like I miss a toothache.

Howard Ferstler

"Margaret von B." wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Hey, Dick (assuming your commentary really came from Dick
Pierce, an expert I admire considerably),

irrelevant blather snipped

On the other hand, regarding your concluding statements
coming near the end of your informative commentary, dealing
with me and my work as a journalist and the so-called
"damage" I have done with my books (assuming that you have
indeed read through one or more of them), well, Dick, that
was a cheap shot, and so **** You, Asshole.

Well Howard, the wakeup call had to come sooner or later. I'm sure that it
is *particularly* painful when a person you so admire basically repeated
*my* earlier statement about the damage you have caused with your
incompetence and arrogance.

Yeah, Pierce is the master of collateral damage.

How about that public apology and reparations I also mentioned, Howard?

Cheers,

Margaret

Not a chance. In any case, just because Pierce thinks I am a
misrepresenting troublemaker who does more harm than good
does not mean that he is in your camp. Yep, you guys STILL
have to deal with him and his tool box full of brass tacks.

You have my deepest sympathies.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
OK, so the speaker will be making a small amount of noise.
Now, will that noise be audible over the much louder sound
of the other speaker(s) who are not working in circuits that
are partially shorted?

Let's see the scenario: User hooks up left and right speakers,
turns receiver on, puts on a CD, turns it on, and, damn! one
speaker doesn't seem to be working! Maybe the balance control
is off, so user turns the balance control to the defective
channel, in an attempt to increase the amount of drive to that
speaker. Of course, the user has probably more attenuated the
signal to the good channel. But there's that other channel,
playing weakly. Now, the user turns the volume control up, and
it gets a little louder than shuts off.

Makes sense. Thanks.

And, by the way, even if the amplifier DID shut down both channels
on an overload on one, the user would never know the difference
if he's turned the balance control far enough that the good
channel is silenced, would he?

Would he?

Ever tried to diagnose a stereo with one channel not working?

What would Howard do?

Actually, I purchase good, reliable gear and hook it up
carefully. Consequently, I have never had the problems that
you seem to have encountered with your gear.

Yeah, I need to get out more. Unfortunately, it is too late
for that now. Good luck battling the crazies, Dick.

PS: Thanks for the cheap shot regarding my journalistic and
book-writing efforts in that other reply of yours. It
certainly opened my eyes - about you.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Would-Be Fence-Sitter carped:

Fortunately, since I am pretty much retiring from the
audio-writing game his comments (and opinions of me) at
least cannot get me cashiered. I will leave it with the
likes of Pierce to continue to deal with the lunatic fringe.

I believe he just did exactly that. And the lunatic fringe was mortified.

LOL!

So much for the hoped-for clarity of Clerkish vision....

Brother Horace the Shockingly Introspective croaked:

Unfortunately, he then went on to behave like an obnoxious
and insulting bully.

You don't say. Can you imagine? Just because he thinks he knows something
somebody else doesn't.

But he does know plenty, and that is the mystery for me.

Earth to Clerkie! Come in, Clerkie! Please respond if you're reading this. Over!
Over!

Somebody being snotty and nasty and hostile, just because
of a question about audio? It's simply outrageous.

All I can say is that it's a good thing such behavior isn't widespread. Don't
you agree, Harold?

I certainly do, Middius.

LOL!

Did you just tell us *again* that your oft-postponed retirement from the "audio
business" is now imminent? If you ever do retire (and let's not forget you've
made the same announcement several times previously), that will curtail the
obnoxious behavior a little.

Howard Ferstler said:

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
Modifying the sound can be done by other means than just tone
controls.

Sure. I use dbx dynamic range enhancers and bass
synthesizers with SOME pop materials and also with SOME (non
DD or DTS) movie sources. I also use DSP to synthesize
additional channels with two-channel sources. All sorts of
options are there.


What is better: a contraption where almost every parameter can be
(mis) adjusted by the ignorant user or a fixed correction (like the
RIAA- or NAB correction in a phono- or tape head preamp) ?


However, you STILL want the amps to do nothing more than
amplify. Having them color all source materials in the same
way is, as I noted, akin to looking through the world full
time while wearing colored sun glasses.


And I maintain my position that for a certain preferred sound from the
entire system, a fixed correction in just one link of the chain is
entirely justified.


As a "professional audio clown" you should know that.

Note that I am retired.


Make that "retired professional audio clown", note.


Applying the
same colorations to all recordings (as is the case with
those weird amps you build) is like looking at the world
with colored glasses all the time - indoors, outdoors, rain,
or shine.


You're repeating yourself.


And according to a certain Howard Ferstler this is OK.
It says so above:

If a user wants to modify the sound he
should have the ability to do so as an option.

This option is available when using one of my amps.

But it cannot be adjusted. And switching amps to color the
sound that way sounds like an awkward way to achieve goals
that should be very simple.


An amp is just a link in a long chain.
you accept the choices the recorcing and mastering engineer made, why
not accept the choice your amp designer made, especially when you like
the final result?


Face it. You like toys, and toy playing is your primary
goal.


I must admit to liking toys, but only when they run on 250V.
My primary goal is to create a reproduction of my preferred music that
pleases me.


Tell me Howard: if you could sue those tweakos for that, you'd do so,
wouldn't you? ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005