Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ric" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell? I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK. Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of Harry's primary traits. Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against it. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry. Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error. But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound quality is your primary emphasis". As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004. So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said nice things about it, but they said nice things about the 563 but you are right to disagree with them? However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that better players have. Prove it. And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. So much for your memory, Harry. I did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No Harry, your negative post about 563 said: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70 "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led it to not being able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a lot of people who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle. That is also why I never even tried it." And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any written review of the 578. So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563? This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you actually knew nothing at all about. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A, and your prior recommendations and comments. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same. This would be a lie. Could you tell us the nature of the differences between players, Arnie? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ups.com Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same. This would be a lie. Could you tell us the nature of the differences between players, Arnie? Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Another Kroopologist renounces his former faith. I didn't set up the crosspost. Of course, nothing is ever the Krooborg's fault. The implication that he's incapable of changing the list of newsgroups that his own messages are posted to is typical of the Krooborg. guiding light share in the good news Praise the Lord. therefore no anxiety need be expended on their selection--just get the cheapest. Hallelujah! This is the message of simple benediction he spreads, and you may be sure I at least am truly grateful for it. Don't forget to tithe at the church. This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease flowing to us from the good old US of A? Actually, they're both Japanese. Don't you have your share of JEE-zus freaks in Oz? Congratulations on kicking Kroopologism. Most of the infected are too stupid to realize they've been contaminated. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ric" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell? I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK. Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of Harry's primary traits. Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against it. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry. Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error. But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound quality is your primary emphasis". As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004. So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said nice things about it, but they said nice things about the 563 but you are right to disagree with them? However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that better players have. Prove it. And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. So much for your memory, Harry. I did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No Harry, your negative post about 563 said: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70 "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led it to not being able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a lot of people who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle. That is also why I never even tried it." And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any written review of the 578. So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563? This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you actually knew nothing at all about. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A, and your prior recommendations and comments. Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Any comments I made on the 563 were simply references to their general acceptance in the audiophile community, as your post above simply reiterates. I presume that if you could find me recommending the 563 based on my own experience you would have done so. I did nothing but give "factual" information about that unit based on its reputation. When I was shopping, the 563 had just been replaced by the 578. I had several modifiers inform me that the 578 was "inferior" to the 563. So I didn't listen to them, since I suspected that this opinion may have been based on a) the ease of modifying, or b) the need for modifying. Instead I listened to the unit myself in several places and then in my own system, as well as listening to several other players with DVD-A capability. That is the unit I recommended, based on my own listening. No amount of tap-dancing about on your part above can change these facts Arny. Your memory was faulty, and I simply pointed it out. No big deal, except perhaps to somebody with a poor ego. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ric" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell? I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK. Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of Harry's primary traits. Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against it. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry. Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error. But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound quality is your primary emphasis". As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004. So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said nice things about it, but they said nice things about the 563 but you are right to disagree with them? However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that better players have. Prove it. And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. So much for your memory, Harry. I did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No Harry, your negative post about 563 said: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70 "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led it to not being able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a lot of people who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle. That is also why I never even tried it." And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any written review of the 578. So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563? This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you actually knew nothing at all about. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A, and your prior recommendations and comments. Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ric" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell? I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK. Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of Harry's primary traits. Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against it. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry. Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error. But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound quality is your primary emphasis". As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004. So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said nice things about it, but they said nice things about the 563 but you are right to disagree with them? However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that better players have. Prove it. And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. So much for your memory, Harry. I did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No Harry, your negative post about 563 said: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70 "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led it to not being able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a lot of people who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle. That is also why I never even tried it." And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any written review of the 578. So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563? This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you actually knew nothing at all about. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A, and your prior recommendations and comments. Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry. And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply snipping (without indication) the part of my post following this sentence, which clearly reflected back on you. You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the kitchen, pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know what's cookin'. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ric" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell? I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK. Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of Harry's primary traits. Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against it. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry. Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error. But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound quality is your primary emphasis". As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004. So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said nice things about it, but they said nice things about the 563 but you are right to disagree with them? However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that better players have. Prove it. And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. So much for your memory, Harry. I did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No Harry, your negative post about 563 said: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70 "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led it to not being able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a lot of people who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle. That is also why I never even tried it." And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any written review of the 578. So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563? This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you actually knew nothing at all about. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A, and your prior recommendations and comments. Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry. And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply snipping (without indication) the part of my post following this sentence, which clearly reflected back on you. Harry, the portion of your post that I snipped was irrelevant to my comment. Sue me for trying to keep the discussion on topic. You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the kitchen, pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know what's cookin'. Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players. Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE comments. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon wrote:
Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you feel the need to post in an Austalian newsgroup. Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
it apart from cheap CD players. These include: Proper relay muting. Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to break. A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear effects. Decent output stage, which does not include primitive, 4558-style output ICs. Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s isn't my problem. Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues. Don't know about the 4558 specifically though. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"robert casey" wrote in message
hlink.net it apart from cheap CD players. These include: Proper relay muting. Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to break. A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear effects. But if there are no problems with distortion due to the muting transistors, then the relay is futile. Decent output stage, which does not include primitive, 4558-style output ICs. Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s isn't my problem. Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues. Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then. Don't know about the 4558 specifically though. I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "robert casey" wrote in message hlink.net it apart from cheap CD players. These include: Proper relay muting. Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to break. A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear effects. But if there are no problems with distortion due to the muting transistors, then the relay is futile. **IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids the possibility entirely. Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many units. Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever Decent output stage, which does not include primitive, 4558-style output ICs. Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s isn't my problem. Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues. Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then. Don't know about the 4558 specifically though. I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear. **No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent equipment since before 1980. Even pro audio equipment manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They were resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers awhile ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ric" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell? I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK. Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of Harry's primary traits. Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against it. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry. Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error. But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound quality is your primary emphasis". As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004. So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said nice things about it, but they said nice things about the 563 but you are right to disagree with them? However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that better players have. Prove it. And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. So much for your memory, Harry. I did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No Harry, your negative post about 563 said: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70 "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led it to not being able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a lot of people who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle. That is also why I never even tried it." And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any written review of the 578. So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563? This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you actually knew nothing at all about. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A, and your prior recommendations and comments. Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry. And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply snipping (without indication) the part of my post following this sentence, which clearly reflected back on you. Harry, the portion of your post that I snipped was irrelevant to my comment. Sue me for trying to keep the discussion on topic. Bull****. It was dead on topic. You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the kitchen, pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know what's cookin'. Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players. Arny, you are the one making the mistake, attributing my endorsement with the 578 with the 563a. And no amount of huffing and blowing can change that. All I have done is correct you. Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE comments. I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking for some truthfulness. Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John A publishes on every high rez player. If you did, you would note that at low and midrange frequencies SACD and DVD-A are IDENTICAL and that it is only in the high frequencies that SACD yields to DVD-A in dynamic range. That's what I said. It's fact. It's demonstrable. What's your beef? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "robert casey" wrote in message hlink.net it apart from cheap CD players. These include: Proper relay muting. Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to break. A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear effects. But if there are no problems with distortion due to the muting transistors, then the relay is futile. **IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids the possibility entirely. Well, until the contacts get dirty. Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many units. Never saw the problem even though I've read people get paranoid about it. Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever Until the contacts get dirty. I've experience that problem with power amps. Decent output stage, which does not include primitive, 4558-style output ICs. Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s isn't my problem. Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues. Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then. Don't know about the 4558 specifically though. I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear. **No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent equipment since before 1980. OK, so all this fairly new pro gear such as the power amp for my NHT Pro A10s is indecent. Either that or it was made before 1980 even though that model came out just a few years ago. Even pro audio equipment manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They were resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers awhile ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them. I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear. Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that everybody is. Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they are still being used to make quality new equipment. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE comments. I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking for some truthfulness. Then clean out your own house first, Harry. Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John A publishes on every high rez player. Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the topic from where you made your gross mistake to something that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A equipment. Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying, first and foremost to yourself. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
****-for-Brains does his hypocracy™ dance. Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the tinyist No such word. Looks like Harry got you so unnerved that you lapsed into Krooglish. amount of honesty Hahahaha! Now I know you're coming unglued. When AutoLiarBorg starts babbling about "honesty", it's time to cash in the government bonds. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "robert casey" wrote in message hlink.net it apart from cheap CD players. These include: Proper relay muting. Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to break. A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear effects. But if there are no problems with distortion due to the muting transistors, then the relay is futile. **IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids the possibility entirely. Well, until the contacts get dirty. **Not even then. In any case, decent equipment uses hermetically sealed, or mercury wetted relays. These demonstrate phenomenal reliability. More importantly, is the fact that relays are almost always used to short the signal to ground. Dirty contacts (if they ever occur) will therefore be irelevant. Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many units. Never saw the problem even though I've read people get paranoid about it. **And rightfully so. Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever Until the contacts get dirty. I've experience that problem with power amps. **Indeed. Series relay contacts can be a problem. However, we're talking about shunt circuits. Decent output stage, which does not include primitive, 4558-style output ICs. Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s isn't my problem. Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues. Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then. Don't know about the 4558 specifically though. I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear. **No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent equipment since before 1980. OK, so all this fairly new pro gear such as the power amp for my NHT Pro A10s is indecent. Either that or it was made before 1980 even though that model came out just a few years ago. **If it uses a 4558-style chip (and depending on how it is used), then it is crap. 4558-style chips have been available since the late 1970s. There are far better performing chips available. Such chips are inexpensive and have been available for decades. Be aware, that I have no issue with 4558-style chips as part of DC servo, or in LF circuits. Even pro audio equipment manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They were resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers awhile ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them. I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear. Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that everybody is. **I'm not paranoid about them. They just have no place (outside DC functions) in decent audio equipment. Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they are still being used to make quality new equipment. **No, they're not. Their use is confined exclusively to cheap, Asian equipment, or to DC and LF functions. They are not used (and haven't for decades) for high quality equipment. Consumer or pro. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in
message Hahahaha! Now I know you're coming unglued. When AutoLiarBorg starts babbling about "honesty", it's time to cash in the government bonds. Looks like Lavo really went over the edge now - he's even got George Middius supporting him! |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"EddieM" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton" wrote calcerise wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening* tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your three cd players namely: 1. Sony CDP-715E 2. Meridian 588 3. Pioneer DV-575A Were you also comparing their sounds from each other? Er...suppose he might have been talking about matching with a spirit level and feeling around the faceplates. //Adam F |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" said:
**IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids the possibility entirely. Well, until the contacts get dirty. A relay with contacts to ground poses no problems. I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear. Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that everybody is. Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they are still being used to make quality new equipment. The industry standard opamp is still the NE5532/5534/LM833. 4558s are highly sought after by guitar amp enthusiasts. Nuff said :-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no difference. :-) And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. ----== 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 =---- |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. .....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the ineffable. Howard Ferstler |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no difference. :-) Baloney. You either hear differences or you do not. Guys like you need to hear differences. Otherwise the hobby would not be of interest. The DBT protocol screws over your need for the mysterious. Howard Ferstler |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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. But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly good, superbly built gear. Couldn't agree more, Dad bought one in early-83 and it's stored away (with tuner). The picture quality from the tapes from that period is superb (much better than some 8mm analogue footage from the 90s). Unfortunately it has a few mechanical problems - nothing that couldn't be fixed I suppose. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. ....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the ineffable. **Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with real technical qualifications and abilities? Is that opposed to retired librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. Just a thought. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. ....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the ineffable. **Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with real technical qualifications and abilities? At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of upscale amps and exotic wires. Is that opposed to retired librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp down. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better than other, decently built versions. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an audible advantage over thick lamp cord. At least I do not con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth fairy. You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. 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. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Why on earth would you want to learn about a library cataloging system that went out of date decades ago? Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. About amps and wires? Is that supposed to be you? Howard Ferstler |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE comments. I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking for some truthfulness. Then clean out your own house first, Harry. Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John A publishes on every high rez player. Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the topic from where you made your gross mistake to something that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A equipment. Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world' as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles, and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine. Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying, first and foremost to yourself. Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Tristan" wrote in message ... 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. But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly good, superbly built gear. Couldn't agree more, Dad bought one in early-83 and it's stored away (with tuner). The picture quality from the tapes from that period is superb (much better than some 8mm analogue footage from the 90s). Unfortunately it has a few mechanical problems - nothing that couldn't be fixed I suppose. Not only that...they are easy to fix. I've had two repairmen swoon over the thing when I've taken it in for an alignment and tune-up. The jist of their swoon is "they sure don't build em like that anymore". "And when something does go wrong, we have to replace the whole thing...not like this baby." |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John A publishes on every high rez player. Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the topic from where you made your gross mistake to something that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A equipment. Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world' as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles, and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine. Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying, first and foremost to yourself. Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered. Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the "subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to producing the new version. Note that this refers to concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop recordings that often have instruments all around the listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares? In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth "advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or transparent. Phoniness has finally taken over audio. Howard Ferstler |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. ....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the ineffable. **Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with real technical qualifications and abilities? At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of upscale amps and exotic wires. **Would you care to phrase that in English? Is that opposed to retired librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? 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? Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better than other, decently built versions. **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the amplifiers I referred you to. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. Some of us, however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment. I suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be able to converse at the same level. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an audible advantage over thick lamp cord. **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. You can ignore facts and figures all you wish. It still does not make you right. At least I do not con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth fairy. **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Yet you have no in-depth knowledge about the topic. All you understand is the superficial stuff. You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. 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. **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. You have no experience with the amp in question anyway. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Why on earth would you want to learn about a library cataloging system that went out of date decades ago? **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak. Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. About amps and wires? **About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About much, much more. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John A publishes on every high rez player. Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the topic from where you made your gross mistake to something that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A equipment. Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world' as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles, and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine. Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying, first and foremost to yourself. Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered. Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the "subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to producing the new version. Note that this refers to concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop recordings that often have instruments all around the listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares? In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth "advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or transparent. Phoniness has finally taken over audio. Nice little rant, Howard. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the topic Arny and I were discussing. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of upscale amps and exotic wires. **Would you care to phrase that in English? You con people. In addition, you may also be conning yourself. I do not know which is worse. Is that opposed to retired librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? 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. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better than other, decently built versions. **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the amplifiers I referred you to. Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say otherwise, you are a con artist. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales scam. Some of us, however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment. Maybe so. However, additional education in the realms of both common sense and ethics would not hurt. I suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be able to converse at the same level. How many additional years of con-artist training will I need to be as good at the job as you? Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an audible advantage over thick lamp cord. **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp. At least I do not con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth fairy. **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case, getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me. Yet you have no in-depth knowledge about the topic. I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action. Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia, are you sure you care to continue? All you understand is the superficial stuff. For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial stuff." You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. 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. **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are conventional amps out there that are also able to handle rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is still nothing exotic about their design. You have no experience with the amp in question anyway. I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong with it. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Why on earth would you want to learn about a library cataloging system that went out of date decades ago? **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak. I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is more important than the ability to spout technical jargon and rave about one's experience repairing and installing gear. Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. About amps and wires? **About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About much, much more. OK, here is your chance to repent. Admit that all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping points when driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio applications good, decently thick lamp cord works as well as exotic speaker wire. If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. Howard Ferstler |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the "subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to producing the new version. Note that this refers to concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop recordings that often have instruments all around the listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares? In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth "advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or transparent. Phoniness has finally taken over audio. Nice little rant, Howard. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the topic Arny and I were discussing. Close enough, actually. It has plenty to do with you, however. That you con people into getting into an excitable twist over the so-called superior sound of any kind of player (CD or DVD, or whatever), particularly if we are talking about per-channel sound quality (rather than surround-sound abilities) shows that phoniness has indeed taken over audio. Sure, some players hold up better than others, but even then price does not necessarily determine which player will last and which will not. However, in terms of actual sound quality I will opine that a good Best-Buy or Circuit City offered DVD player costing $100 bucks will sound as subjectively good playing CD recordings as the very best exotic player you come up with. Yes, your player might have a measurable edge, but the ears will not pick up on that advantage. Yeah, I realize that selling people on high-end and high-priced sound is important to you. It isn't important to me, however. Howard Ferstler |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. Careful! Howard's been known to retract an apology. Stephen |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for $200USD? Thanks With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these: Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites. Cheers Dean |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. Careful! Howard's been known to retract an apology. Stephen As soon as the con artist puts his con-artist suit back on and resumes his game. Howard Ferstler |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
dean wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for $200USD? Thanks With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these: Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites. Cheers Dean Any good player selling for under $200 (note that he did not say $2000) should work as well as any exotic selling for any price. When it breaks, replace it with a newer model selling for about the same thing. You can buy a lot of cheap players for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will sound as good as any of them. Howard Ferstler |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Howard Ferstler |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ups.com Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same. This would be a lie. Could you tell us the nature of the differences between players, Arnie? Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. But most listeners would never hear those differences when listening to musical source material, particularly for pleasure. Howard Ferstler |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of upscale amps and exotic wires. **Would you care to phrase that in English? You con people. **Prove it. In addition, you may also be conning yourself. I do not know which is worse. Is that opposed to retired librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? 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. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better than other, decently built versions. **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the amplifiers I referred you to. Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say otherwise, you are a con artist. **Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically to them. There has never been any argument over this point. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales scam. **IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled to say so. Some of us, however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment. Maybe so. However, additional education in the realms of both common sense and ethics would not hurt. **I agree. I suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be able to converse at the same level. How many additional years of con-artist training will I need to be as good at the job as you? **When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife? Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an audible advantage over thick lamp cord. **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp. **Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong. At least I do not con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth fairy. **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case, getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me. **I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact. Yet you have no in-depth knowledge about the topic. I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action. **You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually know their business, however. Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia, are you sure you care to continue? **I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself. All you understand is the superficial stuff. For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial stuff." **Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be fine. You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. 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. **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are conventional amps out there that are also able to handle rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is still nothing exotic about their design. **How would you know? You have no experience with the amp in question anyway. I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong with it. **IOW: You don't know. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Why on earth would you want to learn about a library cataloging system that went out of date decades ago? **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak. I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is more important than the ability to spout technical jargon and rave about one's experience repairing and installing gear. **It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly lacking. Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. About amps and wires? **About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About much, much more. OK, here is your chance to repent. **Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you feel necessary. Admit that all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping points when driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio applications good, **I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed, sound identical. decently thick lamp cord works as well as exotic speaker wire. **For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no. If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. **No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: from $0.99 SONY Theater RECEIVER ($600 less!) dOUBLEdECK AND headphones HiFi awesome | Marketplace | |||
Any Sony CD Guru out there? | Tech | |||
[?]Sourcing SONY DAT recorder 7-pin connector (and lead). | Pro Audio | |||
Sony Digital Amps (and SACD) vs. Sony Analog Amps | High End Audio |