Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... ..... **BIG difference. You can't run a diesel engine on gasoline. For all intents and purposes, the amplifiers were the same as they came in. Except they now work. In any case, I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. Do you have a concept of what that means? Yes, it means you fooled him, but will give him his money back when and if he discovers your deceit. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?
Not hardly, even at the margins. What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200 investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is even more likely that one would expect differences given a 'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration. And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them away as 'because of the restoration'. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
wrote in message
ups.com I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would be unable to discern the difference.... Clyde does have has this pathological fear of bias-controlled listening tests. Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud. More than anything else, I think he wants to be *right*. Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200 translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, A little or a lot depending on how wisely you spend it. the The AUS$ is worth a little less than the the US$. Sorta like Canadian dollars. but speaking for myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix' that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference, well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct instructions, also well and good. This anecdote tells me that some people are more interested in the aura of tubes than the actual sound of tubes. But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no additional cost, not merely refund his money. You can state what you will, and that does not make it true. Most service agreements limit the providers liability to the value of the work done. By letting him get out of your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale. It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell. Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly, solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the application and drives your kluge to clipping? First off, this may never happen, and secondly, the owner may never be able to tell the difference. IME soft clipping is mostly hype. Just a thought. You understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment real or imagined that is touched by this amp. The warranty is limited to what the customer paid. Fair enough. So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on. Will this ever happen? Will the client care? Isn't it true that there are already a goodly number of tubed power amps and other equipment that will continue to work with one or more tubes pulled? And, after all that, was it worth it? A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-) |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM: **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish. * * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back a SS amp instead of a tube amp? Dooh! That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter how you try to spin it. Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Shame you don't "get" it. I think that Trevor got *it* very well. * * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to parse the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having "sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position? Show me where Treveor screwed up? **YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was entirely happy with the result. * * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back guarantee is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc. was pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT? Let's sift through the bull****. Give me the contact information for your client. **Short answer: No. Right, it's nobody's business but Trevor's. I'll ask him if he knew what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how happy he was with the info. **It will never happen. * * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd probably sue you ass for fraud. Oh my, such dire predictions. * * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man. Integrity is well served by providing legitimate services for an honest price. All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern. This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable comments about the sound quality. Tom's anecdote is true - I was there at the time. This anecdote also produced loud wails from the partisans of expensive electronics. The truth can hurt, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:35:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern. This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable comments about the sound quality. Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
dave weil said: All the tubies No, you may not inspect our "firehoses", Homoborg. Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same. Maybe so, but it wouldn't "prove" anything because tube amps are always more expensive than comparably powered SS ones. Now, about that "debating trade" seminar...... |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Arny Krueger" said:
By letting him get out of your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale. It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell. You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and look, Windows XP is still running"? Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair. So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on. Will this ever happen? Will the client care? That's not the point, and you know it. Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd be in our hair all week long, and especially on Sunday. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster was SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Trevor Wilson" said:
**I gave my client two choices. AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. I promised him that the cheaper choice would be at least as good and provided a money back gurarantee. He agreed to the cheaper option. I think you know quite well what beef some people have with your actions, Trevor. The fact that your customer is happy with what you've done, has nothing to do with the fact that you *didn't tell him all* about the nature of the conversion. Well, at least you have Arny on your side on this. But not on the grounds that you think, he merely uses you to further pursue his agenda. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: By letting him get out of your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale. It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell. You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and look, Windows XP is still running"? Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a Celeron might be the most logical replacement. The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV. Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-) Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair. The shipping from the Netherlands would be a stopper. So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on. Will this ever happen? Will the client care? That's not the point, and you know it. The point is that the client wanted a working amp for a reasonable price and Trevor provided one with a good guarantee. Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd be in our hair all week long, and especially on Sunday. I'm never in your hair, Sander. Let's just leave it at that. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Arny Krueger" said:
Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a Celeron might be the most logical replacement. But not without asking/advising the customer first, hm? The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV. Agreed. Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-) I wouldn't know, Arny, I'm not too familiar with either branche at the moment. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster was SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Invincible Ignorance
Nailing Jello Pounding Sand No way you will get through. But you have learned whom not to believe in any of his assertions, and who supports those assertions. Something valuable in and of itself. Accept that as enough as that is all you will get. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" said: By letting him get out of your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale. It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell. You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and look, Windows XP is still running"? **Think of it this way, Sander: I've provided a Pentium IV, in place of an Z80 and guaranteed (with a 100% money back) that all his software will run and the thing will not crash. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message ... in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM: **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish. * * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back a SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it. **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound like the originals. * * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to parse the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having "sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position? **YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was entirely happy with the result. * * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back guarantee is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc. was pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT? **Decpetion? Possibly. Fraud? No. The client got what he wanted. Let's sift through the bull****. Give me the contact information for your client. **Short answer: No. I'll ask him if he knew what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how happy he was with the info. **It will never happen. * * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd probably sue you ass for fraud. **A judge, actually. * * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man. **In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow up. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM: **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound like the originals. Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors. * * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man. **In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow up. Your definition of practicality is an ends-justifies-the-means ethic. The problem is, I have grown up, and I don't approve of childish lies and overt adult deception. If you develop a sense of ethics, you'll understand what I mean. In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and the rich man. Jon |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Jon Yaeger said: In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and the rich man. Christ. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
wrote in message oups.com... So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp? Not hardly, even at the margins. What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200 investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is even more likely that one would expect differences given a 'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration. And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them away as 'because of the restoration'. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-) Here are some of Arny's satisfied clients: http://www.mrugly.com/employeebios.html |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Jon Yaeger wrote :
If you develop a sense of ethics IMHO you are confusing ethics and deontology. Ethic : the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group Deontology : the theory or study of moral obligation. IMHO, in the first case your answer to Trevor is insulting and automatically bans you from Usenet ethical references. ;-) -- "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote. But what's new around here?" Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Clyde Slick said: That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do. How about the two recordings we have of A. Krooger -- same? different? |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Jon Yaeger wrote: in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM: **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound like the originals. Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors. Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ? Graham |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Poopie said: Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ? Their value goes far beyond merely rattling the cages of society's underlings. They are a proven 'borg-repellent. Oh wait, you wouldn't know what that means, would you? Never mind, Poopie. Just don't go near any of those nasty tube amps, and your BP will stay within organic beings' parameters. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Arthur "Clyde Slick" Tsechmeister wrote :
That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do. This explains why Arthur believes that he is a good musician. -- "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote. But what's new around here?" Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message Jon Yaeger wrote: in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM: **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound like the originals. Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors. Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ? Score!!!! |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Jon Yaeger" wrote in message ... in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM: **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish. * * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back a SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it. **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound like the originals. well, he doesn't havea pair of tube amps anymore! |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Arthur "Clyde Slick" Tsechmeister wrote : That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do. This explains why Arthur believes that he is a good musician. I would argue with you, if you made any sense at all. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Attn : Bob Morein - was ............. you are a deceitful fraudster
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel
wrote: Dédé Jute a écrit : Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian McCarthy... Shy? |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Attn : Bob Morein - was ............. you are a deceitful fraudster
paul packer a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel wrote: Dédé Jute a écrit : Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian McCarthy... Shy? Did he already phone to Trevor's neighbors ? -- Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote. But what's new around here? Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500 |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I wouldn't want to do busines with someone who would do something similar to that, whether for an amp, a car, or a household appliance. **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose. Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines...... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good. Gross hypocricy noted. Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud' a customer. How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund? It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*. Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:16:21 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good. Gross hypocricy noted. Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud' a customer. How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund? It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*. Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent. And of course, the big test is, how willing he was to tell his friend/customer The Judge exactly what he did. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good. Gross hypocricy noted. Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud' a customer. How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund? It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*. I conceded this point already, you must not have seen it. Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent. -- I think I'd probably be laughing about it for a lvery long time. I think it also demonstrates the placebo effect. Yes, on reflection, I do agree he should have said that it would only still be a tube amp if teh more expensive repairs were done. Do we know that the customer was really all that big a tubve fanatic? Probably the best thing for Trevor to do is inform the customer and let him decide now what he would like, keep things as they are or restore it to a functioning tube amp. He has after all made enough money of the other repairs to eat the cost by now. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good. Gross hypocricy noted. Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud' a customer. **Lemme examine the facts: * I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps. * The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00. * I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around AUS$200.00. * I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the client was not satisfied. * The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as good. * The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades. You call that 'fraud'? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au If the customer left thinking he still had a tube amp, yes it's fraud, guarantee or not, although nice. I think it's funny that he didin't know the difference, but it's still fraud. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Hi John
*** Ian, what about SE "parafeed", i.e. using a DC blocking cap with a non-gapped OPT? Would one be trading one shortcoming for another? Or could it offer a net improvement? So much for my attempt to characterise the necessary differences between the two classes! Using a cap and an unbiased ungapped OPT for SE to my mind adds too much complexity and too many non-linear elements (I decided not to build a prototype of my circlotron [*link below!] for exactly this reason). But in the context of what I was trying to do here, then the upshot is another choice based on perception, rather than an absolute superiority. Has there been a resurgence of this "parafeed SE" thing? I wouldn't be surprised, given the improvements in capacitor technology. My interest here was to try and get away from the idea of some kind of contest, towards an approach to some kind of categorisation of features. Rather than the fruitless argument about what is better, it might be more useful to identify the necessary differences between the various topologies in analytical terms. Then ppl can make informed decisions based on their own preferences. The competition thing is hype for marketing purposes, however much some here want to deny it. In the market there are niches with identifiable preferences. Whichever you aim your sales at defines "better than". If you are making for yourself, "better than" is a journey. Hey...what's happened to Al? cheers, Ian http://www.ivesonaudio.pwp.blueyonde...lotronel84.gif "Jon Yaeger" wrote in message ... in article , Ian Iveson at wrote on 12/19/05 3:19 AM: Andre Jute wrote [snip for brevity] There are just three differences between SE and PP, and none are worth fighting about. First, a SE amp needs a gap in the OPT. In general, this results in lower primary inductance, and therefore curtailed bass, all other things being equal. This is not just a matter of common practice, because if the SE OPT were to equal the inductance of the PP, it would be much bigger, and suffer in terms of primary capacitance, leakage inductance, or both, thus curtailing the top end. Hence the difference here is fundamental. It is possible to use a gapped OPT for PP, so some advantages of the gap are transferable from one topology to the other. One property of the SE OPT is necessarily unique, however: it is biased into the most linear part of the BH curve. Any advantages of zero gap belong to PP alone. Second, the opposition of distortion and power supply products in PP. Assuming both have perfect power supplies, this boils down to a matter of quantity v quality of distortion, and ultimately is a matter of individual perception. Third, a good PP amp will enter AB operation at the same point that an equally good SE amp begins to clip. All the other stuff is about incidental, rather than fundamental, difference. Without a budget, there can be no sensible argument. cheers, Ian |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I wouldn't want to do busines with someone who would do something similar to that, whether for an amp, a car, or a household appliance. **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose. Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines...... **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer. She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer. Never had a day's trouble with it. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
|
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Jon Yaeger a écrit :
in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I wouldn't want to do busines with someone who would do something similar to that, whether for an amp, a car, or a household appliance. **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose. Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines...... **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer. She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer. Never had a day's trouble with it. Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW? A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . . ; -) Here it's : Q : do you know what the difference between hemorrhoid and a BMW. ? A : only assholes have some... -- Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote. But what's new around here? Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500 |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message ... in article , Trevor Wilson at wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I wouldn't want to do busines with someone who would do something similar to that, whether for an amp, a car, or a household appliance. **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose. Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines...... **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer. She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer. Never had a day's trouble with it. Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW? A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . . **I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to him. BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in automobiles too. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SET v. PP, the big fight tonight
Trevor Wilson said: BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. He could still be a prick, of course. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Doc Watson and more tonight! | Pro Audio | |||
ENDS TONIGHT - What's better than one pair of GOLD ALLOY interconnects @ $1 no reserve? | Marketplace | |||
$1 N/R Starts Today and ENDS TONIGHT! $2,275.00 Minimonitor System in High Gloss Piano Black | Marketplace | |||
BRAND NEW Gold Alloy Extreme POWER CORD - $1 Start Today - Highest Bidders WIN TONIGHT! | Marketplace | |||
$1 ENDS Tonight... L a t e - N i g h t Auction [$3,750 Gold Alloy Power Cord] ENDS Tonight | Marketplace |