http://www.lavardin.com/lavardin-techE.html

Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.

/martin.

Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.

That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier. Wrong newsgroup.

Zigakly wrote:
Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.
That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier. Wrong newsgroup.

"More excited that usual" as in "the biggest thing to hit the market
since $2500 power cables". Obviously, the joke didn't get through. But
this IS the make-fun-of-audiophiles newsgroup, rigth?

/martin.

"Martin Andér" wrote in message

Zigakly wrote:
Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world
are more excited than usual.
That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier.
Wrong newsgroup.

"More excited that usual" as in "the biggest thing to hit
the market since $2500 power cables".

Very telling comparison.

Obviously, the joke didn't get through.

Is the Lavardin web page a joke?

It is a study in double-talk by non-native speakers of
English with fractured syntax to match.

But this IS the make-fun-of-audiophiles newsgroup, rigth?

One would hope that audio production would be a avocation
that attracts people who love audio - in a word,
audiophiles. ;-)

"Martin Andér" wrote...
http://www.lavardin.com/lavardin-techE.html

Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.

"solid-state amplifiers use silicon components which keeps the trace of
electrons flux that have gone through . New electron flux will be
affected by the fact that other electrons preceded them. "

Yeah, it is that kind of "memory distortion" that keeps us from using
silicon to make microprocessors that can go faster than about 4~5 GHz.
It is a devestating effect at audio frequencies like 20 KHz.

Never realized before that even the lunatics are returning from summer
vacation. :-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
Obviously, the joke didn't get through.
Is the Lavardin web page a joke?

I don't think so. But it's frighteningly hard to tell.

"Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual" however, was my attempt at hinting that the audiophile
community seems to love to get excited over pseudotechnical crap.

/martin.

"Martin Andér"

"Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual" however, was my attempt at hinting that the audiophile
community seems to love to get excited over pseudotechnical crap.



** The appropriate term is " audiophool " - not audiophile.

Allegedly first coined by pommy engineer John Woodgate to describe that
particular sort of anti-science narcissist addicted to audio snake oil.




......... Phil

"Martin Andér" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
Obviously, the joke didn't get through.
Is the Lavardin web page a joke?

I don't think so. But it's frighteningly hard to tell.

"Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are
more excited than usual" however, was my attempt at
hinting that the audiophile community seems to love to
get excited over pseudotechnical crap.

Agreed.

I think that a lot of the problem is that the audiophiles
that audio production people joke about are relatively
uninvolved with audio production. Recording live sound
whether in a venue or a studio involves making a fair number
of pragmatic choices and observing the consequences of those
choices.

The classic golden ear audiophile has been taught to be
almost exclusively a consumer as opposed to being a producer
or manager. They often seem to have excess reverence for
recording and production, and really don't have any
experience with doing it for themselves.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_And=E9r?= wrote:
Zigakly wrote:
Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.
That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier. Wrong newsgroup.

"More excited that usual" as in "the biggest thing to hit the market
since $2500 power cables". Obviously, the joke didn't get through. But
this IS the make-fun-of-audiophiles newsgroup, rigth?

Well, clearly in a gross way the whole concept of memory effect is a
valid one. If you overdrive an amplifier and blow a fuse in it, you
have changed the state of the amplifier and the future operation of
the amplifier is clearly dependant on the signal that went through in
the past.

I can imagine that there could be other things that a signal could do
which might change the amplifier state in ways less severe than blowing
a fuse. Admittedly all of them would come under the category of abuse
in my opinion. But I could see how they might be encountered.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_And=E9r?= wrote:
Zigakly wrote:
Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.
That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier. Wrong newsgroup.

"More excited that usual" as in "the biggest thing to hit the market
since $2500 power cables". Obviously, the joke didn't get through. But
this IS the make-fun-of-audiophiles newsgroup, rigth?

Well, clearly in a gross way the whole concept of memory effect is a
valid one. If you overdrive an amplifier and blow a fuse in it, you
have changed the state of the amplifier and the future operation of
the amplifier is clearly dependant on the signal that went through in
the past.

I can imagine that there could be other things that a signal could do
which might change the amplifier state in ways less severe than blowing
a fuse. Admittedly all of them would come under the category of abuse
in my opinion. But I could see how they might be encountered.

And funnily enough - it's the boutique products that are most likely to be so
damaged.

Graham

Zigakly wrote:

Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.


That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier.

AAAHHH-HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! I love it!


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0535-0, 08/29/2005
Tested on: 8/29/2005 8:53:45 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think that a lot of the problem is that the audiophiles
that audio production people joke about are relatively
uninvolved with audio production. Recording live sound
whether in a venue or a studio involves making a fair number
of pragmatic choices and observing the consequences of those
choices.

The classic golden ear audiophile has been taught to be
almost exclusively a consumer as opposed to being a producer
or manager. They often seem to have excess reverence for
recording and production, and really don't have any
experience with doing it for themselves.


So what then are we to make of folks like Ray Kimber, who is an active
audio production engineer, out in concert venues recording live music
regularly...when he's not designing & selling $3000/foot speaker cables?

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think that a lot of the problem is that the audiophiles
that audio production people joke about are relatively
uninvolved with audio production. Recording live sound
whether in a venue or a studio involves making a fair
number of pragmatic choices and observing the
consequences of those choices.

The classic golden ear audiophile has been taught to be
almost exclusively a consumer as opposed to being a
producer or manager. They often seem to have excess
reverence for recording and production, and really don't
have any experience with doing it for themselves.

So what then are we to make of folks like Ray Kimber, who
is an active audio production engineer, out in concert
venues recording live music regularly...when he's not
designing & selling $3000/foot speaker cables?

He's a salesman of $3,000 a foot cables. The recordings seem
to be window dressing. Ditto for Mapleshade. Some of the
ones I've heard were pretty nice window dressing, but a lot
of really good sounding recordings have been done with far
less snake oil.

On 8/29/05 9:02 AM, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

But this IS the make-fun-of-audiophiles newsgroup, rigth?

One would hope that audio production would be a avocation
that attracts people who love audio - in a word,
audiophiles. ;-)

Indeed!
I have fun with audiophilic pholks...
I are one!

What REALLY irks me about these Levardin posers is that they've COMPLETELY
DENIED and glossed over (and thus lied) about the issue of valve amplifier
memory effect and, failing to design one that correct constantly for the
pattern and memory effect of "how many and which and from-where" electrons
have been blown off the plate since the first time the tube was fired up,
have abdicated any claim on hi-end audio design.
In short this sort of forced-electron-migration ionic memory degradation is
ELEMENTAL to real audiophilic valve amplifier design. I have these answers
(have for years) but only an elite few have chosen to have me custom-build
the kind of self-monitoring and correcting plate-redepositing halogen based
hi-temperature heater systems that are required to solve this. As has been
said, "Expensive but worth it".

On 8/29/05 9:27 AM, in article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Martin Andér"


** The appropriate term is " audiophool " - not audiophile.

Allegedly first coined by pommy engineer John Woodgate to describe that
particular sort of anti-science narcissist addicted to audio snake oil.

THANK YOU!!!
Adding to the thesaurus.

On 8/29/05 2:33 PM, in article
, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think that a lot of the problem is that the audiophiles
that audio production people joke about are relatively
uninvolved with audio production. Recording live sound
whether in a venue or a studio involves making a fair number
of pragmatic choices and observing the consequences of those
choices.

The classic golden ear audiophile has been taught to be
almost exclusively a consumer as opposed to being a producer
or manager. They often seem to have excess reverence for
recording and production, and really don't have any
experience with doing it for themselves.


So what then are we to make of folks like Ray Kimber, who is an active
audio production engineer, out in concert venues recording live music
regularly...when he's not designing & selling $3000/foot speaker cables?

That he understands both real engineering AND has the moral scruples of P T
Barnum?

It's not TOO far removed from Dr Bose (Whose products I do NOT reject out of
hand.. Several I find indispensable in certain situations)

"Richard Crowley" wrote:

Never realized before that even the lunatics are returning from summer
vacation. :-)

They never go ON vacation. g

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."
To reach me reverse: moc(dot)xobop(at)ggestran

"Edi Zubovic" edi.zubovic[rem wrote in
message
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:19:14 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

---------------8--------------------

And funnily enough - it's the boutique products that are
most likely to be so damaged.

Graham

-- Beware of that ilk. A friend of mine called me
recently to contact the manufacturers od $ 12.000
monoblocks because a customer brought him both of the
amplifiers (each looking as a microwave oven and
weighting accordingly), they were schorched. Apparently,
the man connected the amplifiers to a Dutch electrostat
loudspeaker pair ie. to their transformers, as I have
understood. Ouch.

I found a website, showing pretty big works and I tried
twice to contact them to their e-mail adresses, shortly
describing the problem and asking for a diagram because
some component markings were unreadable. Of course, I
stated both the type and serial numbers. No reply
whatsoever.

And these pretty powerful amps weren't protected by any
means. Oh yes, it would disturb the sound :

My take is that people who spend like $12K on power amps are
probably into audio primarily for bragging rights. So,
paying $12K is a rite of passage, and having them blow up
shortly after installation is just an excuse to run right
out and spend $12K again, and also to have a good whine
about how quickly the last $12K amps turned into pumpkins.

It's the old Mercedes-of-the-month gambit.

Edi Zubovic wrote:
they were schorched. Apparently, the man
connected the amplifiers to a Dutch electrostat loudspeaker pair ie.
to their transformers, as I have understood. Ouch.

Must have been Audiostatic then.
http://www.audiostatic.com/default.html

I've heard a demo of their speakers several years ago.
A jazz trio was recorded with a pair of B&K microphones to an early
prototype Marantz CD recorder and then played back over the audiostatics
for a direct comparison in the same room.

Amazing stuff.

They didn't fry any of their amplifiers there though.

Sander

Sander wrote:
Edi Zubovic wrote:

they were schorched. Apparently, the man
connected the amplifiers to a Dutch electrostat loudspeaker pair ie.
to their transformers, as I have understood. Ouch.


Must have been Audiostatic then.
http://www.audiostatic.com/default.html

Very interesting. Any idea what they cost?

One thing slightly disconcerting:

Your DCM5 electrostatic loudspeakers are so narrow, can
they really produce bass?

Yes, these models easily produce 30 Hz with no
substantial roll off. Obviously because of the limited
membrane excursion they won't produce ear shattering
levels at that frequency.

If they are flat then they won't produce ear shattering
levels on any material without externally rolling off that
bass. Not that I want my ears shattered, but there is a
hidden implication there.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On 29 Aug 2005 09:51:09 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_And=E9r?= wrote:
Zigakly wrote:
Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.
That's like saying thousands of popcorns are fluffier. Wrong newsgroup.

"More excited that usual" as in "the biggest thing to hit the market
since $2500 power cables". Obviously, the joke didn't get through. But
this IS the make-fun-of-audiophiles newsgroup, rigth?

Well, clearly in a gross way the whole concept of memory effect is a
valid one. If you overdrive an amplifier and blow a fuse in it, you
have changed the state of the amplifier and the future operation of
the amplifier is clearly dependant on the signal that went through in
the past.

I can imagine that there could be other things that a signal could do
which might change the amplifier state in ways less severe than blowing
a fuse. Admittedly all of them would come under the category of abuse
in my opinion. But I could see how they might be encountered.

At first I thought this might be a reference to thermal trails, but
I ended up going to the website and reading it:

"Tube technology allows electrons to travel through a vacuum which
causes no storage or memory effect, but solid-state amplifiers use
silicon components which keeps the trace of electrons flux that have
gone through . New electron flux will be affected by the fact that
other electrons preceded them."

Of course, this is totally wrong. Firstly, it should say "charge
carrier flux" instead of "electron[s] flux" which would cover P as
well as N material.
Secondly, ... well, it's too fluxing late to mess with this
anymore...


--scott

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:21:54 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote:

---------------------------------8------------------------------
"Tube technology allows electrons to travel through a vacuum which
causes no storage or memory effect, but solid-state amplifiers use
silicon components which keeps the trace of electrons flux that have
gone through . New electron flux will be affected by the fact that
other electrons preceded them."

Of course, this is totally wrong. Firstly, it should say "charge
carrier flux" instead of "electron[s] flux" which would cover P as
well as N material.
Secondly, ... well, it's too fluxing late to mess with this
anymore...

Yes, now and then I've came across such a misinterpretation, mostly
describing the sheer quality of some cables built of very exotic
insulators (aka termoshrink sleeves) and having copper leads of 0,
many zeros 1 purity so that the electrons, running trough at a speed
of light or thereabouts would not cling hitting some impurities...

and we ought to buy it to have peace in mind ofcourse.


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
--scott

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:57:45 +0200, Sander
wrote:

Edi Zubovic wrote:
they were schorched. Apparently, the man
connected the amplifiers to a Dutch electrostat loudspeaker pair ie.
to their transformers, as I have understood. Ouch.

Must have been Audiostatic then.
http://www.audiostatic.com/default.html

I've heard a demo of their speakers several years ago.
A jazz trio was recorded with a pair of B&K microphones to an early
prototype Marantz CD recorder and then played back over the audiostatics
for a direct comparison in the same room.

Amazing stuff.

They didn't fry any of their amplifiers there though.

Sander

Don't exactly know if there were Audiostatic. These look good, wish I
could hear them to judge.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

Martin Andér wrote:

http://www.lavardin.com/lavardin-techE.html

Right now, thousands of audiophiles around the world are more excited
than usual.

At first I thought it was going to be an article about how the
listener's memory distorts audio, such that things heard previously
sound better (or worse, depending on the price tag) than things heard
presently. That kind of memory distortion is well worth studying. It
could explain why all the best concerts I've ever heard were so many
years ago.

As it turns out, I think they're talking about capacitance. And
claiming to have discovered it.

ulysses

Bob Cain wrote:

Very interesting. Any idea what they cost?

One thing slightly disconcerting:

If they are flat then they won't produce ear shattering levels on any
material without externally rolling off that bass. Not that I want my
ears shattered, but there is a hidden implication there.

It was years ago I heard them. Was a slightly different model and they
had 2 panels setup on each side where one panel worked full range and
another panel right next to it acted as a "subwoofer".

My impression was they could handle plenty of level and produce plenty
off bass under those circumstances but I don't know how they would
handle the lowest organ pipes. It's a bit difficult remembering all the
detail after a few years but at the time I was impressed by them.

I don't know exactly what they cost but a quick google search turned up
a price of almost 5000 Euro for a pair (incl. 19% BTW = dutch VAT)


Sander

Sander

Don't exactly know if there were Audiostatic. These look good, wish I
could hear them to judge.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

--- Just called the friend -- yes it was an Audiostatic DCI pair. He
says they sound very good.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia