On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:27:23 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

Tom Disque wrote:
dave weil

How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?

That's two people.

No kidding?!?

Let me know if I need to simplify it further.

The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
the state house and senate,

So what? It's the executive branch which runs the state. Republicans
Bush as governer and Harris as Secretary of State.

Ask North Carolina's governor if he runs the state. If he's honest,
he'll admit that the state house and senate run the whole show.

and every one of the Florida supreme court
justices was a Democrat.

Overruled by the US Supreme Court.

Yes. I never said they were under Democratic control.

Why did the Democrats allow it?

They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).

Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?

(rolls eyes).

You need to get that fixed, at least to the extent that they roll in
unison.

Incorrect scrubs. Once you're removed from the rolls you don't get to
vote.

That's right, he did say 'rolls', not 'votes'. Sorry about that.

If incorrect scrubs, why did it
take so long to confirm?

They had to wait until after the election, didn't they?

Why would they? If she'd scrubbed *votes*, as I had misread it, then
of course it would be after the election. But if my right to vote had
been taken away *before* the election, I would have to regain it
before the election. After the election, it's too late. I can't vote
after the election.

She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
election and certifying the results.

And she certified the results, right?

Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.

What should she have done, then?

Ensured that the election was legitimate?

It seem that she did, to the best of her ability.

If Kathleen Harris should have recused herself for being a loyal
Republican, then shouldn't the Florida Supreme court also have done
so, since they were all loyal Democrats?

Tom Disque wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:27:23 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

Tom Disque wrote:
dave weil

How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?

That's two people.

No kidding?!?

Let me know if I need to simplify it further.

The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
the state house and senate,

So what? It's the executive branch which runs the state. Republicans
Bush as governer and Harris as Secretary of State.

Ask North Carolina's governor if he runs the state.

Why?

If he's honest,
he'll admit that the state house and senate run the whole show.

Not if he's honest.

and every one of the Florida supreme court
justices was a Democrat.

Overruled by the US Supreme Court.

Yes. I never said they were under Democratic control.

You're trying to claim that the Democrats had control of the state.

You're wrong.

Why did the Democrats allow it?

They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).

Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?

(rolls eyes).

You need to get that fixed,

Youe need to get some brains.

--
Ray Fischer

I hate to interrupt the cross posts of apparently 500 political groups (stop
crossposting!) for a post about audio but here are my questions...

Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a certain degree of precision,
say a relatively flat +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39 hz) suitable for
critical listening in the same way that, say, a $4000 per channel audiophile
quality tube amplification, (with super high end audiophile speaker) system
is?

I am wondering what the major differences are.
They seem to be in very obviously different classes of equipment, yet a
really good pair of nearfields can be accurate, sound phenomenal, and cost a
lot too.

Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to provide the best possible
listening experience where monitors are flat?

I have always been confused about the differences, and exactly why one type
of system is less suitable for the other's job.

thx,
2mb

"2mb" wrote in message
ink.net

I hate to interrupt the cross posts of apparently 500 political
groups (stop crossposting!) for a post about audio but here are my
questions...

Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a certain degree of
precision, say a relatively flat +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39
hz) suitable for critical listening in the same way that, say, a
$4000 per channel audiophile quality tube amplification, (with super
high end audiophile speaker) system is?

Not at all. The studio monitors are in fact suitable for critical listening.
Most tubed audiophile systems appear to be primarily designed to obtain
bragging rights among technical know-nothings sentimentalists, and Luddites.

I am wondering what the major differences are.

As a rule, the studio gear performs better, particularly when price is
considered.

Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced using
studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system has the sonic
character of the studio gear impressed on it. IOW consumers can't avoid the
sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial recordings, but
they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using studio
gear.

They seem to be in very obviously different classes of equipment, yet
a really good pair of nearfields can be accurate, sound phenomenal,
and cost a lot too.

IME, the most important thing is the "sounds phenomenal" part.

Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to provide the best
possible listening experience where monitors are flat?

There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is designed to
first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality generally seems to
come second or third on the designer's list of priorities.

I have always been confused about the differences, and exactly why
one type of system is less suitable for the other's job.

As you may have noticed, just yesterday Bruce Richman tried to ridicule the
concept of using audio production gear for listening with the following
comment: "(1) Is your favorite music source a digital work station? (2) Are
you a fan of the "Motown Sound" (but only on the superior digital
transfers)?, (3) Are you an admirer and user of the famed McDonald's
statistical reporting methodology when discussing digital media?, and (4)
when performing your daily ablutions, do you have a distinct preference for
the use of high value currency?"

This is just another example of Richman's abysmal ignorance, given that
virtually all modern audio and audio/visual media is produced using among
other tools a digital audio workstation. It is a clear indication of
ignorant audiophile malaise with equipment that while unfamiliar to them,
affects the sound of virtually every recording they will buy or have bought.

In article . net,
"2mb" wrote:

I hate to interrupt the cross posts of apparently 500 political groups (stop
crossposting!) for a post about audio but here are my questions...

Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a certain degree of precision,
say a relatively flat +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39 hz) suitable for
critical listening in the same way that, say, a $4000 per channel audiophile
quality tube amplification, (with super high end audiophile speaker) system
is?

Of course, but it may not be as pleasurable.

I am wondering what the major differences are.
They seem to be in very obviously different classes of equipment, yet a
really good pair of nearfields can be accurate, sound phenomenal, and cost a
lot too.

Well, nearfields are listened to in the nearfield. Home speakers tend to
look nicer. High enders can be demanding about wood finishes, etc.

Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to provide the best possible
listening experience where monitors are flat?

I have always been confused about the differences, and exactly why one type
of system is less suitable for the other's job.

You're assuming pro monitors are flat. They aren't necessarily:
sometimes the frequency response is tipped up to expose certain kinds of
defects in recordings.

Home audio has to deal with uncertain placement and room parameters
which can be specified for pro gear.

There is some overlap between the two. You might find Wilsons, Dunlavys,
B&Ws, or Quads in mastering rooms, while monitor designs by the BBC have
been applied to home use.

Stephen

"2mb" wrote

Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a
certain degree of precision, say a relatively flat
+/- 1.5db response curve down to 39 hz) suitable
for critical listening in the same way that, say, a
$4000 per channel audiophile quality tube
amplification, (with super high end audiophile
speaker) system is?

No. Speakers designed for near-field accuracy
will not sound the same if placed in large
environment (not near field). Also, there are
many examples of audiophile speakers that are
used for studio monitoring ( B&W, JM Lab, Wilson,
etc) for both near/non-near field mastering. The
consumer market for audiophile grade music
is very small, however.

Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to
provide the best possible listening experience
where monitors are flat?

Yes and no. Much depends on the intended use
(music type), personal preference, budget and
limitations of the acoustic environment.

You also seem to be stereotyping studio monitors
as being inherently flatter in frequency response to
audiophile types. They are not.

I have always been confused about the differences,
and exactly why one type of system is less suitable
for the other's job.

The business of mastering music for the consumer
market is based on economics. Audiophiles are
motivated by personal preference choices and the
art of equipment combinations (motor heads).

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Most tubed audiophile systems appear...

That is the correct usage of the term “appear”
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

You are spiteful of anyone with affluence, mr.
Poverty.

I am wondering what the major differences are.

As a rule, the studio gear performs better,
particularly when price is considered.

Quack, quack, quack...

IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Most tubed audiophile systems appear...

That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Tell you what Powell,
come up with audited market research numbers showing that most audiophile
tubed equipment in service today was manufactured in the last 20 years, and
your artificial distinction might even be relevant.

You are spiteful of anyone with affluence, Mr.Poverty.

Still smarting about that cheap soundcard and mic preamp that you bought, eh
Powell?

I am wondering what the major differences are.

As a rule, the studio gear performs better,
particularly when price is considered.

Quack, quack, quack...

Typical of you, Powell. You have nothing relevant to say so you fall back on
your duck calls.

IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to deceptively try to make a
highly relevant statement that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"Powell" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote

Most tubed audiophile systems appear...

That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
of the digital format.

Nope.

You may not know this but
bandwidth and dynamics increased over analog source
signals.

Nope.

This created greater demands on the
associated equipment (SS & tube).

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put out 300
watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed amps became
routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that
much output power? Certainly that happened with SS. 500 watt SS receivers
are now the rule, not the exception.

See what you missed .

Yes, it's a joke.

IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
empirically-lacking ?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence, Powell.

Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced using
studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system has the sonic
character of the studio gear impressed on it.

In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth. By the way, the mics
and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the most imprtant elements
in recording and these have nothing to do with studio gear vs. audiophile gear.
One could argue that crap studio monitors have lead to crap commercial
recordings but mastering engineers can and often do a great job of fixing that
problem. And lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings
were made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as their
reference.

IOW consumers can't avoid the
sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial recordings,

Often times this is true. It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music
they love was poorly recorded.

but
they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using studio
gear.

That way even the best recordings can sound bad.


There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is designed to
first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality generally seems to
come second or third on the designer's list of priorities.


Prove it.

Just a note. I don't believe that equipment is inherently bad because it is
made for studio use nor do I believe that it is inherently good because it is
marketed to audiophiles. Lets not forget that manufacturers like Wilson Audio
and Eggleston build speakers for pro use as well as home use.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Powell" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote

Most tubed audiophile systems appear...

That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
of the digital format.

Nope.

You may not know this but
bandwidth and dynamics increased over analog source
signals.

Nope.

This created greater demands on the
associated equipment (SS & tube).

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put out 300
watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed amps became
routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that
much output power? Certainly that happened with SS. 500 watt SS receivers
are now the rule, not the exception.


Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since there are
virtually no speakers that require power of this magnitude to be successfully
driven at what most would consider to be reasonable listening levels. That
aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s) have outputs of 275 watts/channel
@ 4 ohms, and there are several VTL models - also tubed, that exceed these
figures handily.

Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in that most
receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not stereo.

See what you missed .

Yes, it's a joke.

IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
empirically-lacking ?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence, Powell.






We can start with the examples gtiven above.



Bruce J. Richman

Scott Wheeler wrote:



Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced using
studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system has the sonic
character of the studio gear impressed on it.

In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth. By the way, the mics
and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the most imprtant
elements
in recording and these have nothing to do with studio gear vs. audiophile
gear.
One could argue that crap studio monitors have lead to crap commercial
recordings but mastering engineers can and often do a great job of fixing
that
problem. And lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings
were made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as
their
reference.


Agreed. See below. And it is also fairly common knowledge, that such devices
as tubed microphones (e.g. Telefunken, Neumann, etc.) and reel-to--reel tubed
tape recorders (e.g. Studer) are used at times by some of the audiophile
labels.



IOW consumers can't avoid the
sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial recordings,

Often times this is true. It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music
they love was poorly recorded.

but
they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using studio
gear.

That way even the best recordings can sound bad.


There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is designed to
first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality generally seems to
come second or third on the designer's list of priorities.


Prove it.


Obviously, he can't. As stated, it is just an obviously biased ipiece of
propaganda without any empirical support.


Just a note. I don't believe that equipment is inherently bad because it is
made for studio use nor do I believe that it is inherently good because it is
marketed to audiophiles. Lets not forget that manufacturers like Wilson Audio
and Eggleston build speakers for pro use as well as home use.






Also, several speaker brands, including Quad, Martin Logan, and B&W, to name
just a few, are not uncommonly used in recording studios as part of the
production process. None of these brands would be considered "studio
monitors". All produce a number of models generally considered to be
audiophile audio brands.






Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since there
are virtually no speakers that require power of this magnitude to be
successfully driven at what most would consider to be reasonable
listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more into 8
ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that are only modestly
inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of music that have lifelike
dynamic range, I can push the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB
average levels. Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening levels. The
speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.

That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several VTL
models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.

Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and because
it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that "...virtually every
new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300 watts or more) output power."
you've failed to meet my challenge. If you wish, you can try again.

Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in that
most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
stereo.

OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers and the
speakers still radiate into the room, right?

See what you missed .

Yes, it's a joke.

Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge

IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
empirically-lacking ?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
Powell.

We can start with the examples given above.

Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced
using studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system
has the sonic character of the studio gear impressed on it.

In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth.

Why note?


By the way,
the mics and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the
most important elements in recording and these have nothing to do with
studio gear vs. audiophile gear.


Since microphones are audio production gear, you just contradicted yourself.

One could argue that crap studio
monitors have lead to crap commercial recordings but mastering
engineers can and often do a great job of fixing that problem.

I guess the idea that studio monitors may or may not be crappy would be a
revelation to you.

And
lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings were
made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as
their reference.

I take it that you never bothered to read the relevant portions of the RAP
FAQ when I posted a link to it here.


IOW consumers can't avoid the
sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings,

Often times this is true.

Name a case when studio gear like microphones and/or synthesizers weren't
used to make the recording.

It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music they love was poorly
recorded.

Since you mentioned "decisions made by the recording engineer", you must
know the source of most such problems. Hint, its not necessarily the fault
of the equipment.

they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using
studio gear.

That way even the best recordings can sound bad.

That can happen whether high end gear, mid fi gear, or production gear is
used.

There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is
designed to first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality
generally seems to come second or third on the designer's list of
priorities.

Prove it.

Simple. Equipment designers routinely sacrifice ultimate sound quality to
meet price and profitability objectives. Therefore sound quality is second
or third on those designer's list.

Just a note. I don't believe that equipment is inherently bad because
it is made for studio use nor do I believe that it is inherently good
because it is marketed to audiophiles.

Agreed.

Lets not forget that
manufacturers like Wilson Audio and Eggleston build speakers for pro
use as well as home use.

If you understood mastering, you'd understand that this is irrelevant to
discussions of sonic accuracy.

Arny said


Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced
using studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system
has the sonic character of the studio gear impressed on it.

I said



In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth.


Arny said


Why note?


I am assuming you meant why not. I'm noy citicizing just making note of my
interpretation of your question. It isn't a universal truth for the obvious
fact that there are many exceptions.


I said


By the way,
the mics and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the
most important elements in recording and these have nothing to do with
studio gear vs. audiophile gear.


Arny said


Since microphones are audio production gear, you just contradicted yourself.


No. In the context of the thread the question of studio gear vs. audiophile
gear was about playback equipment. In this case specifically speakers and
amplifiers. Microphones are not part of the playback system.

I said


One could argue that crap studio
monitors have lead to crap commercial recordings but mastering
engineers can and often do a great job of fixing that problem.

Arny said


I guess the idea that studio monitors may or may not be crappy would be a
revelation to you.


Not only would the guess be wrong it would be irrational given the fact that I
cited some manufacturers of excellent studio monitors in the very post you were
responding to.

I said


And
lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings were
made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as
their reference.

Arny said


I take it that you never bothered to read the relevant portions of the RAP
FAQ when I posted a link to it here.


I don't read RAP. I generally don't bother with your links. Whatever RAP FAQ
says does not affect the truth of my comment.

Arny said


IOW consumers can't avoid the
sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings,

I said


Often times this is true.

Arny said


Name a case when studio gear like microphones and/or synthesizers weren't
used to make the recording.

What do microphones have to do with studio monitors and audiophile equipment?

I said


It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music they love was poorly
recorded.

Arny said


Since you mentioned "decisions made by the recording engineer", you must
know the source of most such problems. Hint, its not necessarily the fault
of the equipment.

It certainly can be if the studio monitors are crap.

Arny said


they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using
studio gear.

I said


That way even the best recordings can sound bad.


Arny said


That can happen whether high end gear, mid fi gear, or production gear is
used.


Of course it can. I was making a joke.


Arny said


There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is
designed to first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality
generally seems to come second or third on the designer's list of
priorities.

I said


Prove it.


Arny said


Simple. Equipment designers routinely sacrifice ultimate sound quality to
meet price and profitability objectives. Therefore sound quality is second
or third on those designer's list.

That isn't even relevant to your claim that "High End audiophile gear is
designed to first and foremost confer bragging rights." In fact, this new claim
that audiophile companies build to a price point, which is true and openly
admitted by said manufacturers for all but their flagship products, would in a
way contrdict your claim that I asked you to prove. But, if you have any proof
that audiophile manufacturers design gear first and foremost to confer bragging
rights feel free to cite it. You did say there were clear indications.

I said


Lets not forget that
manufacturers like Wilson Audio and Eggleston build speakers for pro
use as well as home use.

Arny said


If you understood mastering, you'd understand that this is irrelevant to
discussions of sonic accuracy.


I would think this claim would suggest that it is you who does not understand
mastering. Clearly playback and all the equipment involved in playback play a
significant role in mastering.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since there
are virtually no speakers that require power of this magnitude to be
successfully driven at what most would consider to be reasonable
listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more into 8
ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that are only modestly
inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of music that have lifelike
dynamic range, I can push the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB
average levels. Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening levels. The
speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.


The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to the
average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that "lifelike" volume is
not usually called for in home listening experiences. But then again, Krueger,
most audio hobbyists that read RAO, at least, prefer personal auditions over
total reliance on power specifications when making purchasing decisions.



That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several VTL
models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.

Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and because
it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that "...virtually every
new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300 watts or more) output power."
you've failed to meet my challenge. If you wish, you can try again.


There is no objectrve evidence t o suggest that SS amplifiers all meet the
criterion of 300 watts/channel, nor does anybody other than you ever make the
ridiculous assertion that all tubed amplifiers meet a criterion that SS
amplifiers have never been able to meet. Therefore, your desperate attempt to
set up straw men is quite transparent. You've actually accomplished nothing in
making your silly claims.



Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in that
most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
stereo.

OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers and the
speakers still radiate into the room, right?


It strongly suggests that, as in your claims regarding tubed amplifiers, you're
simply trying to play word games to deceive the public, Krueger. Since this
thread is not about multichannel audio demands, your transparent effort to hide
this salient piece of information just follows your normal pattern, Krueger, of
making deceptive assertions to try and con the public.



See what you missed .

Yes, it's a joke.

Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge


Very true, Krueger. You've cornered the RAO market on deception and fraudulent
posts. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to republish your phony
"evidence" about unprovoked personal attacks that you claim you've been
subjected to by myself and others. That's always good for a laugh!

LOL!!!


IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
empirically-lacking ?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
Powell.

We can start with the examples given above.

Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.



You've already been tossed out of the game, Krueger. (1) Trying to set a
standard for tubed amplifiers, i.e. excessively high power ratings, that most
SS amplifiers can not attain, (2) making misleading claims about SS receivers
in a stereo-oriented thread, while neglecting to mention that they are
multi-channel receivers, and (3) lying about others making deceptive claims
with no evidence to support this abnormal behavior. Three strikes, and your're
out, Krueger.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
be reasonable listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more
into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that
are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of
music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push the amps into
clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels. Since I routinely
find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I attend, I conclude that
these are not excessively high listening levels. The speakers aren't
damaged by doing this, either.


The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
"lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
experiences.

Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for enveloping,
realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.

But then again, Krueger, most audio hobbyists that read
RAO, at least, prefer personal auditions over total reliance on power
specifications when making purchasing decisions.

Where did I suggest total reliance on power specifications? This is
regrettably yet another example of Richman's deceptive behavior.

That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several
VTL models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.

Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and
because it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that
"...virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300
watts or more) output power." you've failed to meet my challenge. If
you wish, you can try again.

There is no objective evidence t o suggest that SS amplifiers all
meet the criterion of 300 watts/channel.

Where did I suggest that SS amplifiers all meet the criterion of 300
watts/channel? This is regrettably yet another example of Richman's
deceptive behavior.

nor does anybody other than
you ever make the ridiculous assertion that all tubed amplifiers meet
a criterion that SS amplifiers have never been able to meet.

I already showed that the mainstream receiver sold today has 500 or more
watts of power. As most of us who stay current with modern technology all
know, this is implemented as 5 channels and 100 or more watts per channel.

Therefore, your desperate attempt to set up straw men is quite
transparent. You've actually accomplished nothing in making your
silly claims.

Since both of the claims you attacked were created by you Richman, it is you
who have been working overtime setting up straw men.

Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in
that most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
stereo.

OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers
and the speakers still radiate into the room, right?

It strongly suggests that, as in your claims regarding tubed
amplifiers, you're simply trying to play word games to deceive the
public, Krueger.

Nothing of the short has been proven. BTW, this is typical of the situations
that Richman cites when he libels me by repeatedly and relentlessly calling
me a "compulsive liar". Google searching shows that Richman has libeled me
as a "compulsive liar" almost 100 times Since 5/29/2003. This is a period
of less than 7 months or one about libelous statement every two days. This
is even more frequent than Richman's imposition of his professional
credentials on us, which averages approximately once every three days for a
number of years.

Since this thread is not about multichannel audio
demands, your transparent effort to hide this salient piece of
information just follows your normal pattern, Krueger, of making
deceptive assertions to try and con the public.

I see no case in this thread where multichannel equipment was explicitly
excluded except by Richman. Perhaps Richman is so out-of-date that he thinks
that multichannel equipment is not used in studios.

See what you missed .

Yes, it's a joke.

Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge


Very true, Krueger. You've cornered the RAO market on deception and
fraudulent posts. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to
republish your phony "evidence" about unprovoked personal attacks
that you claim you've been subjected to by myself and others. That's
always good for a laugh!

LOL!!!


IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
empirically-lacking ?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
Powell.

We can start with the examples given above.

Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.



You've already been tossed out of the game, Krueger. (1) Trying to
set a standard for tubed amplifiers, i.e. excessively high power
ratings, that most SS amplifiers can not attain,

I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.

(2) making
misleading claims about SS receivers in a stereo-oriented thread,
while neglecting to mention that they are multi-channel receivers,
and

I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.

(3) lying about others making deceptive claims with no evidence
to support this abnormal behavior. Three strikes, and your're (there is
no such word except in Richman's world) out,
Krueger.

I think this false claim, and the regrettable but clear google record of
Richman's egocentric, deceptive and overbearing behavior pretty much speaks
for itself.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
be reasonable listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more
into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that
are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of
music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push the amps into
clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels. Since I routinely
find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I attend, I conclude that
these are not excessively high listening levels. The speakers aren't
damaged by doing this, either.


The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
"lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
experiences.

Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for enveloping,
realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.


Since this thread was ostensibly about stereo systems and amplifiers, Krueger's
deceptive attempt to convert into a thread about home theater is just another
example oif his typical method of trying to change focus when exposed for
making deceptive claims. Note that Krueger can not and will not comment on the
fact that despite his prattling on about listening levels being "lifelike",
most listeners don't have the goal of reproducing the volume and/or dynamics of
a symphony orchestra in their listening room.



But then again, Krueger, most audio hobbyists that read
RAO, at least, prefer personal auditions over total reliance on power
specifications when making purchasing decisions.

Where did I suggest total reliance on power specifications? This is
regrettably yet another example of Richman's deceptive behavior.


Krueger's lies about my behavior have been spewed by this sociopathic slanderer
for over 7 years. This is just the latest example. Nowhere in any of
Krueger's posts in this thread is their any reference to any form of subjective
variable, only for the most part power ratings. Of course, now, that he's been
exposed once again as deceptively trying to use multichannel receiver ratings
to tout SS uber alles propaganda, he's claiming that specifications are not his
only focus. Nothing could be further from the truth. This
anti-subjective-opinion zealot has a lengthy history on RAO of loudly touting
the essential equivalence of most amplifiers, preamplifiers, etc. meeting
certain specifications. Nowhere in all of this religiosity re. SS gear does
subjective opinion receive anything other than lip service, and usually, not
even that.



That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several
VTL models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.

Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and
because it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that
"...virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300
watts or more) output power." you've failed to meet my challenge. If
you wish, you can try again.

There is no objective evidence t o suggest that SS amplifiers all
meet the criterion of 300 watts/channel.

Where did I suggest that SS amplifiers all meet the criterion of 300
watts/channel? This is regrettably yet another example of Richman's
deceptive behavior.


Krueger is lying again. He has deliberately deleted most of the post which he
now tries to defend because it clearly implies that your typical SS amplifier
contains 100s of watts of power. And needless to say, in his anti-tube smear
campaign, he mistakenly claimied that tubed equipment does not meet this
criteria. Of course, this eas a lie, as were his claims about lack of evidence
re. conrad-johnson and/or VTL tubed amplifiers. One could also add Audio
Research to that list alsoi. Any reader interested in learning the truth
rather than falling for Krueger's lies, can simply take a look at the
literature and/or web sites of these 3 manufacturers and see for thermselves.
Similarly, they can look at the publications of SS amplifiers and note that
contrary to Krueger's boasts about 300 watt amplifiers, many, if not most of
the SS amplifers (2=channel) being manufactured have much less power than
that.


nor does anybody other than
you ever make the ridiculous assertion that all tubed amplifiers meet
a criterion that SS amplifiers have never been able to meet.

I already showed that the mainstream receiver sold today has 500 or more
watts of power. As most of us who stay current with modern technology all
know, this is implemented as 5 channels and 100 or more watts per channel.


You have shown nothing of the kind. And has already been mentioned, only a
deceptive liar and anti-tube bigot like Krueger would try and make the
laughable, transparent, and quite transparent comparison of a 5-channel SS
receiver against a 2-channel tubed amplifier when talking about power ratings.
Also, the fact remains that most 2-channel stereo amplifiers are much less
powerful than the "300 watt amplifiers' Krueger apparently worships. And all
of this has nothing to do with modern technology vs. older technology. It has
to do with personal preference among currently available products, a human
characterists that sociopathic liars and bitos like Krueger can not appreciate
or tolerate.



Therefore, your desperate attempt to set up straw men is quite
transparent. You've actually accomplished nothing in making your
silly claims.

Since both of the claims you attacked were created by you Richman, it is you
who have been working overtime setting up straw men.


Another lie, Krueger. And a rather lame IKYABWAI. Typical of the Krueger
deception methodology routinely employed on RAO.



Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in
that most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
stereo.

OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers
and the speakers still radiate into the room, right?

It strongly suggests that, as in your claims regarding tubed
amplifiers, you're simply trying to play word games to deceive the
public, Krueger.

Nothing of the short has been proven. BTW, this is typical of the situations
that Richman cites when he libels me by repeatedly and relentlessly calling
me a "compulsive liar". Google searching shows that Richman has libeled me
as a "compulsive liar" almost 100 times Since 5/29/2003. This is a period
of less than 7 months or one about libelous statement every two days. This
is even more frequent than Richman's imposition of his professional
credentials on us, which averages approximately once every three days for a
number of years.


Krueger's record of slander, character assassination and lies re. my identity,
my professional and vocational activities, and posts are a matter of public
record for over 7 years. And while he lies and complains about my mentioning
my professional credentials. as many others have pointed out, compulsive liar
Krueger has made libelous comments abou my credentials from the beginning of
my posting on RAO.
Of course, he has never had any evidence to support his slanderous hogwash. He
also, as usual, neglects to mention that he tries to use his alledged
qualifications in electirical engineering as a hammer to bully and intimidate
RAO posters, repeatedly. His constant attempts to describe himself as an audio
"expert'" to validate and support his anti-preference propaganda campaigns are
well known to most RAO readers. So for this sociopathic liar to complain about
others mentioning their qualifications (and in response to his repeatred
slanders), is just another example of his chronic hypocrisy. He has also
tried, as is his habit,, to lie with statistics t6o create a misleading
impression about my mentioning of my crtedentials. Averages are generally
meaningless - and of course, Krueger, has been recently exposed for presenting
laughably false evidence when he presented a so-called
Google listing of what he falsely claimed were personal attacks against him by
me.

Ask yourself this question. If this proven liar can label a post in which I
discussed the music of Daniel Lanois with another poster without mentioning
Krueger's name - a personal attack - is it not quite likely that the majority
of his claims about me will be as patently false as that one was?
His lies are so obvious that apparently, only one sorry puppet who slavishly
defends his daily blather, takes him seriously.





Since this thread is not about multichannel audio
demands, your transparent effort to hide this salient piece of
information just follows your normal pattern, Krueger, of making
deceptive assertions to try and con the public.

I see no case in this thread where multichannel equipment was explicitly
excluded except by Richman. Perhaps Richman is so out-of-date that he thinks
that multichannel equipment is not used in studios.


Krueger has, as usual, made a claim that implies he can read my mind. Not
surprising, given his egomaniacal tendency to pretend that he "knows" the
motives of others. Of course, Krueger in his chronic need to deny the
existence of modern tubed and/or vinyl equipment, may simply be unaware that
there are some very powerful tubed amplifiers currently being manufactured.
And since the focus of this discussion (at least with me) has been upon
audiophile gear, not studio gear, referencews to the recording studio are not
realy germane to comparisons of tubed vs. SS amplifiers commonly used by audio
hobbyists - a population with which Krueger can not identify since they tend,
it would seem, to want to engage in individual preferences, a human behavior
foreign to Krueger's tunnel vision view of audio reproduction.



See what you missed .

Yes, it's a joke.

Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge


Very true, Krueger. You've cornered the RAO market on deception and
fraudulent posts. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to
republish your phony "evidence" about unprovoked personal attacks
that you claim you've been subjected to by myself and others. That's
always good for a laugh!

LOL!!!




Krueger's silence in response to this factual statement, tells us all anybody
needs to know about his standards for "proof".



IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
studio gear when they listen to commercial
recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

"deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
empirically-lacking ?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
Powell.

We can start with the examples given above.

Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.



You've already been tossed out of the game, Krueger. (1) Trying to
set a standard for tubed amplifiers, i.e. excessively high power
ratings, that most SS amplifiers can not attain,

I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.


A lie. Krueger boasted about the high power ratings of SS amplifers while, as
usual, derogating tubed amplifiers. He clearly was suggesting that this
specification connoted some type of "superiority" to this class of equipment.
When confronted with a listing of several manufacturers that are well known for
producing high-powered tubed amplifiers, Krueger tried to claim the factual
information provided was false. But then again, this is the same "expert" who
uses Google history to attack his enemies pretty often, yet can't even validate
a phony listing of personal attacks he claims I made against him.





(2) making
misleading claims about SS receivers in a stereo-oriented thread,
while neglecting to mention that they are multi-channel receivers,
and

I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.


Another lie that Krueger now repeats. He claimed that receivers commonly have
500 watts. Nowhere in his statement, which was designed to disparage tubed
equpment (as he always does when given the opportunity), was there any mention
of the significant fact that he was attempting to deceptively compare
multi-channel receivers against 2-channel tubed amplifiers when comparing power
ratings. And then he had the audacity to insult the intelligence of RAO
readers by presuming that this rather juvenile and simplistic effort to engage
in an audio shell game, so to speak, would be overlooked. Well, it wasn't,
much to Krueger's dismay.




(3) lying about others making deceptive claims with no evidence
to support this abnormal behavior. Three strikes, and your're (there is
no such word except in Richman's world) out,
Krueger.

I think this false claim, and the regrettable but clear google record of
Richman's egocentric, deceptive and overbearing behavior pretty much speaks
for itself.




Actually, the fact that Krueger does not have the integrity or honesty to
reproduce threads to which he responds when trying to defend his false claims,
pretty much begins most RAO readers' awareness of the level of dishonesty one
can expect from a compulsive liar like Krueger. Most other posters, except for
Krueger, reproduce the posts of others to which they respond. Kruger has in
the past tried to rationalize his failure to do so by claiming that others'
posts are boring, lengthy, stupid, etc. However, the truth is that this
compulsive liar has been frequently found to deceptively delete previously
posted material from others, make misleading editing changes, quibble about
typographical errors while hypocritically making plenty of his own (such as
'people gettin thier just deserts' and asking a poster recently "why note"?).

Krueger's paranoid conspiracy theories, delusions of grandeur (in the area of
audio "knowledge"), attempts to slander both audio hobbyists and professional
alikes ( the latter including respected professionals such as Glen Zelniker and
Jim Johnston and John Atkinson) are a matter of public record. Therefore, his
credibility - to the vast majority of RAO posters that regularly post here -
has been clearly found to be minimal. He's here really, for only a couple of
despicable purposes, to spread his anti-subjective-opinion, anti-tube,
anti-vinyl propaganda, and of course, as he proves on a daily basis, to engage
in lies, libel and character assassination of any and all that don't share his
prejudiced, biases, and extremist views re. audio.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the
exception.

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
be reasonable listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or
more into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers
that are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital
recordings of music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push
the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels.
Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening
levels. The speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.


The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
"lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
experiences.

Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for
enveloping, realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.


Since this thread was ostensibly about stereo systems and amplifiers,
Krueger's deceptive attempt to convert into a thread about home
theater is just another example oif his typical method of trying to
change focus when exposed for making deceptive claims.

This imaginary limitation of discussion to stereo is typical of Richman's
bogus debating trade methodology for wasting my time. I've already argued
this to death.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the
exception.

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
be reasonable listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or
more into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers
that are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital
recordings of music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push
the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels.
Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening
levels. The speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.


The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
"lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
experiences.

Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for
enveloping, realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.


Since this thread was ostensibly about stereo systems and amplifiers,
Krueger's deceptive attempt to convert into a thread about home
theater is just another example oif his typical method of trying to
change focus when exposed for making deceptive claims.

This imaginary limitation of discussion to stereo is typical of Richman's
bogus debating trade methodology for wasting my time. I've already argued
this to death.







Krueger's ludicrous assertion above is just routine daily practice for this
charlatan's bogus practice of running away from posts in which he has been
clearly bested and exposed as a dissembler and fraud. As usual, his deceptive
and false claims can't be defended and therefore, his need to resort to
personal attacks coupled with false arrogance are all he has left to waste
bandwidth on RAO. His efforts to promote his anti-subjective-opinion agenda,
as evidenced by his inability to discuss amplifier characteristics in an honest
manner, are simply further proof of his inability to tell the truth.



Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Most tubed audiophile systems appear...

That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
of the digital format.

Nope.

Ah, Arny the great communicator...


You may not know this but bandwidth and dynamics
increased over analog source signals.

Nope.

Dare I say it, Please-do-your-homework® .


This created greater demands on the
associated equipment (SS & tube).

Duhhhh.

Let’s see what shovel Arny selects.


Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube
amp put out 300 watts.

In 1973 ("30 years") please list three manufactures
and their associated product model numbers
producing 300 watts RMS?


Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks
empirical evidence, Powell.

Please list makes and models of tube amps you
have personally measured/auditioned in your home
setup... last 20 years (manufactured date)? Short
of that, in the last 30 years or 40 years?

Note Bruce, rabbit to the hole .

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

This imaginary limitation of discussion to stereo is
typical of Richman's bogus debating trade methodology
for wasting my time. I've already argued this to death.

Krueger's ludicrous assertion above is just routine daily
practice for this charlatan's bogus practice of running
away from posts in which he has been clearly bested
and exposed as a dissembler and fraud.

That's our boy (Arny), all-right !

Powell wrote:



"Arny Krueger" wrote

Most tubed audiophile systems appear...

That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
of the digital format.

Nope.

Ah, Arny the great communicator...


You may not know this but bandwidth and dynamics
increased over analog source signals.

Nope.

Dare I say it, Please-do-your-homework® .


This created greater demands on the
associated equipment (SS & tube).

Duhhhh.

Lets see what shovel Arny selects.


Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube
amp put out 300 watts.

In 1973 ("30 years") please list three manufactures
and their associated product model numbers
producing 300 watts RMS?



No fair, Powell. You're asking Krueger for facts ! Not surprising that in
trying to weasel out of this claim, Krueger deliberately deleted it from his
later posts in this thread.



Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks
empirical evidence, Powell.

Please list makes and models of tube amps you
have personally measured/auditioned in your home
setup... last 20 years (manufactured date)? Short
of that, in the last 30 years or 40 years?

Note Bruce, rabbit to the hole .





Agreed. Exposure of fraud tends to do that


Bruce J. Richman