Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell. Said the Krell owner. Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my Apogee Duetta Sigs. Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load? Or QSC amps for that matter.. And yes, isn't so that they will sound *identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a *level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? Just make sure that there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps. Take care NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing. Thus when the terrible sound of the qsc starts to bother you, you can say to yourself that it sounded the same with the krell. Or do like arny. Get an $80 yamaha reciever of some sorts. When *frequently* you can't stand the sound of the qsc, you can just escape to the pioneer (which will **** the music over in a different way then the qsc). When the sound of the pioneer starts to f.ck with you, run back to the krell.. All the while, remember that they all sound the same. But seriously though, it seems that only pinkerton is allowed to indulge in "audiophilia". He can own krell amps, he can construct exotic cables *and* _boast_ about them on petty internet "check out my system y'all" sites. Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours. They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects" and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around. They all sound the saameee. Wire is WIIIiiiiiiiiIIreeee! You'll be in profit too. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Fella" wrote in message
Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load? Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of Behringer power amps. Or QSC amps for that matter.. Please compare the specs posted at http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4 ohms) to http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP15...PECS_Rev_A.pdf (450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms) And yes, isn't so that they will sound *identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a *level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? So it seems. Just make sure that there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps. In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way binding posts that were available at the time. If 5-way binding posts are so terrible, why does BAT use them on the VK-300? Take care NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing. At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella launches into a overheated libelous tirade based only on his personal paranoia and fear snipped |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u wrote in message ups.com... I've seen ATS-1's go in the threes on eBay, and a desktop PC with a first rate sound card is a thousand bucks even today, times two-we're not an order of magnitude apart. So why not compare to a S/H PC? A couple of hundred for a PC and a couple of hundred for a pro soundcard, will do the job. Software is another matter though, but there is reasonable freeware available, adequate for many people. The beauty of the PC option is that it can do the same job as a number of test instruments, plus automatic data acquisition, plus data analysis, plus data storage and presentation etc. Yes dedicated instruments have their benefits, but even multi million dollar test labs are full of PC's as well, and have been for decades. For example, Dolby Labs is said to own 100's of PC equipped with Card Deluxe audio interfaces. You've got to remember that Cal's mind is locked in the 1960s, right down to his proud ownership of Klipsch La Scalas as his primary high end speaker system. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
Please compare the specs posted at http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4 ohms) to http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP15...PECS_Rev_A.pdf (450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms) I am talking about pinkerton changing his hig-end exoctic krell amp with a qsc you dumdum borg. What's with comparing some behringer specs and bat? You *are* losing it. In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way binding posts that were available at the time. Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same, right? At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella launches into a overheated libelous tirade What in the f.ck's name are you talking about? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Fella" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load? Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of Behringer power amps. Or QSC amps for that matter.. Please compare the specs posted at http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4 ohms) to http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP15...PECS_Rev_A.pdf (450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms) I am talking about pinkerton changing his hig-end exoctic krell amp with a qsc you dumdum borg. Fella Sue me for addressing the text you posted. Some of it came from someone else, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there, now does it? Fella you complain about people using fancy editing and debating trade tricks, and then you turn around and do the very same thing. I had to restore a bunch of text you deleted from the post you made that I was responding to. You obviously deleted it to justify your "dumdum borg" whine. What's with comparing some behringer specs and bat? You *are* losing it. Just because you deleted the comment about Behringer doesn't mean that it wasn't in the post I responded to. It was in your post. Don't you read the text you post? In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way binding posts that were available at the time. Why does it use such posts? To give people a free choice of speaker cable. There is no need. They all sound the same, right? Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker cables come in different lengths and its often good to use the shorter cable to gets the job done. At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella launches into a overheated libelous tirade What in the f.ck's name are you talking about? Good question Fella, given that you hide behind an anonymous alias! Now that's a nice little Middius sockpuppet! Obviously Fella, Middius is training you well. You're getting really good at that hypocrisy thing. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:02:54 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell. Said the Krell owner. Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my Apogee Duetta Sigs. Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load? I already have the Krell, so I don't need a Behringer. If someone wants to bring one round, however, I'll be glad to set up a comparison. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:55:33 +0300, Fella wrote:
dave weil wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell. Said the Krell owner. Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my Apogee Duetta Sigs. Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load? Or QSC amps for that matter.. And yes, isn't so that they will sound *identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a *level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? Just make sure that there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps. If that puts a bug up your ass, just swap cables and put a high quality attenuator in series with the higher gain amp. Take care NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing. Why not? remember, one of the basic principles of ABX is that you *always* have both A and B available as known quantities. Shame that your peanut brain doesn't understand these basics. Thus when the terrible sound of the qsc starts to bother you, you can say to yourself that it sounded the same with the krell. What makes you think that a QSC will sound terrible? Have you ever actually *listened* to one? Or do like arny. Get an $80 yamaha reciever of some sorts. When *frequently* you can't stand the sound of the qsc, you can just escape to the pioneer (which will **** the music over in a different way then the qsc). When the sound of the pioneer starts to f.ck with you, run back to the krell.. All the while, remember that they all sound the same. That's the fun part of it. Mostly, they *do* sound the same. It takes a truly outrageously priced 'high end' amp to really **** up the sound! But seriously though, it seems that only pinkerton is allowed to indulge in "audiophilia". He can own krell amps, he can construct exotic cables *and* _boast_ about them on petty internet "check out my system y'all" sites. Oh dear, I do believe that you're turning a particularly bilious shade of green....................... :-) Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours. They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects" and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around. The homebrew interconnects are required because the 'preamp' is all XLR, due to the fact that RCA connectors suck harder than a hundred-dollar hooker. The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) They all sound the saameee. Wire is WIIIiiiiiiiiIIreeee! Well, at least you got *something* right! OTOH, some cable constructions are more resistant than others to RFI. Having said that, I use standard 'studio grade' screened twisted pair at around a buck a foot for my TV sound system, where the levels of RFI are much higher than around my main music system. So yup, wire is wire. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:24 +0300, Fella wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way binding posts that were available at the time. Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same, right? Actually no, 99% of all reported problems with 'bad sound' come down to poor connections, so top-quality connectors are always a good idea. Unfortunately, we're mostly stuck with the pathetic RCA. :-(((( If homebrewing, *always* use XLRs, and hardwire where you can (as I do from pickup arm to RIAA preamp). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:58:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of Behringer power amps. Now THAT'S hilarious. 20% is "vastly"? Even if the figure was accurate, which it isn't. And who said one has to buy "new" anyway? http://cgi.ebay.com/Behringer-Europo...QQcmdZViewItem Here's one that you could have received delivered for a little more than 10% over my off-handed "quoted price": http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-BEHRINGER-EU...QQcmdZViewItem It's been relisted Arnold, so why don't you go after it? After all, you NEED that amp. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:58:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker cables come in different lengths and its often good to use the shorter cable to gets the job done. Even when the distance is longer? chuckle |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:24 +0300, Fella wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way binding posts that were available at the time. Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same, right? Actually no, 99% of all reported problems with 'bad sound' come down to poor connections, so top-quality connectors are always a good idea. Unfortunately, we're mostly stuck with the pathetic RCA. :-(((( Note that the ABX Comparator never used RCA connectors - it supported balanced I/O and used TRS connectors for line-level signals. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
If that puts a bug up your ass,... Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and answer this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell sound identical with a qsc? And Is that enough for you? Why not? The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound the same. Oh dear, I do believe that you're turning a particularly bilious shade of green....................... :-) How can you even dare to imagine that I might be envious of your system when I have sonus fabers for speakers, for instance, instead of those barn doors of yours. Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours. They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects" and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around. The homebrew interconnects are required because the 'preamp' is all XLR, due to the fact that RCA connectors suck harder than a hundred-dollar hooker. Prove it! All connections sound the same! Connection is connection! The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns Watch yer language.. like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. No one would say that. Any high-end boutique is chock full of decent amps. Just go in and listen! Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) Mafioso wanna be geekish low-income nerd. Ok, nice. Now stop being a creepy mafioso wanna be corksucker and sell that expensive krell of yours. When arny outlaws all high-end you are going to have to give it up anyway. PS: with the money you will get you can permission from the misuss and buy that tonearm whatever you are craving after. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Fella" wrote in message
Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and answer this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell sound identical with a qsc? Pretty good chance. The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound the same. No, they always sounded as they sounded and keep on sounding that way in an ABX test. ABX just eliminates the usual means you use to judge amplifier sound quality Fella, being (1) Visual and other non-audible cues (2) Bad level matching (3) Comparing amps when different music is playing on each Note that John Atkinson appears to consistently fall prey to at minimum, items 1 and 3. I suspect he and his reviewers fudge item 2 a lot. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said:
The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound quality. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:40:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Fella" wrote in message t Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and answer this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell sound identical with a qsc? Pretty good chance. The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound the same. No, they always sounded as they sounded and keep on sounding that way in an ABX test. ABX just eliminates the usual means you use to judge amplifier sound quality Fella, being (1) Visual and other non-audible cues (2) Bad level matching (3) Comparing amps when different music is playing on each (4) The ACTUAL signal from the amp. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile for the kitchen. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" said:
So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound quality. That's all good and well, Arny, but as I have been saying now for about the 8-odd years that I'm on usenet: When one likes a certain component, because of whatever property, that one will automatically "sound better" because it makes the owner feel good. Even when it is objectively less good (!) That's entirely subjective indeed, but one can NOT go around and deny that influence. And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse. One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which in itself is debatable). As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound quality. That's all good and well, Arny, but as I have been saying now for about the 8-odd years that I'm on usenet: redundant post deleted |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? Lip service to scientism. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal said: And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse. One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which in itself is debatable). As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area. That's fine for you, but if Krooger were to admit that was true, he'd have no more reason to go on living. Right, Arnii? ;-) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Agilent's last box that would replace a HP200 was the HP 8904, As if that was the only viable option. And the 334 is basically the receive half of a 339, a box still in high demand. As if that were the only viable option. It must have been for HP Agilent's clientele, loving those first tier vendors as they do-but what else new were they going to buy? The only other thing that would drive the loads the 200CD would was the Potomac gen side box-that was about three grand, and Potomac doesn't really want your business if you are not a broadcaster. (Audemat is kicking their ass, so I'm going to enjoy FIM prices coming down-it's a great hobby toy at the right price). The only other solution is a small generator and a bench power amp-now you are into cables, two boxes, and other issues. The 200CD is still, all these decades later, the simple, cheap, elegant solution, toobs or no toobs. (HP built a solid state Wien bridge AF gen, but it would not drive the same loads. The small signal toobs can be replaced by a solid state circuit in the 200CD and the outputs changed to popular guitar amp types if continued availability was an issue for a new build 200CD. Cal issues (no pun intended) could be solved easily by leaving the numbers off the bank vault dial and providing an isolated sample port for a counter. If I were Agilent, _would_ I? Dunno. Half a million old ones that still work is stiff competition. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
My LaScalas are on their way out the door as we speak, having been
replaced by a homebuilt Klipsch horn klone pair which I have discussed elsewhere. PCs (and Macs and Sun SPARC boxes) are fine in their place. They are not test equipment. They may be built into test equipment as in the case of the HP Infiinium scope or the National Instruments line ( http://www.ni.com/pxi/ ) but if Arny were correct the above wouldn't exist. The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is unbenchworthy for many reasons. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in
message Sander deWaal said: And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse. One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which in itself is debatable). As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area. That's fine for you, but if Krooger were to admit that was true, he'd have no more reason to go on living. Right, Arnii? ;-) Just more proof Midius that you're even more stupid and clueless than you were several years ago. Audio has always been largely subjective. ABX is known as a subjective listening test methodology. That's probably what burns you jokers the most - that ABX is undeniably subjective. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in
message Sander deWaal said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? Lip service to scientism. This would be in contrast to George's whole-hearted commitment to idiocy, right? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile for the kitchen. Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut gallery at bay. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you must be a different species from homo sapiens. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile for the kitchen. Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut gallery at bay. Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000 for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of the gear, just as YOU aren't. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. Why resort to Kroologic to make your point? Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you become a mirror of what you despise. ScottW |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:
dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. Why resort to Kroologic to make your point? It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it, since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound. Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you become a mirror of what you despise. I don't see how you figure. I didn't say that I agreed with Howard. Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Trouble reading, Don? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:23:54 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you must be a different species from homo sapiens. Correct, I am a member of homo sapiens sapiens. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious. That's also why cable tests will never appear in AES Reviews. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:47:15 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile for the kitchen. Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good price. As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut gallery at bay. Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000 for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of the gear, just as YOU aren't. Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really. Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well. Not really. I've proved to my *own* satisfaction that my Pioneer sounds as good as anything on the market, so purchasing an Oracle - to run through a Benchmark DAC-1 - would simply be an indulgence for the sheer beauty of the thing. No expectation of superior sound required. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? | Audio Opinions | |||
The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Sub Amps - a Follow up Question | Tech | |||
Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes |