On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

I answered your question.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it.
You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you
have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have
tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a
different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video
while listening to music.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.

Except it wasn't my question.

"Robert Morein" said:

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

"All amps are equal, but some are more equal than others".
-John Atkinson, tongue firmly in cheek, to Tom Nousaine.

*grin*

Oh, and a happy 2004 to everyone!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

"All amps are equal, but some are more equal than others".
-John Atkinson, tongue firmly in cheek, to Tom Nousaine.

*grin*

Oh, and a happy 2004 to everyone!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.

It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks
the rule."
There certainly are exceptions.

Yup, so many that there ain't no rule................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal
to Arny and Stew.

Morein, we're hoping for your brain transplant to finally be approved.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type
tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have
fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL
sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal
dome tweeters.

Once again we have the "tacit admission", forced by Arny from his victims by
a twisted mind.

I have several sets of speakers with metal domes, Arny. How could anyone
avoid them? They are ubiquitous, and frequently good.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

You have only one set of speakers?

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:32:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.

Except it wasn't my question.

Once you restated it without answering it, you inherited it.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal
to Arny and Stew.

Morein, we're hoping for your brain transplant to finally be approved.

I wouldn't want it to turn out like yours -- dropped by UPS.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type
tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have
fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they
STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with
metal dome tweeters.

Once again we have the "tacit admission", forced by Arny from his
victims by a twisted mind.

Where did I mention "tacit admission"?

I didn't.

Morien is free-associating again.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in
:

"Powell" wrote in message
...
Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence
that I've got considerable emperical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that
magazines will keep you "well read".

Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really
worthless. By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag. Q&A is
instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the
mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my
mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I
failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great
enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every
month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put
them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring
laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how
outrageous.

I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get
trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers
are quite low.



Rusty,

Do you have any recommendations for something worthwhile in a magazine?


r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:51:06 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

You have only one set of speakers?

No, the other ones are driven by an Audiolab 8000P, a Denon PMA350II
and a Rotel RA920AX, so I spread the honours pretty evenly around the
world! :-)

BTW, the Krell and Audiolab sound excactly the same on the big
Apogees, but the Audiolab gets very hot after a while.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44...
Rusty,

Do you have any recommendations for something worthwhile in a
magazine?

Not really. I'm pretty bummed about the state of print these
days.

I actually get some use out of a couple of HT magazines such as
Audio Video Interiors, Widescreen Review, The Perfect Vision, and
the Robb Report...mostly due to the HT picture layouts and
content review. I still subscribe to Home Theater Mag and
Sound&Vision but just barely. I recently wrote a letter to the
editor for a recent projector review. The review was printed 20
months after the projector was generally available...and 4 months
after it was discontinued. Further the review was flawed because
they couldn't figure out how to calibrate. A quick web search
would have given them service menu access. They desaturated the
color instead of properly adjusting the color decoder and also
used an incorrect gamma setting. Poor review but due to the
un-timely nature it didn't really matter.

In article , says...

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it
comes to difficult loads.

My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels.


I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.

Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged
ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.

Some Carvers can also be bridged to more than double their power rating.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.

I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a
heart beat.

Agreed. The meters are really not that usefull.
-------------
Alex

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these things, Mr.
Boudreaux.

I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation.

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are 12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?

The Guide is edited by Tom Norton, who was Stereophile's technical editor
for many years.

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz.

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority interest for
resadres in general.

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot," in Marshall
McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably
does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it
privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these
things, Mr. Boudreaux.

That's good, and its based on facts, as presented below:

I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation.

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

All other things being equal, it should have risen.

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid
circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are
12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop,
IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel
music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:17:43 -0500, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article , says...

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it
comes to difficult loads.

My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels.

Which Apogees? Some are quite easy loads, contrary to popular
mythology.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.

Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged
ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.

Some Carvers can also be bridged to more than double their power rating.

Not into a 4-ohm load, they can't!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:51:06 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric
types.

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube
amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

You have only one set of speakers?

No, the other ones are driven by an Audiolab 8000P, a Denon PMA350II
and a Rotel RA920AX, so I spread the honours pretty evenly around the
world! :-)

BTW, the Krell and Audiolab sound excactly the same on the big
Apogees, but the Audiolab gets very hot after a while.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues:
82,932 paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003.
(Both figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to
see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

Yup. Nothing wrong with that.

What about total circulation instead of just paid...

I am not sure I grasp the distinction. US publishers only formally track
paid subscriptions as it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish
an accurate "pass-along" ratio (ie, how many people read each copy).

and the drop from the peak (early 90's I think)?

That was, if I remember correctly in the mid 1990s. If you wish, I
can research the historical trend for you.

once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers
will choose multichannel over stereo.
1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

We shall see. All of us in publishing and audio manufacture are having
to place our bets, Mr. Boudreaux. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.

"would probably"... how would you know, Mr.
no-empirical-experiences?

Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.

Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it
comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna,
Alesis,
Yamaha, etc.

We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.

Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience.

Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.

True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an
amp can be underrated.

How would you know?

Been there, done that.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.

Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.

Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?

See former comments about "difficult loads" and
comment just above about "2 ohm load".

So what? The poster has not described his speakers
and has not complained about the ability to drive them.

As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or
may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he
may
want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his
choice on.

You need a bigger shovel, Arny.

Been there, done that.

RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.

So Powell, does that mean that your main system
with speakers has power amps rated at 100
milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a
loose relationship between RMS power ratings and
ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels.

You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked.

Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look
"loose" and "half cocked".

In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different,
and more relevant.

Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you.

No problem.

It is only one factor of many to consider.

Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly
different and also a better predictor of an amps ability
to drive speakers to satisfying levels.

Top Ten of important factors to consider:

1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences.

Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power
amp.

Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound
stage and microdynamics.

Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements
for placement in the user's setup.

Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability.

Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

6. Budget.

Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

7. Quality and fit-and-finish.

Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to
satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any?

Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on
loudness?

Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked.

10. Special requirements such as input like XLR,
vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed,
etc.

Too obvious.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.

I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light
for fancy meters in a heart beat.

Quack, quack, quack...

So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you
took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen
and small children?

The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader .

Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children?

Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond
properly
to even the simplest of questions.






WELL SAID Arny

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many
amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective
means
are used to judge.

Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at
the
"data."


Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.

Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the
most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL
sound
soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:07lJb.726413$Tr4.1851425@attbi_s03...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.

Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube
amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.

Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many
amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective
means
are used to judge.

Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at
the
"data."


Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.

Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the
most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL
sound
soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

OK, done. Now I can't hear what I ignore.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
IMHO, topologies do make a difference:

Topologies make a difference to the designer.

To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.

To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.


Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542
: one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

The definition doesn't really talk about not adding distortion. Of course every
amplifier does add distortion. If something does not do what the designer
intends it to do then it is poorly designed. If an amplifier adds audible
distortion but the designer likes the results the amplifier is not poorly
designed. You may not like it but it is doing what it was designed to do.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message



To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition amp should not add anything other than gain.

Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542

one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

The definition doesn't really talk about not adding distortion.

No, you have to look at the definition of "High Fidelity"

"The electronic reproduction of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded
sources, with minimal distortion."

Of course every amplifier does add distortion.

Tiny amounts of distortion are irrelevant, but large amounts of distortion,
such as commonly added by tubed amplification and LP playback, are.

If something does not do
what the designer intends it to do then it is poorly designed.

If an amplifier is not designed to add minimal distortion, then it is not a
high fidelity amplifier. Examples of amplifiers that are not designed to add
minimal distortion, but are rather intended to add audible distortion
include guitar amplifiers.

If an
amplifier adds audible distortion but the designer likes the results
the amplifier is not poorly designed.

But, its not a high fidelity amplifier.

You may not like it but it is doing what it was designed to do.

Thanks for admitting that your audio system is not a high fidelity audio
system, sockpuppet wheel. It includes components that were clearly designed
to add audible amounts of distortion well in excess of even mi-fi systems.

Next time you upgrade your system might want to upgrade your system with a
couple of Fender Guitar amps. Your local Guitar center would no doubt love
to provide you with an audition.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect

Then a lot of them do.

And a lot of them don't, including some of the ones you condemn.

Robert Morein wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If I understand you right, then if it is bipolar then it is usable only
to generate heat and not even good at that.

We're both arguing from personal experience,

The Sony FET amps I had in a car some years ago had a nice treble.
Generally however if it is FET I need to have explained why it is worth
listening to now, because when I bothered listening to it last, and that
*is* way many years ago, the FET treble was just a cloud of white noise.
You very claim that metal tweeters are good to show the virtues of FET
amplifiers does however seem to somehow substantiate that not all FET
designs have as clean a treble as some japanese bipolars from the
quality wars late 70-ties and early 80-ties in as much as such
amplifiers (Sansui B55 with input coupling cap replaced and spectrum
display physically removed) are the preferred ones for midrange and
treble into compression drivers in this household and in as much as a
newly acquired Technics amp from the same vintage has become the new
"master of the full range" for the duration of an Audire amps disease.

but I submit that I have the "white crow", ie., that my
personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

My observations conform very poorly to your general rule as extracted
from your recent posts, what I happen to have is then some old stuff,
but I am not really convinced that new stuff actually is relevant to
replace it.

--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******

S888Wheel a écrit :
To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.



Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542
: one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

The definition doesn't really talk about not adding distortion. Of course every
amplifier does add distortion. If something does not do what the designer
intends it to do then it is poorly designed. If an amplifier adds audible
distortion but the designer likes the results the amplifier is not poorly
designed. You may not like it but it is doing what it was designed to do.

*LOL*
Need a very high IQ to write such stupidities.
You demonstrate that you prefer your very expensive material than the
music you listen on.
What an idiot you are.
You should do like George Middius, focus on what you excel : *troll* and
*troll only*.

Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542
: one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

I wonder how the word "amplifier" was originally used in 1542, since
it obviously didn't deal with anything electronic or even electical.

I picture some musician setting up his lute behind a large megaphone
to impress his friends with his new hi-fi "amplifier"!

Scott Gardner

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which
*does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to
have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

Yes, they do. The high-end is rife with bad designs.

Fortunately many mainstream components are competently designed.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.


Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542
: one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as
in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

The definition doesn't really talk about not adding distortion.
Of course every
amplifier does add distortion. If something does not do what
the designer
intends it to do then it is poorly designed. If an amplifier
adds audible
distortion but the designer likes the results the amplifier is
not poorly
designed. You may not like it but it is doing what it was
designed to do.

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.

I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".

I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal
amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or
some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the
product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and
disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an
amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations
even though they deviate from the artists' intent.

Rusty said


To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition amp should not add anything other than gain.

I said


Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542

one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

The definition doesn't really talk about not adding distortion.

Arny said


No, you have to look at the definition of "High Fidelity"


No I don't dip****. Are you incapable of reading what Rusty wrote? It would
appear so.

I said


Of course every amplifier does add distortion.


Arny said


Tiny amounts of distortion are irrelevant, but large amounts of distortion,
such as commonly added by tubed amplification and LP playback, are.

Your point is irrelevant. It looks like you have failed to understand anything
Rusty said. if you cannot compehend the context of a post you only make an ass
of yourself when you comment on it.

I said


If something does not do
what the designer intends it to do then it is poorly designed.

Arny said


If an amplifier is not designed to add minimal distortion, then it is not a
high fidelity amplifier

That depneds on the reference by which maximum fidelity is sought. A less
simple minded person would understand that. Of course Rusty made no mention of
fidelity so you continue to take what i said out of context.

I said


If an
amplifier adds audible distortion but the designer likes the results
the amplifier is not poorly designed.

Arny said


But, its not a high fidelity amplifier.


Your stupidity becomes redundant....again.


I said


You may not like it but it is doing what it was designed to do.

Arny said



Thanks for admitting that your audio system is not a high fidelity audio
system, sockpuppet wheel.

You are an idiot. No wonder you don't want to take an IQ test. This logic
applied to such a test would land you wll below 100.


Arny said

It includes components that were clearly designed
to add audible amounts of distortion well in excess of even mi-fi systems.

This is just a lie. Thanks for misrepresenting the designers of my equipment.
More sour grapes from Arny. Your class envy is really ugly. You could have
gotten off your ass years ago and try to earn enough money to afford the
equipment instead of sitting on your ass over the years infront of the computer
crapping on the equipment because you cant afford it.

Í said

Main Entry: am·pli·fi·er
Pronunciation: 'am-pl&-"fI(-&)r
Function: noun
Date: 1542
: one that amplifies; specifically : an electronic device (as in a stereo
system) for amplifying voltage, current, or power

The definition doesn't really talk about not adding distortion. Of course
every
amplifier does add distortion. If something does not do what the designer
intends it to do then it is poorly designed. If an amplifier adds audible
distortion but the designer likes the results the amplifier is not poorly
designed. You may not like it but it is doing what it was designed to do.

Lionel said


*LOL*
Need a very high IQ to write such stupidities.

it is pretty simple stuff. I guess one needs more than two digits in their IQ
to understand it. You obviously failed.

Lionel said

You demonstrate that you prefer your very expensive material than the
music you listen on.

Try to make sense.

Lionel said

What an idiot you are.

This from a guy who claims to have a one digit IQ.

Lionel said


You should do like George Middius, focus on what you excel : *troll* and
*troll only*.


This from the quintessential troll.

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.


Not by definition. You are simply trying to present your opinions on what an
amplifier should be by you your ideals as a definitive global statement on
what an amplifier is. That is wrong.

Rusty said


I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".


Many things "can" happen. That doesn't mean they have.

Rusty said


I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

If you know this then maybe you shouldn't make global claims of fact based on
your ideals.

Rusty said


I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain.

Here you are on the right track. You are stating your ideals as your ideals.

Rusty said

To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist.

Now you have fallen off the track.

Rusty said

If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

If you mean audibly uncolored when you say pure, ( I don't know of any
manufacturer that claims absolute purity) Then I would agree that the
manufacturer is misrepresenting the product. I think you are simplifying the
way amps are designed and evaluated though. Some designers actually hook their
products up to real world speakers and listen to the results and base their
success on what they hear.

Rusty said


However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal
amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or
some other claim.

You are off the tracks again. You assume that your ideal is a universal ideal.
You are not even considering the fact that an amp is only one component in a
chain of colored components from musical source to final playback.

Rusty said

In that scenario it would be hard to call the
product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and
disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an
amplifier.

Depends on the situation.

Rusty said

I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations
even though they deviate from the artists' intent.

You have no idea whether they do or don't. It would obviosly vary from
situation to situation.

S888Wheel said to La Salope:

You should do like George Middius, focus on what you excel : *troll* and
*troll only*.

Slut, you still don't understand what's wrong with Usenet.

This from the quintessential troll.

Lionella is surely as brainless as most, but RAO has had its share of
individuals who troll tirelessly. toony lobro/torrie****s, the
Feckless Ferstlerian, and McInturd are just a few. And let's not
forget that when Krooger isn't crying his eyes out over Normal
people's "attitudes", he also boasts about being a "master baiter".

La Salope does best with the merde jokes. ;-)

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering