I came across this today while looking through my bookmarks. In fact, I
think I got this from somebody here a year or so ago. I figure that ol'
jeffc could use this since he can hear everything perfectly and his ears are
100% accurate even if noone else's in the world are.

http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm

I just get a kick out of these.
Please share your favorites. Mine are #400 and #385.
I am in the wrong business, I need to start selling little cones for 80
bucks a pop. Hey Eddie, you wanna sell some of my magic cones in your shop
for say 20% of the take? I'll supply the cones.

Les

"Les" wrote in message
...
I came across this today while looking through my bookmarks. In fact, I
think I got this from somebody here a year or so ago. I figure that ol'
jeffc could use this since he can hear everything perfectly and his ears
are
100% accurate even if noone else's in the world are.

http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm

I just get a kick out of these.
Please share your favorites. Mine are #400 and #385.

This is my favorite - I suggest you check it out.
http://www.audiotweaks.com/tweaks/tweak_330.htm

ha ha ha

thats some good stuff Les....

Is the one in there about putting 2 CDs in a home CD player
(one stacked on top of theother) so it fits tighter in the drawer
and doesnt wiggle around while playing...???

A stereo REP showed me that one years ago...

ha ha ha

Eddie Runner
http://www.twfer.com

Les wrote:

I came across this today while looking through my bookmarks. In fact, I
think I got this from somebody here a year or so ago. I figure that ol'
jeffc could use this since he can hear everything perfectly and his ears are
100% accurate even if noone else's in the world are.

http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm

I just get a kick out of these.
Please share your favorites. Mine are #400 and #385.
I am in the wrong business, I need to start selling little cones for 80
bucks a pop. Hey Eddie, you wanna sell some of my magic cones in your shop
for say 20% of the take? I'll supply the cones.

Les

In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Les wrote:

I came across this today while looking through my bookmarks. In fact, I
think I got this from somebody here a year or so ago. I figure that ol'
jeffc could use this since he can hear everything perfectly and his ears are
100% accurate even if noone else's in the world are.

http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm

I just get a kick out of these.
Please share your favorites. Mine are #400 and #385.
I am in the wrong business, I need to start selling little cones for 80
bucks a pop. Hey Eddie, you wanna sell some of my magic cones in your shop
for say 20% of the take? I'll supply the cones.

Les

Mark, I read that through very carefully
I dont think I could have said that better myself.!!

Gimme thename of that book, I wanna add it to my library...

Eddie
I love it

MZ wrote:

In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

I love the part about the ill informed audio enthusiast that saves
his money for a year to buy a $3000 set of monoblock vacuum
tube amplifiers and ends up with an audio system that would have
been considered POOR in the 1960s....

Good stuff Mark!

Eddie


MZ wrote:

In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

Mark, I read that through very carefully
I dont think I could have said that better myself.!!

Gimme thename of that book, I wanna add it to my library...

Eddie
I love it

"High-power audio amplifier construction manual" by G. Randy Slone.

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
I love the part about the ill informed audio enthusiast that saves
his money for a year to buy a $3000 set of monoblock vacuum
tube amplifiers and ends up with an audio system that would have
been considered POOR in the 1960s....

Don't rub that erection too hard now Eddie......

so, jeffc

Did you read this part of this book??

Doesnt it sound like YOU that this book was
writen about?? ha ha

Eddie Runner wrote:

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
I love the part about the ill informed audio enthusiast that saves
his money for a year to buy a $3000 set of monoblock vacuum
tube amplifiers and ends up with an audio system that would have
been considered POOR in the 1960s....

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
so, jeffc

Did you read this part of this book??

Doesnt it sound like YOU that this book was
writen about?? ha ha

Based on that definition, I'm not a subjectivist. But of course, you hate
to hear that 'cause it will spoil your erection. Do try to keep it in your
pants next time....

"MZ" wrote in message
...
In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference between linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference between linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

Do you know what a strawman is? Of course you do...

Excellent book, I have my own copy.

Kevin Murray

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Mark, I read that through very carefully
I dont think I could have said that better myself.!!

Gimme thename of that book, I wanna add it to my library...

Eddie
I love it

"High-power audio amplifier construction manual" by G. Randy Slone.

Hmm, considering the vagueness in the first page, and grammatical errors in the
second page you posted, I'm guessing neither is considered a pillar of audio
information.

Kevin Murray

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
...
In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference between linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

"Kevin Murray" wrote in message
...
Hmm, considering the vagueness in the first page, and grammatical errors
in the
second page you posted, I'm guessing neither is considered a pillar of
audio
information.

Grammatical errors form the basis of a "pillar of audio information"? You
didn't understand the science involved, did you? English is not the first
language of the man who wrote it.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
In honor of jeffc...

Taken from Sloan's new amplifier book. Sorry for the large file size.

http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/docs/misinfo.pdf

Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference between
linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

Do you know what a strawman is? Of course you do...

So do you, based on all your ridiculous posts. You also are quite an expert
in red herrings, non sequiturs, and general silliness.

Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference between
linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear
http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

Do you know what a strawman is? Of course you do...

So do you, based on all your ridiculous posts. You also are quite an expert
in red herrings, non sequiturs, and general silliness.

Why don't you show me an example? Here, I'll start. Your post that I
quoted above is a strawman because you're attacking an argument that I
never made. Not only did I never make that argument, but I distinctly
pointed out in parenthesis for your benefit what I meant by "behaving
linearly". And, prior to that, I explained to you in a different post why
I used that terminology. It's one thing to dislike the terminology -
that's fine, and in fact I may even agree with you that it's a bit
misleading. But it's another thing entirely to know exactly what I meant
(because I explained it to you before) but pretend that you don't. That's
an example of you dodging the issue so you can play the semantics game - a
tendency you've exhibited time and time again once you began to realize
that your screwy arguments had no basis in fact.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference between
linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear

http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

Do you know what a strawman is? Of course you do...

So do you, based on all your ridiculous posts. You also are quite an
expert
in red herrings, non sequiturs, and general silliness.

Why don't you show me an example?

rec.audio.car

"jeffc" wrote in message
om...

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Hey buddy, here's a couple for you, to help you keep up with the
conversations. This will help you figure out the difference
between
linear
and nonlinear distortions.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=linear

http://www.amplifier.cd/Tutorial/Dis...istortions.htm

Do you know what a strawman is? Of course you do...

So do you, based on all your ridiculous posts. You also are quite an
expert
in red herrings, non sequiturs, and general silliness.

Why don't you show me an example?

rec.audio.car



Wow, you really are an asshat.

But don't worry you'll soon be gone just like the other idiots that I have
come before.

Les

"Les" wrote in message
...

Wow, you really are an asshat.

But don't worry...

Do I look worried to you?

Bet cha your old lady would love it if you got hard as much
as I seem to... ;-)

Unless your old lady left you cause you were foolin around with
the guy in the gay bar...??

Keep up the erection jokes, it makes an old man like me feel young again...

jeffc wrote:

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
so, jeffc

Did you read this part of this book??

Doesnt it sound like YOU that this book was
writen about?? ha ha

Based on that definition, I'm not a subjectivist. But of course, you hate
to hear that 'cause it will spoil your erection. Do try to keep it in your
pants next time....

"Les" wrote in message ...

Do I look worried to you?



It is an expression. Obviously you have trouble seperating the literal from
the figurative, something your elementary school should have taught you.

Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion." And you're one to talk. You're the
one who said "You have claimed to hear differences in amps, differences that
test equipment cannot", which was of course a lie, but the literal truth doesn't
seem too much a concern of yours. Not when you've got witches to burn.

It is an expression. Obviously you have trouble seperating the literal
from
the figurative, something your elementary school should have taught you.

Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."

There you go again - having trouble separating the literal meaning of a word
from an expression (eg. the whole "linear" business), and taking the silly
stance that the literal meaning of a word trumps the explanation provided in
an entire thread - a thread which directly addressed my use of the phrase!
Yet another example of you trying to hide from the fact that you were proven
wrong in this thread time and time again, so you're resorting to playing
semantics...and you're losing that game too. Good going.

What do you have against witches?

jeffc wrote:

Not when you've got witches to burn.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
It is an expression. Obviously you have trouble seperating the literal
from
the figurative, something your elementary school should have taught you.

Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."

There you go again - having trouble separating the literal meaning of a word
from an expression (eg. the whole "linear" business), and taking the silly
stance that the literal meaning of a word trumps the explanation provided in
an entire thread - a thread which directly addressed my use of the phrase!

I understand completely. You're a little embarrassed at making a number of
gaffes, which is understandable, and now you're furiously backpedaling. You're
only human, I really wouldn't let it bother you this much.

Try to keep up with the conversation Eddie.

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
What do you have against witches?

jeffc wrote:

Not when you've got witches to burn.

I been through this conversation before you were born..

jeffc wrote:

Try to keep up with the conversation Eddie.

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
What do you have against witches?

jeffc wrote:

Not when you've got witches to burn.

But you still haven't figured out top posting. tsk tsk

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
I been through this conversation before you were born..

jeffc wrote:

Try to keep up with the conversation Eddie.

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
What do you have against witches?

jeffc wrote:

Not when you've got witches to burn.

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Les" wrote in message
...

Do I look worried to you?



It is an expression. Obviously you have trouble seperating the literal
from
the figurative, something your elementary school should have taught you.

Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."

With Mark's continuous explanation of what he means, and with the fact that
we are talking about our ears then, yes. But I have reading comprehension
skills and can look at the thread as a whole without getting hung up on one
word taken out of context.

And you're one to talk. You're the
one who said "You have claimed to hear differences in amps, differences
that
test equipment cannot", which was of course a lie, but the literal truth
doesn't
seem too much a concern of yours. Not when you've got witches to burn.

Like I have said, I take the thread as a whole, and do not get hung up on
one word. But let us have a look at this.

You said "What I mean is that it is measurable, of course - for example,
human ears can hear it. That's not the same thing as saying current tools
*are* measuring it. That's the problem. It certainly *can* be meausured,
and some day maybe it will be."

There you go, your own words that are saying that test equipment cannot
measure differences that human ears can hear.

You also said "Different amps do sound different. I've proven
that to myself many times with blind testing, with 100% certainty."

So, here you admit to being able to "hear" the differences. Your words, not
mine.

So how is my statement a lie? You said it, there are 2 quotes to show you.
So what I said is the literal truth, you claimed to hear differences in amps
("different amps do sound different") and that testing equipment cannot
measure them ("It certainly *can* be meausured, and some day maybe it will
be.")

Care to argue with any of that?

Les

But you still haven't figured out top posting. tsk tsk

Things are really taking a turn for the worse. First, after being shown
up in this discussion, you resorted to namecalling. Then you resorted to
playing the semantics game. Now, after realizing you could't do either of
those well, you've chosen to become a usenet nazi. Give up while you
think you're ahead.

"MZ" wrote in message
news
But you still haven't figured out top posting. tsk tsk

Things are really taking a turn for the worse. First, after being shown
up in this discussion, you resorted to namecalling. Then you resorted to
playing the semantics game. Now, after realizing you could't do either of
those well, you've chosen to become a usenet nazi. Give up while you
think you're ahead.

Actually, I did all 3 pretty well.

"Les" wrote in message
...

Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the
RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."

With Mark's continuous explanation of what he means, and with the fact
that
we are talking about our ears then, yes.

I see. You agree with what he said, as long as he didn't mean what he said.
Gotcha.

You said "What I mean is that it is measurable, of course - for example,
human ears can hear it. That's not the same thing as saying current tools
*are* measuring it. That's the problem. It certainly *can* be meausured,
and some day maybe it will be."

There you go, your own words that are saying that test equipment cannot
measure differences that human ears can hear.

No, I'm saying they can, which is not the same thing as saying they do.
It's tough, I know, but try and think it through.

You also said "Different amps do sound different. I've proven
that to myself many times with blind testing, with 100% certainty."

So, here you admit to being able to "hear" the differences. Your words,
not
mine.

Of course.

So how is my statement a lie? You said it, there are 2 quotes to show you.
So what I said is the literal truth, you claimed to hear differences in
amps
("different amps do sound different") and that testing equipment cannot
measure them ("It certainly *can* be meausured, and some day maybe it will
be.")

Doesn't need any argument. I never said testing equipment cannot measure
them. But continue the lies, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

In article ,
"jeffc" wrote:


Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the
RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."


If you add 'when operated in a linear fashion', i'd be willing to agree
with that.

In a comparison, any amp that sounds different from others while
operating linearly is broken.. plain and simple.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

"jeffc" wrote in message
. com...

"Les" wrote in message
...

Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the
RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."

With Mark's continuous explanation of what he means, and with the fact
that
we are talking about our ears then, yes.

I see. You agree with what he said, as long as he didn't mean what he
said.
Gotcha.

No, Mark has made his points clear numerous times. And in the context of the
post from which you pull the statement, which you always convienently snip
the rest of it, then his statement is true. There is literally no distortion
that we can hear. I mean that. When the amp is operating in it's linear
range then there is literally no distortion that we, with our ears, can
detect.


You said "What I mean is that it is measurable, of course - for example,
human ears can hear it. That's not the same thing as saying current
tools
*are* measuring it. That's the problem. It certainly *can* be
meausured,
and some day maybe it will be."

There you go, your own words that are saying that test equipment cannot
measure differences that human ears can hear.

No, I'm saying they can, which is not the same thing as saying they do.
It's tough, I know, but try and think it through.

Well then let us look at some of your other quotes.

"Those tools are not measuring the same way we're measuring. It's too
complicated." Here you are saying that test equipment is not measuring the
difference we are hearing because it is too complicated.

" Whether the test equipment exists today that is good enough to tell what I
can tell with my ear is one question (I don't know whether it exists or
not.)"
And here you are saying that you do not even know if the equipment exists
that can measure the differences that you "hear". This contridicts your own
writing in this very post where you are now saying they can. How fast can
you backpeddle? You are doing good so far.

"If I can hear a difference between 2 amplifiers and it isn't being
measured, then there's a problem with the measurement, not with me. If the
measuring equipment is good enough, then the same problem will show up"

And here you are saying, yet again, that you can hear the differences and if
the machinces cannot tell then there is a problem with the measurement.
Again, going back to the whole thing that there is something that you can
hear that cannot be measured.

"But testing tools that are as accurate as our ears (and tongues and noses)
don't exist, and there isn't any market for them at the cost for developing
them."

There you go. Now there is a total of 5 quotes of you saying that there is
not testing equipment that can measure differences that we here. In fact,
you even contridict yourself several times. Sometimes you say that it can be
measured just that it is not being measured and the other half of the time
we cannot measure it because the technology does not exist. Make up your
mind, which is it? Can we and choose not too or can we not and maybe one day
we will be able too? You seem to change your answer every post so I am
trying to nail down which one you are going to stick with.


You also said "Different amps do sound different. I've proven
that to myself many times with blind testing, with 100% certainty."

So, here you admit to being able to "hear" the differences. Your words,
not
mine.

Of course.

So how is my statement a lie? You said it, there are 2 quotes to show
you.
So what I said is the literal truth, you claimed to hear differences in
amps
("different amps do sound different") and that testing equipment cannot
measure them ("It certainly *can* be meausured, and some day maybe it
will
be.")

Doesn't need any argument. I never said testing equipment cannot measure
them.

Liar.
"But testing tools that are as accurate as our ears (and tongues and noses)
don't exist, and there isn't any market for them at the cost for developing
them."

"That's not the same thing as saying current tools *are* measuring it.
That's the problem. It certainly *can* be meausured, and some day maybe it
will be."

Modern test equipment is measuring everything there is to measure with
accuracy and precision. So by your 2 very statements above you are saying
that testing equipment cannot measure them because you "hear" differences
that the equipment says are not there.



But continue the lies, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

All you have done is to make yourself look like more of a liar and attempt
to backpeddle some more. I have proved beyond reasonable doubt my original
statement and you have done nothing to disprove it.

Les

"Cyrus" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jeffc" wrote:


Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the
RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."


If you add 'when operated in a linear fashion', i'd be willing to agree
with that.

And that is exactly what he said. He made that point clear over several
posts. But Jeffc has taken the post out of context.


In a comparison, any amp that sounds different from others while
operating linearly is broken.. plain and simple.

Ah. A voice of reason! Good to see you back around.

Les

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

In article , "Les"
wrote:

"Cyrus" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jeffc" wrote:


Actually that's MZ's problem. Would you agree with him? "the
RadioShack
special will reproduce
the sound with literally no distortion."


If you add 'when operated in a linear fashion', i'd be willing to agree
with that.

And that is exactly what he said. He made that point clear over several
posts. But Jeffc has taken the post out of context.


Oh ok.. I haven't followed the whole thing.


In a comparison, any amp that sounds different from others while
operating linearly is broken.. plain and simple.

Ah. A voice of reason! Good to see you back around.


heh.. Once a lurker, always a lurker.

Les

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

"Cyrus" wrote in message
...

If you add 'when operated in a linear fashion', i'd be willing to agree
with that.

In a comparison, any amp that sounds different from others while
operating linearly is broken.. plain and simple.

Please explain how it's operating linearly while broken.

"Les" wrote in message
...

And that is exactly what he said. He made that point clear over several
posts. But Jeffc has taken the post out of context.

Funny, you don't seem to have any probem doing that yourself.

"Les" wrote in message
...

I see. You agree with what he said, as long as he didn't mean what he
said.
Gotcha.

No, Mark has made his points clear numerous times.

Just not that time.

And in the context of the
post from which you pull the statement, which you always convienently snip
the rest of it, then his statement is true. There is literally no
distortion
that we can hear. I mean that. When the amp is operating in it's linear
range then there is literally no distortion that we, with our ears, can
detect.

Well duh! What do you think "linear" means? Either your one of those types
that lumps linear and non-linear distortion together (OK), or there
different (OK). Either way, the sentence makes absolutely no sense. If you
say "linear distortion i.e. clipping" then you're wrong because you didn't
consider nonlinear distortion. If you say linear distortion is any
distortion from fidelity, then you're merely saying "an amplifier that is
amplifying perfectly sounds like any other amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly". No **** Sherlock.

There you go, your own words that are saying that test equipment
cannot
measure differences that human ears can hear.

No, I'm not. But you do enjoy thinking that's what I said. Why do you get
off on it so much?

I was top posting before you were born

jeffc wrote:

But you still haven't figured out top posting. tsk tsk

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
I been through this conversation before you were born..

jeffc wrote:

Try to keep up with the conversation Eddie.

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
What do you have against witches?

jeffc wrote:

Not when you've got witches to burn.