For the purpose of a delay line, please explain if these
characteristics are negative factors that must be overcome or
beneficial and actually aid design implementation.

Thanks,

ScottW

Brother Horace's telltale twitching sells him out.

Brother Horace the Endlessly Repetitive said:

By now, I'm sure we all accept that you are the lowliest of the low, the
dirtiest of the dirty. You got away with your plagiarism. But we on RAO
know you to be a chronically dishonest lowlife. Whether you are actually
punished for your misdeeds is beside the point.

Get a life.

Get a conscience.

You ALWAYS

I've always felt the worst reprobates are the ones who refuse to admit
their sins. It looks like there's no hope for you, Harold.

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Good day, you phony.

Have you borrowed Arny's grumpy pants?

Stephen

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Pal, you would have to use a LOT of wire to effect a proper
delay line for that concentric-ring design. You would
practically have to make it several miles long.

At last! Yes, Quad use a LOT of wire, plus some phase tricks.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...16/index6.html

"These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11 miles of
wire!)

Holy cow. And you guys split hairs and get into a
sound-quality twist about a few feet of speaker cable
between an amp and some speakers!

Isn't the point that I *don't* get into a twist about wire?

Stephen

Well, if 11 miles of wire is sonically benign, then it looks
as if a good speaker hookup involving maybe a dozen feet of
the copper would not require upscale wire to do the job.
Lamp cord would do just fine.

You couldn't fit 11 miles of lamp cord into a Quad.

Yeah. The skinny stuff they have to use is worse than lamp
cord, if you take into consideration the LCR
characteristics.

No, it's perfect for its intended purpose.

Stephen

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Does electricity travel at the speed of light?

Actually, it travels at about the same speed as a
hard-pitched baseball. This means that it takes about six
minutes for the signal to pass through that 11 miles of
wire.

At the speed of rhetoric?

Stephen

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Your well-supported claim was based on the speed of light. Maybe there's
something wrong with that.

Are you saying that the electricity that passes through the
Quad is moving at a meaningfully different speed?

Perhaps concentrating on the signal would be more fruitful.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Your well-supported claim was based on the speed of light. Maybe
there's something wrong with that.

Are you saying that the electricity that passes through the
Quad is moving at a meaningfully different speed?

Perhaps concentrating on the signal would be more fruitful.

Stephen, perhaps admitting that you have it all wrong would be more
fruitful.

George M. Middius wrote:
Brother Horace the Infinitely Grim makes a funny.

Does electricity travel at the speed of light?

Actually, it travels at about the same speed as a
hard-pitched baseball. This means that it takes about six
minutes for the signal to pass through that 11 miles of
wire.

That would be humorous if you actually had an understanding of
baseball.

If irony killed!

LOL!

Turdborg whined:

Brother Horace the Infinitely Grim makes a funny.

Does electricity travel at the speed of light?

Actually, it travels at about the same speed as a
hard-pitched baseball. This means that it takes about six
minutes for the signal to pass through that 11 miles of
wire.

That would be humorous if you actually had an understanding of
baseball.

If irony killed!

Do you think I have no understanding of baseball, or is this yet another
of your inscrutable comments that nobody else in the world is smart enough
to understand?

BTW, I called a bookie in Las Vegas and they had no line on whether you're
going to show up in New York. I would have bet against even if the odds
were very short.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Your well-supported claim was based on the speed of light. Maybe
there's something wrong with that.

Are you saying that the electricity that passes through the
Quad is moving at a meaningfully different speed?

Perhaps concentrating on the signal would be more fruitful.

Stephen, perhaps admitting that you have it all wrong would be more
fruitful.

Quads are said to include a delay line that has 11 miles of wire. In
layman's terms, how does this work to delay the signal? Should an
audiophile be anxious about this implementation despite the ESL 63's
measured performance and reputation?

Stephen

Howard Ferstler wrote in message :
John Atkinson wrote:

Snip of more of Mr. Ferstler's rantings about Stereophile and
the inevitable personal insults he routinely throws out

As I have repeatedly and correctly pointed out to you, even
your own in-room measurements of the speakers you claim to
be "wide-dispersion" show that in the treble the sound you
perceive is dominated by the directly radiated response.

Baloney. If that were the case the treble would sound the
same outdoors as it does in a reflective environment.

"Dominated" is the word I used Mr. Ferstler. I did not say there
would be _no_ contribution from the reverberant field, which is
what happens outdoors. And please note that I instanced this
example of a speaker's horizontal radiation pattern as evidence
that your claim that a tweeter's output cannot radiate past a
90-degree discontinuity in its baffle was incorrect in the real
world. Despite all your bluster, you have not yet addressed this
point.

It is silly to think that a direct-field signal is in any
way, shape, or form as dominant when it comes to determining
spectral balance as the full reflective power of a speaker
over its 360 degree radiation angle.

You might believe it "silly" but if that is the conclusion that
can be drawn from the in-room response measurement, that must
indeed be the case, Mr. Ferstler. Or do you dismiss measured
evidence that doesn't support your beliefs?

We talked about loudspeaker design, loudspeaker measurements,
blind testing, etc. One point Sean Olive made about speaker
measurements would have been of interest to you, Mr. Ferstler,
as it concerned the relevance of sound power measurements to
sound quality. His point was that if sound power was the dominant
metric affecting perceived sound, then turning a speaker through
180 degrees will have no effect on its sound, as the radiated
power remains unchanged. As this _does_ drastically change a
speaker's sound quality, ipso facto, sound power is not a
dominant factor.

Regarding sound power, I can assure you that while
radiation-pattern artifacts will cause a speaker facing
backward to sound different from how it sounds when facing
forward, the overall spectral balance will not be all that
much difference IF the wall is 100 percent reflective.

Comparing the measured sound power responses of speakers and their
in-room responses, large differences can be observed, Mr. Ferstler,
which suggests that you are incorrect in your assurance. Only at
low frequencies will your statement start to be correct.

However, it more often than typical is not, and so obviously
a speaker facing backward will sound different from one
facing forward.

Whether or not the wall behind the speaker is 100% reflective
is not the only issue here, Mr. Ferstler. Did you even read
Sean Olive's two recent AES papers on this subject? His
conclusion, derived from comprehensive measurements of a large
number of loudspeakers and a very large number of blind
listening tests, was that there is limited correlation between
a speaker's sound power and its perceived sound quality. Or
do you doubt his experimental results?

What will change are imaging characteristics, and of course
those characteristics are important to audio buffs who sit in
the sweet spot and want to be able to count the instruments all
the way across the soundstage.

Thus you make my case for me, Mr. Ferstler. The reason the
imaging characteristics change when a pair of speakers are faced
away from the listener is due to the drastic change in the
perceived high-frequency response. If sound power was the primary
metric, as you keep claiming, this change would not occur.

So, Mr. Ferstler, explain what phenomenon in a loudspeaker's
output occurs in the quadrants of its radiation pattern but
_not_ on the two right-angle planes and therefore will not be
caught on the vertical and horizontal dispersion plots?

The horizontal series of curves you print do not reflect the
actual direct-field input to the room at multiple heights.
You get a slice at one height, but the plots may be
considerably different at different heights. Yes, you can
calculate the response, based upon the vertical base line,
but that response may not be all that good. Measure
horizontally from a position where there is a cancellation
artifact in the vertical plane and the horizontal results
will be different from what you got when you measured from a
height that had no such cancellation artifact.

But these effects you discuss _are_ revealed in the speaker's
plot of dispersion in the vertical plane, Mr. Ferstler. So
I repeat my question: what artefacts in a loudspeaker's output
manifest themselves _only_ in the quadrants between the
vertical and horizontal dispersion planes and do not appear
on with the plots of horizontal or vertical dispersion?

The correct answer, Mr. Ferstler, is _none_. The only reason you
would need to plot the full spherical output of a loudspeaker
is to calculate its power response. And as Sean Olive appears
to have demonstrated, that is a lot of work to derive a
measurement that does not directly correlate with perceived
sound quality.

Now I do note that you disagree with Olive on this matter. So,
it is fair to ask you to produce the results of your own
measurements and listening tests that support your case.

I was going to snip the following comments from Mr. Ferstler, but
they do have a sort of poetry. Particularly as Mr. Ferstler in
the past has pured scorn on those who resort to insults :-)

Give me a break, you grandstanding phony. You who publish a
magazine that openly misleads a bunch of true-believing nitwits
who, ironically, have very often become nitwits because of guys
like you...
At least I do not con my readers into spending huge sums of
money on amps and CD players that do not perform any better
than much cheaper versions available at Circuit City or Best
Buy...
Hell, you are one of the most fact-fabricating persons in the
business.

Poetry!

Or when you admitted fabricating material in an article claimed
to be factual?

When was this, you thug.

My goodness, Mr. Ferstler, "thug"? All I ma doing is politely
correcting your misstatements, and holding a mirror up to your
accusations of unethical behavior. Do you really not remember
what happened? You wrote an article discussing audio on the
Internet that was published in The Audiophile Voice. With your
permission and in response to your demands that I substantiate
some criticisms I had made of the article, I had the article
deconstructed by a professional copy editor. It then emerged in
the subsequent discussion that you had fabricated some of the
passages that had been presented as fact in that article.

I am sorry I ever said you were a good recording engineer.

Why? Was it not true?

Don't send me any more recordings to review.

Okay. But are you really saying that you could not put aside your
personal feelings when you write reviews? That would be a terminal
failing in a critic, I would have thought.

I hope you realize that guys like Toole and Olive are probably
very much aware that you are a con artist. So are a lot of other
top dogs in the industry.

Dear dear, Mr. Ferstler. That's terrible.

The ones who make products (the ones with brains or integrity
at least) suck up to you, because they need good reviews in your
magazine.

That's an odd defintion of "integrity" you are using there, Mr.
Ferstler.

Good day, you phony.

And a good day to you, Mr. Ferstler

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote:

And a good day to you, Mr. Ferstler

Is it wrong of me to enjoy this?

When all is said and done, Howard just goes with what his friends have
told him, as when he declares the Quad 63 to be suspect based on a
half-remembered speech preserved on a lost audio tape, a talk that
probably referred to the 57.

As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote:

And a good day to you, Mr. Ferstler


Is it wrong of me to enjoy this?


No.
As long as I can embarass this ragazine "editor" by exposing his
frauds and lies by looking foolish myself, so be it, pal.


When all is said and done, Howard just goes with what his friends have
told him, as when he declares the Quad 63 to be suspect based on a
half-remembered speech preserved on a lost audio tape, a talk that
probably referred to the 57.


Baloney, slick.
And learn to write.
The lack of writing skills seems to be a common property among the
tweako-freako mumbo-jumbo wannabe audiophyle crowd, note.


As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.


Haw haw haw.

Gotta go again, guys. The cats, you know.


Stephen


Enjoy your Quads.


Howard Fistle

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Ol' Howie, he went into a rant
Tryin' to explain what he can't
But John keeps his cool
Makes him look like a fool
And proves that his knowledge is scant.

Shake Spear

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Your well-supported claim was based on the speed of light. Maybe
there's something wrong with that.

Are you saying that the electricity that passes through the
Quad is moving at a meaningfully different speed?

Perhaps concentrating on the signal would be more fruitful.

Stephen, perhaps admitting that you have it all wrong would be more
fruitful.

Quads are said to include a delay line that has 11 miles of wire. In
layman's terms, how does this work to delay the signal?

It's all about inductance and capacitance and other things you
obviously have no clue about, Stephen.

Should an
audiophile be anxious about this implementation despite the ESL 63's
measured performance and reputation?

I don't think there's a real engineer around who doesn't think that
the delay line and segmented radiator in the ESL-63 is appropriate, if
not original.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Your well-supported claim was based on the speed of light. Maybe
there's something wrong with that.

Are you saying that the electricity that passes through the
Quad is moving at a meaningfully different speed?

Perhaps concentrating on the signal would be more fruitful.

Stephen, perhaps admitting that you have it all wrong would be more
fruitful.

Quads are said to include a delay line that has 11 miles of wire. In
layman's terms, how does this work to delay the signal?

It's all about inductance and capacitance and other things you
obviously have no clue about, Stephen.

Go on (about the inductance and capacitance). There's no time warp or
relativistic effects slowing the speed of light, right?

Should an
audiophile be anxious about this implementation despite the ESL 63's
measured performance and reputation?

I don't think there's a real engineer around who doesn't think that
the delay line and segmented radiator in the ESL-63 is appropriate, if
not original.

That's why I think Toole probably was referring to 57s in that lecture
Howard can't document.

One of those webpages we cited showed the history (electrostatic
speakers 1929, concentric rings 1941). The ideas were not original but
the implementation remains unique.

Stephen

I suppose it could possibly be improved.......

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8056

This implementation is flawed.... but a digital delay might be more
accurate in time and phase.

ScottW

In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

I suppose it could possibly be improved.......

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8056

This implementation is flawed.... but a digital delay might be more
accurate in time and phase.

Would you need 6 of them? And if it worked on line level, you'd need
more amplifiers. Implementing the high frequency roll-off and
anti-resonance tweaking would be different.

I think the original circuit is linked he

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article om,

"ScottW" wrote:

I suppose it could possibly be improved.......

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8056


This very crude implementation of a digital delay needs more than a
little improving, itself.


This implementation is flawed.... but a digital delay might be more
accurate in time and phase.

Agreed.

Would you need 6 of them?

No, just one with 6 output taps.

And if it worked on line level, you'd need
more amplifiers.

This is 2005 - good amps are cheap and plentiful.

Implementing the high frequency roll-off and
anti-resonance tweaking would be different.

It would be done in the digital domain, natch.

I think the original circuit is linked he

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm

So speaks Stephen who obviously can't tell the difference between a
schematic and a picture.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

I suppose it could possibly be improved.......

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8056

This implementation is flawed.... but a digital delay might be more
accurate in time and phase.

Would you need 6 of them?

Not exactly, just 6 taps off the shift register... that is where the
delay is really implemented. But its such a cheap circuit that
wouldn't be a problem.

And if it worked on line level, you'd need
more amplifiers.

Thats the real problem... but I wonder how much power is required for
a single "ring"? All that analog circuitry has to be a bit lossy. It
would be interesting taking the concept to the next level with the
signal processing technology available today.

Implementing the high frequency roll-off and
anti-resonance tweaking would be different.

I think the original circuit is linked he

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm

Thanks, I've seen it. Have you had the bottoms off your Quads? The
electrical workmanship I encountered when replacing the electrolytics
wasn't too great on mine. The caps were cooked. And both power
resistors on the inputs were cracked due to overheating, not sure how
much longer they would have lasted.

ScottW

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

I suppose it could possibly be improved.......

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8056

This implementation is flawed.... but a digital delay might be more
accurate in time and phase.

Would you need 6 of them?

Not exactly, just 6 taps off the shift register... that is where the
delay is really implemented. But its such a cheap circuit that
wouldn't be a problem.

And if it worked on line level, you'd need
more amplifiers.

Thats the real problem... but I wonder how much power is required for
a single "ring"? All that analog circuitry has to be a bit lossy. It
would be interesting taking the concept to the next level with the
signal processing technology available today.

Loudspeaker, Active Digital FRED.

Implementing the high frequency roll-off and
anti-resonance tweaking would be different.

I think the original circuit is linked he

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm

Thanks, I've seen it. Have you had the bottoms off your Quads? The
electrical workmanship I encountered when replacing the electrolytics
wasn't too great on mine. The caps were cooked. And both power
resistors on the inputs were cracked due to overheating, not sure how
much longer they would have lasted.

Mine didn't seem to have those problems, although that notorious input
capacitor looked cheap. Maybe the heat problems are climate related (my
Quads came from the Northeast). The speaker terminals are definitely not
audiophile approved, but they seem of a piece with the rest of it. The
copper windings were a surprise. I don't what I expected there.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article om,

"ScottW" wrote:

I suppose it could possibly be improved.......

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8056


This very crude implementation of a digital delay needs more than a
little improving, itself.


This implementation is flawed.... but a digital delay might be more
accurate in time and phase.

Agreed.

Would you need 6 of them?

No, just one with 6 output taps.

And if it worked on line level, you'd need
more amplifiers.

This is 2005 - good amps are cheap and plentiful.

Implementing the high frequency roll-off and
anti-resonance tweaking would be different.

It would be done in the digital domain, natch.

I think the original circuit is linked he

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm

So speaks Stephen who obviously can't tell the difference between a
schematic and a picture.

That difference is 'labels,' right?

Try the "Manual".

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.

And now, of course, he is taking one of his "breaks" from posting :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MINe 109 wrote:

Thanks, I've seen it. Have you had the bottoms off your Quads?
The
electrical workmanship I encountered when replacing the
electrolytics
wasn't too great on mine. The caps were cooked. And both power
resistors on the inputs were cracked due to overheating, not sure
how
much longer they would have lasted.

Mine didn't seem to have those problems, although that notorious
input
capacitor looked cheap.

Yeah, I'm not sure if a leaking cap got hot or that resistor gets hot
and scorched the side of the cap. It all came out on Grahams good
advice.


Maybe the heat problems are climate related (my
Quads came from the Northeast).

Doubt it... anything hot enough to melt the sleeve on the caps would
have damaged a lot more than just that.

The speaker terminals are definitely not
audiophile approved, but they seem of a piece with the rest of it.

Better than the giant pretty gold 5-way posts on my Legacy's whose
base metal is so soft they won't stay tight and easily strip. Looks
definitely ain't everything

ScottW

John Atkinson said:

As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.

And now, of course, he is taking one of his "breaks" from posting :-)

Maybe he's busy trying to scrounge some free $5000 cables, which are no
better than $20 ones, but they're nice to have anyway. g

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote in message :

When was this, you thug.

My goodness, Mr. Ferstler, "thug"? All I ma doing is politely
correcting your misstatements, and holding a mirror up to your
accusations of unethical behavior.

No, you do a lot more than that, and you know it. What you
do and continue to do, and what the writers who work for you
also do, is help to turn audio into a hobby for nitwits. And
do not tell me that you are not aware that many, many really
GOOD audio engineers and not fully aware of what your little
magazine has done to turn audio into a joke.

I am sorry I ever said you were a good recording engineer.

Why? Was it not true?

No. But it gives weak-minded individuals the impression that
competence in one area equates to competence and integrity
in another area.

I hope you realize that guys like Toole and Olive are probably
very much aware that you are a con artist. So are a lot of other
top dogs in the industry.

Dear dear, Mr. Ferstler. That's terrible.

The truth hurts.

Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.

And now, of course, he is taking one of his "breaks" from posting :-)

You make me sick. No wonder I need a break.

Howard Ferstler

ScottW wrote:

For the purpose of a delay line, please explain if these
characteristics are negative factors that must be overcome or
beneficial and actually aid design implementation.

Thanks,

ScottW

In a wire 11 miles long, they have to have some pretty
severe negative impact.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Ceaselessly Introspective said:

integrity

Haw haw haw.™

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

ScottW wrote:

For the purpose of a delay line, please explain if these
characteristics are negative factors that must be overcome or
beneficial and actually aid design implementation.

In a wire 11 miles long, they have to have some pretty
severe negative impact.

Yes, the signal is delayed and the high frequencies are attenuated.

Stephen

Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote in message :

When was this, you thug.

My goodness, Mr. Ferstler, "thug"? All I ma doing is politely
correcting your misstatements, and holding a mirror up to your
accusations of unethical behavior.

No, you do a lot more than that, and you know it. What you
do and continue to do, and what the writers who work for you
also do, is help to turn audio into a hobby for nitwits. And
do not tell me that you are not aware that many, many really
GOOD audio engineers and not fully aware of what your little
magazine has done to turn audio into a joke.

I am sorry I ever said you were a good recording engineer.

Why? Was it not true?

No. But it gives weak-minded individuals the impression that
competence in one area equates to competence and integrity
in another area.

I hope you realize that guys like Toole and Olive are probably
very much aware that you are a con artist. So are a lot of other
top dogs in the industry.

Dear dear, Mr. Ferstler. That's terrible.

The truth hurts.

Howard Ferstler

Wow, you really are a miserable person. All that hate over a hobby. It
must suck to be you.


Scott Wheeler

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Thanks, I've seen it. Have you had the bottoms off your Quads?
The
electrical workmanship I encountered when replacing the
electrolytics
wasn't too great on mine. The caps were cooked. And both power
resistors on the inputs were cracked due to overheating, not sure
how
much longer they would have lasted.

Mine didn't seem to have those problems, although that notorious
input
capacitor looked cheap.

Yeah, I'm not sure if a leaking cap got hot or that resistor gets hot
and scorched the side of the cap. It all came out on Grahams good
advice.

My similar operation had subjectively good results.

Maybe the heat problems are climate related (my
Quads came from the Northeast).

Doubt it... anything hot enough to melt the sleeve on the caps would
have damaged a lot more than just that.

I guess those aren't the legendary long-lasting British electrical
components. Quad amps have been criticized for including bad sounding
stuff in otherwise good designs. Maybe sometimes it doesn't all sound
the same, especially after it breaks.

The speaker terminals are definitely not
audiophile approved, but they seem of a piece with the rest of it.

Better than the giant pretty gold 5-way posts on my Legacy's whose
base metal is so soft they won't stay tight and easily strip. Looks
definitely ain't everything

Legacy was gilding the lily there. I don't actually have speakers with
binding posts: Quads have the crappy spring-loaded bare wire thingies
(think 70s Japanese receiver); the Kabers take Deltrons; the computer
speakers use special balanced wire with pro-style connectors.

Stephen

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.

And now, of course, he is taking one of his "breaks" from posting :-)

You make me sick. No wonder I need a break.

I'm wounded: I've been hounding you for more-or-less the same things and
you never got sick.

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

As a philosopher, Howard is the Goldilocks of intellectual inquiry,
always falling ideally between ignorance and over-analysis.

And now, of course, he is taking one of his "breaks" from posting :-)

You make me sick. No wonder I need a break.

I'm wounded: I've been hounding you for more-or-less the same things and
you never got sick.

Harold has been advertising for a used conscience, but none are as cheap
as he is.

Howard Ferstler said to John Atkinson:

You make me sick. No wonder I need a break.


Relax, pal. It's only a hobby.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander said to the Ferstlerian:

Relax, pal. It's only a hobby.

Harold, are you still there? I just bought some video cables. I got two
sets, one inexpensive and one moderately expensive. (I might have gone for
a set of overpriced ones too, except I didn't inherit a six-figure
windfall like some others, so I still have to spend money prudently.)

How would you go about comparing their performance? I want to be
scientific 'n' stuff. The more rigmarole and mind-numbing rituals, the
better. My goal is a 'borg-proof analysis. Please advise me.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

For the purpose of a delay line, please explain if these
characteristics are negative factors that must be overcome or
beneficial and actually aid design implementation.

Thanks,

ScottW

In a wire 11 miles long, they have to have some pretty
severe negative impact.

What is they? Is long wire a problem for a transformer?
Are there transformers in a Quad?

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
Better than the giant pretty gold 5-way posts on my Legacy's whose
base metal is so soft they won't stay tight and easily strip. Looks
definitely ain't everything

Legacy was gilding the lily there. I don't actually have speakers with
binding posts: Quads have the crappy spring-loaded bare wire thingies
(think 70s Japanese receiver);

Mine have a simple plastic bannana jack/binding post. My Hsu sub has the
spring clips.

ScottW

Scottie said:

Mine have a simple plastic bannana jack/binding post. My Hsu sub has the
spring clips.

Cheaper is better!™

Sander deWaal a écrit :
Howard Ferstler said to John Atkinson:


You make me sick. No wonder I need a break.



Relax, pal. It's only a hobby.

Not for all the participants... IMHO.