Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.

Said the Krell owner.


Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
Apogee Duetta Sigs.



Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
amounts of power to almost any load?


Or QSC amps for that matter.. And yes, isn't so that they will sound
*identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a
*level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? Just make sure that
there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and
level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps. Take care
NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing. Thus when the
terrible sound of the qsc starts to bother you, you can say to yourself
that it sounded the same with the krell. Or do like arny. Get an $80
yamaha reciever of some sorts. When *frequently* you can't stand the
sound of the qsc, you can just escape to the pioneer (which will ****
the music over in a different way then the qsc). When the sound of the
pioneer starts to f.ck with you, run back to the krell.. All the
while, remember that they all sound the same.

But seriously though, it seems that only pinkerton is allowed to indulge
in "audiophilia". He can own krell amps, he can construct exotic cables
*and* _boast_ about them on petty internet "check out my system y'all"
sites.

Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible
audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours.
They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects"
and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around. They all
sound the saameee. Wire is WIIIiiiiiiiiIIreeee! You'll be in profit too.

  #42   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fella" wrote in message


Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial

amps
from companies like Behringer don't have any problems
delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load?


Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of
the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of
Behringer power amps.

Or QSC amps for that matter..


Please compare the specs posted at

http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4
ohms)

to

http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP15...PECS_Rev_A.pdf

(450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms)

And yes, isn't so that they will sound
*identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up

against in a
*level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt?


So it seems.

Just make
sure that there are more than enough cheap banana

connections
and abx boxes and level adjustment gear in between the
speakers and the amps.


In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
binding posts that were available at the time. If 5-way
binding posts are so terrible, why does BAT use them on the
VK-300?

Take care NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to

any testing.

At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella
launches into a overheated libelous tirade based only on his
personal paranoia and fear snipped



  #43   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u

wrote in message

ups.com...

I've seen ATS-1's go in the threes on eBay, and a desktop

PC
with a first rate sound card is a thousand bucks even

today,
times two-we're not an order of magnitude apart.


So why not compare to a S/H PC? A couple of hundred for a

PC
and a couple of hundred for a pro soundcard, will do the

job.
Software is another matter though, but there is reasonable
freeware available, adequate for many people.


The beauty of the PC option is that it can do the same job

as
a number of test instruments, plus automatic data

acquisition,
plus data analysis, plus data storage and presentation

etc.

Yes dedicated instruments have their benefits, but even

multi
million dollar test labs are full of PC's as well, and

have
been for decades.


For example, Dolby Labs is said to own 100's of PC equipped
with Card Deluxe audio interfaces.

You've got to remember that Cal's mind is locked in the
1960s, right down to his proud ownership of Klipsch La
Scalas as his primary high end speaker system.


  #44   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arny Krueger wrote:


Please compare the specs posted at

http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4
ohms)

to

http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP15...PECS_Rev_A.pdf

(450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms)



I am talking about pinkerton changing his hig-end exoctic krell amp with
a qsc you dumdum borg. What's with comparing some behringer specs and
bat? You *are* losing it.




In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
binding posts that were available at the time.


Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same,
right?



At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella
launches into a overheated libelous tirade


What in the f.ck's name are you talking about?
  #45   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fella" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:


Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial

amps
from companies like Behringer don't have any problems
delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load?


Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of
the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of
Behringer power amps.


Or QSC amps for that matter..


Please compare the specs posted at


http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @

4
ohms)


to



http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP15...PECS_Rev_A.pdf

(450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms)


I am talking about pinkerton changing his hig-end exoctic
krell amp with a qsc you dumdum borg.


Fella Sue me for addressing the text you posted. Some of it
came from someone else, but that doesn't mean that it isn't
there, now does it?

Fella you complain about people using fancy editing and
debating trade tricks, and then you turn around and do the
very same thing. I had to restore a bunch of text you
deleted from the post you made that I was responding to. You
obviously deleted it to justify your "dumdum borg" whine.

What's with comparing
some behringer specs and bat? You *are* losing it.


Just because you deleted the comment about Behringer doesn't
mean that it wasn't in the post I responded to. It was in
your post. Don't you read the text you post?

In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
binding posts that were available at the time.


Why does it use such posts?


To give people a free choice of speaker cable.

There is no need. They all sound the same, right?


Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
the shorter cable to gets the job done.

At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella
launches into a overheated libelous tirade


What in the f.ck's name are you talking about?


Good question Fella, given that you hide behind an anonymous
alias! Now that's a nice little Middius sockpuppet!

Obviously Fella, Middius is training you well. You're
getting really good at that hypocrisy thing.




  #46   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:02:54 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.

Said the Krell owner.


Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
Apogee Duetta Sigs.


Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
amounts of power to almost any load?


I already have the Krell, so I don't need a Behringer. If someone
wants to bring one round, however, I'll be glad to set up a
comparison.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #47   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:55:33 +0300, Fella wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.

Said the Krell owner.

Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
Apogee Duetta Sigs.



Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
amounts of power to almost any load?


Or QSC amps for that matter.. And yes, isn't so that they will sound
*identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a
*level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? Just make sure that
there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and
level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps.


If that puts a bug up your ass, just swap cables and put a high
quality attenuator in series with the higher gain amp.

Take care
NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing.


Why not? remember, one of the basic principles of ABX is that you
*always* have both A and B available as known quantities. Shame that
your peanut brain doesn't understand these basics.

Thus when the
terrible sound of the qsc starts to bother you, you can say to yourself
that it sounded the same with the krell.


What makes you think that a QSC will sound terrible? Have you ever
actually *listened* to one?

Or do like arny. Get an $80
yamaha reciever of some sorts. When *frequently* you can't stand the
sound of the qsc, you can just escape to the pioneer (which will ****
the music over in a different way then the qsc). When the sound of the
pioneer starts to f.ck with you, run back to the krell.. All the
while, remember that they all sound the same.


That's the fun part of it. Mostly, they *do* sound the same. It takes
a truly outrageously priced 'high end' amp to really **** up the
sound!

But seriously though, it seems that only pinkerton is allowed to indulge
in "audiophilia". He can own krell amps, he can construct exotic cables
*and* _boast_ about them on petty internet "check out my system y'all"
sites.


Oh dear, I do believe that you're turning a particularly bilious shade
of green....................... :-)

Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible
audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours.
They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects"
and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around.


The homebrew interconnects are required because the 'preamp' is all
XLR, due to the fact that RCA connectors suck harder than a
hundred-dollar hooker. The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

They all sound the saameee. Wire is WIIIiiiiiiiiIIreeee!


Well, at least you got *something* right! OTOH, some cable
constructions are more resistant than others to RFI. Having said that,
I use standard 'studio grade' screened twisted pair at around a buck a
foot for my TV sound system, where the levels of RFI are much higher
than around my main music system. So yup, wire is wire.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #48   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:24 +0300, Fella wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:


In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
binding posts that were available at the time.


Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same,
right?


Actually no, 99% of all reported problems with 'bad sound' come down
to poor connections, so top-quality connectors are always a good idea.
Unfortunately, we're mostly stuck with the pathetic RCA. :-((((

If homebrewing, *always* use XLRs, and hardwire where you can (as I do
from pickup arm to RIAA preamp).

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #49   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:58:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of
the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of
Behringer power amps.


Now THAT'S hilarious. 20% is "vastly"? Even if the figure was
accurate, which it isn't.

And who said one has to buy "new" anyway?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Behringer-Europo...QQcmdZViewItem

Here's one that you could have received delivered for a little more
than 10% over my off-handed "quoted price":

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-BEHRINGER-EU...QQcmdZViewItem

It's been relisted Arnold, so why don't you go after it? After all,
you NEED that amp.
  #50   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:58:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
the shorter cable to gets the job done.


Even when the distance is longer?

chuckle


  #51   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:24 +0300, Fella
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:


In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
binding posts that were available at the time.


Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all

sound
the same, right?


Actually no, 99% of all reported problems with 'bad sound'
come down to poor connections, so top-quality connectors

are
always a good idea. Unfortunately, we're mostly stuck with

the
pathetic RCA. :-((((


Note that the ABX Comparator never used RCA connectors - it
supported balanced I/O and used TRS connectors for
line-level signals.



  #52   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

If that puts a bug up your ass,...



Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and answer this
question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell sound identical with
a qsc?

And

Is that enough for you?



Why not?


The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound the same.


Oh dear, I do believe that you're turning a particularly bilious shade
of green....................... :-)


How can you even dare to imagine that I might be envious of your system
when I have sonus fabers for speakers, for instance, instead of those
barn doors of yours.



Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible
audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours.
They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects"
and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around.



The homebrew interconnects are required because the 'preamp' is all
XLR, due to the fact that RCA connectors suck harder than a
hundred-dollar hooker.


Prove it! All connections sound the same! Connection is connection!


The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns


Watch yer language..

like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp.


No one would say that. Any high-end boutique is chock full of decent
amps. Just go in and listen!


Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


Mafioso wanna be geekish low-income nerd. Ok, nice.

Now stop being a creepy mafioso wanna be corksucker and sell that
expensive krell of yours. When arny outlaws all high-end you are going
to have to give it up anyway. PS: with the money you will get you can
permission from the misuss and buy that tonearm whatever you are craving
after.
  #53   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fella" wrote in message


Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and

answer
this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell

sound
identical with a qsc?


Pretty good chance.

The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound

the
same.


No, they always sounded as they sounded and keep on sounding
that way in an ABX test.

ABX just eliminates the usual means you use to judge
amplifier sound quality Fella, being

(1) Visual and other non-audible cues

(2) Bad level matching

(3) Comparing amps when different music is playing on each

Note that John Atkinson appears to consistently fall prey to
at minimum, items 1 and 3. I suspect he and his reviewers
fudge item 2 a lot.



  #54   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)



So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
  #55   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that

I
only say the things I do because I've never heard a

decent
amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big
mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people

select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for
their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality,
whatever.


So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an

average
consumer again?


DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound
quality.




  #56   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:40:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
t

Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and

answer
this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell

sound
identical with a qsc?


Pretty good chance.

The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound

the
same.


No, they always sounded as they sounded and keep on sounding
that way in an ABX test.

ABX just eliminates the usual means you use to judge
amplifier sound quality Fella, being

(1) Visual and other non-audible cues

(2) Bad level matching

(3) Comparing amps when different music is playing on each


(4) The ACTUAL signal from the amp.
  #57   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)



So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
for the kitchen.
  #58   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" said:

So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for
their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality,
whatever.


So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound
quality.



That's all good and well, Arny, but as I have been saying now for
about the 8-odd years that I'm on usenet:

When one likes a certain component, because of whatever property, that
one will automatically "sound better" because it makes the owner feel
good. Even when it is objectively less good (!)

That's entirely subjective indeed, but one can NOT go around and deny
that influence.

And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.
One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
in itself is debatable).

As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
  #59   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people
select certain components not only for their sound, but

also
for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build

quality,
whatever.


So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an
average consumer again?


DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to

sound
quality.



That's all good and well, Arny, but as I have been saying

now
for about the 8-odd years that I'm on usenet:


redundant post deleted


  #60   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sander deWaal said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


Lip service to scientism.



  #61   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sander deWaal said:

And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.
One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
in itself is debatable).

As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.


That's fine for you, but if Krooger were to admit that was true, he'd have no
more reason to go on living.

Right, Arnii? ;-)

  #62   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Agilent's last box that would replace a HP200 was the

HP
8904,


As if that was the only viable option.

And the 334 is basically the receive half of a 339, a box
still in high demand.


As if that were the only viable option.


It must have been for HP Agilent's clientele, loving those first tier
vendors as they do-but what else new were they going to buy? The only
other thing that would drive the loads the 200CD would was the Potomac
gen side box-that was about three grand, and Potomac doesn't really
want your business if you are not a broadcaster. (Audemat is kicking
their ass, so I'm going to enjoy FIM prices coming down-it's a great
hobby toy at the right price).

The only other solution is a small generator and a bench power amp-now
you are into cables, two boxes, and other issues. The 200CD is still,
all these decades later, the simple, cheap, elegant solution, toobs or
no toobs. (HP built a solid state Wien bridge AF gen, but it would not
drive the same loads. The small signal toobs can be replaced by a solid
state circuit in the 200CD and the outputs changed to popular guitar
amp types if continued availability was an issue for a new build 200CD.
Cal issues (no pun intended) could be solved easily by leaving the
numbers off the bank vault dial and providing an isolated sample port
for a counter.

If I were Agilent, _would_ I? Dunno. Half a million old ones that
still work is stiff competition.

  #63   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My LaScalas are on their way out the door as we speak, having been
replaced by a homebuilt Klipsch horn klone pair which I have discussed
elsewhere.

PCs (and Macs and Sun SPARC boxes) are fine in their place. They are
not test equipment. They may be built into test equipment as in the
case of the HP Infiinium scope or the National Instruments line

( http://www.ni.com/pxi/ )

but if Arny were correct the above wouldn't exist.

The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is
unbenchworthy for many reasons.

  #64   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Middius" wrote in
message

Sander deWaal said:

And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl
reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs

objectively
worse.
One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi
standard (which in itself is debatable).

As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a

subjective
area.


That's fine for you, but if Krooger were to admit that was
true, he'd have no more reason to go on living.

Right, Arnii? ;-)


Just more proof Midius that you're even more stupid and
clueless than you were several years ago.

Audio has always been largely subjective. ABX is known as a
subjective listening test methodology. That's probably what
burns you jokers the most - that ABX is undeniably
subjective.


  #65   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Middius" wrote in
message

Sander deWaal said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say

that I
only say the things I do because I've never heard a

decent
amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big
mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people
select certain components not only for their sound, but

also
for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build

quality,
whatever.


So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an

average
consumer again?


Lip service to scientism.


This would be in contrast to George's whole-hearted
commitment to idiocy, right?




  #66   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)



So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
for the kitchen.


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor. As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
gallery at bay.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #67   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Jul 2005 13:49:53 -0700, wrote:

My LaScalas are on their way out the door as we speak, having been
replaced by a homebuilt Klipsch horn klone pair which I have discussed
elsewhere.


So, you're going from crap commercial speakers to homebuilt copies of
them. And we are supposed to take this as an indication that you are
progressing?

PCs (and Macs and Sun SPARC boxes) are fine in their place. They are
not test equipment. They may be built into test equipment as in the
case of the HP Infiinium scope or the National Instruments line

(
http://www.ni.com/pxi/ )

but if Arny were correct the above wouldn't exist.

The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is
unbenchworthy for many reasons.


Clearly, you're not a professional engineer. The *vast* majority of
modern testgear is PC-based. Note that the excellent NI line is mostly
built into a PC, not the other way round as you suggest. The PXI line
is a subset of the NI range and even then is still PC-based, although
using a rack system for easier interchangeability of modules.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #68   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #69   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Stewart Pinkerton said:

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.


If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you
must be a different species from homo sapiens.




  #70   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.


DBT details please.


  #71   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
for the kitchen.


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.


So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.

As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
gallery at bay.


Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.
  #72   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.


DBT details please.


Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #73   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.


So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?

Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
become a mirror of what you despise.

ScottW

  #75   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.


So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?


It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,
since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.

Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
become a mirror of what you despise.


I don't see how you figure. I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.

Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?


  #76   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

DBT details please.


Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.


Trouble reading, Don?




  #77   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:23:54 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton said:

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.


If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you
must be a different species from homo sapiens.


Correct, I am a member of homo sapiens sapiens.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #78   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.


DBT details please.


No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious.

That's also why cable tests will never appear in AES Reviews.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #79   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:47:15 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?

Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
for the kitchen.


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.


So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good
price.

As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
gallery at bay.


Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.


Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? Victor Martell Audio Opinions 1154 July 18th 05 10:16 PM
The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 6 May 4th 05 03:16 AM
Sub Amps - a Follow up Question T Tech 26 April 29th 05 05:26 PM
Yet another DBT post Andrew Korsh High End Audio 205 February 29th 04 07:36 PM
Run Rabbit Run Patrick Turner Vacuum Tubes 8 November 24th 03 01:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"