Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Fella wrote: There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!) other qsc amps. No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true statement. It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. It's all there in duh!black and duh!white... When are you going to muster up enough of your duh!brains to understand that you are really, actually and originally one dumb mother?? When are you going to muster up the balls to admit that the 2 amps you compared actually did sound indistignuishable and that maybe with some training like the kind offered at Arny's website, you might do better, if indeed there is any difference. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
" wrote: Fella wrote: There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!) other qsc amps. No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true statement. It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular. The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower outputs for example. Graham |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
wrote in message oups.com... It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. Aaah! they 'ought' to. So, you have expectation that they will sound the same, so, we know that when and if you ABX them, that test will NOT remove your bias towards sameness. Youare stuckina rut. Of course, we all know that you have never, and will never, and have no intention of ever, participating in one of those 'rigorous' tests. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. Aaah! they 'ought' to. So, you have expectation that they will sound the same, so, we know that when and if you ABX them, that test will NOT remove your bias towards sameness. Youare stuckina rut. Not at all, if I were to take the time to ABX any amps, I would be doing my level best to try and hear any that might exist. The fact that there is a correlation between measurements and hearing differences is simply a matter of fact. In order to hear differences, they have to be audible in the forst place. Of course, we all know that you have never, and will never, and have no intention of ever, participating in one of those 'rigorous' tests. Should the opportunity arise, I would be happy to do so. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
dave weil wrote: On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:00:56 GMT, wrote: Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H. Do they sound different of something? Some people like Trevor think that class H sounds awful, my experience with class H amps is very different. No way to be sure without an ABX comparison. If their published specs are accurate, I doubt very much they would sound any different than any other well made amps. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
EE wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Fella wrote: "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same." Who said this? I did. Your point? The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC amps. They sound like ****, but since you live in a toilet, it would be hard for you to tell. Now, now, Mr. Kolker, shouldn't you toddle off back to the Battlestar Galactica newsgroups where you would be more at home? |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Pooh Bear wrote: " wrote: Fella wrote: There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!) other qsc amps. No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true statement. It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular. The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower outputs for example. The post I responded to was about a single person listening to an amp without AFAIK any other amp to compare it to. I don't have a problem with the possiblity that they might sound different from other amps, I simply so not see any evidence, nor have I heard any. A single listening to something, without any comaprsion, level controls, or bias control, is not worth discussing, unless the distortion or noise is extremely gross, which IME is not the case with QSC products. Even in cases where the is extremely high distortion, it can go undetected as was th case with Fremer's review of the WAVAC amp. Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding, things like 10% THD can go unnoticed. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many times do we see posts like this?
"EE" wrote in message
wrote in message oups.com... The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC amps. Seems civil enough. Note that the guy writing this is a so-called objectivist. They sound like ****, but since you live in a toilet, it would be hard for you to tell. Seems profane and insulting enough to come from a so-called subjectivist. Here's how it works: Everybody has an ego, and one of the functions of an ego is to assert that it is right. Within the philosophy that many around here mis-identify as subjectivism, there is no external standard of right and wrong. It's everyone for themselves. Therefore, the only way that the egos of so-called subjectivists can be satisfied is with a noisy shouting match. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. Aaah! they 'ought' to. So, you have expectation that they will sound the same, so, we know that when and if you ABX them, that test will NOT remove your bias towards sameness. Youare stuckina rut. Not at all, if I were to take the time to ABX any amps, I would be doing my level best to try and hear any that might exist. The fact that there is a correlation between measurements and hearing differences is simply a matter of fact. In order to hear differences, they have to be audible in the forst place. But you belive they don't exist. You have the bias. Of course, we all know that you have never, and will never, and have no intention of ever, participating in one of those 'rigorous' tests. Should the opportunity arise, I would be happy to do so. So would I. Funny how the opportunity never arose before. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: " wrote: Fella wrote: There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!) other qsc amps. No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true statement. It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular. The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower outputs for example. The post I responded to was about a single person listening to an amp without AFAIK any other amp to compare it to. I don't have a problem with the possiblity that they might sound different from other amps, I simply so not see any evidence, nor have I heard any. A single listening to something, without any comaprsion, level controls, or bias control, is not worth discussing, unless the distortion or noise is extremely gross, which IME is not the case with QSC products. Even in cases where the is extremely high distortion, it can go undetected as was th case with Fremer's review of the WAVAC amp. Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding, things like 10% THD can go unnoticed. I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'. A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese. Graham |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Pooh Bear wrote: " wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: " wrote: Fella wrote: There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!) other qsc amps. No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true statement. It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs, which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built amp, IOW transparent. The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular. The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower outputs for example. The post I responded to was about a single person listening to an amp without AFAIK any other amp to compare it to. I don't have a problem with the possiblity that they might sound different from other amps, I simply so not see any evidence, nor have I heard any. A single listening to something, without any comaprsion, level controls, or bias control, is not worth discussing, unless the distortion or noise is extremely gross, which IME is not the case with QSC products. Even in cases where the is extremely high distortion, it can go undetected as was th case with Fremer's review of the WAVAC amp. Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding, things like 10% THD can go unnoticed. I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'. A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese. Graham I'm not making any judgements on how the QSC amps sound one way or another, only that they appear good on paper and have a very solid reputation in their normal market. One listening by someone with a presdisposition to dislike them is not going to sway me one way or another. I have read reviews of some of their amps on pro sound web sites and never seen a bad one. I'm not sure what point you need to make, mine is simply that a single listening by someone already biased against them is not going to convince me their line or even that particular amp has a problem. I do think it would be interesting to do an ABX with any QSC amp vs. any consumer amp and see what happens. Even a simple blind and level matched A/B comparison would be more informative than what happened with the one listening that is being talked about here. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: Date: Tues, Feb 28 2006 12:39 pm Email: " Oh, I think I get it now. So this: "In order to hear differences, they have to be audible in the forst (sic) place." Coupled with this: "Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding, things like 10% THD can go unnoticed." means we have to compare amps side-by-side to notice differences even that large, or (god forbid) something with 10% THD might even sound good to us. So we must train our ears, like a gourmet trains their palate to detect a slight amount of spice in a complex dish, or like a perfumer trains their nose to identify slight innuendoes of scent, to accept only something only below the lowest amount of distortion that we can hear, or it doesn't qualify as 'high-fidelity' and we must discard it. Furthermore, after this training, 'only the best' will do. Is that about it? I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that person finds them very satisfying. It must be like somone farting, so to speak, in your perfume. The very thought that somebody thinks that something you don't like sounds good. Shoot the *******s! So I've learned a few things: 1. It is your and Mr. Krueger's definition of high-fidelity that matters, and 2. Nobody else's definition matters, and 3. You have to really work very hard to train yourself to hear these differences, and 4. Most people would probably agree that it just isn't that ****ing important to them in time or money to do so, and 5. One wonders why it's so important to you and Mr. Krueger that we all agree with your conlusions, and 6. Therefore what's your point. So some of us don't like escargo. Sue us. Is that the same as feces sauteed in butter? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 6:16 am Email: "Clyde Slick" Is that the same as feces sauteed in butter? Yuck! Tell you what: You don't ever cook for me and I won't alter the scent of your perfume. Does that sound fair? |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: Clyde Slick Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 6:16 am Email: "Clyde Slick" Is that the same as feces sauteed in butter? Yuck! Tell you what: You don't ever cook for me and I won't alter the scent of your perfume. Does that sound fair? I was speaking of Kroofeces, of course. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Shhhh! I'm Being Uneasonable! wrote: From: Date: Tues, Feb 28 2006 12:39 pm Email: " Oh, I think I get it now. So this: "In order to hear differences, they have to be audible in the first place." Coupled with this: "Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding, things like 10% THD can go unnoticed." means we have to compare amps side-by-side to notice differences even that large, or (god forbid) something with 10% THD might even sound good to us. It happens. People who prefer the sound of SET amps are essentially doing just that. Of course if you are not listening to something like an SET that is already known to be essentially a distorion generator, the odds are pretty good that it will be accurate enough to be hi-fi. Experiments have been done where distorted signals were sent to audio systems and they went unnoticed due to the manner in which the comparisons were done. So we must train our ears, like a gourmet trains their palate to detect a slight amount of spice in a complex dish, or like a perfumer trains their nose to identify slight innuendoes of scent, to accept only something only below the lowest amount of distortion that we can hear, or it doesn't qualify as 'high-fidelity' and we must discard it. Furthermore, after this training, 'only the best' will do. Is that about it? For those who want the most accurate reproduction. If you just want what sounds good to you, and don't care anything about accurate hi-fi, then you are free to chose whatever you want. I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that person finds them very satisfying. People are free to choose whatever they like as long as they aren't claiming it to be more accurate than something that actually is, it's the difference between hi-fi and my-fi. It's a choice you get to make. I don't beat up on anybody for making a choice I don't agree with, only when they make claims that are untrue and obviously so. It must be like somone farting, so to speak, in your perfume. The very thought that somebody thinks that something you don't like sounds good. Shoot the *******s! I don't care what people like, I do care about the claims that distorted audio is accurate audio. So I've learned a few things: Not so's you would notice. 1. It is your and Mr. Krueger's definition of high-fidelity that matters, and No, hi-fi is a term that has a specific meaning, like rape, if you use it where it doesn't apply, you demean the word and weaken it. 2. Nobody else's definition matters, and Definitions are so that people can understand what you are talking about. If you apply a definition that doesn't apply, it becomes harder to understand what is being said. 3. You have to really work very hard to train yourself to hear these differences, and If you don't have a reference, then it can be impossible to know if what you are hearing is an accurate reproduction or just something that sounds pleasant. There's nothing wrong with like the latter, but it may not be actual hi-fi. 4. Most people would probably agree that it just isn't that ****ing important to them in time or money to do so, and They would not be audiophiles, since that is one of the things audiophiles pride themselves on. They like to think they can hear things that others can't, because they have trained themselves to hear better than regular people. 5. One wonders why it's so important to you and Mr. Krueger that we all agree with your conlusions, and I don't care if you agree or not, I'm just explaining how I define things. You can and obvioulsy do make up whatever definition you feel like. 6. Therefore what's your point. That words have meaning. Using the example of rape, it has a meaning that if applie to other actions that may be unpleasant, but are not actually rape, then youu weaken the force of the word. A grab of someone's ass is not rape. Forcing someone to perform a sex act against their will is. The grab ass is not nearly the same as actaul rape and should not be confuse with it, just as grossly distorted audio reproduction should not be considered high fidelity. So some of us don't like escargo. Sue us. Having had escargot, I can say it was no big deal, but not something I would go out of may way for. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'. A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese. Seems like a straw man argument since there are so many well-known ways that an amplifier can have 0.1% THD at full power and *not* be audibly blameless. Or is that the point? |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
wrote in message
oups.com I'm not sure what point you need to make, mine is simply that a single listening by someone already biased against them is not going to convince me their line or even that particular amp has a problem. I do think it would be interesting to do an ABX with any QSC amp vs. any consumer amp and see what happens. There's no need for a second amp. The best standard for comparison for an amplifier is a piece of wire and a precision attenuator. You use the precision attenuator to match the gain of the amp with that of the piece of wire. You drive the wire and the amp with a high-quality source that is capable of driving both the amp and a pair of high-quality headphones and listen with the headphones. You load the amp with a loudspeaker in another room or with an electrical network that loads the amp like a loudspeaker. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message oups.com I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that person finds them very satisfying. Lets say that someone (and it would be in character for that someone to be you Mr. Shhh!) finds a 6-transistor AM radio to be very satisfying, and tells us all that we should set aside our various audio systems and take up the habit of listening to a 6-transistor AM radio? How should we respond when that person's suggestions are tinged with a belittling tone? |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 12:28 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that person finds them very satisfying. Lets say that someone (and it would be in character for that someone to be you Mr. Shhh!) finds a 6-transistor AM radio to be very satisfying, and tells us all that we should set aside our various audio systems and take up the habit of listening to a 6-transistor AM radio? How should we respond when that person's suggestions are tinged with a belittling tone? Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay into them for such a ridiculous claim! I'd question their hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things that were never actually said, create false arguments, declare them to be true, and then act surprised when someone points it out. Take Jenn for example: all she has ever done is stated a preference. She's been pretty reasonable given the amount of crap that's been flung her was, IMO. She has even questioned whether euphonic distortion could explain her preference. She's asked questions. This has done her little or no good. Equipment that can be considered 'high-fidelity' has been around since the late 1950s. Have things improved since then? Sure. Do CDs have less distortion than LPs? Yes. But that does not mean they sound better to all people. In the case of CD vs. LP, CDs are 'higher fidelity' than LPs. That does not mean that LPs are not 'high fidelity.' So In your example, if somebody said, "Trumpets on some recordings sound better to me on a six-transistor radio than through a Bryston system with Quads" so be it. There's nothing wrong with that at all. You and nob, OTOH, obviously see it differently. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Arny Krueger wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'. A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese. Seems like a straw man argument since there are so many well-known ways that an amplifier can have 0.1% THD at full power and *not* be audibly blameless. Or is that the point? You're agreeing that 0.1% THD is an invalid criterion for audible quality ? The classic QSC configuration is truly one of the very worst around. The grounded collector output stage has variable gain with output power leading to an entirely new class of non-linearity not present in emitter follower style designs for example. Futhermore it uses a 'brute force' IC op-amp feedback method discredited as far back as the late 70s IIRC ( TIM and all that ). Graham |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'. A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese. Seems like a straw man argument since there are so many well-known ways that an amplifier can have 0.1% THD at full power and *not* be audibly blameless. Or is that the point? You're agreeing that 0.1% THD is an invalid criterion for audible quality ? Agreed on two grounds: (1) Its possible to hear 0.1 THD with music pretty readily if the music follows a certain pattern. (2) There's more to a proper spec than THD at full power. For example the old SS amps that had problems with crossover distortion, had low THD at high power but far higher THD at lower power levels like normal listening levels. The classic QSC configuration is truly one of the very worst around. The grounded collector output stage has variable gain with output power leading to an entirely new class of non-linearity not present in emitter follower style designs for example. But, the QSC amps I've tested have low THS at both high and low powers, and its easy to run them at very substantial power levels that have less than 0.02% THD or IM for any frequencies or combinations of frequencies in the audio band and well beyond. Futhermore it uses a 'brute force' IC op-amp feedback method discredited as far back as the late 70s IIRC ( TIM and all that ). Whatever they do, it works pretty well. About 8-10 years ago QSC distributed ABX boxes of their own design to some of their dealers to drive home the point that their amps of the day sound just fine. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_qsc.htm http://www.ackthud.net/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX.pdf You can rent it here for $50 a day: http://www.audiorents.com/html/testandmeasurement.html (8th item) http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm "There are two available ABX-style comparison devices. QSC sells an ABX box and there is a pc-based system (PCABX available free from www.pcabx.com) from Arny Krueger, one of the original ABX Company guys. I have four available; the two above, a one-off made for Bob Carver and the original ABX box." |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message ups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 12:28 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that person finds them very satisfying. Lets say that someone (and it would be in character for that someone to be you Mr. Shhh!) finds a 6-transistor AM radio to be very satisfying, and tells us all that we should set aside our various audio systems and take up the habit of listening to a 6-transistor AM radio? How should we respond when that person's suggestions are tinged with a belittling tone? Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay into them for such a ridiculous claim! You mean, like you have on RAO? I'd question their hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things that were never actually said, create false arguments, declare them to be true, and then act surprised when someone points it out. I think you've done all those things, Mr Shhh! How does it feel to be a hypocrite? Have a nice day! |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Mar 2 2006 5:16 am Email: "Arny Krueger" Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay into them for such a ridiculous claim! You mean, like you have on RAO? "IKYABWAI" So the reason you do it it because other people make you do it. I'd question their hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things that were never actually said, create false arguments, declare them to be true, and then act surprised when someone points it out. I think you've done all those things, Mr Shhh! Really? Please point out where I have questioned anyone's hearing. Please point out a false argument. Please point out where I 'made something up' that was never said. Please point out where I've been surprised ny the actions of you or nob. How does it feel to be a hypocrite? I wouldn't know. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message ups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Thurs, Mar 2 2006 5:16 am Email: "Arny Krueger" Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay into them for such a ridiculous claim! You mean, like you have on RAO? "IKYABWAI" So the reason you do it it because other people make you do it. Not at all. I do what is in the long term best interests of my correspondent. I'd question their hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things that were never actually said, create false arguments, declare them to be true, and then act surprised when someone points it out. I think you've done all those things, Mr Shhh! Really? Please point out where I have questioned anyone's hearing. Well, I missed one. I have questioned the hearing of people who are in occupations that are prone to early hearing damage, such as a musician that is part of a symphony orchestra. I've documented that fact. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
Arny Krueger wrote:
About 8-10 years ago QSC distributed ABX boxes of their own design to some of their dealers to drive home the point that their amps of the day sound just fine. The point driven home by that is the ability of the ABX box to make everything sound the same. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.
"Fella" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: About 8-10 years ago QSC distributed ABX boxes of their own design to some of their dealers to drive home the point that their amps of the day sound just fine. The point driven home by that is the ability of the ABX box to make everything sound the same. Right, your post is a joke. :-( |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Parallel Output Tubes. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Some tube history about 6L6. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Your Opinion on Tube Amp Reliability??? | Audio Opinions | |||
Amps, more argument! | Car Audio |