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. 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??


wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
...

wrote:


"Fella" wrote in message
...


wrote:



"Fella" wrote in message
. net...



wrote:

Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just
writing some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of
your incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!



As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their
own ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he
couldn't detect a difference between two amps.

Yeah, as if!


The fact that they actually did sound


indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up
about why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio
design must be flawed.




Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and
head further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent,
dumb monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same
is a matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal
truth that ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement
above mean that some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!


I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply
referring to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if
there was a bias against the one used in the discussion.

That's a lie you dumb borg. "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not
all are the same." There is nothing about circuits there you dumb dumb
borg.


Well, excuse the **** out of me for not hecking with you first about
what I am thinking when I post. You still fail as a mind reader, and as
a golden ear.

Look boy, **** yourself all you want, and heck with somebody else,
whatever that means, see if I care, but before that show me the word
"circuits" in the following two sentences: "How many QSC amps have you
listened to? Not all are the same." ! I can show you the word
"listened" there. See, it's there!


You are talking about *_LISTENING_* and you state that not all are


the SAME!!!!!!!


Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.

And you have deemed that somehow they sound different, yes!


No, I have discovered that some people think so. If done badly of course,
they can all sound bad.

Ok, now

we're gettin somewhere.


Only in your wierd mind.

Have you ABXed them? How do you know that

they do not sound the same? Since the head borg you are serving as a loyal
SUCKpuppet to, arny krueger, uses the very same qsc amps, how can they
differ in sound from one model to another?


The QSC amps Arny uses are no longer manufactured.

Isn't this blasphemy?

Who ever said amps can't sound different? Nobody other than the people who
constantly misrepresent what others say, like you do.


Don't you realize how much of a capital crime you've committed by uttering
those ghastly two sentences you dumb dumb you!


Not possible since I didn't say that and it isn't a crime to do so.

Are they

****ing on you in the hive now? You've been caught red handed. You have a
torah in your hand, you've been spotted, the nazi borg are at your neck,
run boy run!


Back to your room now, they need to strap you down again.

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.

" 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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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

" 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

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.

"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

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?

"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

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.

"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?

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.

"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?

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.

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

"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."

"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!

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.

"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.

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.

"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. :-(