"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
(the approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
would cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an
alternative, which would provide the same functionality, safety and
higher levels of reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.


IF YOUR MECHANIC TOLD YOU!!!!!!
That's my point.

**I offered my client the two alternatives. I just did not spell out in
exquisite detail what the two alternatives were.


That doesn't jive with this:

" **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of
the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps
in
each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and
told
the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used
it
for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.?"

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.

**I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.

**I provided a money back guarantee.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

**The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

**After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised
that
you have no stomach for an honest discussion.

Where is the honesty in you taking money for altering a customer's
property radically without his knowledge or his consent?

**I gave my client two choices. AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. I promised him
that the cheaper choice would be at least as good and provided a money back
gurarantee. He agreed to the cheaper option.

Where is the
honesty in taking money for not telling the customer, the owner of the
property, what you did?

**I told the client that I would make his amp at least as good as what it
was when it was new. It did, in fact, sound better than a new amp.

Where is the honesty in taking money for
holding the customer up to ridicule on the net to satisfy your sick
urge to win a minor debating point?

**I would only be holding him up to ridicule, if:

* He chose the expensive option.
* I publically named him (which I will never do).


You committed fraud and theft, Wilson. You also dishonestly snipped my
original letter to remove the evidence from your own mouth of your
fraud and your theft. I reprint both your admission and my conclusion
below my signature.

**I note your continued inability to carry on a rational discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an 'automatic'
upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to use
modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

Somewhere between upgrading essentially like-for-like parts and
complete conversion from tube to SS.

Hey, guy, I brought you in a diesel, and you gave me back a similarly
powerful gasoline engine. Since I am nearly deaf, I could not tell the
difference right away. But....

That you did not tell him and that you did not get his approval (even
appreciation) in advance is where the ethics break down. Remind me not
to take stuff to you for service. Your heart may be in the right place,
and maybe you even did a clever piece of work, but sheeesh.....

Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.

What you did is the functional equivalent of those "Spirit of St.
Louis" crappo-repro radios. Faux tubes. Some appreciate that, and he
may well have. But, in fact, it was not your decision to make.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted
tests was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely
different.


It wasn't a sighted test.
It wasn't even any test at all.
Surely you can see that.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted
tests was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely
different.


It wasn't a sighted test.
It wasn't even any test at all.
Surely you can see that.


I see a guy who had a tube amp and now doesn't and can't tell the
difference.
I see a guy who is the same as most people in the world who when they don't
know they've been fooled, hear what they expect.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.

**I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.

**I provided a money back guarantee.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

**The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

**After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised
that you have no stomach for an honest discussion.


You should have been able to see that from his previous posts, some of whch
I posted.

wrote in message
ups.com...
**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an
'automatic'
upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to
use
modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

Somewhere between upgrading essentially like-for-like parts and
complete conversion from tube to SS.

Hey, guy, I brought you in a diesel, and you gave me back a similarly
powerful gasoline engine. Since I am nearly deaf, I could not tell the
difference right away. But....

**BIG difference. You can't run a diesel engine on gasoline. For all intents
and purposes, the amplifiers were the same as they came in. Except they now
work. In any case, I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. Do you have a
concept of what that means?


That you did not tell him and that you did not get his approval (even
appreciation) in advance is where the ethics break down. Remind me not
to take stuff to you for service. Your heart may be in the right place,
and maybe you even did a clever piece of work, but sheeesh.....

**I provided my client with two choices - AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He
chose.


Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.

What you did is the functional equivalent of those "Spirit of St.
Louis" crappo-repro radios. Faux tubes. Some appreciate that, and he
may well have. But, in fact, it was not your decision to make.

**Not even close. The amplifiers are essentially untouched. All the original
parts are still in place (including the faulty output transformers). All the
old 1960s components. I just added a few, more modern bits, disconnected the
HT supply and provided a reliable, working pair of amplifiers, with a
WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I just thought I'd emphasise that one more
time. If the client wants to resurrect them back to their original condition
(well, as close as possible, anyway, given that they've already seem several
previous service jobs from other companies, over the years), then all the
parts are there. It would be a relatively simple (if not expensive) job to
do so.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/21/05 7:36 PM:


**If he asked what I had done, I would have explained in exquisite
detail.
He was pleased to have his amps back and functioning and looking just
like
they did when he gave them to me for service.

* * * Hmmm. A tube works because of an air vacuum. A serviced amp works
because of an ethical vacuum . . . ?

"If only he had asked" is beyond lame . . . . Gee, I would have told the
nice sheila that I slipped her a mickey before I shagged her brains out if
only she had asked!

Trevor, as a serviceman you have a duty of disclosure so that a client can
make an informed decision, even if that decision is ultimately not is his
or
her best interest.

**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.



But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the
use
of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an
'automatic'
upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to
use
modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

* * * How is an upgrade or mod anywhere on the same continuum as
deception?
There ain't no line to draw between these two disparate points, IMHO.

**Sure there is. Service people always substitute devices and components
during service work.



Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not.

**That is a false and oft-repeated claim. SOME tube amps clip softly and
SOME SS amps do not. You forget that I had one good channel, with which I
was able to measure and duplicate the performance from.

What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought.

**Question based on previous false assumption. Your question is,
therefore,
invalid.

* * * You can parse a logical argument but keep flexible on ethical
matters?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If
my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the
manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
entirely happy with the result.


You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

**In which universe do you imagine that such a warranty has to be
provided?
Look at the facts:

* The amp is now MUCH more reliable than it was.

* * * Ergo, the ends justify the means? Sometimes . . . But not here.

* The amp will enjoy a much longer life than it previously could.
* The now has protection against owner stupidity, which it did not
previously have.

* * * Guess the owner was too stupid to explain what you did.

**The owner's talents lie elsewhere. He is far more talented in the law,
than I am. I would not call him stupid.



So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

**It may do so.


And, after all that, was it worth it?

**Lemme see:

* I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
service and has also recommended several other clients to me.

Yes, it was well worth it. For all concerned.

Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it
accordingly.


* * * *

Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.


I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

What is it with Ozzies? Trevor is spinning like a top on a pretty
obvious ethics issue, Phil fulminates in ignorance from his dung-heep,
and Patrick the superficially sanest of the bunch is congenitally
unable to leave well-enough alone.

Must be something in the water.... I am not sufficiently biblical to
attribute it to ancestry.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Dédé Jute a écrit :

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.


Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
McCarthy... I feel sorry for you.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

.....

**BIG difference. You can't run a diesel engine on gasoline. For all
intents and purposes, the amplifiers were the same as they came in. Except
they now work. In any case, I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. Do
you have a concept of what that means?


Yes, it means you fooled him, but
will give him his money back when and if he discovers your deceit.

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.

* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to parse
the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having
"sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If
my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the
manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
entirely happy with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back guarantee
is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence
what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with
roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc. was
pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?


Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.


I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd
probably sue you ass for fraud.

* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

Jon

So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?

Not hardly, even at the margins.

What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily
influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200
investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate
sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an
A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird
heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your
expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is
even more likely that one would expect differences given a
'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration.

And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge
characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not
even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them
away as 'because of the restoration'.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
ups.com

I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to
him, he would be unable to discern the difference....

Clyde does have has this pathological fear of bias-controlled listening
tests.

Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty
obvious. But if it is not fraud, it certainly treads on
the knife's edge of fraud.

More than anything else, I think he wants to be *right*.

Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea
what AUS$200 translates in off-the-shelf buying power
these days,

A little or a lot depending on how wisely you spend it. the The AUS$ is
worth a little less than the the US$. Sorta like Canadian dollars.

but speaking for myself, I would have told
the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix' that would give
him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid
for, but at a much higher price. If he did not ask you to
explain the difference, well and good. If he did, and you
did in accordance with his direct instructions, also well
and good.

This anecdote tells me that some people are more interested in the aura of
tubes than the actual sound of tubes.

But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception
(and that it is) at _any_ point in the future, you are
100% obligated to provide him with a repair up to his
full and initial expectations, and at no additional cost,
not merely refund his money.

You can state what you will, and that does not make it true. Most service
agreements limit the providers liability to the value of the work done.

By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.

Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip
pretty softly, solid-state amps do not. What what happens
if he changes the application and drives your kluge to
clipping?

First off, this may never happen, and secondly, the owner may never be able
to tell the difference. IME soft clipping is mostly hype.

Just a thought. You understand that you have
given him an infinite warranty against even his own
potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other
equipment real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

The warranty is limited to what the customer paid. Fair enough.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question
what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?

Isn't it true that there are already a goodly number of tubed power amps and
other equipment that will continue to work with one or more tubes pulled?

And, after all that, was it worth it?

A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-)

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message

in article , Trevor Wilson
at wrote on 12/22/05
4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or
AUS$200.00. He chose. He did not seem overly interested
in the minute detail, as long as the sound quality was
up to the standards he required. That was easy to
accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he
was getting back a SS amp instead of a tube amp?

Dooh!

That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter how you try to spin
it.

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Shame you don't "get" it.

I think that Trevor got *it* very well.

* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill
Clinton's trying to parse the meaning of "is," or denying
that having oral sex was actually having "sex." Why
can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible
position?

Show me where Treveor screwed up?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is
happy. And, just to remind you: I provided a WRITTEN
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If my client
was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the
amp to it's original condition, free of charge, or for
$800.00 serviced the amp the manner YOU feel is better.
I stress YOU feel, because the client was entirely happy
with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written
money-back guarantee is a great thing if you had told the
client what he was getting (and hence what you were
guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit
with roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and
leaving the tubes, etc. was pure deception IN THE ABSENCE
OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.

Right, it's nobody's business but Trevor's.

I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the
group and report how happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a
lawyer and he'd probably sue you ass for fraud.

Oh my, such dire predictions.

* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of
the man.

Integrity is well served by providing legitimate services for an honest
price.

All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not
always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern.

This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer
receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom
didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner
proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable
comments about the sound quality.

Tom's anecdote is true - I was there at the time.

This anecdote also produced loud wails from the partisans of expensive
electronics.

The truth can hurt, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:35:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not
always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern.

This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer
receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom
didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner
proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable
comments about the sound quality.

Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the
deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same.

dave weil said:

All the tubies

No, you may not inspect our "firehoses", Homoborg.

Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the
deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same.

Maybe so, but it wouldn't "prove" anything because tube amps are always
more expensive than comparably powered SS ones.

Now, about that "debating trade" seminar......

"Arny Krueger" said:


By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.


You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's
PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and
look, Windows XP is still running"?

Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair.


So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question
what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?


That's not the point, and you know it.

Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd be in our hair
all week long, and especially on Sunday.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**I gave my client two choices. AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. I promised him
that the cheaper choice would be at least as good and provided a money back
gurarantee. He agreed to the cheaper option.


I think you know quite well what beef some people have with your
actions, Trevor.

The fact that your customer is happy with what you've done, has
nothing to do with the fact that you *didn't tell him all* about the
nature of the conversion.


Well, at least you have Arny on your side on this.
But not on the grounds that you think, he merely uses you to further
pursue his agenda.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.

You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of
your client's PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he
never stresses his PC and look, Windows XP is still
running"?

Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement
for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a
Celeron might be the most logical replacement.

The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV.

Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it
because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the
markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)

Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair.

The shipping from the Netherlands would be a stopper.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
the amp still play? That *just* might get him to
question what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?

That's not the point, and you know it.

The point is that the client wanted a working amp for a reasonable price and
Trevor provided one with a good guarantee.

Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd
be in our hair all week long, and especially on Sunday.

I'm never in your hair, Sander. Let's just leave it at that.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement
for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a
Celeron might be the most logical replacement.


But not without asking/advising the customer first, hm?


The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV.


Agreed.


Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it
because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the
markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)


I wouldn't know, Arny, I'm not too familiar with either branche at the
moment.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Invincible Ignorance
Nailing Jello
Pounding Sand

No way you will get through. But you have learned whom not to believe
in any of his assertions, and who supports those assertions. Something
valuable in and of itself. Accept that as enough as that is all you
will get.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.


You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's
PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and
look, Windows XP is still running"?

**Think of it this way, Sander: I've provided a Pentium IV, in place of an
Z80 and guaranteed (with a 100% money back) that all his software will run
and the thing will not crash.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back
a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.


* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to
parse
the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having
"sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict.
If
my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp
the
manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
entirely happy with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back
guarantee
is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence
what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with
roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc.
was
pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

**Decpetion? Possibly. Fraud? No. The client got what he wanted.



Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.


I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report
how
happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd
probably sue you ass for fraud.

**A judge, actually.


* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

**In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow
up.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an
exact replacement for the Pentium IV would cause major
expense that was not reasonable, a Celeron might be the
most logical replacement.

But not without asking/advising the customer first, hm?

Of course. But Trevor did that in his way. Now, you are arguing over how he
did it.

The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it
as a Pentium IV.

Agreed.

Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for
Celerons, and justify it because they are catering to
the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the markups
that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)

I wouldn't know, Arny, I'm not too familiar with either
branch at the moment.

Yeah, sure. ;-)

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM:


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.


* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

**In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow
up.


Your definition of practicality is an ends-justifies-the-means ethic. The
problem is, I have grown up, and I don't approve of childish lies and overt
adult deception. If you develop a sense of ethics, you'll understand what I
mean. In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and
the rich man.

Jon

Jon Yaeger said:

In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and
the rich man.

Christ.

wrote in message
oups.com...
So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?

Not hardly, even at the margins.

What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily
influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200
investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate
sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an
A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird
heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your
expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is
even more likely that one would expect differences given a
'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration.

And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge
characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not
even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them
away as 'because of the restoration'.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-)



Here are some of Arny's satisfied clients:

http://www.mrugly.com/employeebios.html

Jon Yaeger wrote :

If you develop a sense of ethics


IMHO you are confusing ethics and deontology.

Ethic : the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual
or a social group

Deontology : the theory or study of moral obligation.

IMHO, in the first case your answer to Trevor is insulting and automatically
bans you from Usenet ethical references. ;-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

Clyde Slick said:

That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.

How about the two recordings we have of A. Krooger -- same? different?

Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM:


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Graham

Poopie said:

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Their value goes far beyond merely rattling the cages of society's
underlings. They are a proven 'borg-repellent. Oh wait, you wouldn't
know what that means, would you? Never mind, Poopie. Just don't go near
any of those nasty tube amps, and your BP will stay within organic
beings' parameters.

Arthur "Clyde Slick" Tsechmeister wrote :

That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.


This explains why Arthur believes that he is a good musician.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , Trevor Wilson
at wrote on 12/22/05
3:45 PM:

**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of
tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like
tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old
amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They
look and sound like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Score!!!!

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:


**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose.
He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the
sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to
accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back
a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which
looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim
that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They
look and sound like the originals.


well, he doesn't havea pair of tube amps anymore!

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Dédé Jute a écrit :

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.


Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
McCarthy...

Shy?

paul packer a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Dédé Jute a écrit :


Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.


Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
McCarthy...


Shy?


Did he already phone to Trevor's neighbors ?



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
(out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good.



Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.

Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering