Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #521   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:01:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:13:02 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:28:20 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you Vile? The 2005 RS4 is
naturally aspirated, has FSI, and generates 420 HP from 4163cc, which
exceeds 100 per litre.


Oh, I'm sorry cue sarcasm alert. I just assumed that you were
talking about the NEW model, not a year old car.


I am - it's not on sale yet, you cretin.


Oh, I see. You can talk about motors that aren't even out yet (and
"Frenchs" can claim things about their crankshafts), but I can't
assume that you are talking about the version that is due out shortly.

Any 2005 model is at this point an old model, now that the new line is
announced.

You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

You *never* get bragging rights for driving a Yank tank. Now, the
Ariel Atom, that's another matter................


You're joking, of course. Bragging rights in a go-kart. Cool. The
standards of the Brits has fallen quite low.


Thanks for once again confirming that you know nothing about cars -
and what makes the special ones special.


I guess it's the lack of an enclosure. Or storage space. Of course, as
long as you don't have a passenger, you can just about fit a briefcase
in the passenger seat.

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

Who cares? We were talking "same engine comparisons", remember?

It *is* the same engine, you ignorant ****, it just has bigger holes
in it!


Oh, so now boring the engine out keeps it the "same motor", especially
when it comes to specs and performance. Cool. Amazing how flexible you
engineering types have gotten. As we know 3.2 = 3.6 every time.


It improves the performance, but It's the same engine. I've never
known anyone who actually knows about cars to consider that a bored
and/or stroked motor is *different* in any significant way, aside from
sheer output. Going from a two-valve to a four-valve head with
variable camshaft timing and FSI is another matter.


"Improves the performance". ISN"T THAT THE WHOLE POINT that we've been
going round and round about? The point that you deny time after time -
that VAG has positioned Audi differently by providing "better" specs
and "better" performance. This is again something that Porsche did
with the INDEPENDENTLY tweaked Cayenne motor.

And your last point - it's the same block, remember? Nothing else is
supposed to matter. Point is, these are two different motors. Period.
  #522   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:26:05 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

Don't be so vexed, Little Man, this also provess


Thank you, Gollum.
  #523   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil a écrit :

Point is, these are two different motors. Period.


This is a lie this is the same motor.
  #524   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave "Little Man" weil a écrit :

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:26:05 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Don't be so vexed, Little Man, this also provess



Thank you, Gollum.



Oh, oh, you are reduced to mock my English.
You'd better learn about car and motor, Little Man.
  #525   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:31:34 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

Point is, these are two different motors. Period.


This is a lie this is the same motor.


I agree that it's a lie that this is the same motor.

Thank you, Lionel.


  #526   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:31:34 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


Point is, these are two different motors. Period.


This is a lie this is the same motor.



I agree that it's a lie that this is the same motor.

Thank you, Lionel.


You're welcome, Dave.
  #527   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:31:34 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


Point is, these are two different motors. Period.


This is a lie this is the same motor.



I agree that it's a lie that this is not the same motor.

Thank you, Lionel.


You're very welcome Dave.
  #528   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:55:39 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:01:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:13:02 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:28:20 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you Vile? The 2005 RS4 is
naturally aspirated, has FSI, and generates 420 HP from 4163cc, which
exceeds 100 per litre.

Oh, I'm sorry cue sarcasm alert. I just assumed that you were
talking about the NEW model, not a year old car.


I am - it's not on sale yet, you cretin.


Oh, I see. You can talk about motors that aren't even out yet (and
"Frenchs" can claim things about their crankshafts), but I can't
assume that you are talking about the version that is due out shortly.

Any 2005 model is at this point an old model, now that the new line is
announced.


You're an idiot - but we knew that. Engines can have a lifespan of ten
years or more, vide the ubiquitous 1.9litre VAG diesel and the 1.8
petrol turbo. The RS4 engine was first built in 2004, the first
complete cars are going on sale right now. The model it's going into
was launched in November 2004, and is the current model. It's not like
the US, where they change the radiator grille and scream 'new
model'.........

You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

You *never* get bragging rights for driving a Yank tank. Now, the
Ariel Atom, that's another matter................

You're joking, of course. Bragging rights in a go-kart. Cool. The
standards of the Brits has fallen quite low.


Thanks for once again confirming that you know nothing about cars -
and what makes the special ones special.


I guess it's the lack of an enclosure. Or storage space. Of course, as
long as you don't have a passenger, you can just about fit a briefcase
in the passenger seat.


Almost right - in the case of the Atom, it's the lack of almost
everything which makes a car slower and less responsive.

You really are an ignorant clown, Vile, and you just dig a deeper hole
with every post. Just like in audio.
--

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

You're an idiot - but we knew that. ................ It's not like
the US, where they change the radiator grille and scream 'new
model'.........

You really are an ignorant clown, Vile, and you just dig a deeper hole
with every post. Just like in audio.



Having fun, Stew? Wouldn't "vile" also be a good description of
your current posting style? If not, what would you call it? Just
angry?


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

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 07:36:46 -0600, wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

You're an idiot - but we knew that. ................ It's not like
the US, where they change the radiator grille and scream 'new
model'.........

You really are an ignorant clown, Vile, and you just dig a deeper hole
with every post. Just like in audio.



Having fun, Stew? Wouldn't "vile" also be a good description of
your current posting style? If not, what would you call it? Just
angry?


Sure he's angry. Frankly, "vile" isn't a descriptor of disagreements
about cars. His mispronunciation of my name for "humorous" purposes
doesn't cause *me* any grief. It just shows how inbreeding causes more
than hemophilia.

Poor Steart. There's no DOUBT AT ALL that there's going to be an
entirely new motor in this vehicle. The fact that he's willing to buy
a car that is pretty much considered a year old at this point is
irrelevant - he's welcome to do that if he wishes. In fact, I wouldn't
doubt that it would be his preference to prefer a normally aspirated
motor to a breather. That's one of the reasons that I was initially
surprised that he would be considering the car. I'm simply surprised
that he would buy a car immediately before that particular
configuration drops off the map after being in production for so long.
The more logical thing would be to simply buy a used model. But who
that would be "logical". He probably couldn't hold his head up if he
bought someone else's car.



  #531   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sam's surf wrote :

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

You're an idiot - but we knew that. ................ It's not like
the US, where they change the radiator grille and scream 'new
model'.........

You really are an ignorant clown, Vile, and you just dig a deeper hole
with every post. Just like in audio.




Having fun, Stew? Wouldn't "vile" also be a good description of
your current posting style? If not, what would you call it? Just
angry?


OTOH as usual Dave Weil is arguing on a subject that he
doesn't know and moreover that he doesn't understand.
Considering that he acts like a presomptuous braggard we can
understand Pinkerton's reaction.
Don't you think so ?
  #532   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dave weil wrote:

Poor Steart. There's no DOUBT AT ALL that there's going to be an
entirely new motor in this vehicle. The fact that he's willing to buy
a car that is pretty much considered a year old at this point is
irrelevant - he's welcome to do that if he wishes. In fact, I wouldn't
doubt that it would be his preference to prefer a normally aspirated
motor to a breather. That's one of the reasons that I was initially
surprised that he would be considering the car. I'm simply surprised
that he would buy a car immediately before that particular
configuration drops off the map after being in production for so long.
The more logical thing would be to simply buy a used model. But who
that would be "logical". He probably couldn't hold his head up if he
bought someone else's car.



Talk about living vicariously through someone else.

When was the last time you bought a new car, Dave?
Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?
You're so green with envy, you can barely type.

ScottW

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

On 8 Sep 2005 10:45:53 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Talk about living vicariously through someone else.

When was the last time you bought a new car, Dave?


1989. I usually don't like to buy new. I don't think that it's such a
great investment. But in this case, I was on the road in Germany and
was able to write a lot of the costs off. Oh yeah, it was an Opel
Omega, a car that you guys Stateside wouldn't see for several years.
and then, it was badged as a Cadillac (and bulked up so much, it was
barely the same car).

Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?


2003.

Glad to have satisfied your curiousity.
  #534   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:01:57 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 07:36:46 -0600, wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

You're an idiot - but we knew that. ................ It's not like
the US, where they change the radiator grille and scream 'new
model'.........

You really are an ignorant clown, Vile, and you just dig a deeper hole
with every post. Just like in audio.



Having fun, Stew? Wouldn't "vile" also be a good description of
your current posting style? If not, what would you call it? Just
angry?


Nah, just contemptuous - and I don't debate with sockpuppets, Arnot.

Sure he's angry. Frankly, "vile" isn't a descriptor of disagreements
about cars. His mispronunciation of my name for "humorous" purposes
doesn't cause *me* any grief. It just shows how inbreeding causes more
than hemophilia.


I see your English is as pathetic as your class envy.

Poor Steart. There's no DOUBT AT ALL that there's going to be an
entirely new motor in this vehicle.


Which vehicle, the RS4? No, it's simply a development of the existing
4.2 V-8. Lots of trick bits inside and outside, but not by any means
an entirely new motor.

The only entirely new motor in the entire 2005/6 model lineup is the
2-litre turbo. Shame that you know so little about cars.

Of course there is - it's The fact that he's willing to buy
a car that is pretty much considered a year old at this point is
irrelevant - he's welcome to do that if he wishes.


You really are a cretin - that car is only just going on sale in
Europe, no one but an ignorant clown like you would consider it
anything but a brand new vehicle.

In fact, I wouldn't
doubt that it would be his preference to prefer a normally aspirated
motor to a breather. That's one of the reasons that I was initially
surprised that he would be considering the car. I'm simply surprised
that he would buy a car immediately before that particular
configuration drops off the map after being in production for so long.


What the hell are you babbling about? The turbocharged RS4 went out of
production in 2001 and was only ever available in Europe, and as what
you'd call a station wagon. It remains a classic.

BTW, it's naturally aspirated cars that are true breathers - turbos
are crippled, and need an iron lung.....................

The more logical thing would be to simply buy a used model. But who
that would be "logical". He probably couldn't hold his head up if he
bought someone else's car.


Au contraire, dip****, as a guid Scot I *never* take the first hit on
depreciation...... :-)

I leave the brand-new fashion statement thing to SWMBO, no doubt
she'll want the first new TT to hit the UK............

--

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


dave weil wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005 10:45:53 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Talk about living vicariously through someone else.

When was the last time you bought a new car, Dave?


1989. I usually don't like to buy new. I don't think that it's such a
great investment.


I don't know anyone who buys new or current used cars considers them
an investment at all. Its an expense.

But in this case, I was on the road in Germany and
was able to write a lot of the costs off. Oh yeah, it was an Opel
Omega, a car that you guys Stateside wouldn't see for several years.


Do you still have it?


and then, it was badged as a Cadillac (and bulked up so much, it was
barely the same car).

Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?


2003.

Glad to have satisfied your curiousity.


Well what was it? and when are the monthly payments over?

ScottW



  #536   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ScottW a écrit :

Well what was it? and when are the monthly payments over?


I bet that for your wife your money is a good consolation to
your lack of balls.
But what about your lack of intelligence ?
  #537   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 8 Sep 2005 11:29:53 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005 10:45:53 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Talk about living vicariously through someone else.

When was the last time you bought a new car, Dave?


1989. I usually don't like to buy new. I don't think that it's such a
great investment.


I don't know anyone who buys new or current used cars considers them
an investment at all. Its an expense.

But in this case, I was on the road in Germany and
was able to write a lot of the costs off. Oh yeah, it was an Opel
Omega, a car that you guys Stateside wouldn't see for several years.


Do you still have it?


and then, it was badged as a Cadillac (and bulked up so much, it was
barely the same car).

Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?


2003.

Glad to have satisfied your curiousity.


Well what was it? and when are the monthly payments over?


Give me your SSN and we'll talk, nosy guy.

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



Is somebody feeling left out of the game?

I bet that for your wife your money is a good consolation to
your lack of balls.


The Gibberella effect reigns supreme. Hey, how much do they charge for a guided
tour of the Arab slums? Do you get bonuses for burning out women and children?

But what about your lack of intelligence ?


Scottie doesn't care what you think, Sluttie. Nobody does. Comment dit-on
"carbuncle on the butt of Usenet" en Froggese?

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

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com

Talk about living vicariously through someone else.


When was the last time you bought a new car, Dave?


Good question.

Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?


ahh Scotty, you're letting him off the hook.

You're so green with envy, you can barely type.


The envy issue isn't about just cars, its about anybody who
has made something of their lives.


  #540   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George Minus Middius wrote :

Is somebody feeling left out of the game?


.....

Scottie doesn't care what you think, Sluttie. Nobody does.



Thank you for you kind compassion, George. :-)



  #541   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On 8 Sep 2005 11:29:53 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:


Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?

2003.

Glad to have satisfied your curiousity.


Well what was it? and when are the monthly payments over?


Give me your SSN and we'll talk, nosy guy.


Come on Dave... how sad can your car really be?

I had some sad cars. My first was an ugly brown '63 Dodge
Dart with a slant 6 and pushbutton tranny.
It did have a full sized back seat though as a redeeming
quality .

ScottW


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



Scottie said:

I had some sad cars. My first was an ugly brown '63 Dodge
Dart with a slant 6 and pushbutton tranny.
It did have a full sized back seat though as a redeeming
quality .


Didn't Sacky just tell us you're 6'8" and 300 lbs?




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

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:02:53 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On 8 Sep 2005 11:29:53 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:


Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?

2003.

Glad to have satisfied your curiousity.

Well what was it? and when are the monthly payments over?


Give me your SSN and we'll talk, nosy guy.


Come on Dave... how sad can your car really be?


SSN please.

Asking someone about their monthly payment schedule is pretty damn
nosy if you ask me. Where were you raised, a barn?

BTW, I've mentioned what kind of car I have. You can find out if you
spend about 5 minutes in google. I'm sure some stalker like tor or
lionel will come up with it soon.
  #544   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:18:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Hell... when was the last time you bought a car?


ahh Scotty, you're letting him off the hook.


Well, I've never owned a minivan.
  #545   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dave weil" wrote

BTW, I've mentioned what kind of car I have. You can find out if you
spend about 5 minutes in google. I'm sure some stalker like tor or
lionel will come up with it soon.


torrie is being a bicycle repairman in a chase vehicle this weekend.
I'm looking forward to the next batch of pics. he's very photogenic.
like Rudolf the red nosed reindeer.




  #546   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lionel" wrote

OTOH as usual Dave Weil is arguing on a subject that he doesn't know and
moreover that he doesn't understand.
Considering that he acts like a presomptuous braggard we can understand
Pinkerton's reaction.
Don't you think so ?



I thought you preferred to stay away far from my rancorous and
plague-stricken self? Change of heart?


  #547   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sam's surf wrote :

"Lionel" wrote

OTOH as usual Dave Weil is arguing on a subject that he doesn't know and
moreover that he doesn't understand.
Considering that he acts like a presomptuous braggard we can understand
Pinkerton's reaction.
Don't you think so ?




I thought you preferred to stay away far from my rancorous and
plague-stricken self? Change of heart?


Don't be so self-important, it am just playing billiard.
  #548   Report Post  
surf
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lionel" wrote

I thought you preferred to stay away far from my rancorous and
plague-stricken self? Change of heart?


Don't be so self-important, it am just playing billiard.


you are ze billiard hustler, n'est pas? you are ze master de le jeu!
you are ze ScottW de France!


  #549   Report Post  
surf
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George M. Middius" asks ScottW:

Didn't Sacky just tell us you're 6'8" and 300 lbs?



Scott - is this true?


  #550   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

surf a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote

I thought you preferred to stay away far from my rancorous and
plague-stricken self? Change of heart?


Don't be so self-important, it am just playing billiard.



you are ze billiard hustler, n'est pas?


Not at all. You put a question and I frankly answer.
BTW to be honest I don't find you especially antipathic.

you are ze master de le jeu!


Just a modest player.
NB : "du jeu". du = article defini contracté.

you are ze ScottW de France!


Bad comparison. I am nasty and my moral "values" would need
a drastic clean up.

PS : do you know that you have a pubic hair on the tongue ?


  #551   Report Post  
surf
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lionel" wrote

PS : do you know that you have a pubic hair on the tongue ?



just spit it out.


  #552   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Scottie said:

That doesn't just mean rationally
acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by
experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you
have
to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real
scientific
controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are
predisposed
to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and
all
listeners.


That's just BS


How rude.

and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by
forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest
when having meaningful input.


You still don't read very well.

You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks
they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test",
is
illusory.


More BS.


Gracious, such hostility!

You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity
to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions,
music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc.
Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind
detection.


It's still a "test" and it's not the same as listening for enjoyment.

It's not supposed to be the same you ****ing twit, it's much more revealing
than listening for enjoyment.




  #553   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Gault wrote:
George Middius wrote:
Robert Gault said:


Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT.



Do you consider buying audio equipment for use in your home to be a "scientific
pursuit"? If so, go for it -- take some "tests". Then you'll have "proved" that
everything sounds the same. And the Krooborg guarantees you can do it without
spending hundreds on a switchbox and devoting hundreds of hours to reach a
statistically meaningful number of trials. What fun! This is surely why audio
such a popular hobby.


When I buy audio equipment for my home, I want to be able to rely on a
review which tells me the minimum amount of money I need to pay to
achieve good sound quality. I don't want to be scammed into buying
expensive equipment which can be had for less or does not work.


That should be the job of a good audio magazine. It should not be
exclusively a shill for the audio equivalent of pyramid razor sharpeners.


That's crazy talk! When you buy a health care product,
do you want to know whether it really works in some boring
scientific test? Of course not.
All you need to know is that some self-appointed expert in an
alternative health magazine claimed it made him feel good.
Because no one ever does DBTs on such products at home. Therefore
such information is useless for the average health care consumer.
In fact, suggesting otherwise means you aren't *really*
interested in health at all -- that you're a mean
meanie who only wants to make other people feel bad about
their choices.


--

-S
  #554   Report Post  
surf
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven Sullivan" wrote ...
Robert Gault wrote:

When I buy audio equipment for my home, I want to be able to rely on a
review which tells me the minimum amount of money I need to pay to
achieve good sound quality.


That's easy, Robert. Just buy the cheapest amp you can find. They all
sound the same.


That's crazy talk! When you buy a health care product,
do you want to know whether it really works in some boring
scientific test?


Yes you do, Steve. But I understand you were being sarcastic
in an attempt to be funny. good try.


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



surf said:

That's crazy talk! When you buy a health care product,
do you want to know whether it really works in some boring
scientific test?


Yes you do, Steve. But I understand you were being sarcastic
in an attempt to be funny. good try.



This isn't the first time that Sillyborg has demeaned the health care
products industry. He has a particular grudge against pharmaceuticals.
What kind of twisted person thinks medications are equivalent to audio
equipment? It's sad and pathetic.







  #556   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

surf wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote ...
Robert Gault wrote:

When I buy audio equipment for my home, I want to be able to rely on a
review which tells me the minimum amount of money I need to pay to
achieve good sound quality.


That's easy, Robert. Just buy the cheapest amp you can find. They all
sound the same.


Well, be careful of those SET amps. And consider how much
power you'll need to run your speakers, at levels you like,
in a room your size. But with those considerations in
mind, yeah, if all you're looking for is an amplifier,
and all you care about is the sound and the price,
get the cheapest one that fits that bill. It's unlikely
to sound different from one that also fits the bill,
but is more expensive.


That's crazy talk! When you buy a health care product,
do you want to know whether it really works in some boring
scientific test?


Yes you do, Steve. But I understand you were being sarcastic
in an attempt to be funny. good try.


Thanks.



--

-S
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does anyone know of this challenge? [email protected] High End Audio 453 June 28th 04 03:43 AM
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves AudioWaves Marketplace 0 April 5th 04 05:24 PM
audio coax cable JYC High End Audio 239 January 18th 04 09:12 PM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"