I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100 wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

Robert Morein said:

I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100 wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

aBxism fanatics are not allowed to be in the same room with audio gear of
that quality. If you forced one of Them into proximity, its (the borg's)
protection circuit would kick in, forcing it to shut down and requiring a
full system reboot.

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


Robert Morein said:

I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our
frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be
the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson
Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100
wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

aBxism fanatics are not allowed to be in the same room with audio gear of
that quality. If you forced one of Them into proximity, its (the borg's)
protection circuit would kick in, forcing it to shut down and requiring a
full system reboot.

From the old movies I've seen, the consequences are considerably more
severe. The Borg utters something like, 'That does not compute", and smoke
pours from its ears. The only option is "return to factory", as in Woody
Allen's SLEEPER.

"Robert Morein" said:


Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?


It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps sounded different.
Something in the Fr, the distortion, the output impedance, or
something else entirely?

I seem to remember you do have some measurement gear available,
Robert?

--

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

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:


Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?


It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps sounded different.
Something in the Fr, the distortion, the output impedance, or
something else entirely?

I seem to remember you do have some measurement gear available,
Robert?

Yes, I do.
Here's a gedanken experiment that should be a real one:

1. Use a bridge like the Hafler test box to obtain the difference signal of
the amplifier.
2. Do an FFT on it, and save to computer.
3. Repeat with the other amplifier.
4. Dif the two.

Should the signal source be natural, ie., music, or synthetic? In either
case, there is an opportunity to establish source regimes. A natural source
could be processed via a filter composed of two threshold functions:
source(amp) = [T( abs(source + delta)) - T(abs(source))] * (unprocessed
source)

This would provide a signal which is either zero, or varies, in a polarity
independent way, between two voltage levels. It would permit a partial
isolation of how an amplifier reproduces high level information against a
dynamically varying baseline.

I don't have much faith in the conventional measurement methods. I have been
curious for a long while if methods exist that could produce a signature
that would relate to subjective quality. However, this experiment is not
worth doing unless it is publishable. I have been up against academic bias
before, and it can be nasty. There are also the following:
1. Obtaining enough amplifiers to test
2. Establishing the form and parameters of the test, so as to maximize
interest and relevance.
a. amplifier load
b. source material
c. signal level
d. other considerations as yet undefined.
3. Duplication of previous work in this area.

JA, if you're reading this, consider whether this might be of interest.

FYI, the speakers under test are referred to by my friend as "son of
Platininum", designed by Phil Jones. In my friend's basement, they sounded
like hearing aids. I speculate they are specifically designed for hifiers
with age related hearing problems. The DC impedance is 3.3 ohms.

That the two amplifiers had different bass extension is easily explicable
and not very interesting. But the mid/treble was easily distinguishable. The
two amplifiers are as different as analog amps can be. The Plinius is a
MOSFET design with high idle current. Pass's Stasis design, in the
Nakamichi, is a bipolar design alleged to provide Class A benefits with very
low bias current in a no signal state.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" said:


Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain
as day, and distinguishable independent of volume level.
This was apparent to both of us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present,
sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in
the sand?


It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.

Something in the Fr, the distortion,
the output impedance, or something else entirely?

Output impedance variations with frequency always lead to
frequency response variations.

Frequency response variations change the spectral balance of
the music.

Nonlinear distortion also changes the spectral balance of
the music.

Never once saw two amps that sounded different that didn't
also measure vastly different, if I was able to get some
measurements made.

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

"Robert Morein" said:


Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain
as day, and distinguishable independent of volume level.
This was apparent to both of us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present,
sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in
the sand?


It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.

Something in the Fr, the distortion,
the output impedance, or something else entirely?

Something that can be measured, but not necessarily one of the conventional
metrics.

Output impedance variations with frequency always lead to frequency
response variations.

I thought your position is that damping factor is a negligible factor in
most amplifiers, particularly modern solid state ones. Please explain.

Frequency response variations change the spectral balance of the music.
True.

Nonlinear distortion also changes the spectral balance of the music.
True.
Never once saw two amps that sounded different that didn't also measure
vastly different, if I was able to get some measurements made.

It seems as if you want to join the camp entitled "many amplifiers sound
different, even if they are, nominally, properly operating."
I don't have a problem with that.

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


Robert Morein said:

I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our
frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be
the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson
Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100
wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

Most likely they would want to measure the Fr and all other factors known to
cause things to be easily identified.

Of course there would naturally be a call to repeat the comaprisons with
some sort of DBT.


aBxism fanatics are not allowed to be in the same room with audio gear of
that quality.

If that were true, most of what is considered quality audio gear would never
exist.

If you forced one of Them into proximity, its (the borg's)
protection circuit would kick in, forcing it to shut down and requiring a
full system reboot.


Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why some
of the current gear sounds as good as it does?

wrote in message
ink.net...

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


Robert Morein said:

I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our
frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be
the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson
Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100
wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both
of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

Most likely they would want to measure the Fr and all other factors known
to cause things to be easily identified.

Of course there would naturally be a call to repeat the comaprisons with
some sort of DBT.


aBxism fanatics are not allowed to be in the same room with audio gear of
that quality.

If that were true, most of what is considered quality audio gear would
never exist.

If you forced one of Them into proximity, its (the borg's)
protection circuit would kick in, forcing it to shut down and requiring a
full system reboot.


Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why
some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself. If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that. I
thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.
Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the spec
sheets!

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

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


Robert Morein said:

I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our
frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be
the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson
Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100
wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both
of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

Most likely they would want to measure the Fr and all other factors known
to cause things to be easily identified.

Of course there would naturally be a call to repeat the comaprisons with
some sort of DBT.


aBxism fanatics are not allowed to be in the same room with audio gear
of
that quality.

If that were true, most of what is considered quality audio gear would
never exist.

If you forced one of Them into proximity, its (the borg's)
protection circuit would kick in, forcing it to shut down and requiring
a
full system reboot.


Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why
some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

Mikey, I am excluding you from this discussion, because you lack the mental
capacity to participate in a constructive fashion.

"Arny Krueger" said:

It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.


You actually measured a Plinius and a Nakamichi TA-4A?
Why, just post the measurement results and don't leave us in suspense!

--

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

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

It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.


You actually measured a Plinius and a Nakamichi TA-4A?
Why, just post the measurement results and don't leave us in suspense!

I think he probably measured a QSC amp against a CSQ, just for variety's
sake.

Sander deWaal said:

It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.

You actually measured a Plinius and a Nakamichi TA-4A?
Why, just post the measurement results and don't leave us in suspense!

Hahahaha. Good one, Sander. Very droll. You're assuming that Kroo****'s
attempt to participate in the discussion is humanoid in nature. Such a
laugh!

What Turdborg actually meant is that he has "been" playing with himself
while perusing his extensive collection of kiddie porn, and that he's
"done" made a big mess and the Kroobitch is on his ass.

But I'm sure you knew that. G

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

It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.


You actually measured a Plinius and a Nakamichi TA-4A?
Why, just post the measurement results and don't leave us in suspense!



"Been there, done that" means that he wiped his ass with a $1,000 check.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.


You actually measured a Plinius and a Nakamichi TA-4A?
Why, just post the measurement results and don't leave us in suspense!



"Been there, done that" means that he wiped his ass with a $1,000 check.
I understand he only does that with checks he writes.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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

"Robert Morein" said:


Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain
as day, and distinguishable independent of volume
level. This was apparent to both of us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present,
sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in
the sand?


It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.

Something in the Fr, the distortion,
the output impedance, or something else entirely?

Something that can be measured, but not necessarily one
of the conventional metrics.

Output impedance variations with frequency always lead
to frequency response variations.

I thought your position is that damping factor is a
negligible factor in most amplifiers, particularly modern
solid state ones. Please explain.

Since when was this discussion limted to good, modern solid
state amplfiers?

Frequency response variations change the spectral
balance of the music. True.

Nonlinear distortion also changes the spectral balance
of the music. True. Never once saw two amps that sounded
different that didn't also measure vastly different, if
I was able to get some measurements made.

It seems as if you want to join the camp entitled "many
amplifiers sound different, even if they are, nominally,
properly operating."

Since when was this discussion limted to good, modern solid
state amplfiers?

I don't have a problem with that.

Too bad you can't transcend your narrow viewpoint, Robert.

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

It would be interesting to find out why the 2 amps
sounded different.

Been there, done that.


You actually measured a Plinius and a Nakamichi TA-4A?
Why, just post the measurement results and don't leave us in suspense!

Arny has only experimented with junk:

"Since when was this discussion limted to good, modern solid state
amplfiers?"

Robert Morein wrote:
Here's a gedanken experiment that should be a real one:
1. Use a bridge like the Hafler test box to obtain the difference signal of
the amplifier.
2. Do an FFT on it, and save to computer.
3. Repeat with the other amplifier.
4. Dif the two.
snip
JA, if you're reading this, consider whether this might be of interest.

Indeed. I actually agree with Arny Krueger: that if the two amplifiers
sound different,
there will be measurable differences also.

It also possible that the speakers you are using, having an elevated
HF, will unmask
spuriae in the 2-5kHz region that would have remained inaudible
otherwise.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
Here's a gedanken experiment that should be a real one:
1. Use a bridge like the Hafler test box to obtain the difference signal
of
the amplifier.
2. Do an FFT on it, and save to computer.
3. Repeat with the other amplifier.
4. Dif the two.
snip
JA, if you're reading this, consider whether this might be of interest.

Indeed. I actually agree with Arny Krueger: that if the two amplifiers
sound different,
there will be measurable differences also.

It also possible that the speakers you are using, having an elevated
HF, will unmask
spuriae in the 2-5kHz region that would have remained inaudible
otherwise.

I feel inclined to defer to your vastly greater experience, but consider
this:

1. an amplifier specified to be nearly flat to several octaves above the
audio spectrum, which sound quite distinctly different.

2. The conventional metrics.

Do the conventional metrics allow you to accurately predict how an amplifier
will sound? Do you feel that half-dB differences over a wide band explain
most of what people hear, or is the matter more complex?

As a challenge to the relevance of commonly used amplifier measurements,
perhaps there are amplifiers that sound "similar", but have significantly
different measurements. Harmonic distortion is a candidate. After all,
codecs have been disguising differences for years.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

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


Robert Morein said:

I brought a Nakamichi TA-4A over to a friend's house for one of our
frequent
amplifier shootouts. This receiver is considered by many purists to be
the
best two channel receiver ever made. The amplifier section is a Nelson
Pass
Stasis design.
Up against it was a Plinius basic amp. Both amplifiers are rated at 100
wpc
into 8 ohms.

Both amplifiers had distinct signatures that were plain as day, and
distinguishable independent of volume level. This was apparent to both
of
us.
I wonder what an ABXer would say, if he were present, sans test gear.

Would he deny the experience? Would he put his head in the sand?

Most likely they would want to measure the Fr and all other factors known
to cause things to be easily identified.

Of course there would naturally be a call to repeat the comaprisons with
some sort of DBT.


aBxism fanatics are not allowed to be in the same room with audio gear
of
that quality.

If that were true, most of what is considered quality audio gear would
never exist.

If you forced one of Them into proximity, its (the borg's)
protection circuit would kick in, forcing it to shut down and requiring
a
full system reboot.


Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why
some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not.

If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that. I
thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.

The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping. If it souds
different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is talking about amps
that were not involved in any double blind comparison at all, assuming his
entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.

Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the spec
sheets!
I don't buy from spec sheets, I buy from proven performance and build
quality.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why
some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not.

If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that. I
thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.

The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping.


That contravenes what you just said!
...."SOME" gear sounds as good as it does.
That means other do not,
we are talking about the comparable sound of gear, driving it to
clipping is your red herrinig.
YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO SOME GEAR SOUNDING
AS GOOD AS IT DOES, THE MEANS THAT SOME GEAR DOES NOT.

If it souds different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is talking
about amps that were not involved in any double blind comparison at all,
assuming his entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.

Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the
spec sheets!

I don't buy from spec sheets, I buy from proven performance and build
quality.


THEN WHAT THE HELL IS PROVEN PERFORMANCE?
YOU DON"T USE THE SPEC SHEET YOU DON"T DBT THEM
AND YOU DON"T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!!!!!!
AND BUILD QUALITY????
DO YOU DISSASSEMBLE THEM ON THE SHOWROOM
FLOOR, TO SEE WHAT"S INSIDE?
DO THE SALESMEN LET YOU DO THAT??

MY GOD MAKE SOME SENSE

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why
some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not.

If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that. I
thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.

The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping.


That contravenes what you just said!

No it is what I've bveen saying for a long time. Well built and designed
equipment has no distinct sound, it's transparent

..."SOME" gear sounds as good as it does.
That means other do not,
we are talking about the comparable sound of gear, driving it to
clipping is your red herrinig.

Some gear is not competently mad and will have FR variations that are
audible.

YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO SOME GEAR SOUNDING
AS GOOD AS IT DOES, THE MEANS THAT SOME GEAR DOES NOT.

And?

If it souds different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is
talking about amps that were not involved in any double blind comparison
at all, assuming his entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.

Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the
spec sheets!

I don't buy from spec sheets, I buy from proven performance and build
quality.


THEN WHAT THE HELL IS PROVEN PERFORMANCE?
YOU DON"T USE THE SPEC SHEET YOU DON"T DBT THEM
AND YOU DON"T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!!!!!!

Your making this up as you go along aren't you.

I look at spec sheets, I listen and I get facts from people who service the
equipment.
Spec sheets alone aren't enough, but they are a place to start. If they
were complete enough, there would be no need for bench tests and review
measurements.

AND BUILD QUALITY????
DO YOU DISSASSEMBLE THEM ON THE SHOWROOM
FLOOR, TO SEE WHAT"S INSIDE?
DO THE SALESMEN LET YOU DO THAT??

MY GOD MAKE SOME SENSE

Pay attention and you might get a clue.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are why
some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not.

If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that.
I thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.

The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping.


That contravenes what you just said!

Eaxactly!! Waht you recently said contravenes your
usual repetitive ramblings.
You recently said that some gear sounds better than others.
We are assuming that all operations are normal, not clipping,
and you are comparing the actual gear.


No it is what I've bveen saying for a long time. Well built and designed
equipment has no distinct sound, it's transparent

BUT, what you recently said was that some
gear sounds better than others.




..."SOME" gear sounds as good as it does.
That means other do not,
we are talking about the comparable sound of gear, driving it to
clipping is your red herrinig.

Some gear is not competently mad and will have FR variations that are
audible.

You said 'some gear' that sounds as good as it does.
You did not say 'most' gear that sounds as good as it does.

Now you say that 'some' grar is not so good.
Well, give us some percentages as to which is which.


YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO SOME GEAR SOUNDING
AS GOOD AS IT DOES, THE MEANS THAT SOME GEAR DOES NOT.

And?


Duh, that is a qualitative hudgement on its sound.
Some is better than others. Are you saying that
the majority of gear is not as good as the best?


If it souds different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is
talking about amps that were not involved in any double blind comparison
at all, assuming his entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.

Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the
spec sheets!

I don't buy from spec sheets, I buy from proven performance and build
quality.


THEN WHAT THE HELL IS PROVEN PERFORMANCE?
YOU DON"T USE THE SPEC SHEET YOU DON"T DBT THEM
AND YOU DON"T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!!!!!!

Your making this up as you go along aren't you.


NO I AM GETTING ALL THIS FROM YOU.


I look at spec sheets, I listen and I get facts from people who service
the equipment.

You just said you don't use spec sheets.
Funny! You clipped that!
And you earlier said you don't need to listen!

Spec sheets alone aren't enough, but they are a place to start. If they
were complete enough, there would be no need for bench tests and review
measurements.


You bench test units before you purchase them??
you expect consumers to do that??

AND BUILD QUALITY????
DO YOU DISSASSEMBLE THEM ON THE SHOWROOM
FLOOR, TO SEE WHAT"S INSIDE?
DO THE SALESMEN LET YOU DO THAT??

MY GOD MAKE SOME SENSE

Pay attention and you might get a clue.


I have been paying close attention to
your gross inconsistencies!

You don't use spec sheets
you use spec sheets.
You listen to the equipemnt
You don't listen to the equipment
You use SBT's
You don't do DBT's
You use review measurements.
You lambast magazines that publish review measurements

wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: Of course there would naturally be a call to repeat the comaprisons with
: some sort of DBT.
:
iirc that's ^ the third coma-prison you used when talking about abX...hmm
:-)
R.

^ "at least"
copuot addendum

nyob123 wrote
Clyde Slick wrote




The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping. If it souds
different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is talking about amps
that were not involved in any double blind comparison at all, assuming his
entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.


Do whatever you want you cumbersome chimpanzee and you might
as well since you've proven time and time again that you are a Coward
who loves to run away under fire with your pliant tail proudly tuck
neatly but deeply between your legs. I'm so tired of watching this
embarrassing act from you it's no longer funny.

Don't forget one thing though, since you've done this act many times before,
I'll have you do it anytime.

Clyde Slick wrote




THEN WHAT THE HELL IS PROVEN PERFORMANCE?
YOU DON"T USE THE SPEC SHEET YOU DON"T DBT THEM
AND YOU DON"T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!!!!!!
AND BUILD QUALITY????
DO YOU DISSASSEMBLE THEM ON THE SHOWROOM
FLOOR, TO SEE WHAT"S INSIDE?
DO THE SALESMEN LET YOU DO THAT??

MY GOD MAKE SOME SENSE



The simple truth is that NYOB is an orang-utang who simply
lack the intelligence that normal, average individual possess.

Give him a keyboard and you get the usenet version of a
Village Idiot.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are
why some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not.

If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that.
I thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.

The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping.


That contravenes what you just said!

Eaxactly!! Waht you recently said contravenes your
usual repetitive ramblings.
You recently said that some gear sounds better than others.
We are assuming that all operations are normal, not clipping,
and you are comparing the actual gear.


No it is what I've bveen saying for a long time. Well built and designed
equipment has no distinct sound, it's transparent

BUT, what you recently said was that some
gear sounds better than others.




..."SOME" gear sounds as good as it does.
That means other do not,
we are talking about the comparable sound of gear, driving it to
clipping is your red herrinig.

Some gear is not competently mad and will have FR variations that are
audible.

You said 'some gear' that sounds as good as it does.
You did not say 'most' gear that sounds as good as it does.

Now you say that 'some' grar is not so good.
Well, give us some percentages as to which is which.


YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO SOME GEAR SOUNDING
AS GOOD AS IT DOES, THE MEANS THAT SOME GEAR DOES NOT.

And?


Duh, that is a qualitative hudgement on its sound.
Some is better than others. Are you saying that
the majority of gear is not as good as the best?


If it souds different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is
talking about amps that were not involved in any double blind comparison
at all, assuming his entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.

Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the
spec sheets!

I don't buy from spec sheets, I buy from proven performance and build
quality.


THEN WHAT THE HELL IS PROVEN PERFORMANCE?
YOU DON"T USE THE SPEC SHEET YOU DON"T DBT THEM
AND YOU DON"T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!!!!!!

Your making this up as you go along aren't you.


NO I AM GETTING ALL THIS FROM YOU.


I look at spec sheets, I listen and I get facts from people who service
the equipment.

You just said you don't use spec sheets.
Not as the sole determinig factor.

Funny! You clipped that!
And you earlier said you don't need to listen!


To something like the WAVAC, no.

Spec sheets alone aren't enough, but they are a place to start. If they
were complete enough, there would be no need for bench tests and review
measurements.


You bench test units before you purchase them??
you expect consumers to do that??


I expect people who want the best qualitiy to do whatever is possible for
them to insure they get it.

AND BUILD QUALITY????
DO YOU DISSASSEMBLE THEM ON THE SHOWROOM
FLOOR, TO SEE WHAT"S INSIDE?
DO THE SALESMEN LET YOU DO THAT??

MY GOD MAKE SOME SENSE

Pay attention and you might get a clue.


I have been paying close attention to
your gross inconsistencies!

You don't use spec sheets
you use spec sheets.
See above.

You listen to the equipemnt
You don't listen to the equipment

See above.

You use SBT's
You don't do DBT's
If a piece of equipment measures flat enough in real world measurements, not
he ones from the spec sheet, there is no reason to do a DBT. It would be
sonically transparent, which is what I want from my equipment. Other people
are free to use whatever criteria they choose.

You use review measurements.
I use them as part of a preliminary process. When done properly there is
useful information that helps one make a choice. It is not the sole factor.

You lambast magazines that publish review measurements
Not for the measurements.

I don't have a problem with magazines that do measurements. I have a
problem with magazines that do measurements but their reviewers can't seem
to hear the obvious flaws that equipment like the WAVAC obviously have. I
criticize them for having recomendations for things that are snake oil or
when they do an opinion piece on something like Shakti Stones that are
obviously snake oil, they never bother to take any measurements to see if
there is any reason for them to be praised in the first place.

wrote in message
news


I don't have a problem with magazines that do measurements. I have a
problem with magazines that do measurements but their reviewers can't seem
to hear the obvious flaws that equipment like the WAVAC obviously have.

Who are you to dictate to reviewers what they should hear?
Why don't you just write the review yourself without even
listening to the unit. There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news


I don't have a problem with magazines that do measurements. I have a
problem with magazines that do measurements but their reviewers can't
seem to hear the obvious flaws that equipment like the WAVAC obviously
have.

Who are you to dictate to reviewers what they should hear?

I'm not doing that.

Why don't you just write the review yourself without even
listening to the unit.

Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable consumer I
don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously inferior as the is
the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that manufacturers
who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound like it should, would
ever let them have a review sample.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable consumer
I don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously inferior as the
is the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that manufacturers
who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound like it should,
would ever let them have a review sample.

Thanks for admiting that you are totally unqualified as a reviewer.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable consumer
I don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously inferior as
the is the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that manufacturers
who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound like it should,
would ever let them have a review sample.

Thanks for admiting that you are totally unqualified as a reviewer.
I can't do worse than Fremer.

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable
consumer I don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously
inferior as the is the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that
manufacturers who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound
like it should, would ever let them have a review sample.

Thanks for admiting that you are totally unqualified as a reviewer.
I can't do worse than Fremer.

You could do even worse than Ferstler.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable
consumer I don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously
inferior as the is the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that
manufacturers who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound
like it should, would ever let them have a review sample.

Thanks for admiting that you are totally unqualified as a reviewer.
I can't do worse than Fremer.

You could do even worse than Ferstler.
I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know it, I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other people
who did know more than he did?

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable
consumer I don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously
inferior as the is the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that
manufacturers who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound
like it should, would ever let them have a review sample.

Thanks for admiting that you are totally unqualified as a reviewer.
I can't do worse than Fremer.

You could do even worse than Ferstler.
I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know it, I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Because that would be foolish for a reviewer. As a knowledgable
consumer I don't waste my time listening to stuff that is obviously
inferior as the is the case of the WAVAC.

There must be some mag
somewhere that will publish such a review by you.
I don't even think T$$ will do that. Try Peter Axcel.

Nope tehy listen also, but then I doubt very seriously that
manufacturers who aren't confident that their gear is going to sound
like it should, would ever let them have a review sample.

Thanks for admiting that you are totally unqualified as a reviewer.
I can't do worse than Fremer.

You could do even worse than Ferstler.
I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know it, I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.
And work for Atkinson? I don't think so.

said:


You could do even worse than Ferstler.


I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know it, I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.


And work for Atkinson? I don't think so.


Ferstler worked for Atkinson? That's news to me.

--

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

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


You could do even worse than Ferstler.


I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know it,
I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.


And work for Atkinson? I don't think so.


Ferstler worked for Atkinson? That's news to me.

--

Aw ****, I thought he was talking about Fremer. He should retire.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

..


You could do even worse than Ferstler.
I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know it,
I wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.
And work for Atkinson? I don't think so.

Since when did Howie work for JA?

wrote in message
ink.net...

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


You could do even worse than Ferstler.


I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know
it, I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.


And work for Atkinson? I don't think so.


Ferstler worked for Atkinson? That's news to me.

--

Aw ****, I thought he was talking about Fremer. He should retire.


That still leaves the issue of Ferstler's vacancy.
Care to fill it?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

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


You could do even worse than Ferstler.


I doubt it, I know more about audio than he does,and if didn't know
it, I
wouldn't pretend. How many times did he corrected by Arny and other
people who did know more than he did?


He 'retired'.You can take his place.


And work for Atkinson? I don't think so.


Ferstler worked for Atkinson? That's news to me.

--

Aw ****, I thought he was talking about Fremer. He should retire.


That still leaves the issue of Ferstler's vacancy.
Care to fill it?
Why, do yo have some sort of infuence with his former employer?