Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means
are used to judge.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.


  #82   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means
are used to judge.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.


  #83   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are

ubiquitous in power
switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power

converters,
inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications

for power
control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps.


Generally true but "rare apps" is a too wide sweeping of a
statement.

Power MOSFETs make up the bulk of the mainstream switchmode power
conversion. However, very large inverters, motor drives and
other apps routinely use other devices such as bipolars and
combination devices (MCTs and IGBTs to name a few). Many
actually use a BOTH device types such as MCTs or IGBTs for the
main power devices and MOSFETs either in parallel to reduce
switching loss or to force resonant switching. On the low power
side many switching regulator ICs (both offline and low voltage
DC-DC) use onboard bipolar transistors due to ease of integration
with control functions (although newer devices such as STs VIPer
uses onboard HV MOSFET) . I believe the vast majority of low end
TV sets still use bipolars for the high voltage flyback.
Electronic ballasts for florescent lighting are using more and
more MOSFETs but the majority still use bipolars in a self driven
architecture due to cost. Just about any application where
breakdown voltage exceeds 1200V is exclusively bipolar. Ditto
for high voltage and high current applications. You can get an
IGBT rated for 3,300V and 1,200A with 500ns switching in a small
module which just can't be done with current generation MOSFETs.

In many cases it boils down to cost. Bipolar structures use far
less silicon for the same current density. MOSFETs usually make
the most sense when either cost isn't the primary concern, fast
switching speed is required (without resonant techniques), or the
MOSFET die size can be large enough to have a lower conduction
losses than bipolar. In the commercial world MOSFETs usually
meet this critera when the power is more than a few watts but
less than a few kW.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification.

However, thermal
runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against

by feedback or
any linear network.


Wrong. Many bulletproof protection methods are available and
have been for decades. Just because audio designers can be
ignorant and continually try to reinvent the wheel doesn't mean
the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to do it right.

I've designed kilowatt output switching power supplies with
bipolar devices which can withstand any overload you can throw at
it...even at a steady state operating temperature of 150C.

when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is

simply immune to
thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in

the
semiconductor.


Simply immune is simply wrong.

Thermal runaway most certainly exists in a MOSFET. ON resistance
is a strong function of temperature. The hotter the MOSFET the
higher the ON resistance. Higher ON resistance causes more power
dissipation which causes temperature to rise which increases ON
resistance which causes temperature to rise which....BOOM!

In the case of a switching power supply you can easily get the
MOSFET in a state where it thermally runs away. I've had
prototypes where the MOSFET is running fine at a given ambient
temperature. Increase the ambient temperature by only 5C and the
MOSFET quickly runs away and exceeds the 175C rating and dies.

You may be confusing the situation where you have devices in
parallel. If an individual FET heats up the increased ON
resistance forces current to the other FETs which gives nice
current sharing. Bipolars in parallel don't share well by
themselves since as one heats up it's Vce decreases which allows
more current to flow in that device and can cause runaway.

It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted
for the above mentioned industrial apps.


Careful with the use of 'industrial'. Industrial usually means
high power and/or high voltage in which bipolar reins supreme
(steel mills, production facilities, etc). It is the commercial
world in which MOSFETs are most common (PC power
supplies/motherboards etc).



  #84   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are

ubiquitous in power
switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power

converters,
inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications

for power
control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps.


Generally true but "rare apps" is a too wide sweeping of a
statement.

Power MOSFETs make up the bulk of the mainstream switchmode power
conversion. However, very large inverters, motor drives and
other apps routinely use other devices such as bipolars and
combination devices (MCTs and IGBTs to name a few). Many
actually use a BOTH device types such as MCTs or IGBTs for the
main power devices and MOSFETs either in parallel to reduce
switching loss or to force resonant switching. On the low power
side many switching regulator ICs (both offline and low voltage
DC-DC) use onboard bipolar transistors due to ease of integration
with control functions (although newer devices such as STs VIPer
uses onboard HV MOSFET) . I believe the vast majority of low end
TV sets still use bipolars for the high voltage flyback.
Electronic ballasts for florescent lighting are using more and
more MOSFETs but the majority still use bipolars in a self driven
architecture due to cost. Just about any application where
breakdown voltage exceeds 1200V is exclusively bipolar. Ditto
for high voltage and high current applications. You can get an
IGBT rated for 3,300V and 1,200A with 500ns switching in a small
module which just can't be done with current generation MOSFETs.

In many cases it boils down to cost. Bipolar structures use far
less silicon for the same current density. MOSFETs usually make
the most sense when either cost isn't the primary concern, fast
switching speed is required (without resonant techniques), or the
MOSFET die size can be large enough to have a lower conduction
losses than bipolar. In the commercial world MOSFETs usually
meet this critera when the power is more than a few watts but
less than a few kW.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification.

However, thermal
runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against

by feedback or
any linear network.


Wrong. Many bulletproof protection methods are available and
have been for decades. Just because audio designers can be
ignorant and continually try to reinvent the wheel doesn't mean
the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to do it right.

I've designed kilowatt output switching power supplies with
bipolar devices which can withstand any overload you can throw at
it...even at a steady state operating temperature of 150C.

when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is

simply immune to
thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in

the
semiconductor.


Simply immune is simply wrong.

Thermal runaway most certainly exists in a MOSFET. ON resistance
is a strong function of temperature. The hotter the MOSFET the
higher the ON resistance. Higher ON resistance causes more power
dissipation which causes temperature to rise which increases ON
resistance which causes temperature to rise which....BOOM!

In the case of a switching power supply you can easily get the
MOSFET in a state where it thermally runs away. I've had
prototypes where the MOSFET is running fine at a given ambient
temperature. Increase the ambient temperature by only 5C and the
MOSFET quickly runs away and exceeds the 175C rating and dies.

You may be confusing the situation where you have devices in
parallel. If an individual FET heats up the increased ON
resistance forces current to the other FETs which gives nice
current sharing. Bipolars in parallel don't share well by
themselves since as one heats up it's Vce decreases which allows
more current to flow in that device and can cause runaway.

It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted
for the above mentioned industrial apps.


Careful with the use of 'industrial'. Industrial usually means
high power and/or high voltage in which bipolar reins supreme
(steel mills, production facilities, etc). It is the commercial
world in which MOSFETs are most common (PC power
supplies/motherboards etc).



  #85   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are

ubiquitous in power
switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power

converters,
inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications

for power
control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps.


Generally true but "rare apps" is a too wide sweeping of a
statement.

Power MOSFETs make up the bulk of the mainstream switchmode power
conversion. However, very large inverters, motor drives and
other apps routinely use other devices such as bipolars and
combination devices (MCTs and IGBTs to name a few). Many
actually use a BOTH device types such as MCTs or IGBTs for the
main power devices and MOSFETs either in parallel to reduce
switching loss or to force resonant switching. On the low power
side many switching regulator ICs (both offline and low voltage
DC-DC) use onboard bipolar transistors due to ease of integration
with control functions (although newer devices such as STs VIPer
uses onboard HV MOSFET) . I believe the vast majority of low end
TV sets still use bipolars for the high voltage flyback.
Electronic ballasts for florescent lighting are using more and
more MOSFETs but the majority still use bipolars in a self driven
architecture due to cost. Just about any application where
breakdown voltage exceeds 1200V is exclusively bipolar. Ditto
for high voltage and high current applications. You can get an
IGBT rated for 3,300V and 1,200A with 500ns switching in a small
module which just can't be done with current generation MOSFETs.

In many cases it boils down to cost. Bipolar structures use far
less silicon for the same current density. MOSFETs usually make
the most sense when either cost isn't the primary concern, fast
switching speed is required (without resonant techniques), or the
MOSFET die size can be large enough to have a lower conduction
losses than bipolar. In the commercial world MOSFETs usually
meet this critera when the power is more than a few watts but
less than a few kW.

Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification.

However, thermal
runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against

by feedback or
any linear network.


Wrong. Many bulletproof protection methods are available and
have been for decades. Just because audio designers can be
ignorant and continually try to reinvent the wheel doesn't mean
the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to do it right.

I've designed kilowatt output switching power supplies with
bipolar devices which can withstand any overload you can throw at
it...even at a steady state operating temperature of 150C.

when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is

simply immune to
thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in

the
semiconductor.


Simply immune is simply wrong.

Thermal runaway most certainly exists in a MOSFET. ON resistance
is a strong function of temperature. The hotter the MOSFET the
higher the ON resistance. Higher ON resistance causes more power
dissipation which causes temperature to rise which increases ON
resistance which causes temperature to rise which....BOOM!

In the case of a switching power supply you can easily get the
MOSFET in a state where it thermally runs away. I've had
prototypes where the MOSFET is running fine at a given ambient
temperature. Increase the ambient temperature by only 5C and the
MOSFET quickly runs away and exceeds the 175C rating and dies.

You may be confusing the situation where you have devices in
parallel. If an individual FET heats up the increased ON
resistance forces current to the other FETs which gives nice
current sharing. Bipolars in parallel don't share well by
themselves since as one heats up it's Vce decreases which allows
more current to flow in that device and can cause runaway.

It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted
for the above mentioned industrial apps.


Careful with the use of 'industrial'. Industrial usually means
high power and/or high voltage in which bipolar reins supreme
(steel mills, production facilities, etc). It is the commercial
world in which MOSFETs are most common (PC power
supplies/motherboards etc).





  #86   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise

anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.


Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's
certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world.


  #87   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise

anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.


Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's
certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world.


  #88   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise

anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.


Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's
certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world.


  #89   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

bsguidry wrote:

[arny said]

Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you
surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power
specs.


[morein said]

Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing
difficulties. Othewise, I concur.


I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not
encountered Hafler very often in my searching.


I haven't heard any "recent un's" of the amps mentioned, but based on
the context I have seen them mentioned in I would go for QSC for the
bass and Hafler for "the above rest", and skip Crown as being not cost
efficient in the context.

Other brands that caught my
attention were Nady, Samson, Peavey, and Behringer.


Behringer tends to be getting ever more an interesting dark horse
specwise and from what people who suggest them.

The fan noise could be a problem as suggested. Since
the concensus here seems to indicate going with the more
pricey Crown or Hafler amplifiers, I think I will revert
my focus back to obtaining a higher powerered
Carver amplifier.


There must be real bargains out there amongst the "crap bipolars from
the 70-ties and 80-ties", but perhaps not in the power class you want,
mostly it is the below 150 watts from that time and age you find the
good ones in. I recently bought a "stone age" Technics SE9021, and it
was a very positive surprise. Obvious caveats exist with so old stuff,
especially if it has not been recently or reasonably constantly used.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2
at 4 ohms. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front. I guess I'll keep scanning Ebay for good finds
on these. Thanks for all the feedback to this post and two my
previous posts about my Adire Tempest project.

bguidry


--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******
  #90   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

bsguidry wrote:

[arny said]

Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you
surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power
specs.


[morein said]

Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing
difficulties. Othewise, I concur.


I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not
encountered Hafler very often in my searching.


I haven't heard any "recent un's" of the amps mentioned, but based on
the context I have seen them mentioned in I would go for QSC for the
bass and Hafler for "the above rest", and skip Crown as being not cost
efficient in the context.

Other brands that caught my
attention were Nady, Samson, Peavey, and Behringer.


Behringer tends to be getting ever more an interesting dark horse
specwise and from what people who suggest them.

The fan noise could be a problem as suggested. Since
the concensus here seems to indicate going with the more
pricey Crown or Hafler amplifiers, I think I will revert
my focus back to obtaining a higher powerered
Carver amplifier.


There must be real bargains out there amongst the "crap bipolars from
the 70-ties and 80-ties", but perhaps not in the power class you want,
mostly it is the below 150 watts from that time and age you find the
good ones in. I recently bought a "stone age" Technics SE9021, and it
was a very positive surprise. Obvious caveats exist with so old stuff,
especially if it has not been recently or reasonably constantly used.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2
at 4 ohms. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front. I guess I'll keep scanning Ebay for good finds
on these. Thanks for all the feedback to this post and two my
previous posts about my Adire Tempest project.

bguidry


--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******


  #91   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

bsguidry wrote:

[arny said]

Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you
surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power
specs.


[morein said]

Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing
difficulties. Othewise, I concur.


I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not
encountered Hafler very often in my searching.


I haven't heard any "recent un's" of the amps mentioned, but based on
the context I have seen them mentioned in I would go for QSC for the
bass and Hafler for "the above rest", and skip Crown as being not cost
efficient in the context.

Other brands that caught my
attention were Nady, Samson, Peavey, and Behringer.


Behringer tends to be getting ever more an interesting dark horse
specwise and from what people who suggest them.

The fan noise could be a problem as suggested. Since
the concensus here seems to indicate going with the more
pricey Crown or Hafler amplifiers, I think I will revert
my focus back to obtaining a higher powerered
Carver amplifier.


There must be real bargains out there amongst the "crap bipolars from
the 70-ties and 80-ties", but perhaps not in the power class you want,
mostly it is the below 150 watts from that time and age you find the
good ones in. I recently bought a "stone age" Technics SE9021, and it
was a very positive surprise. Obvious caveats exist with so old stuff,
especially if it has not been recently or reasonably constantly used.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2
at 4 ohms. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front. I guess I'll keep scanning Ebay for good finds
on these. Thanks for all the feedback to this post and two my
previous posts about my Adire Tempest project.

bguidry


--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******
  #92   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting

that
magazines will keep you "well read".


I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow

mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads

about
amplifiers, LOTS!


My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't
called for her help yet.

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the

data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers

that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense

audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed

technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.


Agreed.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years

it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.


Ever since you started surfing the web?


Yeah, pretty much.

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's

magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly

concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He

might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an

editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.


I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing?

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel

audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will

continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that

aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available

video will
languish and eventually die out


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus.


  #93   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting

that
magazines will keep you "well read".


I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow

mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads

about
amplifiers, LOTS!


My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't
called for her help yet.

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the

data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers

that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense

audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed

technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.


Agreed.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years

it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.


Ever since you started surfing the web?


Yeah, pretty much.

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's

magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly

concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He

might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an

editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.


I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing?

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel

audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will

continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that

aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available

video will
languish and eventually die out


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus.


  #94   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...


Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?


Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.


Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting

that
magazines will keep you "well read".


I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow

mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads

about
amplifiers, LOTS!


My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't
called for her help yet.

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the

data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers

that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense

audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed

technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.


Agreed.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years

it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.


Ever since you started surfing the web?


Yeah, pretty much.

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's

magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly

concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He

might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an

editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.


I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing?

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel

audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will

continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that

aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available

video will
languish and eventually die out


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus.


  #95   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise

anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.


Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's
certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world.


Based upon your use of "YOU" above, I will carefully label my response:

PERSONAL OPINION:
The QSC is a piece of junk.

WHY:
Amplifier had many of the sonic attributes of older, cold running bipolar
units.

CONJECTU
The QSC runs low bias current; therefore it uses precision biasing to
eliminate crossover distortion. Some schemes are more successful than
others. I do not believe the QSC to be the best in this category. As a
group, I find such amplifiers to be be less than the best.

REASON FOR VARIANCE OF OPINION
We're all sensitive to different things. The QSC is a great bass amp, and
capable of high volume levels. Fortunately, I have amplifiers that can do
these things, and sound good TO ME as well.






  #96   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise

anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.


Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's
certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world.


Based upon your use of "YOU" above, I will carefully label my response:

PERSONAL OPINION:
The QSC is a piece of junk.

WHY:
Amplifier had many of the sonic attributes of older, cold running bipolar
units.

CONJECTU
The QSC runs low bias current; therefore it uses precision biasing to
eliminate crossover distortion. Some schemes are more successful than
others. I do not believe the QSC to be the best in this category. As a
group, I find such amplifiers to be be less than the best.

REASON FOR VARIANCE OF OPINION
We're all sensitive to different things. The QSC is a great bass amp, and
capable of high volume levels. Fortunately, I have amplifiers that can do
these things, and sound good TO ME as well.




  #97   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default QSC=JUNK


"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise

anyone who
thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth.


Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's
certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world.


Based upon your use of "YOU" above, I will carefully label my response:

PERSONAL OPINION:
The QSC is a piece of junk.

WHY:
Amplifier had many of the sonic attributes of older, cold running bipolar
units.

CONJECTU
The QSC runs low bias current; therefore it uses precision biasing to
eliminate crossover distortion. Some schemes are more successful than
others. I do not believe the QSC to be the best in this category. As a
group, I find such amplifiers to be be less than the best.

REASON FOR VARIANCE OF OPINION
We're all sensitive to different things. The QSC is a great bass amp, and
capable of high volume levels. Fortunately, I have amplifiers that can do
these things, and sound good TO ME as well.




  #98   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks
the rule."
There certainly are exceptions.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #99   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks
the rule."
There certainly are exceptions.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #100   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hafler


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement
metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your
KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver.

Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks
the rule."
There certainly are exceptions.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering





  #101   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He
might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his
inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause.
Demographics are against him.


I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.


Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?


I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton.

How's it doing?


You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is
dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will
continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV,
that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio
without available video will languish and eventually die out


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz.


I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't
been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is
loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1
and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity.

Video is definitely a plus.



  #102   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He
might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his
inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause.
Demographics are against him.


I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.


Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?


I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton.

How's it doing?


You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is
dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will
continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV,
that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio
without available video will languish and eventually die out


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz.


I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't
been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is
loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1
and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity.

Video is definitely a plus.



  #103   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He
might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his
inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause.
Demographics are against him.


I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.


Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?


I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton.

How's it doing?


You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is
dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will
continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV,
that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio
without available video will languish and eventually die out


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz.


I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't
been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is
loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1
and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity.

Video is definitely a plus.



  #104   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ignore what you hear


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective

means
are used to judge.

Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at the
"data."


Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound
soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I can't ignore what I hear.


  #105   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ignore what you hear


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective

means
are used to judge.

Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at the
"data."


Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound
soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I can't ignore what I hear.




  #106   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ignore what you hear


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and
detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they
complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with
fabric types.


Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps,
a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input
signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any
particular kind of tweeter.


Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers
approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective

means
are used to judge.

Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at the
"data."


Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization
that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound.
They don't.


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger
high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most
extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms.

I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound
soft, compared to a typical metal dome.

I can't ignore what I hear.


  #107   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ignore what you hear

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type
tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have
fabric diaphragms.


I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL
sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome.


I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal
dome tweeters.

I have a pair of NHT 2.5i speakers with metal domes and a pair of speakers
based on the Audax ring drivers that I designed myself. They both sound
great, neither sounds soft or harsh. Something about quality of
implementation...

I can't ignore what I hear.


Neither can I.


  #108   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ignore what you hear

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type
tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have
fabric diaphragms.


I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL
sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome.


I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal
dome tweeters.

I have a pair of NHT 2.5i speakers with metal domes and a pair of speakers
based on the Audax ring drivers that I designed myself. They both sound
great, neither sounds soft or harsh. Something about quality of
implementation...

I can't ignore what I hear.


Neither can I.


  #109   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ignore what you hear

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have
stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type
tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have
fabric diaphragms.


I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL
sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome.


I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal
dome tweeters.

I have a pair of NHT 2.5i speakers with metal domes and a pair of speakers
based on the Audax ring drivers that I designed myself. They both sound
great, neither sounds soft or harsh. Something about quality of
implementation...

I can't ignore what I hear.


Neither can I.


  #110   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?


There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


  #111   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?


There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.
  #112   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?


There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.
  #113   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.



  #114   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.



  #115   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.





  #116   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

I answered your question.
  #117   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

I answered your question.
  #118   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

I answered your question.
  #119   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it.
You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you
have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have
tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a
different experience.


This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video
while listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.


Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.


Except it wasn't my question.


  #120   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?


Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?


There are several good reasons.


The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.


Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it.
You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you
have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have
tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a
different experience.


This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video
while listening to music.


I agree, but I like having the choice.


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.


Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.


Except it wasn't my question.




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
Book Review: Home Theater For Everyone: A Practical Guide ; Harley, Holman Paul General 0 June 20th 04 05:26 AM
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater bsguidry Audio Opinions 309 January 18th 04 08:23 AM
Home Theater "Junkyard Wars" Blipvert Audio Opinions 17 October 28th 03 08:01 PM
Home theater recommandation please [email protected] General 0 August 21st 03 08:53 PM
Home Theater Upgrade Path Charles Epstein High End Audio 9 August 15th 03 04:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM.

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"