On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:09:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you
feel
the need to post in an Austalian newsgroup.

I didn't set up the crosspost.

Arnie's being modest. In his generosity of spirit he likes to shed his
guiding light to the far-flung corners. In other words, he wants
Aussie's to share in the good news that all components of a competent
design standard sound alike and therefore no anxiety need be expended
on their selection--just get the cheapest. This is the message of
simple benediction he spreads, and you may be sure I at least am truly
grateful for it. This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that
sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease
flowing to us from the good old US of A?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ric" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for
the
price of the laser assembly.

A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one,
praytell?

I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.

Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended
it
for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of
Harry's primary traits.

Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
against
it.


http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf


Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a.

But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error.

But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out.
I
think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's
similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for
their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy
"if
sound quality is your primary emphasis".

As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.

So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?

However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent
CD
player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price
point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
transparency that better players have.

Prove it.

And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on
this
in RAHE.

So much for your memory, Harry.

I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
you are confusing the two.

No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70

"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."

And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group
pre-dated any written review of the 578.

So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?

This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you
actually knew nothing at all about.

I bought it when
shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there
wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.

The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com


Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same.

This would be a lie.

Could you tell us the nature of the differences between players,
Arnie?

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com


Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same.

This would be a lie.

Could you tell us the nature of the differences between
players, Arnie?

Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety
of reasons.

Another Kroopologist renounces his former faith.

I didn't set up the crosspost.

Of course, nothing is ever the Krooborg's fault. The implication that he's
incapable of changing the list of newsgroups that his own messages are posted to
is typical of the Krooborg.

guiding light
share in the good news

Praise the Lord.

therefore no anxiety need be expended
on their selection--just get the cheapest.

Hallelujah!

This is the message of simple benediction he spreads,
and you may be sure I at least am truly grateful for it.

Don't forget to tithe at the church.

This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that
sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease
flowing to us from the good old US of A?

Actually, they're both Japanese. Don't you have your share of JEE-zus freaks in
Oz?

Congratulations on kicking Kroopologism. Most of the infected are too stupid to
realize they've been contaminated.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ric" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for
the
price of the laser assembly.

A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one,
praytell?

I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.

Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended
it
for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of
Harry's primary traits.

Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
against
it.


http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf


Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a.

But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error.

But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out.
I
think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's
similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for
their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy
"if
sound quality is your primary emphasis".

As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.

So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?

However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent
CD
player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price
point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
transparency that better players have.

Prove it.

And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on
this
in RAHE.

So much for your memory, Harry.

I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
you are confusing the two.

No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70

"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."

And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group
pre-dated any written review of the 578.

So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?

This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you
actually knew nothing at all about.

I bought it when
shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there
wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.

The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.


Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Any comments I made on
the 563 were simply references to their general acceptance in the audiophile
community, as your post above simply reiterates. I presume that if you
could find me recommending the 563 based on my own experience you would have
done so. I did nothing but give "factual" information about that unit based
on its reputation.

When I was shopping, the 563 had just been replaced by the 578. I had
several modifiers inform me that the 578 was "inferior" to the 563. So I
didn't listen to them, since I suspected that this opinion may have been
based on a) the ease of modifying, or b) the need for modifying. Instead I
listened to the unit myself in several places and then in my own system, as
well as listening to several other players with DVD-A capability. That is
the unit I recommended, based on my own listening.

No amount of tap-dancing about on your part above can change these facts
Arny. Your memory was faulty, and I simply pointed it out. No big deal,
except perhaps to somebody with a poor ego.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ric" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for
the
price of the laser assembly.

A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one,
praytell?

I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by
the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.

Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so
how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry
dis-recommended
it
for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of
Harry's primary traits.

Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and
that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
against
it.



http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf


Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the
563a.

But you did make a positive mention of it in a post,
Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you
will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible
error.

But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came
out.
I
think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's
similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it
for
their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy
"if
sound quality is your primary emphasis".

As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said
nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.

So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV
said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?

However, it's value varies by format. It is a very
decent
CD
player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price
point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
transparency that better players have.

Prove it.

And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on
this
in RAHE.

So much for your memory, Harry.

I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
you are confusing the two.

No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70

"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that
led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so
a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."

And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group
pre-dated any written review of the 578.

So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer
attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?

This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you
actually knew nothing at all about.

I bought it when
shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there
wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.

The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already
well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus
DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.

Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players.

Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ric" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for
the
price of the laser assembly.

A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one,
praytell?

I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by
the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.

Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so
how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry
dis-recommended
it
for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of
Harry's primary traits.

Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and
that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
against
it.



http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf


Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the
563a.

But you did make a positive mention of it in a post,
Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you
will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible
error.

But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came
out.
I
think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's
similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it
for
their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy
"if
sound quality is your primary emphasis".

As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said
nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.

So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV
said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?

However, it's value varies by format. It is a very
decent
CD
player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price
point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
transparency that better players have.

Prove it.

And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on
this
in RAHE.

So much for your memory, Harry.

I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
you are confusing the two.

No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70

"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that
led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so
a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."

And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group
pre-dated any written review of the 578.

So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer
attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?

This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you
actually knew nothing at all about.

I bought it when
shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there
wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.

The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already
well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus
DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.

Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players.

Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry.




And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply snipping (without
indication) the part of my post following this sentence, which clearly
reflected back on you.

You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the kitchen, pul down the
blinds, and won't even let anybody else know what's cookin'.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ric" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new,
for
the
price of the laser assembly.

A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which
one,
praytell?

I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by
the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.

Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so
how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry
dis-recommended
it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't
one of
Harry's primary traits.

Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and
that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
against
it.




http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf


Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the
563a.

But you did make a positive mention of it in a post,
Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you
will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible
error.

But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came
out.
I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above
it's
similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it
for
their lowest priced recommended system as the one to
buy
"if
sound quality is your primary emphasis".

As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said
nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.

So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV
said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about
the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?

However, it's value varies by format. It is a very
decent
CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's
price
point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
transparency that better players have.

Prove it.

And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion
on
this
in RAHE.

So much for your memory, Harry.

I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
you are confusing the two.

No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70

"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems
that
led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid
disks...so
a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."

And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the
group
pre-dated any written review of the 578.

So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer
attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?

This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic
you
actually knew nothing at all about.

I bought it when
shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that
there
wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.

The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already
well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus
DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.

Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players.

Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry.

And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply
snipping (without indication) the part of my post
following
this sentence, which clearly reflected back on you.

Harry, the portion of your post that I snipped was
irrelevant to my comment. Sue me for trying to keep the
discussion on topic.

You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the
kitchen,
pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know
what's cookin'.

Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting
if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This
whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen
you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously
claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic
range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about
some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players.

Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly
mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
comments.

Gordon wrote:

Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you feel the need to
post in an Austalian newsgroup.

Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.

it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
Proper relay muting.


Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
break.

A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting transistors
causing distortion because of nonlinear effects.

Decent output stage, which does not include primitive,
4558-style output ICs.


Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s
isn't my problem.

Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues. Don't
know about the 4558 specifically though.

"robert casey" wrote in message
hlink.net
it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
Proper relay muting.


Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
break.

A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting
transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
effects.

But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
muting transistors, then the relay is futile.

Decent output stage, which does not include
primitive,
4558-style output ICs.

Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
4558s
isn't my problem.

Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.

Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then.

Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.

I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"robert casey" wrote in message
hlink.net
it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
Proper relay muting.


Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
break.

A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting
transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
effects.

But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
muting transistors, then the relay is futile.

**IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids the possibility
entirely. Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many units.
Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever


Decent output stage, which does not include
primitive,
4558-style output ICs.

Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
4558s
isn't my problem.

Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.

Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then.

Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.

I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.

**No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent equipment since
before 1980. Even pro audio equipment manufacturers stopped using them two
decades ago. They were resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player
manufacturers awhile ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ric" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new,
for
the
price of the laser assembly.

A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which
one,
praytell?

I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by
the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.

Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so
how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry
dis-recommended
it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't
one of
Harry's primary traits.

Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and
that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
against
it.




http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...2003135639.pdf


Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the
563a.

But you did make a positive mention of it in a post,
Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you
will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible
error.

But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came
out.
I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above
it's
similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it
for
their lowest priced recommended system as the one to
buy
"if
sound quality is your primary emphasis".

As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said
nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.

So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV
said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about
the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?

However, it's value varies by format. It is a very
decent
CD player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's
price
point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
transparency that better players have.

Prove it.

And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion
on
this
in RAHE.

So much for your memory, Harry.

I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
you are confusing the two.

No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...453da09ffffb70

"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems
that
led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid
disks...so
a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."

And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the
group
pre-dated any written review of the 578.

So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer
attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?

This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic
you
actually knew nothing at all about.

I bought it when
shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that
there
wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.

The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already
well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus
DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.

Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players.

Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry.

And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply
snipping (without indication) the part of my post
following
this sentence, which clearly reflected back on you.

Harry, the portion of your post that I snipped was
irrelevant to my comment. Sue me for trying to keep the
discussion on topic.

Bull****. It was dead on topic.


You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the
kitchen,
pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know
what's cookin'.

Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting
if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This
whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen
you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously
claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic
range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about
some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players.

Arny, you are the one making the mistake, attributing my endorsement with
the 578 with the 563a. And no amount of huffing and blowing can change
that. All I have done is correct you.


Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly
mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
comments.

I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking for some
truthfulness. Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John
A publishes on every high rez player. If you did, you would note that at
low and midrange frequencies SACD and DVD-A are IDENTICAL and that it is
only in the high frequencies that SACD yields to DVD-A in dynamic range.
That's what I said. It's fact. It's demonstrable. What's your beef?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"robert casey" wrote in message

hlink.net
it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
Proper relay muting.


Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
break.

A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted
muting
transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
effects.

But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
muting transistors, then the relay is futile.

**IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids
the
possibility entirely.

Well, until the contacts get dirty.

Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many
units.

Never saw the problem even though I've read people get
paranoid about it.

Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever

Until the contacts get dirty. I've experience that problem
with power amps.

Decent output stage, which does not include
primitive,
4558-style output ICs.

Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
4558s
isn't my problem.

Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.

Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even
then.

Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.

I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.

**No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent
equipment since before 1980.

OK, so all this fairly new pro gear such as the power amp
for my NHT Pro A10s is indecent. Either that or it was made
before 1980 even though that model came out just a few
years ago.

Even pro audio equipment
manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They
were
resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers
awhile
ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them.

I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear.
Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that
everybody is.

Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they
are still being used to make quality new equipment.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were
grossly
mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
comments.

I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking
for
some truthfulness.

Then clean out your own house first, Harry.

Do you never look at the dynamic range
measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
player.

Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
equipment.

Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
first and foremost to yourself.

****-for-Brains does his hypocracy™ dance.

Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with
the tinyist

No such word. Looks like Harry got you so unnerved that you lapsed into
Krooglish.

amount of honesty

Hahahaha! Now I know you're coming unglued. When AutoLiarBorg starts babbling
about "honesty", it's time to cash in the government bonds.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"robert casey" wrote in message

hlink.net
it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
Proper relay muting.


Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
break.

A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted
muting
transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
effects.

But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
muting transistors, then the relay is futile.

**IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids
the
possibility entirely.

Well, until the contacts get dirty.

**Not even then. In any case, decent equipment uses hermetically sealed, or
mercury wetted relays. These demonstrate phenomenal reliability. More
importantly, is the fact that relays are almost always used to short the
signal to ground. Dirty contacts (if they ever occur) will therefore be
irelevant.


Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many
units.

Never saw the problem even though I've read people get
paranoid about it.

**And rightfully so.


Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever

Until the contacts get dirty. I've experience that problem
with power amps.

**Indeed. Series relay contacts can be a problem. However, we're talking
about shunt circuits.


Decent output stage, which does not include
primitive,
4558-style output ICs.

Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
4558s
isn't my problem.

Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.

Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even
then.

Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.

I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.

**No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent
equipment since before 1980.

OK, so all this fairly new pro gear such as the power amp
for my NHT Pro A10s is indecent. Either that or it was made
before 1980 even though that model came out just a few
years ago.

**If it uses a 4558-style chip (and depending on how it is used), then it is
crap. 4558-style chips have been available since the late 1970s. There are
far better performing chips available. Such chips are inexpensive and have
been available for decades. Be aware, that I have no issue with 4558-style
chips as part of DC servo, or in LF circuits.


Even pro audio equipment
manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They
were
resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers
awhile
ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them.

I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear.
Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that
everybody is.

**I'm not paranoid about them. They just have no place (outside DC
functions) in decent audio equipment.


Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they
are still being used to make quality new equipment.

**No, they're not. Their use is confined exclusively to cheap, Asian
equipment, or to DC and LF functions. They are not used (and haven't for
decades) for high quality equipment. Consumer or pro.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"George Middius" wrote in
message


Hahahaha! Now I know you're coming unglued. When
AutoLiarBorg
starts babbling about "honesty", it's time to cash in the
government bonds.

Looks like Lavo really went over the edge now - he's even
got George Middius supporting him!

"EddieM" wrote in message
...

Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
calcerise wrote:



Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.



Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
three cd players namely:

1. Sony CDP-715E

2. Meridian 588

3. Pioneer DV-575A


Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?




Er...suppose he might have been talking about matching with a spirit level
and feeling around the faceplates.

//Adam F

"Arny Krueger" said:

**IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids
the
possibility entirely.

Well, until the contacts get dirty.


A relay with contacts to ground poses no problems.


I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear.
Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that
everybody is.

Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they
are still being used to make quality new equipment.


The industry standard opamp is still the NE5532/5534/LM833.
4558s are highly sought after by guitar amp enthusiasts.
Nuff said :-)

--

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.


In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us
who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
difference. :-)

And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick wrote:

And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.

.....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
ineffable.

Howard Ferstler

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us
who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
difference. :-)

Baloney. You either hear differences or you do not. Guys
like you need to hear differences. Otherwise the hobby would
not be of interest. The DBT protocol screws over your need
for the mysterious.

Howard Ferstler

About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two
piece
portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for close
to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and
exceeded
in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day
auction.
I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't get
a
single bid.

But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
good, superbly built gear.

Couldn't agree more, Dad bought one in early-83 and it's stored away (with
tuner). The picture quality from the tapes from that period is superb (much
better than some 8mm analogue footage from the 90s). Unfortunately it has a
few mechanical problems - nothing that couldn't be fixed I suppose.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations
in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.

....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
ineffable.

**Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with
real technical qualifications and abilities? Is that opposed to retired
librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? Is
that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?

You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.
Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. Just a
thought.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations
in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.

....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
ineffable.

**Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with
real technical qualifications and abilities?

At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
upscale amps and exotic wires.

Is that opposed to retired
librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance?

Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.

Is
that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?

At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
than other, decently built versions.

Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?

At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord. At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.

You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.

Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.

Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?

Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.

About amps and wires? Is that supposed to be you?

Howard Ferstler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were
grossly
mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
comments.

I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking
for
some truthfulness.

Then clean out your own house first, Harry.

Do you never look at the dynamic range
measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
player.

Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
equipment.


Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world'
as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles,
and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be
replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine.

Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
first and foremost to yourself.

Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered.

"Tristan" wrote in message
...
About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two
piece
portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for
close
to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and
exceeded
in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day
auction.
I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't
get
a
single bid.

But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
good, superbly built gear.

Couldn't agree more, Dad bought one in early-83 and it's stored away (with
tuner). The picture quality from the tapes from that period is superb
(much
better than some 8mm analogue footage from the 90s). Unfortunately it has
a
few mechanical problems - nothing that couldn't be fixed I suppose.


Not only that...they are easy to fix. I've had two repairmen swoon over the
thing when I've taken it in for an alignment and tune-up. The jist of their
swoon is "they sure don't build em like that anymore". "And when something
does go wrong, we have to replace the whole thing...not like this baby."

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Do you never look at the dynamic range
measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
player.

Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
equipment.

Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world'
as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles,
and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be
replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine.

Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
first and foremost to yourself.

Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered.

Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.

The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is
surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the
"subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called
high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP
synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make
it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or
DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original
releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given
the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to
producing the new version. Note that this refers to
concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop
recordings that often have instruments all around the
listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount
of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can
duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares?

In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth
"advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless
embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs
no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or
transparent.

Phoniness has finally taken over audio.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their
expectations
in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.

....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
ineffable.

**Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those
with
real technical qualifications and abilities?

At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
upscale amps and exotic wires.

**Would you care to phrase that in English?


Is that opposed to retired
librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance?

Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.

**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
circuit is not zero Ohms?


Is
that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?

At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
than other, decently built versions.

**Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
amplifiers I referred you to. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. Some of us,
however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment. I
suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years
studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be
able to converse at the same level.


Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?

At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord.

**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. You can
ignore facts and figures all you wish. It still does not make you right.

At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.

**Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Yet you have no in-depth
knowledge about the topic. All you understand is the superficial stuff.


You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.

**And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. You
have no experience with the amp in question anyway.


Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.

Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?

**Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.


Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.

About amps and wires?

**About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About
much, much more.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Do you never look at the dynamic range
measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
player.

Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
equipment.

Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real
world'
as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other
audiophiles,
and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't
be
replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine.

Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
first and foremost to yourself.

Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered.

Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.

The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is
surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the
"subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called
high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP
synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make
it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or
DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original
releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given
the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to
producing the new version. Note that this refers to
concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop
recordings that often have instruments all around the
listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount
of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can
duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares?

In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth
"advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless
embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs
no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or
transparent.

Phoniness has finally taken over audio.


Nice little rant, Howard. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the
topic Arny and I were discussing.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
upscale amps and exotic wires.

**Would you care to phrase that in English?

You con people. In addition, you may also be conning
yourself. I do not know which is worse.

Is that opposed to retired
librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance?

Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.

**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
circuit is not zero Ohms?

As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
with a speaker load it might as well be zero.

Is
that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?

At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
than other, decently built versions.

**Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
amplifiers I referred you to.

Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
otherwise, you are a con artist.

Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.

I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
scam.

Some of us,
however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment.

Maybe so. However, additional education in the realms of
both common sense and ethics would not hurt.

I
suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years
studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be
able to converse at the same level.

How many additional years of con-artist training will I need
to be as good at the job as you?

Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?

At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord.

**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.

Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.

At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.

**Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.

Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.

Yet you have no in-depth
knowledge about the topic.

I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.
Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
are you sure you care to continue?

All you understand is the superficial stuff.

For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
stuff."

You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.

**And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others.

I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.

You
have no experience with the amp in question anyway.

I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.

Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.

Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?

**Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.

I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
gear.

Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.

About amps and wires?

**About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About
much, much more.

OK, here is your chance to repent. Admit that all good amps
sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
applications good, decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire. If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.

Howard Ferstler

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.

The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is
surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the
"subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called
high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP
synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make
it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or
DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original
releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given
the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to
producing the new version. Note that this refers to
concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop
recordings that often have instruments all around the
listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount
of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can
duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares?

In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth
"advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless
embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs
no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or
transparent.

Phoniness has finally taken over audio.

Nice little rant, Howard. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the
topic Arny and I were discussing.

Close enough, actually. It has plenty to do with you,
however.

That you con people into getting into an excitable twist
over the so-called superior sound of any kind of player (CD
or DVD, or whatever), particularly if we are talking about
per-channel sound quality (rather than surround-sound
abilities) shows that phoniness has indeed taken over audio.

Sure, some players hold up better than others, but even then
price does not necessarily determine which player will last
and which will not. However, in terms of actual sound
quality I will opine that a good Best-Buy or Circuit City
offered DVD player costing $100 bucks will sound as
subjectively good playing CD recordings as the very best
exotic player you come up with. Yes, your player might have
a measurable edge, but the ears will not pick up on that
advantage.

Yeah, I realize that selling people on high-end and
high-priced sound is important to you. It isn't important to
me, however.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.

Careful! Howard's been known to retract an apology.

Stephen

wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
price of the laser assembly.

Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for
$200USD?

Thanks


With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these:
Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard
them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one
up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites.

Cheers

Dean

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.

Careful! Howard's been known to retract an apology.

Stephen

As soon as the con artist puts his con-artist suit back on
and resumes his game.

Howard Ferstler

dean wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
price of the laser assembly.

Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for
$200USD?

Thanks


With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these:
Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard
them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one
up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites.

Cheers

Dean

Any good player selling for under $200 (note that he did not
say $2000) should work as well as any exotic selling for any
price. When it breaks, replace it with a newer model selling
for about the same thing. You can buy a lot of cheap players
for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will
sound as good as any of them.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.

Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com


Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same.

This would be a lie.

Could you tell us the nature of the differences between
players, Arnie?

Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety
of reasons.

But most listeners would never hear those differences when
listening to musical source material, particularly for
pleasure.

Howard Ferstler