Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Bipoloar transistors do exihibit secondary breakdown and current hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability should be no worse than a MOSFET amp. The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Bipoloar transistors do exihibit secondary breakdown and current hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability should be no worse than a MOSFET amp. The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Bipoloar transistors do exihibit secondary breakdown and current hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability should be no worse than a MOSFET amp. The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? It is true that MOSFET devices sometimes have greater inherent durability, while BJT devices MUST be used with carefully-engineered protection circuitry. Bipoloar transistors do exhibit secondary breakdown and current hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability should be no worse than a MOSFET amp. Agreed. Morein doesn't seem to understand the kind of tough use and abuse that well-engineered BJT amps routinely tolerate and even thrive on, with appropriate circuit design. It took a while for engineers to figure out how to protect BJT output stages from use and abuse, but that was all over decades ago. The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the reasons right - cost and availability. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? It is true that MOSFET devices sometimes have greater inherent durability, while BJT devices MUST be used with carefully-engineered protection circuitry. Bipoloar transistors do exhibit secondary breakdown and current hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability should be no worse than a MOSFET amp. Agreed. Morein doesn't seem to understand the kind of tough use and abuse that well-engineered BJT amps routinely tolerate and even thrive on, with appropriate circuit design. It took a while for engineers to figure out how to protect BJT output stages from use and abuse, but that was all over decades ago. The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the reasons right - cost and availability. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? It is true that MOSFET devices sometimes have greater inherent durability, while BJT devices MUST be used with carefully-engineered protection circuitry. Bipoloar transistors do exhibit secondary breakdown and current hogging/thermal runaway. However, in a competent design both issues can be firmly addressed. Reliability and durability should be no worse than a MOSFET amp. Agreed. Morein doesn't seem to understand the kind of tough use and abuse that well-engineered BJT amps routinely tolerate and even thrive on, with appropriate circuit design. It took a while for engineers to figure out how to protect BJT output stages from use and abuse, but that was all over decades ago. The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the reasons right - cost and availability. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote Since the consensus 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. Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. "would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences? Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable emperical 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. Krell, Levinson and others could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too. True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated. How would you know? I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load. Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's application/needs? See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2 ohm load". So what? The poster has not described his speakers and has not complained about the ability to drive them. You need a bigger shovel, Arny. RMS load rating is not the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction. So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels. You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked. In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different, and more relevant. Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you. It is only one factor of many to consider. Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels. Top Ten of important factors to consider: 1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences. 2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power amp. 3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound stage and microdynamics. 4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements for placement in the user's setup. 5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability. 6. Budget. 7. Quality and fit-and-finish. 8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any? 9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on loudness? 10. Special requirements such as input like XLR, vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed, etc. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a heart beat. Quack, quack, quack... So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen and small children? The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader . |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote Since the consensus 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. Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. "would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences? Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable emperical 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. Krell, Levinson and others could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too. True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated. How would you know? I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load. Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's application/needs? See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2 ohm load". So what? The poster has not described his speakers and has not complained about the ability to drive them. You need a bigger shovel, Arny. RMS load rating is not the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction. So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels. You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked. In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different, and more relevant. Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you. It is only one factor of many to consider. Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels. Top Ten of important factors to consider: 1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences. 2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power amp. 3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound stage and microdynamics. 4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements for placement in the user's setup. 5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability. 6. Budget. 7. Quality and fit-and-finish. 8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any? 9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on loudness? 10. Special requirements such as input like XLR, vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed, etc. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a heart beat. Quack, quack, quack... So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen and small children? The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader . |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote Since the consensus 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. Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. "would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences? Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable emperical 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. Krell, Levinson and others could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too. True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated. How would you know? I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load. Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's application/needs? See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2 ohm load". So what? The poster has not described his speakers and has not complained about the ability to drive them. You need a bigger shovel, Arny. RMS load rating is not the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction. So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels. You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked. In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different, and more relevant. Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you. It is only one factor of many to consider. Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels. Top Ten of important factors to consider: 1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences. 2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power amp. 3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound stage and microdynamics. 4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements for placement in the user's setup. 5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability. 6. Budget. 7. Quality and fit-and-finish. 8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any? 9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on loudness? 10. Special requirements such as input like XLR, vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed, etc. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a heart beat. Quack, quack, quack... So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen and small children? The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader . |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new solid state amps have MOSFET outputs. greg |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new solid state amps have MOSFET outputs. greg |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new solid state amps have MOSFET outputs. greg |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the reasons right - cost and availability. Obviously, you're correct. I meant BJT but had MOSFET on the brain. My bad. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the reasons right - cost and availability. Obviously, you're correct. I meant BJT but had MOSFET on the brain. My bad. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... The reason MOSFET output stages are ubiquitous these days is cost and availability. Actually, it's BJT output stages that are ubiquitous but you've got the reasons right - cost and availability. Obviously, you're correct. I meant BJT but had MOSFET on the brain. My bad. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Powell" wrote in message
... Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable emperical 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". Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really worthless. 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. Q&A is instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how outrageous. I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers are quite low. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Powell" wrote in message
... Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable emperical 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". Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really worthless. 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. Q&A is instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how outrageous. I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers are quite low. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Powell" wrote in message
... Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable emperical 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". Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really worthless. 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. Q&A is instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I failed to renew a few months ago. My colleagues and I took great enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every month. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how outrageous. I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers are quite low. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"gregs" wrote in message . .. In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new solid state amps have MOSFET outputs. greg 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. 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. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail 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. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"gregs" wrote in message . .. In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new solid state amps have MOSFET outputs. greg 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. 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. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail 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. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"gregs" wrote in message . .. In article , "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. Really? That's an exceptional claim. Why do you claim MOSFETs amps are any more durable than a bipolar output stage amp? Except for switching amps, car audio uses almost exclusively bipolar output designs, down to below 2 ohms. Seems like ruggedness in solid state amps is advertising propaganda, but few new solid state amps have MOSFET outputs. greg 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. 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. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail 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. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled listening test. Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing. Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachible, Morein. You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements. The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is simply missing. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or neural processing. 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. Tell us why you shower with a firehose. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled listening test. Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing. Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachible, Morein. You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements. The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is simply missing. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or neural processing. 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. Tell us why you shower with a firehose. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled listening test. Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing. Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachible, Morein. You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements. The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is simply missing. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or neural processing. 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. Tell us why you shower with a firehose. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
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. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
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. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
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. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote Since the consensus 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. Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. "would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences? 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. Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna, Alesis, Yamaha, etc. 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. Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience. Krell, Levinson and others could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too. True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated. How would you know? Been there, done that. I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load. Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's application/needs? See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2 ohm load". So what? The poster has not described his speakers and has not complained about the ability to drive them. As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he may want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his choice on. You need a bigger shovel, Arny. Been there, done that. RMS load rating is not the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction. So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels. You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked. Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look "loose" and "half cocked". In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different, and more relevant. Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you. No problem. It is only one factor of many to consider. Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels. Top Ten of important factors to consider: 1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power amp. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound stage and microdynamics. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements for placement in the user's setup. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 6. Budget. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 7. Quality and fit-and-finish. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any? Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on loudness? Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 10. Special requirements such as input like XLR, vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed, etc. Too obvious. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a heart beat. Quack, quack, quack... So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen and small children? The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader . Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children? Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond properly to even the simplest of questions. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote Since the consensus 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. Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. "would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences? 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. Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna, Alesis, Yamaha, etc. 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. Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience. Krell, Levinson and others could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too. True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated. How would you know? Been there, done that. I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load. Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's application/needs? See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2 ohm load". So what? The poster has not described his speakers and has not complained about the ability to drive them. As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he may want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his choice on. You need a bigger shovel, Arny. Been there, done that. RMS load rating is not the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction. So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels. You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked. Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look "loose" and "half cocked". In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different, and more relevant. Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you. No problem. It is only one factor of many to consider. Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels. Top Ten of important factors to consider: 1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power amp. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound stage and microdynamics. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements for placement in the user's setup. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 6. Budget. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 7. Quality and fit-and-finish. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any? Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on loudness? Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 10. Special requirements such as input like XLR, vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed, etc. Too obvious. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a heart beat. Quack, quack, quack... So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen and small children? The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader . Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children? Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond properly to even the simplest of questions. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote Since the consensus 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. Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. "would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences? 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. Agreed. Listening to them and measuring is. Been there, done that when it comes to amps made by Crown, QSC, Hafler, Bryston, Parasound, Dyna, Alesis, Yamaha, etc. 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. Rubbish. Reading about amps is not experience. Krell, Levinson and others could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too. True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated. How would you know? Been there, done that. I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has 4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load. Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's application/needs? See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2 ohm load". So what? The poster has not described his speakers and has not complained about the ability to drive them. As you said Powell, so what. He may or may not have the problem, he may or may not know that he will have the problem, but its a situation that he may want to consider. I'm just providing evidence that he can use to base his choice on. You need a bigger shovel, Arny. Been there, done that. RMS load rating is not the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction. So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to useful volume levels. You're the only thing "loose" and half cocked. Personal attacks won't help your case, Powell. They just make you look "loose" and "half cocked". In fact there's no other spec that is vastly different, and more relevant. Relevant as a "loose relationship", according to you. No problem. It is only one factor of many to consider. Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels. Top Ten of important factors to consider: 1. The ability to satisfy the user's sound preferences. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 2. The compatibility of the pre-amp to drive the power amp. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 3. The fidelity of the amp to discern fine detail, sound stage and microdynamics. Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 4. Physical size limitations and cooling requirements for placement in the user's setup. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 5. Manufacturer's warranty and reliability. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 6. Budget. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 7. Quality and fit-and-finish. Irrelevant as a predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels and therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 8. Will it meet the needs for future expansion, if any? Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 9. Will the sound fidelity vary depending on loudness? Not a spec, therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. 10. Special requirements such as input like XLR, vacuum tube vs SS, number of channels needed, etc. Too obvious. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy meters in a heart beat. Quack, quack, quack... So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters that impress visiting-firemen and small children? The meters on the TFM line are very good, mr. meter reader . Good for what, impressing visiting-firemen and small children? Powell, thanks for again showing once again that you can't respond properly to even the simplest of questions. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled listening test. Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing. Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachable, Morein. You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements. Your inability to see simple logic is quite revealing, Morein. You complain that my hearing is questionable, but you apparently can't even understand the need to consider whether your hearing is any less questionable. You're belaboring the obvious - of course my hearing is questionable, and so is yours and that of everybody else on the group. The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is simply missing. Yes, I'm arguably less biased and prejudiced based on intangibles, then you are. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or neural processing. OK, which means that your hearing is just as questionable as mine. Therefore your attack on me based on the questionable nature of my hearing indicts you as well. In short, it is a self-defeating thing for you to do. The QSC is a piece of junk. OSAF. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please give whatever unqualified advice you wish to, Morein. It's a free country and you can make yourself look as silly as you would like to. Tell us why you shower with a firehose. Inefficient speakers - less than 85 dB/watt. Relatively large room. Desire for realistic sound levels. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled listening test. Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing. Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachable, Morein. You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements. Your inability to see simple logic is quite revealing, Morein. You complain that my hearing is questionable, but you apparently can't even understand the need to consider whether your hearing is any less questionable. You're belaboring the obvious - of course my hearing is questionable, and so is yours and that of everybody else on the group. The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is simply missing. Yes, I'm arguably less biased and prejudiced based on intangibles, then you are. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or neural processing. OK, which means that your hearing is just as questionable as mine. Therefore your attack on me based on the questionable nature of my hearing indicts you as well. In short, it is a self-defeating thing for you to do. The QSC is a piece of junk. OSAF. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please give whatever unqualified advice you wish to, Morein. It's a free country and you can make yourself look as silly as you would like to. Tell us why you shower with a firehose. Inefficient speakers - less than 85 dB/watt. Relatively large room. Desire for realistic sound levels. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. Thus says a guy who would apparently die ignorant and inexperienced rather than do a level-matched, time-synched bias-controlled listening test. Thusw says an engineer who has questionable hearing. Tell us why your hearing is unimpeachable, Morein. You have a nasty habit of replying to nonexistent statements. Your inability to see simple logic is quite revealing, Morein. You complain that my hearing is questionable, but you apparently can't even understand the need to consider whether your hearing is any less questionable. You're belaboring the obvious - of course my hearing is questionable, and so is yours and that of everybody else on the group. The fact that I can't stand the QSC, while you appear to love it, indicates to me that there is some element of your discriminatory ability that is simply missing. Yes, I'm arguably less biased and prejudiced based on intangibles, then you are. I do not know whether this is due to physical impairment or neural processing. OK, which means that your hearing is just as questionable as mine. Therefore your attack on me based on the questionable nature of my hearing indicts you as well. In short, it is a self-defeating thing for you to do. The QSC is a piece of junk. OSAF. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please give whatever unqualified advice you wish to, Morein. It's a free country and you can make yourself look as silly as you would like to. Tell us why you shower with a firehose. Inefficient speakers - less than 85 dB/watt. Relatively large room. Desire for realistic sound levels. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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. This has a much to do with the need for high speed at ultrasonic frequencies, as anything else. Probably more so. 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. The predominant means for protecting BJTs against thermal runaway is exactly feedback, feedback of a nonlinear nature. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail when pushed to the limit. Nonsense. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. That's not right, either. There are tons of BJTs in industrial power switching apps. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. This has a much to do with the need for high speed at ultrasonic frequencies, as anything else. Probably more so. 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. The predominant means for protecting BJTs against thermal runaway is exactly feedback, feedback of a nonlinear nature. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail when pushed to the limit. Nonsense. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. That's not right, either. There are tons of BJTs in industrial power switching apps. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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. This has a much to do with the need for high speed at ultrasonic frequencies, as anything else. Probably more so. 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. The predominant means for protecting BJTs against thermal runaway is exactly feedback, feedback of a nonlinear nature. Practical protective circuits exist, but they DO fail when pushed to the limit. Nonsense. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. That's not right, either. There are tons of BJTs in industrial power switching apps. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"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! 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. Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really worthless. Case in point TAS, which I was a charter subscriber to in my more gullible days. 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? Q&A is instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I failed to renew a few months ago. That's how it happened with me. My colleagues and I took great enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every month. Indeed. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how outrageous. Agreed. I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers are quite low. 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. 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; and that extreme portable audio is back as the hottest new thing after languishing for years due to the commoditization of the Walkman. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"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! 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. Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really worthless. Case in point TAS, which I was a charter subscriber to in my more gullible days. 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? Q&A is instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I failed to renew a few months ago. That's how it happened with me. My colleagues and I took great enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every month. Indeed. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how outrageous. Agreed. I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers are quite low. 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. 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; and that extreme portable audio is back as the hottest new thing after languishing for years due to the commoditization of the Walkman. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"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! 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. Although I subscribe to several print magazines they are really worthless. Case in point TAS, which I was a charter subscriber to in my more gullible days. 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? Q&A is instead usually Q & wrongA. Feature articles usually miss the mark even if they aren't scientifically flawed. I've kept all my mag subscriptions through the years except Stereophile which I failed to renew a few months ago. That's how it happened with me. My colleagues and I took great enjoyment from the gut busting laughs Stereophile offers every month. Indeed. For awhile, we made Top Ten lists for each issue and put them in the humor email list. In the end it just got boring laughing at the same stuff issue after issue no matter how outrageous. Agreed. I'd like to see a poll of how many true audio professionals get trade rags. Even including free subscriptions I bet the numbers are quite low. 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. 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; and that extreme portable audio is back as the hottest new thing after languishing for years due to the commoditization of the Walkman. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Book Review: Home Theater For Everyone: A Practical Guide ; Harley, Holman | General | |||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater | Audio Opinions | |||
Home Theater "Junkyard Wars" | Audio Opinions | |||
Home theater recommandation please | General | |||
Home Theater Upgrade Path | High End Audio |