The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:23:33 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

I seem to have missed that thread. It's an area I'm well experienced
with.

Can you point me to it.

No. I've already decided I don't like you, thanks.

Am I too reasonable and scientific for you ?

Curious response - ' I don't like you, therefore your knowledge / opinions
/ contribution are unwelcome ' !

Sounds like pretty blinkered thinking to me. Is this some kind of weird
personality cult here ?


Graahm

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

Actually, if you read what I said, I *did* say and/or, but if
somebody can identify differences as due to distortion, then
presumably they have already made the distinction that they are
different. The use of and/or was via force of habit. I'm quite
aware that there are different types of distortion that can be
measured.

I'm still diving in a pile of literature that seems to sat that
problems in the time domain can certainly be responsible for things
like listening fatigue, detailing and imaging.

Problems in the time domain - problems in the frequency domain - all the
things you said.

I also happen to think that loop (global) feedback, when applied
heavily, can create certain dstortions that weren't there before, and
also in some cases have no relation with the original signal.

Sander, you've lost track of the whole forest while focusing too intently on
a tiny piece of dust on one tree. If all forms of distortion are too small
to hear, it makes no practical difference what they are.

Because of our relatively simple measuring methods (at least the ones
I'm familiar with as a hobbyist!) , some of those distortions are
still either unknown or unnamed.

Wrong. There are in fact only two types of distortion, linear and nonlinear.
It's no problem to measure all relevant attributes of all possible forms of
either of them.

While I'm reading on, I might discover that these types of distortion
*are* measurable, but somehow never quoted in commercial literature
about audio components.

Please be more specific.

And that brings me to the following: we're still looking at "audio"
with a too narrow view, IMO.

We should direct our attention to the system as a whole, including the
room acoustics.

You mean like I have, for the entirety of my time on Usenet and dozens of
years before that?

Then, and only then, we might get a glimpse about what serious
reproduction is all about.

Of course.

And again IMO, it might entirely be possible that a SET amp with THD
levels of 1...5% (which in itself are meaningless unless the
*spectrum* is published as well) might give a more realistic
reproduction of a certain musical event than a Crook 2000 Special BJT
monster with DF of 10.000, FR of DC to light and distortion of
nanopercents.

The most likely audible failings of a SET are high output impedance and lack
of power.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Sander deWaal wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

p.s. I assume you mean .nl at the end of your email address as opposed
to .ln ?

Yep, spamblock.
AAMOF, I'm on an entirely different provider now because old Demon
reacted so slow in my request to be connected to ADSL again.
I still use the demon account however, in about 3 months it'll be
closed..

ISPs are so unreliable these days.

Graham

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?








Maybe because there is no sensible connection between vanilla and pace.

The Devil wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:02:11 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Am I too reasonable and scientific for you ?

I haven't noticed reasonableness or science from you.

In which case you must be blind.


Curious response - ' I don't like you, therefore your knowledge / opinions
/ contribution are unwelcome ' ! Sounds like pretty blinkered thinking to
me. Is this some kind of weird personality cult here ?

No. I simply have no desire to have a conversation with you.

Ok. Clearly there is some kind of cult here.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

The Devil wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:02:11 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Am I too reasonable and scientific for you ?

I haven't noticed reasonableness or science from you.

In which case you must be blind.

Based on past experience, blind drunk would be a distinct possibility.

Curious response - ' I don't like you, therefore your knowledge /
opinions / contribution are unwelcome ' ! Sounds like pretty
blinkered thinking to me. Is this some kind of weird personality
cult here ?

No. I simply have no desire to have a conversation with you.

Ok. Clearly there is some kind of cult here.

Indeed. Or a lot of sockpuppets.

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Pooh Bear

I *so* love those revies where the reviewer talks about the *pace* of an
amplifier don't you ?

Since it has no meaning it can't be refuted !

Pace doesn't have meaning?
Main Entry: [1]pace
Pronunciation: 'pAs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pas, from Old French, step, from Latin passus, from
pandere to spread €”more at FATHOM
Date: 14th century
1 a : rate of movement; especially : an established rate of locomotion.

I was referring to *pace* in the context of an audio discussion.

I'm well aware of 'musical pace' - I've never seen a clear discussion as to how
an amplifier changes it however ! ;-)

Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what writers
are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected without changing
the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

And how do you think an amplifier changes that ? ( aside from a marketing con to
get ppl to buy the flavour of the month product ).


Graham

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 3:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It would be interested to observe the results of carefully
controlled double blind tests between my amplifier, for example, a
coinrad-johnson Premier 11A, and an equivalent SS design. If the
listeners can not distinguish between them at a 95% significance
level and/or identify that difference as due to distortion, where's
the evidence that, as Krueger claims, "audible noise & distortion"
are part of my audio system.

Let's put it this way, Richman. If your tubed amp sounds no
different from a good SS amp, then your preference for its sound
over of that of a good SS amp would be delusional behavior on your
part. If your tubed amp sounds different from a good SS amp, then
your preference for its sound would be evidence of preference for
the sound of music with audible noise and distortion added.

Which is it?

Narrow POVs suffer the burden of few choices. The correct answer was
not offered by you as an option.

So, what option is there besides a tubed amp sounding the same as a SS
amp,
and a tubed amp not sounding the same as a SS amp?



As to why it might sound different, and as to why, if there is a difference,
the SS sound might be less preferable.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 8/13/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Dr. Richman said:

Mr. Phillips said:




Dr. Richman said:

For the record, I'm happy to admit that I take Melatonin as a sleep
aid.
And
I
highly recommend this natural neurohormone, available iwthout
presciption
at
most health food, vitamin and drug stores.

Last night I took Lagavulin as a sleep aid. It worked wonderfully,
and
I
woke
up feeling like a hundred bucks!

Boon








LOL !!1

Maybe I should combine the 2. (Although I'm not much of a Scotch
drinker).

I came home from work yesterday to find everyone in my neighborhood
sitting on
my front porch and yard. At first I thought something bad had
happened,
and
then I realized, no, my wife was just making mango and strawberry
margaritas
for everyone with her new Cuisinart blender.

I had to break out the Scotch because I hate margaritas.

Boon

BTW, I will be in San Diego Labor Day weekend, Friday through Sunday
if you want to get together, The two Scotts should note this also.









Noted

I noted your note. I hope we can all get together.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

The Devil wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:02:11 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Am I too reasonable and scientific for you ?

I haven't noticed reasonableness or science from you.

In which case you must be blind.

Based on past experience, blind drunk would be a distinct possibility.

Curious response - ' I don't like you, therefore your knowledge /
opinions / contribution are unwelcome ' ! Sounds like pretty
blinkered thinking to me. Is this some kind of weird personality
cult here ?

No. I simply have no desire to have a conversation with you.

Ok. Clearly there is some kind of cult here.

Indeed. Or a lot of sockpuppets.



It's good to see the wizard.........

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little Feat?
They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Maybe because there is no sensible connection between vanilla and pace.

Prove it.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little Feat?
They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

Interesting concept - anthropomorphizing electronics.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


And how do you think an amplifier changes that ? ( aside from a
marketing con to get ppl to buy the flavour of the month product ).

This is apparently part of your religion -- if a box makes a
difference in the way a system sounds, you don't believe it's real
unless you can hatch a nest full of schematics and specs that
"explain" it to your satisfaction.

..and the Middius religion is composed of beleiving something is real because
someone claims it is true.

Regular humans don't need that kind of reassurance.

That's why there are no such things as amplifier specs and technical tests.

For us, comparing audio equipment is the same as any other endeavor we do
for pleasure.

In Middius' case that means doing it his way, no matter how senseless it is.
Mostly it means not doing it at all.

If something meets our needs, we like it.

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.

Have you ever drunk a nice
glass of wine, or rode a bike down a country lane, or fired a
high-powered rifle?

Dooohhh!

In all of those activities, the equipment (or the
potable) is a key factor in the enjoyment.

Not necessarily.

Do you have to know
exactly why you like the trigger better on a certain rifle, or why
you're more comfortable on a certain bike?

I thought that the country lane was the point of riding a bike down it.

We certainly don't.

Who is this we, Middius? BTW there can't be a we because being a
sockpuppet, you are not even one person yourself, let alone being more than
one person.

We find what we like better, and that's the point.

Oh Middius, this is more of your "Things are exactly as I perceive them no
matter how incorrect or illusory my perceptions are" religion?

The point for you seems to lie elsewhere entirely.

Reliable reality has more charm for many people than living in a world of
illusion.

For some reason,
you've been having a lot of fun searching in Krooger's rectum.

And somehow searching in Middius' rectum is a better experience? I'll bet
money more people have been searching in Middius' rectum than Krueger's
rectum!

I hope you find what you want there, but please don't relate the details
of
your search.

Why not? You've got something against free speech Middius?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 3:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It would be interested to observe the results of carefully
controlled double blind tests between my amplifier, for example, a
coinrad-johnson Premier 11A, and an equivalent SS design. If the
listeners can not distinguish between them at a 95% significance
level and/or identify that difference as due to distortion,
where's the evidence that, as Krueger claims, "audible noise &
distortion" are part of my audio system.

Let's put it this way, Richman. If your tubed amp sounds no
different from a good SS amp, then your preference for its sound
over of that of a good SS amp would be delusional behavior on your
part. If your tubed amp sounds different from a good SS amp, then
your preference for its sound would be evidence of preference for
the sound of music with audible noise and distortion added.

Which is it?

Narrow POVs suffer the burden of few choices. The correct answer was
not offered by you as an option.

So, what option is there
besides a tubed amp sounding the same as a SS amp,
and a tubed amp not sounding the same as a SS amp?

As to why it might sound different, and as to why, if there is a
difference, the SS sound might be less preferable.

Try answering the question this time, Slick, er Art or whatever you need to
call yourself this week.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little Feat?
They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

Interesting concept - anthropomorphizing electronics.


Interesting concept - introducing music into a discussion of audio.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message


And how do you think an amplifier changes that ? ( aside from a
marketing con to get ppl to buy the flavour of the month product ).

This is apparently part of your religion -- if a box makes a
difference in the way a system sounds, you don't believe it's real
unless you can hatch a nest full of schematics and specs that
"explain" it to your satisfaction.

.and the Middius religion is composed of beleiving something is real
because
someone claims it is true.

Regular humans don't need that kind of reassurance.

That's why there are no such things as amplifier specs and technical
tests.

For us, comparing audio equipment is the same as any other endeavor we
do
for pleasure.

In Middius' case that means doing it his way, no matter how senseless it
is.
Mostly it means not doing it at all.

If something meets our needs, we like it.

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.

Have you ever drunk a nice
glass of wine, or rode a bike down a country lane, or fired a
high-powered rifle?

Dooohhh!

In all of those activities, the equipment (or the
potable) is a key factor in the enjoyment.

Not necessarily.

Do you have to know
exactly why you like the trigger better on a certain rifle, or why
you're more comfortable on a certain bike?

I thought that the country lane was the point of riding a bike down it.

We certainly don't.

Who is this we, Middius? BTW there can't be a we because being a
sockpuppet, you are not even one person yourself, let alone being more
than
one person.

We find what we like better, and that's the point.

Oh Middius, this is more of your "Things are exactly as I perceive them no
matter how incorrect or illusory my perceptions are" religion?

The point for you seems to lie elsewhere entirely.

Reliable reality has more charm for many people than living in a world of
illusion.

For some reason,
you've been having a lot of fun searching in Krooger's rectum.

And somehow searching in Middius' rectum is a better experience? I'll bet
money more people have been searching in Middius' rectum than Krueger's
rectum!

I hope you find what you want there, but please don't relate the
details
of
your search.

Why not? You've got something against free speech Middius?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that
what writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be
affected without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little
Feat? They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

Interesting concept - anthropomorphizing electronics.

Interesting concept - introducing music into a discussion of audio.

Nahh, real music is a lot more interesting than your lame musings, Art.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.


He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one with
the brown stripe down the middle.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.


He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one with
the brown stripe down the middle.

I don't have a special dining room chair. Try again, Slick.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Torresists wrote:

Subject: Equalizers
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 1:31 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

So, what option is there besides a tubed amp sounding the same as a SS
amp,
and a tubed amp not sounding the same as a SS amp?

It tastes like vanilla, smells like cedar, has a very liquid midrange
with
outstanding microdynamics. Great pace and timing! Very musical!!

(Any openings at Stereophool? ;- )

Chuckle !

I *so* love those revies where the reviewer talks about the *pace* of an
amplifier don't you ?

Since it has no meaning it can't be refuted !


The 'pace' of an amplifier would be measured by how quickly
it walks across the floor. I think we have been talking about the
'music' here.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:23:33 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

I seem to have missed that thread. It's an area I'm well experienced
with.

Can you point me to it.

No. I've already decided I don't like you, thanks.

Am I too reasonable and scientific for you ?

Curious response - ' I don't like you, therefore your knowledge / opinions
/ contribution are unwelcome ' !

Sounds like pretty blinkered thinking to me. Is this some kind of weird
personality cult here ?


Graahm


I challenge you to stick it out for six months before
you make up your mind about Krueger's personality.
It shouldn't be long before the Beast slimes you, too,
lest you ever fail to be the loyal sycophant.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 3:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It would be interested to observe the results of carefully
controlled double blind tests between my amplifier, for example, a
coinrad-johnson Premier 11A, and an equivalent SS design. If the
listeners can not distinguish between them at a 95% significance
level and/or identify that difference as due to distortion,
where's the evidence that, as Krueger claims, "audible noise &
distortion" are part of my audio system.

Let's put it this way, Richman. If your tubed amp sounds no
different from a good SS amp, then your preference for its sound
over of that of a good SS amp would be delusional behavior on your
part. If your tubed amp sounds different from a good SS amp, then
your preference for its sound would be evidence of preference for
the sound of music with audible noise and distortion added.

Which is it?

Narrow POVs suffer the burden of few choices. The correct answer was
not offered by you as an option.

So, what option is there
besides a tubed amp sounding the same as a SS amp,
and a tubed amp not sounding the same as a SS amp?

As to why it might sound different, and as to why, if there is a
difference, the SS sound might be less preferable.

Try answering the question this time, Slick, er Art or whatever you need
to
call yourself this week.



Your second question, in answer to the comment about
your first question, has naught to do with your first question.
Be good boy and try to find out what was wrong with your
first question

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 3:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It would be interested to observe the results of carefully
controlled double blind tests between my amplifier, for
example, a coinrad-johnson Premier 11A, and an equivalent SS
design. If the listeners can not distinguish between them at a
95% significance level and/or identify that difference as due
to distortion, where's the evidence that, as Krueger claims,
"audible noise & distortion" are part of my audio system.

Let's put it this way, Richman. If your tubed amp sounds no
different from a good SS amp, then your preference for its sound
over of that of a good SS amp would be delusional behavior on
your part. If your tubed amp sounds different from a good SS
amp, then your preference for its sound would be evidence of
preference for the sound of music with audible noise and
distortion added.

Which is it?

Narrow POVs suffer the burden of few choices. The correct answer
was not offered by you as an option.

So, what option is there
besides a tubed amp sounding the same as a SS amp,
and a tubed amp not sounding the same as a SS amp?

As to why it might sound different, and as to why, if there is a
difference, the SS sound might be less preferable.

Try answering the question this time, Slick, er Art or whatever you
need to call yourself this week.

Your second question, in answer to the comment about
your first question, has naught to do with your first question.
Be good boy and try to find out what was wrong with your
first question

OK, so you've painted yourself into a corner Art. Post again when the paint
dries.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that
what writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be
affected without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little
Feat? They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

Interesting concept - anthropomorphizing electronics.

Interesting concept - introducing music into a discussion of audio.

Nahh, real music is a lot more interesting than your lame musings, Art.


too bad that in your world it has so little to
do with audio.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.


He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one with
the brown stripe down the middle.

I don't have a special dining room chair. Try again, Slick.



Ok, so they all have the brown stripe.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.


He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one
with the brown stripe down the middle.

I don't have a special dining room chair. Try again, Slick.

Ok, so they all have the brown stripe.

No stripe at all - they are solid oak.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 3:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It would be interested to observe the results of carefully
controlled double blind tests between my amplifier, for
example, a coinrad-johnson Premier 11A, and an equivalent SS
design. If the listeners can not distinguish between them at a
95% significance level and/or identify that difference as due
to distortion, where's the evidence that, as Krueger claims,
"audible noise & distortion" are part of my audio system.

Let's put it this way, Richman. If your tubed amp sounds no
different from a good SS amp, then your preference for its sound
over of that of a good SS amp would be delusional behavior on
your part. If your tubed amp sounds different from a good SS
amp, then your preference for its sound would be evidence of
preference for the sound of music with audible noise and
distortion added.

Which is it?

Narrow POVs suffer the burden of few choices. The correct answer
was not offered by you as an option.

So, what option is there
besides a tubed amp sounding the same as a SS amp,
and a tubed amp not sounding the same as a SS amp?

As to why it might sound different, and as to why, if there is a
difference, the SS sound might be less preferable.

Try answering the question this time, Slick, er Art or whatever you
need to call yourself this week.

Your second question, in answer to the comment about
your first question, has naught to do with your first question.
Be good boy and try to find out what was wrong with your
first question

OK, so you've painted yourself into a corner Art. Post again when the
paint
dries.


have you, or have you not, stopped whoring Susan in
the back alley?

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what writers
are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected without changing
the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

And how do you think an amplifier changes that ? ( aside from a marketing con to
get ppl to buy the flavour of the month product ).

This is apparently part of your religion -- if a box makes a difference in
the way a system sounds, you don't believe it's real unless you can hatch a
nest full of schematics and specs that "explain" it to your satisfaction.

No *religion* involved.

It was posted in this thread that pace is a measure of time.

If you're asserting that amplifier *X* can change the flow of time so as to provide
increased *pace* then you are clearly a charlatan of the first order.

The problem, IMHO, is that said reviewers talking about *pace* can't find a suitable
more suitable scientific description to describe what they hear. Maybe they should try
harder ?

By talking about *pace* they make their reviews sound idiotic since amplifiers aren't
time machines !

A more reasoned approach to reviewing using scientifically meaningful descriptions
would be a first step in resolving what the reviewer is actually hearing.

Regular humans don't need that kind of reassurance.

You prefer to believe the marketing pseudo-babble ?

Comfort factor ? Is that the re-assurance you refer to - as in ' I paid lots so it
must be good ' ?

For us, comparing audio
equipment is the same as any other endeavor we do for pleasure. If
something meets our needs, we like it.

Nothing wrong with that.

Have you ever drunk a nice glass of
wine, or rode a bike down a country lane, or fired a high-powered rifle?

Not the rifle - but yes.

In all of those activities, the equipment (or the potable) is a key factor in
the enjoyment. Do you have to know exactly why you like the trigger better
on a certain rifle, or why you're more comfortable on a certain bike? We
certainly don't. We find what we like better, and that's the point.

Again - perfectly reasonable that you like certain things.

What grates with the scientific approach that, as a pro-audio guy, I believe is
appropriate is that - for example - proponents of valve amplifiers with their well
recognised technical 'defects' ( characteristics if you prefer ) choose to promote
them as *better* than their solid state equivalents and then promote this opinion as a
matter of almost religious faith / fact. Some then go on to attempt to endow triodes
e.g with a *magic sound*. I find this approach laughable.

I have no argument with anyone who likes to listen to a valve amplifier. If that's
what rocks his / her boat - so be it ! Don't mislead yourself as to its true
characteristics however.

It is disingenuous for the valve lover to promote that technology as *better* in an
*absolute* way.

*Better* is subjective to the listener. If you like a valve amp for example - please
enjoy. Just don't criticise the listeners to various solid state amplifiers who prefer
the detailed definition that in turn we ( i.e. including me ) feel can be resolved by
our preferred solution.

OK, we can point to the fact that high perfomance SS amps have stunning tech
performance numbers that put valve equivalents to shame. That doesn't spoil the valve
lovers listening experience however. I know that.

In the end however the listening experience is what counts - despite anyone's take on
the meaningfullness of the 'numbers'

It simply may not be the case that 'technically accurate' reproduction provides the
best listening experience for some listeners.

This shouldn't be a reason for disparaging each others chosen preference. Rather, it
would be interesting to discuss why and how different ppl prefer the characteristics
of the listening experience that they choose.

The point for you seems to lie elsewhere entirely. For some reason, you've
been having a lot of fun searching in Krooger's rectum. I hope you find
what you want there, but please don't relate the details of your search.

That's a silly comment worthy of those I have just criticised.

Please rethink more carefully.


Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little Feat?
They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

Interesting concept - anthropomorphizing electronics.

OK - that's funny.

Sadly Clyde may not 'get it'. I hope he does though.


Graham

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.

He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one with
the brown stripe down the middle.

It's comments like that that reveal you to be lacking /devoid of comment
worth considering meaningfully.

Personal abuse drivel marks you as a a non-contributor to anything of
meaning.


Graham

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.


He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one
with the brown stripe down the middle.

I don't have a special dining room chair. Try again, Slick.

Ok, so they all have the brown stripe.

No stripe at all - they are solid oak.



"at least' they are easy to clean.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...



What grates with the scientific approach that, as a pro-audio guy, I
believe is
appropriate is that - for example - proponents of valve amplifiers with
their well
recognised technical 'defects' ( characteristics if you prefer ) choose to
promote
them as *better* than their solid state equivalents and then promote this
opinion as a
matter of almost religious faith / fact. Some then go on to attempt to
endow triodes
e.g with a *magic sound*. I find this approach laughable.


well, some people think they sound better. Nothing worng
with promoting that either. If you 'don't think
they sound better, just don't buy one.

I have no argument with anyone who likes to listen to a valve amplifier.
If that's
what rocks his / her boat - so be it ! Don't mislead yourself as to its
true
characteristics however.


Some people think, in general, they sound better.
whether or not it is a 'true' characterisitc,
one cannot say. Nor can one impute the
'truth' that they sound worse.
The only 'truth' one can impute are measurements,
for whatever that is worth, and for whatever relevance
that may or not have to what one person thinks
sounds better, or worse.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...



What grates with the scientific approach that, as a pro-audio guy, I
believe is
appropriate is that - for example - proponents of valve amplifiers with
their well
recognised technical 'defects' ( characteristics if you prefer ) choose to
promote
them as *better* than their solid state equivalents and then promote this
opinion as a
matter of almost religious faith / fact. Some then go on to attempt to
endow triodes
e.g with a *magic sound*. I find this approach laughable.


well, some people think they sound better. Nothing worng
with promoting that either. If you 'don't think
they sound better, just don't buy one.

I have no argument with anyone who likes to listen to a valve amplifier.
If that's
what rocks his / her boat - so be it ! Don't mislead yourself as to its
true
characteristics however.


Some people think, in general, they sound better.
whether or not it is a 'true' characterisitc,
one cannot say. Nor can one impute the
'truth' that they sound worse.
The only 'truth' one can impute are measurements,
for whatever that is worth, and for whatever relevance
that may or not have to what one person thinks
sounds better, or worse.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Why not listen to the Rolling Stones, Allman Brothers or Little Feat?
They can show you some sense of different paces
within a regular beat.

Interesting concept - anthropomorphizing electronics.

OK - that's funny.

Sadly Clyde may not 'get it'. I hope he does though.

Maybe Pooh Bear does not get that I wastalking about the music,
not electronics. I know its a very hard concept to grasp,
but with your intellect, you may eventually 'get it'.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've made a policy of not failling in love with my posessions.

He's finally willing to part with his dining room chair, the one with
the brown stripe down the middle.

It's comments like that that reveal you to be lacking /devoid of comment
worth considering meaningfully.

Personal abuse drivel marks you as a a non-contributor to anything of
meaning.


However, it warms my heart to find you following me down the
path of personal retribution. Although, I would be almost as
glad for you to forgo this and stick with the technobabbble, cause
eventually you will cross swords with the mighty Krueger,
and I so much want to see the **** fly between the two of you.

Clyde Slick wrote:

Maybe Pooh Bear does not get that I wastalking about the music,
not electronics. I know its a very hard concept to grasp,
but with your intellect, you may eventually 'get it'.

In another thread in another group a poster recently commented that he heard
Joni Mitchell on a very poor TV sound system but was moved by the performance.

I was one of the first to explain that it isn't the sound equipment that gives
that experience - it is the performer.

Increased quality of reproduction simply enhances the effect, it does not
substitute or replace it.


Graham

Clyde Slick wrote:

The only 'truth' one can impute are measurements,
for whatever that is worth, and for whatever relevance
that may or not have to what one person thinks
sounds better, or worse.

I have personally found a high degree of correlation between equipment that
measures *well* and equipment that sounds *better*.

I don't find that entirely surprising.


Graham

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Some people think, in general, they sound better.

Which may be a reliable perception, or may be an illusion.

whether or not it is a 'true' characterisitc, one cannot say.

The means for separating illusions from reliable perceptions are well-known,
particularly in audio.

Nor can one impute the 'truth' that they sound worse.

Wrong.


The only 'truth' one can impute are measurements,
for whatever that is worth, and for whatever relevance
that may or not have to what one person thinks
sounds better, or worse.

That would be one of your religious beliefs, Art/Clyde/George/Michael
whatever.