paul packer said:

Same thing for automatic transmission in cars

And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
solid state amps and watery mass-market beer. The more distinctive
versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
paul packer wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
wrote:


Same thing for automatic transmission in cars


And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic
transmissions?

Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs.

Agreed. Also, not as much fun on the right road, but a
blessing in rush hour traffic. The repair cost issue is a
mixed bag. Most automatics can go the first 100,000 miles
without serious maintenance, while most stick shifts require
a new clutch before then. When you finally have to bite the
bullet, its not cheap either way, but that new clutch is
about half the price (installed) as that rebuilt automatic
transmission.

The automatic
transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the
way Detroit pushed them onto everyone.

People who say crap like this are also likely to say that
the CD ws pushed down everybody's throat. Both claims are
equally false, which is to say they are very, very false.

The manufacturers and dealers forced them on buyers
whenever possible.

LOL!

Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far
more to build a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an
automatic. Part of this is because of the additional
robustness that a stick car requires, and part of it is due
to the relatively low production volumes.

Yet for most of that time, the automatics commanded a
premium price. It was all about what the market would bear.

IOW, there was a huge demand for automatics despite the
artificially higher prices. No way were automatics being
shoved down people's throats.

In essence, the manufacturers "lost money" on every car they
made with a stick shift, but kept on making and selling them
because they were good for a car's sporty image if that
mattered in its market.

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

paul packer said:

Same thing for automatic transmission in cars

And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic
transmissions?

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for
everybody, just like solid state amps and watery
mass-market beer. The more distinctive versions are made
in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

The irony is that the manual transmission buyer is generally
a true individualist-enthusiast who is making an informed
decesion, because as a rule cars with manual transmissions
perform better. (There are notable exceptions, one example
being drag racing). OTOH the tubie is just following the
bogus lead set by the highly dysfunctional golden ear
press.

It's no longer a slam dunk that the automatic transmission
car has poorer performance. I notice that a lot of rally
cars have automatics, and drag racers with automatic
transmissions are an old, old story. NASCAR, IRL and CART
are still sticking to their manual transmissions but they
hardly shift on round and oval tracks.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:07:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers
had listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems
for all or most of their lives. When offered the
opportunity to scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state,
they did so in droves, and at their personal expense. So
did the rest of the audio industry. One major
justification for making the switch was improved sound
quality.

Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in
it sounded lousy.

So what? That was over 40 years ago.

The novelty was what sold it, and the
fact that most people didn't care about sound quality
(just like now really). But it sounded lousy.

The sound quality and reliability of SS faltered in the
beginning. The consumer response was not immediately good.
SS didn't start selling until it solved its sound quality
and reliability issues. That was more like 35 years ago.

Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
technology
developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
ear-ache.

CD never meant an automatic ear ache. Like DVD it hit the
market running. Before DVD CD had the fastest market
acceptance of any new AV technology in history.

Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the
most accurate amp of all time, but it was a step away
from the SS schreeching of typical budget amps of the
time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

The NAD phenomenon was all about hype. The right reviewers
pumped it, and a lot of lowbrows were suckered into paying
more than they needed to for yet another really-pretty good
SS amp.

If this is not true, if
SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s, why
was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared
but the average punter?

NAD sales were a drop in the bucket compared to Pioneer and
Kenwood, for example.

Even today they fetch as much as when new.

Hype lives on!

Anybody who can remember the intro of SS will
remember the widespread grumbling about sound
quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years,
appear to have conveniently forgotten.

BS. I was an early adopter of SS who got burned, turned
right around and sold my SS and went back to tubes for about
5 years.

"Arny Krueger" said:

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for
everybody, just like solid state amps and watery
mass-market beer. The more distinctive versions are made
in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

The irony is that the manual transmission buyer is generally
a true individualist-enthusiast who is making an informed
decesion, because as a rule cars with manual transmissions
perform better. (There are notable exceptions, one example
being drag racing). OTOH the tubie is just following the
bogus lead set by the highly dysfunctional golden ear
press.


Oh Arny, how nice of you to remember that I drive an automatic ;-)
(which puts me into a minority class in Europe).

--

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

"Bret Ludwig" said:

While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.



Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.

--

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
... Before DVD CD had the fastest market
: acceptance of any new AV technology in history.

It's not like, there has been an AV tech history since the roman empire,
you will note
By and of itself, that statement doesn't mean mucho
(just about every record in human history is rather recent - take note

R.

Sander deWaal wrote:
snip



Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.

I would agree, largely, except there is a place for a factory built
amp of good easy to service construction with excellent documentation.
Audio, home audio, and now that home studios are the norm even
recording, should be a DIY domain much more than is the case today, I'd
say.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
paul packer wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
wrote:


Same thing for automatic transmission in cars


And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic
transmissions?

Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs.

Agreed. Also, not as much fun on the right road, but a blessing in rush
hour traffic. The repair cost issue is a mixed bag. Most automatics can go
the first 100,000 miles without serious maintenance, while most stick
shifts require a new clutch before then. When you finally have to bite the
bullet, its not cheap either way, but that new clutch is about half the
price (installed) as that rebuilt automatic transmission.

The automatic
transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the
way Detroit pushed them onto everyone.

People who say crap like this are also likely to say that the CD ws pushed
down everybody's throat. Both claims are equally false, which is to say
they are very, very false.

The manufacturers and dealers forced them on buyers whenever possible.

LOL!

Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far more to build
a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an automatic. Part of this is
because of the additional robustness that a stick car requires, and part
of it is due to the relatively low production volumes.

Yet for most of that time, the automatics commanded a premium price. It
was all about what the market would bear.

IOW, there was a huge demand for automatics despite the artificially
higher prices. No way were automatics being shoved down people's throats.

In essence, the manufacturers "lost money" on every car they made with a
stick shift, but kept on making and selling them because they were good
for a car's sporty image if that mattered in its market.


Stick to something you know about, like ashtrays.

Arny Krueger wrote:
SNIP
Agreed. Also, not as much fun on the right road, but a
blessing in rush hour traffic. The repair cost issue is a
mixed bag. Most automatics can go the first 100,000 miles
without serious maintenance, while most stick shifts require
a new clutch before then. When you finally have to bite the
bullet, its not cheap either way, but that new clutch is
about half the price (installed) as that rebuilt automatic
transmission.
Most DIYers can change a clutch but will only R&R a rebuilt auto
trans. So a clutch is way cheaper. Especially on a vehicle where there
is a good selection of hot rod aftermarket parts, the prices get much
more reasonable that way.

The automatic
transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the
way Detroit pushed them onto everyone.

People who say crap like this are also likely to say that
the CD ws pushed down everybody's throat. Both claims are
equally false, which is to say they are very, very false.

The manufacturers and dealers forced them on buyers
whenever possible.

LOL!

Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far
more to build a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an
automatic. Part of this is because of the additional
robustness that a stick car requires, and part of it is due
to the relatively low production volumes.

What you mean is, on a slushbox car they can get away with
under-spec-ing the driveshaft, rear end and other parts, and do. The
stickshift keeps them honest and they hate it.


Yet for most of that time, the automatics commanded a
premium price. It was all about what the market would bear.

IOW, there was a huge demand for automatics despite the
artificially higher prices. No way were automatics being
shoved down people's throats.

In essence, the manufacturers "lost money" on every car they
made with a stick shift, but kept on making and selling them
because they were good for a car's sporty image if that
mattered in its market.


Like diesels, the dealers were anti-manual because they could sell an
automatic to anyone whereas some people refused to drive a manual,
refused to learn how, or in a few cases were physically incapable of
it. So they pudhed autos hard and deterred all they could from buying
them. I remember this first hand-my dad got into a donnybrook with the
Chevy dealer and embarrassed the **** out of my mother when I was a
kid. (Later, much later, I learned she'd cut him off for quite a while
for the embarrassment she felt, making him grouchy over the car ever
after.)

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:31:22 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Same thing for automatic transmission in cars

And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
solid state amps and watery mass-market beer.

No parallels that I can see there, George. Auto trans is just the most
sensible way of getting from A to B. Has nothing to do with
transistors or beer.

The more distinctive
versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

Comes down to this. Auto trans have come to a point of smoothness,
reliability and general unobtrusiveness that there really is little
excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers telling me they
like to be in control. They're already in control of the vehicle; what
more do they want? There's plenty to do in a car besides changing
gears, like watching the road more carefully. If auto trans had been
introduced 30 years before it was, no one would miss the stick shift
and if anyone suggested there should be such a thing they'd be laughed
out of court. Move on, George. It's the 21st century.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:03:12 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in it sounded
lousy. The novelty was what sold it, and the fact that most people
didn't care about sound quality (just like now really). But it sounded
lousy. Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
technology developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
ear-ache.

What crap, there were good and bad valve amps, and good and bad SS amps then
as now. However the price difference was a *lot* less in those days for
similar performance. Yet most people bought SS for it's *huge* increase in
reliability.

Most people will buy for convenience and on a features countback.
Sound quality has little to do with it.

Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
amp of all time,

That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I can
see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.

Your opinion. I recall that it sounded great. They still get reviewed
on the net (check out http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad3020e.html)
and the verdict is always the same. Construction was never a strong
point, but that's not what we're talking about. As for similar price
tube amps, were there any?

but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However the
NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well promoted.

I'm talking budget amps only. Of course ther were better amps, but not
for $250 AU.

If this is not true, if SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s,
why was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared but the
average punter?

Sucked in I guess.

Even today they fetch as much as when new.

Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform it.

In measurement terms? Of course.

Anybody who
can remember the intro of SS will remember the widespread grumbling
about sound quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years, appear
to have conveniently forgotten.

By the early 70's the problems were gone, except for the real crap. (yes
there was plenty of that, just as with valve models) Quasi complementary
stages etc. were consigned to history, and SS was outperforming vacuum tube
in every respect, except for adding that "warm" layer of distortion that
some people require. Not a real problem since many recording engineers
continued to use valve mics to do that job for you.

By the early 70s SS amps were more reliable but still sounded lousy.
Nad raised the bar for budget amps and firms like Rotel, which began
life as an el cheapo, lousy sounding brand soon jumped on the
bandwagon. Other firms like Luxman had produced good sounding
integrateds but never in the true budget arena (the best sounding amp
I had in the 70s was a Lux L100, but it cost $1300 AU!)

So let's recap. SS budget amps gained reliability in the 70s but still
sounded lousy. NAD marketed on sound quality and the public responded
by become more sensitive in that area. This revolutionised the budget
market and showed that cheap SS amps could sound good, but not by
accident. We still live in the era where sound quality is recognised
and marketable, mainly due to NAD but also partly due to the
scribbling of hi-fi scribes.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:13:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:07:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers
had listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems
for all or most of their lives. When offered the
opportunity to scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state,
they did so in droves, and at their personal expense. So
did the rest of the audio industry. One major
justification for making the switch was improved sound
quality.

Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in
it sounded lousy.

So what? That was over 40 years ago.

Yes, except that it continued to sound lousy for a long time after.
And a lot still does.

The novelty was what sold it, and the
fact that most people didn't care about sound quality
(just like now really). But it sounded lousy.

The sound quality and reliability of SS faltered in the
beginning. The consumer response was not immediately good.
SS didn't start selling until it solved its sound quality
and reliability issues. That was more like 35 years ago.

Wrong. Sound quality issues were not "solved" 35 years ago.

Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
technology
developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
ear-ache.

CD never meant an automatic ear ache. Like DVD it hit the
market running. Before DVD CD had the fastest market
acceptance of any new AV technology in history.

People love new toys. Doesn't mean anything re sound quality.

Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the
most accurate amp of all time, but it was a step away
from the SS schreeching of typical budget amps of the
time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

The NAD phenomenon was all about hype. The right reviewers
pumped it, and a lot of lowbrows were suckered into paying
more than they needed to for yet another really-pretty good
SS amp.

If this is not true, if
SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s, why
was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared
but the average punter?

NAD sales were a drop in the bucket compared to Pioneer and
Kenwood, for example.

Yep. Most people don't care about sound quality. Never did.

Even today they fetch as much as when new.

Hype lives on!

Anybody who can remember the intro of SS will
remember the widespread grumbling about sound
quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years,
appear to have conveniently forgotten.

BS. I was an early adopter of SS who got burned, turned
right around and sold my SS and went back to tubes for about
5 years.

So there are differences between amps? And in your case the poorer
measuring ones sounded best!

paul packer said:

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
solid state amps and watery mass-market beer.

No parallels that I can see there, George. Auto trans is just the most
sensible way of getting from A to B.

Is that an opinion or a "fact"?

Has nothing to do with transistors or beer.

Arnii does not have a corner on the obtuseness market.

The more distinctive
versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

Comes down to this. Auto trans have come to a point of smoothness,
reliability and general unobtrusiveness that there really is little
excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers telling me they
like to be in control. They're already in control of the vehicle; what
more do they want? There's plenty to do in a car besides changing
gears, like watching the road more carefully. If auto trans had been
introduced 30 years before it was, no one would miss the stick shift
and if anyone suggested there should be such a thing they'd be laughed
out of court. Move on, George. It's the 21st century.

Not a bad parody of the Krooborg.

It was a parody, right?

Right?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"Bret Ludwig" said:

While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.



Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.

Indeed. They need a little TLC now and again, but are well worth the
attention. Audio has now become a passive hobby. Not many of us
bother with the soldering iron. Those that do seem to enjoy building
with tubes.

Iain
--

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far
more to build a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an
automatic. Part of this is because of the additional
robustness that a stick car requires, and part of it is due
to the relatively low production volumes.

Uh ?

Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.
Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

You should get out a bit more.

Graham

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:04:08 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
solid state amps and watery mass-market beer.

No parallels that I can see there, George. Auto trans is just the most
sensible way of getting from A to B.

Is that an opinion or a "fact"?

Has nothing to do with transistors or beer.

Arnii does not have a corner on the obtuseness market.

The more distinctive
versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

Comes down to this. Auto trans have come to a point of smoothness,
reliability and general unobtrusiveness that there really is little
excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers telling me they
like to be in control. They're already in control of the vehicle; what
more do they want? There's plenty to do in a car besides changing
gears, like watching the road more carefully. If auto trans had been
introduced 30 years before it was, no one would miss the stick shift
and if anyone suggested there should be such a thing they'd be laughed
out of court. Move on, George. It's the 21st century.

Not a bad parody of the Krooborg.

It was a parody, right?

Right?

I'm afraid your humour is too sophisticated for me, George. Best add
some obvious pointers in future for we thicker folk from the backwoods
of OZ.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:08:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

as a rule cars with manual transmissions
perform better.
It's no longer a slam dunk that the automatic transmission
car has poorer performance.

What was that, Arny?

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.

Not in Australia.

Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.

You should get out a bit more.

To where petrol is a lot dearer maybe?

MrT.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
amp of all time,

That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I
can
see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.

Your opinion. I recall that it sounded great.

Youre easily pleased, but yes, it sounded just like most SS amps. With build
quality to a lower standard.

They still get reviewed
on the net (check out http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad3020e.html)
and the verdict is always the same. Construction was never a strong
point, but that's not what we're talking about. As for similar price
tube amps, were there any?

Exactly!!!!

but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However
the
NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well
promoted.

I'm talking budget amps only. Of course ther were better amps, but not
for $250 AU.


Then what $250 Vacuum tube amps are you comparing them with????

Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform
it.

In measurement terms? Of course.

Yes. And indistiguishable in a *real* listening test of course.

By the early 70s SS amps were more reliable but still sounded lousy.

In your *opinion* of course.

Nad raised the bar for budget amps and firms like Rotel, which began
life as an el cheapo, lousy sounding brand soon jumped on the
bandwagon. Other firms like Luxman had produced good sounding
integrateds but never in the true budget arena (the best sounding amp
I had in the 70s was a Lux L100, but it cost $1300 AU!)

Please list the cheaper Vacuum Tube amps that you consider outperformed it
then?

So let's recap. SS budget amps gained reliability in the 70s but still
sounded lousy.

In your opinion, but obviously not that of most other buyers.

NAD marketed on sound quality and the public responded

NAD marketed HEAVILY and the public responded.

by become more sensitive in that area. This revolutionised the budget
market and showed that cheap SS amps could sound good, but not by
accident.

So you agree that SS amps were better and cheaper than Vacuum Tube amps,
*when* properly designed.

We still live in the era where sound quality is recognised
and marketable, mainly due to NAD but also partly due to the
scribbling of hi-fi scribes.

Yes we still live in an era where people are gullible and easily influenced.

MrT.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:10:10 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.

Not in Australia.

Correct. And I wonder if that statement "the vast majority" is
supportable anyway, unless maybe you include Russia etc.

Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots. Also idiots tend not to
buy them.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:27:40 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
amp of all time,

That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I
can
see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.

Your opinion. I recall that it sounded great.

Youre easily pleased, but yes, it sounded just like most SS amps. With build
quality to a lower standard.

They still get reviewed
on the net (check out http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad3020e.html)
and the verdict is always the same. Construction was never a strong
point, but that's not what we're talking about. As for similar price
tube amps, were there any?

Exactly!!!!

but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However
the
NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well
promoted.

I'm talking budget amps only. Of course ther were better amps, but not
for $250 AU.


Then what $250 Vacuum tube amps are you comparing them with????

Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform
it.

In measurement terms? Of course.

Yes. And indistiguishable in a *real* listening test of course.

By the early 70s SS amps were more reliable but still sounded lousy.

In your *opinion* of course.

Nad raised the bar for budget amps and firms like Rotel, which began
life as an el cheapo, lousy sounding brand soon jumped on the
bandwagon. Other firms like Luxman had produced good sounding
integrateds but never in the true budget arena (the best sounding amp
I had in the 70s was a Lux L100, but it cost $1300 AU!)

Please list the cheaper Vacuum Tube amps that you consider outperformed it
then?

So let's recap. SS budget amps gained reliability in the 70s but still
sounded lousy.

In your opinion, but obviously not that of most other buyers.

NAD marketed on sound quality and the public responded

NAD marketed HEAVILY and the public responded.

by become more sensitive in that area. This revolutionised the budget
market and showed that cheap SS amps could sound good, but not by
accident.

So you agree that SS amps were better and cheaper than Vacuum Tube amps,
*when* properly designed.

We still live in the era where sound quality is recognised
and marketable, mainly due to NAD but also partly due to the
scribbling of hi-fi scribes.

Yes we still live in an era where people are gullible and easily influenced.

MrT.

Mr. T, I think you're misunderstanding my posts. I'm not claiming tube
amps sounded better than SS. I never owned a tube amp nor ever heard
one, nor was ever even aware of them at the time. If I say SS amps,
(and I'm only talking budget amps, the only kind I ever got to hear)
sounded lousy, that's not a comparative statement---i.e., they sounded
worse than tube amps. They just sounded lousy. But I'm sure there were
many more expensive SS amps that sounded very nice, at least once the
technology got over its teething problems (around the early 70s
probably). I recall Haffler had a great reputation all through the
seventies, but they were rare in OZ and not cheap. Crown also. None of
these were in my price range.

However, forget all this. I think we should be talking about minidisc
players.... :-)

paul packer said:

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?

Also idiots tend not to buy them.

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

"Bret Ludwig" said:

Like diesels, the dealers were anti-manual because they could sell an
automatic to anyone whereas some people refused to drive a manual,
refused to learn how, or in a few cases were physically incapable of
it. So they pudhed autos hard and deterred all they could from buying
them. I remember this first hand-my dad got into a donnybrook with the
Chevy dealer and embarrassed the **** out of my mother when I was a
kid. (Later, much later, I learned she'd cut him off for quite a while
for the embarrassment she felt, making him grouchy over the car ever
after.)


What does your therapist say?
Does it all stem from your bad youth?

Oh, before I forget: here's the " ;-) ".

--

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

George M. Middius said:


Also idiots tend not to buy them.

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.



Live for a year in the permanent traffic jam that's called Holland and
we'll have this conversation again.

BTW thank's Middusi for, tacitly admittiong that you drive an auto,
LOL!

;-)

--

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

Sander deWaal writed:

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

Live for a year in the permanent traffic jam that's called Holland and
we'll have this conversation again.

BTW thank's Middusi for, tacitly admittiong that you drive an auto,
LOL!

It is for luck that you have went soft, my sweet chicken. Not to drive the le
car before the gendarmes have catched you outside with moonlight. LOL, you are
bucked for emptily blessing your "Citroen". ;-)




..
..

:
: paul packer said:
: ..
there really is little excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers ..

actually, that sounds like Ferstler :-) you're in for a clown job ?

Rudy:
:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:02:22 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?

So your praise of manuals was serious? I'm shocked.

Also idiots tend not to buy them.

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle? Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
why add extra labour to the task of driving?

paul packer said:

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle?

If you don't already know, it's impossible to get through to you. Sorry.

Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
why add extra labour to the task of driving?

It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
Kroologic?

paul packer wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:10:10 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.

Not in Australia.

Correct. And I wonder if that statement "the vast majority" is
supportable anyway, unless maybe you include Russia etc.

Why Russia ?

Just consider Asia for example.

Auto boxes aren't esp common in Europe either.


Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots. Also idiots tend not to
buy them.

I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

Graham

paul packer wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:02:22 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?

So your praise of manuals was serious? I'm shocked.

Also idiots tend not to buy them.

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle? Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
why add extra labour to the task of driving?

I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.

It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo
! ;-)

Graham

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:37:20 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle?

If you don't already know, it's impossible to get through to you. Sorry.

Non answer noted.

Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
why add extra labour to the task of driving?

It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
Kroologic?

No, this is Packer logic and it happens to be infallible. If Arnie
could do as well as this, he wouldn't be Arnie. :-)

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:31:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:



paul packer wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:02:22 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?

So your praise of manuals was serious? I'm shocked.

Also idiots tend not to buy them.

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle? Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
why add extra labour to the task of driving?

I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.

Nope. Driving on suburban roads is not a "sport". And even if it were,
I don't see that an auto trans would spoil it.

It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo
! ;-)

Which is exactly what I meant about manual trans being vulnerable to
idiots. I would not consider buying a second hand manual trans car.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:28:48 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

You should get out more, Pooh.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Mr. T, I think you're misunderstanding my posts. I'm not claiming tube
amps sounded better than SS. I never owned a tube amp nor ever heard
one, nor was ever even aware of them at the time. If I say SS amps,
(and I'm only talking budget amps, the only kind I ever got to hear)
sounded lousy, that's not a comparative statement---i.e., they sounded
worse than tube amps.

OK, I was really responding to the people who stated most people prefer
valve amp sound.

They just sounded lousy. But I'm sure there were
many more expensive SS amps that sounded very nice, at least once the
technology got over its teething problems (around the early 70s
probably). I recall Haffler had a great reputation all through the
seventies, but they were rare in OZ and not cheap. Crown also. None of
these were in my price range.

I owned a Crown DC300A/IC150 for a time. Whilst it had some useful features,
it didn't actually sound any better than many cheaper amps at the time.
As has been discussed extensively elsewhere, it achieved low levels of
distortion, and ruler flat frequency response with large amounts of
feedback.

Which is not to say it sounded all that bad into normal loads, and didn't
blow up into difficult loads at least (like some did). Crown have always
supported their amps well, and their more recent ranges leave little to be
desired IMO.

However, forget all this. I think we should be talking about minidisc
players.... :-)

Not those bloody things again!!! :-)

MrT.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:10:10 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.

Not in Australia.

Correct. And I wonder if that statement "the vast majority" is
supportable anyway, unless maybe you include Russia etc.

Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

I've seen morons burn out a clutch in 20,000km, but they could probably
destroy an auto just as quick if they wanted to.

Also idiots tend not to buy them.

Nah, the idiots buy either. Maybe it's just the young male rev head subgroup
you are referring to?

MrT.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle?

But some people like to change gears before they get to a corner so they can
drive through properly, rather than have the car change down half way
through, and lurch around like a yacht changing tack.
Of course many don't know any better having never driven anything else.

However the whole argument is almost irrelevant. We know have electronic
auto boxes with up to seven speeds that have full manual paddle shift. Or
twin clutch direct shift auto gearboxes, or constant variable transmissions.
A far cry from the early two speed sludge boxes thankfully.

Unfortunately the drivers are as bad as ever, only many more of them :-)

MrT.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

I know someone who went through 3 clutches in 50,000km. *HE* should have
bought an automatic :-)

MrT.

paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:28:48 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:
I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

You should get out more, Pooh.

Or buy a car from General Motors.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

Pooh Bear wrote:

I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.

It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo! ;-)

And get overtaken by an identical car whose driver knows when to change. :-)

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.