"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these things, Mr.
Boudreaux.

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

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are 12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?

The Guide is edited by Tom Norton, who was Stereophile's technical editor
for many years.

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

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority interest for
resadres in general.

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot," in Marshall
McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these things, Mr.
Boudreaux.

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

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are 12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?

The Guide is edited by Tom Norton, who was Stereophile's technical editor
for many years.

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

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority interest for
resadres in general.

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot," in Marshall
McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these things, Mr.
Boudreaux.

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

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are 12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?

The Guide is edited by Tom Norton, who was Stereophile's technical editor
for many years.

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

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority interest for
resadres in general.

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot," in Marshall
McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably
does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it
privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these
things, Mr. Boudreaux.

That's good, and its based on facts, as presented below:

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

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

All other things being equal, it should have risen.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably
does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it
privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these
things, Mr. Boudreaux.

That's good, and its based on facts, as presented below:

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

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

All other things being equal, it should have risen.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably
does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it
privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these
things, Mr. Boudreaux.

That's good, and its based on facts, as presented below:

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

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

All other things being equal, it should have risen.

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid
circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are
12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop,
IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel
music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid
circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are
12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop,
IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel
music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid
circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are
12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop,
IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel
music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:17:43 -0500, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article , says...

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it
comes to difficult loads.

My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels.

Which Apogees? Some are quite easy loads, contrary to popular
mythology.

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.

Some Carvers can also be bridged to more than double their power rating.

Not into a 4-ohm load, they can't!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:17:43 -0500, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article , says...

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it
comes to difficult loads.

My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels.

Which Apogees? Some are quite easy loads, contrary to popular
mythology.

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.

Some Carvers can also be bridged to more than double their power rating.

Not into a 4-ohm load, they can't!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:17:43 -0500, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article , says...

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it
comes to difficult loads.

My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels.

Which Apogees? Some are quite easy loads, contrary to popular
mythology.

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.

Some Carvers can also be bridged to more than double their power rating.

Not into a 4-ohm load, they can't!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:51:06 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


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

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

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

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

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

You have only one set of speakers?

No, the other ones are driven by an Audiolab 8000P, a Denon PMA350II
and a Rotel RA920AX, so I spread the honours pretty evenly around the
world! :-)

BTW, the Krell and Audiolab sound excactly the same on the big
Apogees, but the Audiolab gets very hot after a while.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:51:06 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


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

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

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

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

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

You have only one set of speakers?

No, the other ones are driven by an Audiolab 8000P, a Denon PMA350II
and a Rotel RA920AX, so I spread the honours pretty evenly around the
world! :-)

BTW, the Krell and Audiolab sound excactly the same on the big
Apogees, but the Audiolab gets very hot after a while.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:51:06 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


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

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

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

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

Indeed I could - but it might struggle to drive my 3-ohm speakers.

You have only one set of speakers?

No, the other ones are driven by an Audiolab 8000P, a Denon PMA350II
and a Rotel RA920AX, so I spread the honours pretty evenly around the
world! :-)

BTW, the Krell and Audiolab sound excactly the same on the big
Apogees, but the Audiolab gets very hot after a while.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues:
82,932 paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003.
(Both figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to
see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

Yup. Nothing wrong with that.

What about total circulation instead of just paid...

I am not sure I grasp the distinction. US publishers only formally track
paid subscriptions as it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish
an accurate "pass-along" ratio (ie, how many people read each copy).

and the drop from the peak (early 90's I think)?

That was, if I remember correctly in the mid 1990s. If you wish, I
can research the historical trend for you.

once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers
will choose multichannel over stereo.
1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

We shall see. All of us in publishing and audio manufacture are having
to place our bets, Mr. Boudreaux. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues:
82,932 paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003.
(Both figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to
see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

Yup. Nothing wrong with that.

What about total circulation instead of just paid...

I am not sure I grasp the distinction. US publishers only formally track
paid subscriptions as it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish
an accurate "pass-along" ratio (ie, how many people read each copy).

and the drop from the peak (early 90's I think)?

That was, if I remember correctly in the mid 1990s. If you wish, I
can research the historical trend for you.

once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers
will choose multichannel over stereo.
1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

We shall see. All of us in publishing and audio manufacture are having
to place our bets, Mr. Boudreaux. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues:
82,932 paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003.
(Both figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to
see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

Yup. Nothing wrong with that.

What about total circulation instead of just paid...

I am not sure I grasp the distinction. US publishers only formally track
paid subscriptions as it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish
an accurate "pass-along" ratio (ie, how many people read each copy).

and the drop from the peak (early 90's I think)?

That was, if I remember correctly in the mid 1990s. If you wish, I
can research the historical trend for you.

once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers
will choose multichannel over stereo.
1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

We shall see. All of us in publishing and audio manufacture are having
to place our bets, Mr. Boudreaux. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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






WELL SAID Arny

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






WELL SAID Arny

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






WELL SAID Arny

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:07lJb.726413$Tr4.1851425@attbi_s03...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

OK, done. Now I can't hear what I ignore.

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:07lJb.726413$Tr4.1851425@attbi_s03...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

OK, done. Now I can't hear what I ignore.

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:07lJb.726413$Tr4.1851425@attbi_s03...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I can't ignore what I hear.



reverse your connect cables

OK, done. Now I can't hear what I ignore.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
IMHO, topologies do make a difference:

Topologies make a difference to the designer.

To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
IMHO, topologies do make a difference:

Topologies make a difference to the designer.

To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
IMHO, topologies do make a difference:

Topologies make a difference to the designer.

To the end user if the amp is anything but "straight wire with
gain" then it's poorly designed regardless of topology. By
definition ampfliers should not add anything other than gain.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect

Then a lot of them do.

And a lot of them don't, including some of the ones you condemn.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect

Then a lot of them do.

And a lot of them don't, including some of the ones you condemn.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect

Then a lot of them do.

And a lot of them don't, including some of the ones you condemn.

Robert Morein wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If I understand you right, then if it is bipolar then it is usable only
to generate heat and not even good at that.

We're both arguing from personal experience,

The Sony FET amps I had in a car some years ago had a nice treble.
Generally however if it is FET I need to have explained why it is worth
listening to now, because when I bothered listening to it last, and that
*is* way many years ago, the FET treble was just a cloud of white noise.
You very claim that metal tweeters are good to show the virtues of FET
amplifiers does however seem to somehow substantiate that not all FET
designs have as clean a treble as some japanese bipolars from the
quality wars late 70-ties and early 80-ties in as much as such
amplifiers (Sansui B55 with input coupling cap replaced and spectrum
display physically removed) are the preferred ones for midrange and
treble into compression drivers in this household and in as much as a
newly acquired Technics amp from the same vintage has become the new
"master of the full range" for the duration of an Audire amps disease.

but I submit that I have the "white crow", ie., that my
personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

My observations conform very poorly to your general rule as extracted
from your recent posts, what I happen to have is then some old stuff,
but I am not really convinced that new stuff actually is relevant to
replace it.

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