TT
May 3rd 08, 02:47 AM
Some of you fine people have enquired why I accused Arny of perhaps sipping
too much Altar wine the other day.
Well I think he is a little embarrassed because, *shock*, horror he has
deleted his post from newsgroups. Oh poor Arny!
Any way I saved a copy to my hard drive and it looks like I need to post the
relevant excerpts so you can all see how he just charges full bore into an
abusefest against *ME* while actually corresponding with some one else.
Note: this was Arny's response to a fellow poster called "roughplanet".
Obviously my friend Ruff is to be abused by Arny because he listens to vinyl
and owns tubed gear. Obvious really when you think about it ;-)
The conversation picks up when Ruff reminds Arny that he accused me of being
a paedophile a little while ago. BTW It was at the same time he accused
Jenn of same thing with "little girls".
I should mention that even *IF* Arny denies writing this everyone here will
not mistake his distinctive writing style I'm sure.
Happy reading fellow posters.
Cheers TT (the real one)
PS Does anyone think that I may end up with an apology from Arny??? ;-)
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Says the person who inferred that TT was a paedophile to
> score a point. Pot, kettle black Arnie.
What??? You're really reaching for those childish insults, TT. What
geological era are you reaching back into? Were there even dinosaurs on the
earth back then? ;-)
>> Where did you get your EE from, a cereal box? ;-)
No answer from TT, so we can presume that his technical knowledge of
electronics and audio is nil.
>>>>>>> All the schematics in the world will not help, as
>>>>>>> long as techs think they know more than Peter does
>>>>>>> about his own product.
>>>> Well, they think that he is being hypercautious. We've
>>>> seen people like this on this thread.
>
>>>>>>> I know, from my own experience, that some high
>>>>>>> Global NFB products benefit from the use of matched
>>>>>>> devices. In a product with no Global NFB, the
>>>>>>> importance of matching becomes far more crucial.
>
>>>> Agreed.
>
>>>>>> Gawd TW, You have dug yourself a hole so deep that
>>>>>> you will never get out of it now, no matter what.
>
>>>> More mouth than brains!
>>> Ahh.....the emergence of the Krooborg from his hole in
>>> the ground. Church finish early this evening Arnie?
> No comment Arnie?
Say something worth commenting, and I will comment on it.
>>>>>> Why not go away & have a good think about the logic,
>>>>>> or rather, the lack of it in what you have said, and
>>>>>> then come back & TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH &
>>>>>> ONLY THE TRUTH to the other members of this group.
>
>>>> If irony killed!
>
>>> You'd be dead, dead, dead.
>
>> More childish name-calling, still no relevant technical
>> comments.
> And what relevant technical comments are called for to
> describe TW's feeble attempt to 'baffle with BS'?
I see no such attempt. I do see a tired little Terry with zero credentials
trying to dazzle us with his lame insults.
> He's obviously got you fooled, so your grasp of technical
> facts can't be too crash hot.
There's no fooling except by you, Terry.
>>>>>> You will gain at least some respect; more than if you
>>>>>> just keep banging away at the same old gong, which is
>>>>>> now badly dented & in need of replacing.
>
>>>> I don't think that Trevor is infallible and have
>>>> crossed swords with him many times. But, when Trevor
>>>> is right like this, Trevor deserves respect, not the
>>>> derision of fools.
>>> And who are you that your opinion, and that's all you
>>> have to offer, is correct?
>> Just a graduate engineer with 40 years of relevant
>> experience.
> Graduate from where exactly Arnie,
Oakland University - please see their web site:
http://www.oakland.edu/
> and what type of engineering?
http://www2.oakland.edu/secs/ECEdept/
>I ask only out of curiosity, given that the
> credibility of US university qualifications varies from
> high to appalling. Which end do yours come from?
Someplace in the top quarter.
>>> Trevor ISN'T right.
>
>> On the technical point, he is.
> No he's not.
Prove it.
> He hasn't provided one single shred of hard
> evidence to substantiate his claims regarding ME
> amplifiers.
What Trevor claims about the effects of device matching in amps with zero
loop feedback is consistent with general electrical engineering knowlege.
I should add that trying to build a high quality amplifier while
intentionally avoiding loop feedback is generally considered to be very
unwise - there has to be some very powerful explanation for trying to do
such a weird thing, and no such explantion is known to exist for audio power
amps being used in a common residential setting.
>Why? Because there isn't any available, or at
> least, none that either he or PS are prepared to make
> public.
What Trevor claims about superior sonics due to zero loop feedback is total
BS, and it is exceptionally easy to show that sonically perfect
amplification is fairly easy to provide by common, relatively inexpensive
means.
Anybody who brags about ever owning a power amp with zero loop feedback is
basically advertising that they have paid had cash to fail a
publicly-administered intelligence test.
BTW Terry, didn't you say that you once owned a ME power amp? ;-)
>>> He's just a BS artiste trying to sell something that
>>> died several years ago but won't lie down.
>> That's a different issue.
> That's THE issue here Arnie.
Then address it with a technically-sound argument. The device-matching
argument goes Trevor's way, the superior sonics issue goes against him.
> If you'd bothered to follow
> this thread from its inception, you'd see that it was
> about tube amplification, something TW knows very little
> about.
I don't think that a person doing audio in the 21st century need know much
about tubed amplification, unless perhaps they work in an electronics
museum.
> The very mention of SET amplifiers causes a rush of blood
> so forceful that he can't control his negative reactions
> & immediately begins to rubbish the piece of equipment
> under discussion, never mind the fact that he's never
> even heard it.
Well, I've heard dozens of SET amplifiers. On one occasion where my ears had
been fatigued by listening to a bunch of SETs, I found the sound from a
credibly-designed PP tubed amp (by Manley) to be a real breath of fresh air.
Of course SS rules.
> A bit like yourself.
I've built over a dozen tubed power amps, some scratch designs, some kits. I
still own tubed audio gear and occasionally use it. I know why tube
technology is best forgotten, out in the real world.
> Perhaps that's why you have jumped
> to his defence, but only when I gave him some stick.
I have to admit that I find it amusing to watch you wet your pants in
public, Terry. I'm close enough to even catch a whiff of the urine. I'll
leave the messy clean-up to other. One word for you Terry: Depends. ;-)
> You might even think I'm an easy mark Arnie, but
> I built my first amplifier in 1958, using KT88's.
Most of us who were using tubes for audio in 1958 learned our lesson. You
seem to be hard to teach, Terry. I guess I thus need to remind you about the
benefits of Depends.
http://www.depend.com/products/products_all.asp
> I still have it. A bit rough, sure, but I was only 14 years old.
> I think they refer to that as an 'early adopter'.
In 2008, we refer to continued obsession with tubes as being a "poor
learner".
>>> How can you comment on something you know absolutely
>>> nothing about?
>> You've shown me how? ;-)
> Now who's using childish replies? Once again, pot,
> kettle, balck.
What's a balck, Terry? ;-)
>>> Have you ever even seen an ME amp, much
>>> less owned one?
>> I don't need to own a zero loop FB SS amp to know
>> something of their care and feeding.
> Then you haven't been reading anything TW has said. His
> claim is that ME amplifiers require such careful
> maintenance that only he &/or PS can carry it out!
I didn't read that. Perhaps that was because I read with my eyes, not with
my dreams.
What I do read is someone pretty well skewering Trevor over device matching
procedures.
> You're all BS and blather Arnie, just like your mate TW.
As I said, I've crossed swords with Trevor over the larger issue many times.
I'm only addressing the narrow issue of device matching.
>>> I owned one of these amps Arnie, as well as the then
>>> matching preamp, and believe me they were nothing
>>> special.
>> That's a different issue.
> Again, it's not. See above.
As ADD as you seem to be Terry, I'm wasting my breath when I ask you to try
to remain focussed.
>>> But TW will no doubt tell you that I owned 'an early
>>> model' or some such BS & so my opinion doesn't matter.
>> Given your inability to understand audio technology,
>> your opinion is geneally wrong.
> Examples?
The current discussion.
> One or two typos or late night mistakes & you
> turn them into a sweeping generalisation, a bit like PA
> was so fond of doing. What did he call them.....ahh yes,
> 'educated guesses'.
I'm not defending PA, except of course when he's right, which he often is.
> What do you call them Arnie? We like to call them LIES!
Terry, to lie you have to know the truth, and frankly that excuses you from
many of your more obvious public follies.
>>> But the truth is, as Patrick so rightly says, that both
>>> Peter Stein & Trevor Wilson have done very nicely out of
>>> ME 'upgrades' & repairs, as without schematics or any
>>> other information on which to rely, other technicians
>>> have one hand tied behind their back.
>> That's a different issue.
> No it's not. See above.
Do try to get focussed, Terry. Of course if you haven't learned it by the
time you are in your 60s, you probably never will.
>>> So put up or shut up Arnie. If you know something we
>>> don't, then by all means tell us.
>> Been there, done that. You spit on it.
> You've never been anywhere, much less do anything.
Prove it.
> Even
> that web site of yours that you're so proud of referring
> to at the drop of a hat was last edited in 2001.
Please be specific, there are two sites, and pages on both prove you wrong.
I just want to know which mistake you are making. ;-)
> No wonder you're siding with TW. His ME amps are 30 years
> out of date. You must feel totally overwhelmed by his
> performance :-).
Terry, on the larger issue of the technical advisability of ME amps, all I
can say is that I'm proud to have never been so stupid as to actually pay
hard cash to buy one. Too bad you can't say the same!
LOL!
>>> If not, better to be thought a fool than open your
>>> mouth & prove it. But alas, you're way past the point
>>> where anyone believes anything you have to say, a bit like TW.
>> That's your problem.
> No Arnie, it's yours. Most of the people here won't talk
> to you, and more the fool me for even bothering.
Most of the people here know that I'm often right and will call them up when
they aren't. Since they are often in error, I can understand why they don't
want to risk trying to correct me.
> I let you out of the plonk bin in error, so back you go.
That allows me to blindside you at will, Terry.
Thanks!
too much Altar wine the other day.
Well I think he is a little embarrassed because, *shock*, horror he has
deleted his post from newsgroups. Oh poor Arny!
Any way I saved a copy to my hard drive and it looks like I need to post the
relevant excerpts so you can all see how he just charges full bore into an
abusefest against *ME* while actually corresponding with some one else.
Note: this was Arny's response to a fellow poster called "roughplanet".
Obviously my friend Ruff is to be abused by Arny because he listens to vinyl
and owns tubed gear. Obvious really when you think about it ;-)
The conversation picks up when Ruff reminds Arny that he accused me of being
a paedophile a little while ago. BTW It was at the same time he accused
Jenn of same thing with "little girls".
I should mention that even *IF* Arny denies writing this everyone here will
not mistake his distinctive writing style I'm sure.
Happy reading fellow posters.
Cheers TT (the real one)
PS Does anyone think that I may end up with an apology from Arny??? ;-)
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Says the person who inferred that TT was a paedophile to
> score a point. Pot, kettle black Arnie.
What??? You're really reaching for those childish insults, TT. What
geological era are you reaching back into? Were there even dinosaurs on the
earth back then? ;-)
>> Where did you get your EE from, a cereal box? ;-)
No answer from TT, so we can presume that his technical knowledge of
electronics and audio is nil.
>>>>>>> All the schematics in the world will not help, as
>>>>>>> long as techs think they know more than Peter does
>>>>>>> about his own product.
>>>> Well, they think that he is being hypercautious. We've
>>>> seen people like this on this thread.
>
>>>>>>> I know, from my own experience, that some high
>>>>>>> Global NFB products benefit from the use of matched
>>>>>>> devices. In a product with no Global NFB, the
>>>>>>> importance of matching becomes far more crucial.
>
>>>> Agreed.
>
>>>>>> Gawd TW, You have dug yourself a hole so deep that
>>>>>> you will never get out of it now, no matter what.
>
>>>> More mouth than brains!
>>> Ahh.....the emergence of the Krooborg from his hole in
>>> the ground. Church finish early this evening Arnie?
> No comment Arnie?
Say something worth commenting, and I will comment on it.
>>>>>> Why not go away & have a good think about the logic,
>>>>>> or rather, the lack of it in what you have said, and
>>>>>> then come back & TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH &
>>>>>> ONLY THE TRUTH to the other members of this group.
>
>>>> If irony killed!
>
>>> You'd be dead, dead, dead.
>
>> More childish name-calling, still no relevant technical
>> comments.
> And what relevant technical comments are called for to
> describe TW's feeble attempt to 'baffle with BS'?
I see no such attempt. I do see a tired little Terry with zero credentials
trying to dazzle us with his lame insults.
> He's obviously got you fooled, so your grasp of technical
> facts can't be too crash hot.
There's no fooling except by you, Terry.
>>>>>> You will gain at least some respect; more than if you
>>>>>> just keep banging away at the same old gong, which is
>>>>>> now badly dented & in need of replacing.
>
>>>> I don't think that Trevor is infallible and have
>>>> crossed swords with him many times. But, when Trevor
>>>> is right like this, Trevor deserves respect, not the
>>>> derision of fools.
>>> And who are you that your opinion, and that's all you
>>> have to offer, is correct?
>> Just a graduate engineer with 40 years of relevant
>> experience.
> Graduate from where exactly Arnie,
Oakland University - please see their web site:
http://www.oakland.edu/
> and what type of engineering?
http://www2.oakland.edu/secs/ECEdept/
>I ask only out of curiosity, given that the
> credibility of US university qualifications varies from
> high to appalling. Which end do yours come from?
Someplace in the top quarter.
>>> Trevor ISN'T right.
>
>> On the technical point, he is.
> No he's not.
Prove it.
> He hasn't provided one single shred of hard
> evidence to substantiate his claims regarding ME
> amplifiers.
What Trevor claims about the effects of device matching in amps with zero
loop feedback is consistent with general electrical engineering knowlege.
I should add that trying to build a high quality amplifier while
intentionally avoiding loop feedback is generally considered to be very
unwise - there has to be some very powerful explanation for trying to do
such a weird thing, and no such explantion is known to exist for audio power
amps being used in a common residential setting.
>Why? Because there isn't any available, or at
> least, none that either he or PS are prepared to make
> public.
What Trevor claims about superior sonics due to zero loop feedback is total
BS, and it is exceptionally easy to show that sonically perfect
amplification is fairly easy to provide by common, relatively inexpensive
means.
Anybody who brags about ever owning a power amp with zero loop feedback is
basically advertising that they have paid had cash to fail a
publicly-administered intelligence test.
BTW Terry, didn't you say that you once owned a ME power amp? ;-)
>>> He's just a BS artiste trying to sell something that
>>> died several years ago but won't lie down.
>> That's a different issue.
> That's THE issue here Arnie.
Then address it with a technically-sound argument. The device-matching
argument goes Trevor's way, the superior sonics issue goes against him.
> If you'd bothered to follow
> this thread from its inception, you'd see that it was
> about tube amplification, something TW knows very little
> about.
I don't think that a person doing audio in the 21st century need know much
about tubed amplification, unless perhaps they work in an electronics
museum.
> The very mention of SET amplifiers causes a rush of blood
> so forceful that he can't control his negative reactions
> & immediately begins to rubbish the piece of equipment
> under discussion, never mind the fact that he's never
> even heard it.
Well, I've heard dozens of SET amplifiers. On one occasion where my ears had
been fatigued by listening to a bunch of SETs, I found the sound from a
credibly-designed PP tubed amp (by Manley) to be a real breath of fresh air.
Of course SS rules.
> A bit like yourself.
I've built over a dozen tubed power amps, some scratch designs, some kits. I
still own tubed audio gear and occasionally use it. I know why tube
technology is best forgotten, out in the real world.
> Perhaps that's why you have jumped
> to his defence, but only when I gave him some stick.
I have to admit that I find it amusing to watch you wet your pants in
public, Terry. I'm close enough to even catch a whiff of the urine. I'll
leave the messy clean-up to other. One word for you Terry: Depends. ;-)
> You might even think I'm an easy mark Arnie, but
> I built my first amplifier in 1958, using KT88's.
Most of us who were using tubes for audio in 1958 learned our lesson. You
seem to be hard to teach, Terry. I guess I thus need to remind you about the
benefits of Depends.
http://www.depend.com/products/products_all.asp
> I still have it. A bit rough, sure, but I was only 14 years old.
> I think they refer to that as an 'early adopter'.
In 2008, we refer to continued obsession with tubes as being a "poor
learner".
>>> How can you comment on something you know absolutely
>>> nothing about?
>> You've shown me how? ;-)
> Now who's using childish replies? Once again, pot,
> kettle, balck.
What's a balck, Terry? ;-)
>>> Have you ever even seen an ME amp, much
>>> less owned one?
>> I don't need to own a zero loop FB SS amp to know
>> something of their care and feeding.
> Then you haven't been reading anything TW has said. His
> claim is that ME amplifiers require such careful
> maintenance that only he &/or PS can carry it out!
I didn't read that. Perhaps that was because I read with my eyes, not with
my dreams.
What I do read is someone pretty well skewering Trevor over device matching
procedures.
> You're all BS and blather Arnie, just like your mate TW.
As I said, I've crossed swords with Trevor over the larger issue many times.
I'm only addressing the narrow issue of device matching.
>>> I owned one of these amps Arnie, as well as the then
>>> matching preamp, and believe me they were nothing
>>> special.
>> That's a different issue.
> Again, it's not. See above.
As ADD as you seem to be Terry, I'm wasting my breath when I ask you to try
to remain focussed.
>>> But TW will no doubt tell you that I owned 'an early
>>> model' or some such BS & so my opinion doesn't matter.
>> Given your inability to understand audio technology,
>> your opinion is geneally wrong.
> Examples?
The current discussion.
> One or two typos or late night mistakes & you
> turn them into a sweeping generalisation, a bit like PA
> was so fond of doing. What did he call them.....ahh yes,
> 'educated guesses'.
I'm not defending PA, except of course when he's right, which he often is.
> What do you call them Arnie? We like to call them LIES!
Terry, to lie you have to know the truth, and frankly that excuses you from
many of your more obvious public follies.
>>> But the truth is, as Patrick so rightly says, that both
>>> Peter Stein & Trevor Wilson have done very nicely out of
>>> ME 'upgrades' & repairs, as without schematics or any
>>> other information on which to rely, other technicians
>>> have one hand tied behind their back.
>> That's a different issue.
> No it's not. See above.
Do try to get focussed, Terry. Of course if you haven't learned it by the
time you are in your 60s, you probably never will.
>>> So put up or shut up Arnie. If you know something we
>>> don't, then by all means tell us.
>> Been there, done that. You spit on it.
> You've never been anywhere, much less do anything.
Prove it.
> Even
> that web site of yours that you're so proud of referring
> to at the drop of a hat was last edited in 2001.
Please be specific, there are two sites, and pages on both prove you wrong.
I just want to know which mistake you are making. ;-)
> No wonder you're siding with TW. His ME amps are 30 years
> out of date. You must feel totally overwhelmed by his
> performance :-).
Terry, on the larger issue of the technical advisability of ME amps, all I
can say is that I'm proud to have never been so stupid as to actually pay
hard cash to buy one. Too bad you can't say the same!
LOL!
>>> If not, better to be thought a fool than open your
>>> mouth & prove it. But alas, you're way past the point
>>> where anyone believes anything you have to say, a bit like TW.
>> That's your problem.
> No Arnie, it's yours. Most of the people here won't talk
> to you, and more the fool me for even bothering.
Most of the people here know that I'm often right and will call them up when
they aren't. Since they are often in error, I can understand why they don't
want to risk trying to correct me.
> I let you out of the plonk bin in error, so back you go.
That allows me to blindside you at will, Terry.
Thanks!