Headphone bottleneck?

[Andy Katz]

Hi everyone,

I'm thinking about taking the first step toward a true hi fi
system. Since I can't afford to buy high end loudspeaker components
right now, I thought I'd start with a headphone system--especially as
my old Sennheisers need replacing anyway.

We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I thought I'd add
Sennheiser 580s (or 600) and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which
is, I understand, expandable). Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX
900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ...
would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the
radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, or am I
amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise?

TIA

Andy Katz

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message



> We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.

I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model
number?

> I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600)

I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly

> and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which
> is, I understand, expandable).

Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom
amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited.

>Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX
> 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ...
> would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the
> radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment,

580s tend to make very many things sound very pleasant, but still are quite
accurate reproducers.

> or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise?

Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV
watching/listening.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV
> watching/listening.
>
>

Is that a new brand of condoms?

[Andy Katz]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Andy Katz" > wrote in message

>
>
>> We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>
>I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model
>number?

Isn't that interesting? I bought them about seven or eight years ago
at J & R Music world. They were, if memory serves, just under $200.00.
They're oversize, *extremely* comfortable, and obscure. I've never
seen any reference to them on e-bay or on-line.

>
>> I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600)
>
>I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly
>
>> and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which
>> is, I understand, expandable).
>
>Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom
>amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited.

Do you feel that a headphone amplifier is warranted for use with a
mass market receiver?

>>Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX
>> 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ...
>> would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the
>> radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment,
>
>580s tend to make very many things sound very pleasant, but still are quite
>accurate reproducers.
>
>> or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise?
>
>Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV
>watching/listening.

Thanks for the comments. I'll check them out;-)

Andy Katz

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.

>> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct
>> model number?

> Isn't that interesting? I bought them about seven or eight years ago
> at J & R Music world. They were, if memory serves, just under $200.00.
> They're oversize, *extremely* comfortable, and obscure. I've never
> seen any reference to them on e-bay or on-line.

Interesting that I can't find any complete tech data about them on the web.

>>> I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600)
>>
>> I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly
>>
>>> and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which
>>> is, I understand, expandable).
>>
>> Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that
>> Headroom amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited.
>
> Do you feel that a headphone amplifier is warranted for use with a
> mass market receiver?

That's a loaded question. I say, buy the good phones and try them out. If
your problem is that the headphones don't get loud enough, then an
inexpensive but high-quality amp like the "Boostaroo" can help. If you need
the features that the Headwize amps provide - go for it!

I finessed the headphone amp problem using a number of approaches including
a dedicated 12 wpc power amp at one point in my system.

[Carl Valle]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>
> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model
> number?
>

I think they just might be MDR CD 780
available only in the UK
about $140

[Arny Krueger]

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
. com
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>>
>> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct
>> model number?

> I think they just might be MDR CD 780
> available only in the UK
> about $140

Thanks for the tip.

Now, that model does exist!


....in europe

http://www.schlauer-preisvergleich.de/Angebot/147468.html

and even the US:

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/vid2001/sonymdrcd780.html

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Andy Katz" > wrote in message

>>
>>
>>> We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>>
>>I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model
>>number?
>
> Isn't that interesting? I bought them about seven or eight years ago
> at J & R Music world. They were, if memory serves, just under $200.00.
> They're oversize, *extremely* comfortable, and obscure. I've never
> seen any reference to them on e-bay or on-line.
>

There you go:

http://www.digitalhall.ru/catalog/portable/headphones/mdr-cd870/


Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> > We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>>
>> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model
>> number?
>>
>
> I think they just might be MDR CD 780
> available only in the UK
> about $140
>
>
>

Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos has a wall full of them but I'd
stick with the Sony studio STD phones.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
> >>
> >> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct
model
> >> number?
> >>
> >
> > I think they just might be MDR CD 780
> > available only in the UK
> > about $140
> >
> >
> >
>
> Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos ..........................
>
>


Hmmmm

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>> >
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>> >>
>> >> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct
> model
>> >> number?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think they just might be MDR CD 780
>> > available only in the UK
>> > about $140
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos ..........................
>>
>>
>
>
> Hmmmm
>

Cut the ****, Atkinson. I'm not Stephen. I just happen to reside in
South/Central TX. There's more than lot'S of audupidiophiles in heer:-(

Margariette

[Andy Katz]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:54:06 GMT, "Carl Valle" >
wrote:

>I think they just might be MDR CD 780
>available only in the UK
>about $140

No. It's 870.

I do think they're European, however, because I recall doing a search
on the model some years back and the only hits were in German.

Andy Katz

[Andy Katz]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:34:12 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
> wrote:

>There you go:
>
>http://www.digitalhall.ru/catalog/portable/headphones/mdr-cd870/

That's funny. The model number's there, but those don't look anything
like mine. Rather they have the strap and dual arch, but my cans are
completely round and are held by pivots in the side of each can. Also,
it's hard to tell for sure, but the pictured ones look open, while
mine are closed.

I knew they were rare ... didn't realize how much so.

Andy Katz

[Andy Katz]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:41:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Interesting that I can't find any complete tech data about them on the web.

Nor have I over the years. I recall references in German a few years
back, so perhaps they're a discontinued European release. The Russian
link shows the mod # but the headphone itself is different.

>That's a loaded question. I say, buy the good phones and try them out. If
>your problem is that the headphones don't get loud enough, then an
>inexpensive but high-quality amp like the "Boostaroo" can help. If you need
>the features that the Headwize amps provide - go for it!

Okay. I understand the potential for debate here;-). I wasn't sure
what to look for in a headphone amplifier. Volume is not an issue. I
have plenty of volume from both my Rio Nitrus and the Onkyo. I was
interested in whether a Sennheiser (or the old Sonys) + a good
headphone amp could provide reference-quality sound, partly for
appreciation now, but also party to train my ears. Like many people,
I'm sure, I think the best sounding stereo is the one that's turned
on. I want this to help me develop an appreciation for good hi fi in
order to prevent severe money wastage down the road;-)

Incidentally, while everything I've read about the 580 suggests it's
solid, I hear the 595 has a brighter, front row quality. That's
something I think I would appreciate. Can you comment?

TIA

Andy Katz

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:34:12 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
> > wrote:
>
>>There you go:
>>
>>http://www.digitalhall.ru/catalog/portable/headphones/mdr-cd870/
>
> That's funny. The model number's there, but those don't look anything
> like mine. Rather they have the strap and dual arch, but my cans are
> completely round and are held by pivots in the side of each can. Also,
> it's hard to tell for sure, but the pictured ones look open, while
> mine are closed.
>
> I knew they were rare ... didn't realize how much so.
>
> Andy Katz

http://www.epinions.com/elec_Audio-Headphones_Sony_MDR_C-Sony_MDR-CD870/display_~full_specs

[paul packer]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:55:49 GMT, Andy Katz
> wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
> I'm thinking about taking the first step toward a true hi fi
>system. Since I can't afford to buy high end loudspeaker components
>right now, I thought I'd start with a headphone system--especially as
>my old Sennheisers need replacing anyway.
>
> We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I thought I'd add
>Sennheiser 580s (or 600) and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which
>is, I understand, expandable). Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX
>900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ...
>would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the
>radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, or am I
>amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise?
>
>TIA
>
>Andy Katz

Take my advice and get the 595. I've owned both 580 and 600 and the
595 is not only better balaced for the majority of material, but more
efficient, which means you shouldn't require a headphone amp. At
least, don't buy anything without listening to the 595. I'll be
surprised if you're disappointed, unless the phones you listen to
aren't burnt in .

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message


> Okay. I understand the potential for debate here;-). I wasn't sure
> what to look for in a headphone amplifier. Volume is not an issue. I
> have plenty of volume from both my Rio Nitrus and the Onkyo. I was
> interested in whether a Sennheiser (or the old Sonys) + a good
> headphone amp could provide reference-quality sound, partly for
> appreciation now, but also party to train my ears. Like many people,
> I'm sure, I think the best sounding stereo is the one that's turned
> on. I want this to help me develop an appreciation for good hi fi in
> order to prevent severe money wastage down the road;-)

> Incidentally, while everything I've read about the 580 suggests it's
> solid, I hear the 595 has a brighter, front row quality. That's
> something I think I would appreciate. Can you comment?

No. I've long used various Sony headphones, MDR-6s, and then 7506s. I picked
up the 580s about three years ago, and still use both them and the 7506s for
various tasks. I also own a number of earphones - you know theones that
stick in the ear, including Sony MDR EX 71, Etymotics ER6, and Futuresonics.

Of the bunch, I still prefer the 580s the most, followed by the
Futuresonics, which are incidentally OEMed by Sennheiser in their
professional-grade wireless gear.

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> >> . com...
> >> >
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct
> > model
> >> >> number?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think they just might be MDR CD 780
> >> > available only in the UK
> >> > about $140
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos ..........................
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm
> >
>
> Cut the ****, Atkinson. I'm not Stephen. I just happen to reside in
> South/Central TX. There's more than lot'S of audupidiophiles in heer:-(
>
> Margariette
>
>

No problemo
JA

[Andy Katz]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:16:58 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
> wrote:

>http://www.epinions.com/elec_Audio-Headphones_Sony_MDR_C-Sony_MDR-CD870/display_~full_specs

You found them!

I never thought to try epinions.com.

Thanks...;-)

Andy Katz

************************************************** *************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

Paghat, the Rat Girl

[Andy Katz]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:41:35 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

>Take my advice and get the 595. I've owned both 580 and 600 and the
>595 is not only better balaced for the majority of material, but more
>efficient, which means you shouldn't require a headphone amp. At
>least, don't buy anything without listening to the 595. I'll be
>surprised if you're disappointed, unless the phones you listen to
>aren't burnt in .

Thanks. I'm definitely going to try them first.

Do I understand correctly that there was some problem with the factory
and they're currently difficult to get here?

Andy Katz
************************************************** *************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

Paghat, the Rat Girl

[N]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Andy Katz" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s.
>
> I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model
> number?
>
> > I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600)
>
> I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly
>
> > and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which
> > is, I understand, expandable).

You could upgrade it or get a pricier model, but I don't believe the
sound would be any better. I own one and it sounds fine as it is.

> Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom
> amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited.

I have a Little Headroom myself, and agree that this feature is
worthless. Actually, that feature sounds worse to me, so I don't use
it.

One good thing about the Headroom is that it has absolutely no
background hiss or hum, which is important to me, because I listen
late at night when my home is very quiet and any electronic noise
annoys me.

One bad thing is that with my Grado SR80 headphones, the volume
control on the Little Headphone doesn't quite give me the low volume
I'd like to be able to choose. Instead, at very volume, the sound
comes on in one channel, then as I adjust the volume control slightly
upwards, the other channel comes on. This might not bother you.

I bought the Headroom amp 'cause I kinda sorta always wanted one and
unless I bought via the web, there was no other way to try one. I also
wanted to experiment with trying some different signal processors
between the output of my old Sony Discman (which sounds great with the
Grados) and the input on the Headroom amp, as well as to get a little
more power for some old Sennheiser headphones that need more power.
But I haven't used my Headroom in a long time.

IME, headphone outputs on integrated amps, receivers, and even
Discman-type players sound from acceptable to excellent, so I wouldn't
rush to buy a headphone amp. I haven't heard your Onkyo's headphone
output, but it could be excellent.

> >Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX
> > 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ...
> > would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the
> > radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment,
>
> 580s tend to make very many things sound very pleasant, but still are quite
> accurate reproducers.

I think the Sennheisers would make the biggest improvement, although I
prefer my Grados, which are cheaper also. I think replacing your Onkyo
and/or Zenith hardware may make no improvement at all, but you'd have
to get the Headroom amp and/or another CD or DVD player to find out.
It's quite possible the Headroom amp, which is a decent amp, won't
improve things, if your Onkyo's headphone output sounds good to you.

> > or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise?

Not having heard your gear, I don't know if there's anything that
could be improved. It could easily sound great, for all I know. I'm
not familiar with your Sony's, but I think a headphone upgrade will
make the biggest improvement in your system, I'm guessing.

If you're going to shop for headphones, limit yourself to what you can
try at local dealers, if at all possible. Even more so than speakers,
headphones are a subjective choice, because of the comfort issue.
Trust me, if they're not comfy, you won't use 'em. Been there, done
that!

If you want to try a headphone amp, make sure to get return privileges
to allow for the fact you may find you don't really need an amp for
this purpose.

BTW, I think a lot of people buy headphone amps via mail or the web
because stores don't usually have them, at least not where I live. As
a result, there are a good number of these amps sitting in closets of
home users who bought the amps to try, then lost interest, or so I
imagine. Anyway, there are always headphone amps on eBay.com, if you
want to try looking there. I've also seen Headroom and other
audiophile amps on eBay occasionally.

> Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV
> watching/listening.

Headphones can be a great way to do that. Fine sound, assuming the TV
sound is good, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to listen via
headphones than via, for example, a 5.1 home theater setup.

[Andy Katz]

On 22 Sep 2004 14:25:32 -0700, (N) wrote:

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

>> Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom
>> amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited.
>
>I have a Little Headroom myself, and agree that this feature is
>worthless. Actually, that feature sounds worse to me, so I don't use
>it.

So far as I know, I don't experience that, either. I'm pretty
comfortable with headphones.

>IME, headphone outputs on integrated amps, receivers, and even
>Discman-type players sound from acceptable to excellent, so I wouldn't
>rush to buy a headphone amp. I haven't heard your Onkyo's headphone
>output, but it could be excellent.

I see. I probably ought to have asked what to expect from a headphone
amp. I really have no complaints-aside from occasional hiss, which I
don't find too troubling-about using my Sonys with the Onkyo.

I really don't need any additional volume. I was hoping train my ears,
much as a nascent restaurant critic has to learn to train his or her
palate, to discern better quality audio. If an amp won't improve the
sound quality output, if it only turns up the volume then I don't need
it.

>I think the Sennheisers would make the biggest improvement, although I
>prefer my Grados, which are cheaper also. I think replacing your Onkyo
>and/or Zenith hardware may make no improvement at all, but you'd have
>to get the Headroom amp and/or another CD or DVD player to find out.
>It's quite possible the Headroom amp, which is a decent amp, won't
>improve things, if your Onkyo's headphone output sounds good to you.

Good point. I'm definitely planning to check out the Sennheisers (and
possibly Grados, though I'm not sure where one can listen to Grados in
NYC)

>Not having heard your gear, I don't know if there's anything that
>could be improved. It could easily sound great, for all I know. I'm
>not familiar with your Sony's, but I think a headphone upgrade will
>make the biggest improvement in your system, I'm guessing.
>
>If you're going to shop for headphones, limit yourself to what you can
>try at local dealers, if at all possible. Even more so than speakers,
>headphones are a subjective choice, because of the comfort issue.
>Trust me, if they're not comfy, you won't use 'em. Been there, done
>that!
>
>If you want to try a headphone amp, make sure to get return privileges
>to allow for the fact you may find you don't really need an amp for
>this purpose.

Absolutely, yes. One thing about the Sonys is their astonishing
comfort.


>BTW, I think a lot of people buy headphone amps via mail or the web
>because stores don't usually have them, at least not where I live. As
>a result, there are a good number of these amps sitting in closets of
>home users who bought the amps to try, then lost interest, or so I
>imagine. Anyway, there are always headphone amps on eBay.com, if you
>want to try looking there. I've also seen Headroom and other
>audiophile amps on eBay occasionally.
>
>> Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV
>> watching/listening.
>
>Headphones can be a great way to do that. Fine sound, assuming the TV
>sound is good, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to listen via
>headphones than via, for example, a 5.1 home theater setup.

Indeed. I've hooked up the headphones to a small receiver that gets a
digital signal directly from the cable source, so TV sound is
outstanding. I find myself watching something with familiar stars
(familiar on TV, at least) marvelling at hearing them speak for the
first time.

Andy Katz

[paul packer]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:14:16 GMT, Andy Katz
> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:41:35 GMT, (paul packer)
>wrote:
>
>>Take my advice and get the 595. I've owned both 580 and 600 and the
>>595 is not only better balaced for the majority of material, but more
>>efficient, which means you shouldn't require a headphone amp. At
>>least, don't buy anything without listening to the 595. I'll be
>>surprised if you're disappointed, unless the phones you listen to
>>aren't burnt in .
>
>Thanks. I'm definitely going to try them first.
>
>Do I understand correctly that there was some problem with the factory
>and they're currently difficult to get here?
>
>Andy Katz

The factory burnt down, which was definitely a problem for Sennheiser.
However, stock is just starting to be distributed now in all
countries.


>************************************************** *************
>Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
>while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
>that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
>the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.
>
>Paghat, the Rat Girl

Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage.

[N]

Andy Katz > wrote in message >...
> On 22 Sep 2004 14:25:32 -0700, (N) wrote:
>
> >"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...

(snip)

> >IME, headphone outputs on integrated amps, receivers, and even
> >Discman-type players sound from acceptable to excellent, so I wouldn't
> >rush to buy a headphone amp. I haven't heard your Onkyo's headphone
> >output, but it could be excellent.
>
> I see. I probably ought to have asked what to expect from a headphone
> amp. I really have no complaints-aside from occasional hiss, which I
> don't find too troubling-about using my Sonys with the Onkyo.

If you're only hearing hiss occasionally, you might just be hearing
the hiss that might be in the recordings you're listening to.

> I really don't need any additional volume. I was hoping train my ears,
> much as a nascent restaurant critic has to learn to train his or her
> palate, to discern better quality audio.

Well, this could get very expensive! Seriously, I just want good
sound, namely sound that I like, and I don't worry about whether or
not that makes me an audiophile. Except for my headphone stuff, I own
very little gear that would impress an audiophile. And even my ear
gear is of the "budget audiophile" type.

But of anything in audio, headphones are something where you get the a
lot of bang for your buck. With headphones, you can buy much better
sound than even much more expensive speakers can provide.

>If an amp won't improve the
> sound quality output, if it only turns up the volume then I don't need
> it.

You'd have to compare the headphone amp directly to your Onkyo
receiver to find out if one or the other sounds better.

> >I think the Sennheisers would make the biggest improvement, although I
> >prefer my Grados, which are cheaper also. I think replacing your Onkyo
> >and/or Zenith hardware may make no improvement at all, but you'd have
> >to get the Headroom amp and/or another CD or DVD player to find out.
> >It's quite possible the Headroom amp, which is a decent amp, won't
> >improve things, if your Onkyo's headphone output sounds good to you.
>
> Good point. I'm definitely planning to check out the Sennheisers (and
> possibly Grados, though I'm not sure where one can listen to Grados in
> NYC)

I've never shopped for Grados in NYC, but they should be easily
available, given that Grado is in Brooklyn:

http://www.gradolabs.com/frameset_main.htm

Give them a call and I bet they can tell you their dealers. I don't
see a dealer list on their web site.

(snip)

> >If you're going to shop for headphones, limit yourself to what you can
> >try at local dealers, if at all possible. Even more so than speakers,
> >headphones are a subjective choice, because of the comfort issue.
> >Trust me, if they're not comfy, you won't use 'em. Been there, done
> >that!
> >
> >If you want to try a headphone amp, make sure to get return privileges
> >to allow for the fact you may find you don't really need an amp for
> >this purpose.
>
> Absolutely, yes. One thing about the Sonys is their astonishing
> comfort.

I have some older Sennheisers (can't remember model name) that I tend
to use the most because they're the most comfortable for me. In the
past and now, I've had fancier, pricier headphones (from Grado,
Sennheiser, Stax, and some other brands I've forgotten), but the
comfort issue always wins out for me. I also find the Grados pretty
comfy. The Sennheiser also looks better and has better ergonomics.

(snip)

> >> Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV
> >> watching/listening.
> >
> >Headphones can be a great way to do that. Fine sound, assuming the TV
> >sound is good, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to listen via
> >headphones than via, for example, a 5.1 home theater setup.
>
> Indeed. I've hooked up the headphones to a small receiver that gets a
> digital signal directly from the cable source, so TV sound is
> outstanding. I find myself watching something with familiar stars
> (familiar on TV, at least) marvelling at hearing them speak for the
> first time.

You may also notice little sound effects, as well as sounds that
weren't really meant to be heard, and little goofs like that. Can be
interesting to hear.

I used to have big amps, big speakers, I spent a lot of money (by my
standards) on audio gear, etc. Now I use much cheaper, simpler gear
that is easier for me and my family to use and enjoy; it gets used
much more because it's simpler than the big setup I used to have,
where I was really the only one at home with enough interest in the
gear and knowledge to get it all up and running when I wanted to
listen to a CD. And I found that I liked using the easier-to-operate
gear myself.

But if I really want more of an audiophile experience, I get out the
headphone gear. Keeping that around is a good compromise that allows
me to have high-quality sound when I want it, without having to live
with the big speakers, amps, etc. which took up a lot of room and
tended to gather dust anyway.

But I haven't used my Little Headroom amp this year, I bet, and I have
other gear that I can use with headphones, so I'll probably sell the
Headroom eventually.

> Andy Katz

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>>Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
>>while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
>>that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
>>the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

>>Paghat, the Rat Girl

>Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
>thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage.

Why? Because she might be right? :-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[paul packer]

>>Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
>>thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage.
>
>Why? Because she might be right? :-)
>
>--
>Sander deWaal
>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

I'm sure I've been right many times too, but no one quotes me. When we
were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said
anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to
change my mind.

[Andy Katz]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:06:40 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

>Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
>thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage.

You shouldn't be arguing with Paggers in the first place, Paul.
Nothing good ever comes of that.

If it's any satisfaction at all, based on what I've read I'm going to
take a very close look at the 595s. I believe I would appreciate they
"brightness" and detail. They *look* sturdy as hell--I really
appreciate the single cord--my SP 25s have a dual cord that drives me
nuts sometimes. And the price is not as dear as the Grado reference
series.

I still intend to listen and try them for comfort, but the 595 is the
one that appeals the most on paper;-)

Andy Katz

[Andy Katz]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:38:31 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

>I'm sure I've been right many times too, but no one quotes me. When we
>were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said
>anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to
>change my mind.

Paggers ....?

She's as sane as the Rock of Gibralter....

Andy Katz

[paghat]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:14:16 GMT, Andy Katz
> > wrote:

>
> >************************************************** *************
> >Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
> >while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
> >that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
> >the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.
> >
> >Paghat, the Rat Girl
>
> Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
> thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage.

Howdy, Fudgie! I haven't thought of you for over four years! I'm surprised
your pile is still steaming after a four-year-old flame in response to
your homophobic denials about Mary Renault & Julie Mullard's life
together. It was nice you'd even heard of them; beyond that, you were such
a dork. You went all dubious that their fifty-year life-commitment was
gay, charged me with having an "agenda" for even alluding to it, & you
went so far as to misquote one of their biographers who you claimed said
they weren't gay. (What he actually said was, in their youth together,
"did not think of themselves as lesbians because they thought what they
were doing was unique, that they had invented it. If asked, they would
have said they were bisexual. They often found men attractive, even if
they did prefer each other." Your denials were so moronic that I had a few
jests at your whiny expense, though only after you'd started acusing me of
a sinister queer agenda that you believed had nothing to do with books you
liked.

I would never have thought of you or that encounter ever again if Andy's
sigfile hadn't given you the horrors. But a google archive search reminded
me of the amusing long-ago encounter.

They were dykes, Fudgie. So neener. And cute dykes too:
http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/renault.jpg

It was harder to be "out" in the 1940s & 1950s than it is now, & harder in
South Africa than in Paris or London. When time caught up with them in the
post-Stonewall era, it was still hard for a couple in their 70s to
suddenly be expected by their enormous gay following to come out to the
public, which was still risky, & neither Mary nor Julie ever wanted to do
that. Yet Mary was brave for her time. As Caroline Zilboorg notes in THE
MASKS OF MARY RENAULT, Renault's boldness was to write about homosexuality
in fictional contexts which made her less closeted than many of the time,
as "The classical settings allowed Renault to mask material too explosive
to deal with directly while simultaneously giving her an 'academic'
freedom to write about subjects vital to her--among them war, peace,
career, women's roles, female and male homosexuality, and bisexuality."

I'd think that after four years, if our exchange had even been worthy of a
second thought let alone your continuous hostile reflection, you'd've
ceased to be ballistic by now & just realized it was weird of you to find
those cute dykes' love for one another so unbelievable. Your sense of
disbelief in a favorite author's homosexuality was massively irrational,
as Mary herself addressed it in her contemporary lesbian novel FRIENDLY
YOUNG LADIES (recently reprinted by Vintage Books), & she was even quite
out & open to her & Julie's personal friends, with correspondence since
published in which she is very open, as when she outlined to a friend how
she'd once encouraged Julie to date a man so that Julie would be
absolutely certain she had made the right choice with Mary, & admitted she
had worried that without Julie she might have ended up only a "Sister
George" type. Instead, she found true lifelong love.

This stuff gave you fits four years ago, so I ended up thinking of you as
Fudge Packer merely because it is so often the worst self-hating closety
faggots who become the most irrationally convinced even gay icons like
Renault, Gertrude Stein, or Tennessee Williams couldn't possibly be gay --
the denials part of their their own inability to admit their personal
interest is gay novels with gay subjects does in fact have something to do
with being gay. That my opinion still rankles you four years later is
simply you being loony. That you're worried I'm treated like a "sage"
(when the most recent three folks to quote me in their sigfiles seem more
to have regarded me as a commedienne) is still just your paranoia speaking
to you.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

[Andy Katz]

On 23 Sep 2004 07:21:28 -0700, (N) wrote:

>If you're only hearing hiss occasionally, you might just be hearing
>the hiss that might be in the recordings you're listening to.

I actually hear it in broadcast occasionally. It was horrible when I
hooked our TV up to run through the stereo. Ground loop I'd venture.
Anyway, I hooked the TV up through an old stereo, and there's no hiss
from that. The othe hiss is mild, at times nonexistent.

>> I really don't need any additional volume. I was hoping train my ears,
>> much as a nascent restaurant critic has to learn to train his or her
>> palate, to discern better quality audio.
>
>Well, this could get very expensive! Seriously, I just want good
>sound, namely sound that I like, and I don't worry about whether or
>not that makes me an audiophile. Except for my headphone stuff, I own
>very little gear that would impress an audiophile. And even my ear
>gear is of the "budget audiophile" type.
>
>But of anything in audio, headphones are something where you get the a
>lot of bang for your buck. With headphones, you can buy much better
>sound than even much more expensive speakers can provide.

Oh, I agree. My first really good pair were the MDR V6 (matter of fact
my son needs a new pair, and I see that some are still available, I'm
going to get some for him). I can't imagine when I'll be able to
afford a reference loudspeaker system. But phones aren't a bad
compromise.

>>If an amp won't improve the
>> sound quality output, if it only turns up the volume then I don't need
>> it.
>
>You'd have to compare the headphone amp directly to your Onkyo
>receiver to find out if one or the other sounds better.

Right.

>> Good point. I'm definitely planning to check out the Sennheisers (and
>> possibly Grados, though I'm not sure where one can listen to Grados in
>> NYC)
>
>I've never shopped for Grados in NYC, but they should be easily
>available, given that Grado is in Brooklyn:
>
>http://www.gradolabs.com/frameset_main.htm
>
>Give them a call and I bet they can tell you their dealers. I don't
>see a dealer list on their web site.

ROFL ... they're just down the street from me, I had no idea (we're on
Fifth, they're on Seventh Ave). Curious that no one I know of carries
them here ... maybe the audiophile outlets?

>> Absolutely, yes. One thing about the Sonys is their astonishing
>> comfort.
>
>I have some older Sennheisers (can't remember model name) that I tend
>to use the most because they're the most comfortable for me. In the
>past and now, I've had fancier, pricier headphones (from Grado,
>Sennheiser, Stax, and some other brands I've forgotten), but the
>comfort issue always wins out for me. I also find the Grados pretty
>comfy. The Sennheiser also looks better and has better ergonomics.

Right. I was reading some reviews: a larger # of people find the Senns
generally comfortable, but those who like the Grados really like them.

Based on what I read, comparing the Grado RS 1 to the Senn 600, I
would *probably* prefer the Grado because of its detail, its
immediacy. That particular model, however, costs about twice what the
600 costs.

>> Indeed. I've hooked up the headphones to a small receiver that gets a
>> digital signal directly from the cable source, so TV sound is
>> outstanding. I find myself watching something with familiar stars
>> (familiar on TV, at least) marvelling at hearing them speak for the
>> first time.
>
>You may also notice little sound effects, as well as sounds that
>weren't really meant to be heard, and little goofs like that. Can be
>interesting to hear.
>
>I used to have big amps, big speakers, I spent a lot of money (by my
>standards) on audio gear, etc. Now I use much cheaper, simpler gear
>that is easier for me and my family to use and enjoy; it gets used
>much more because it's simpler than the big setup I used to have,
>where I was really the only one at home with enough interest in the
>gear and knowledge to get it all up and running when I wanted to
>listen to a CD. And I found that I liked using the easier-to-operate
>gear myself.

Sure ... our apartment is well located, but it's tiny. What inspired
me to run the TV through the stereo was its location, only a few feet
from another TV. When people try to watch at the same time the effect
is cacaphony.

>But if I really want more of an audiophile experience, I get out the
>headphone gear. Keeping that around is a good compromise that allows
>me to have high-quality sound when I want it, without having to live
>with the big speakers, amps, etc. which took up a lot of room and
>tended to gather dust anyway.
>
>But I haven't used my Little Headroom amp this year, I bet, and I have
>other gear that I can use with headphones, so I'll probably sell the
>Headroom eventually.

How much ya want for it;-)?

Andy Katz

[paghat]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> >>Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
> >>thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage.
> >
> >Why? Because she might be right? :-)
> >
> >--
> >Sander deWaal
> >"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>
> I'm sure I've been right many times too, but no one quotes me.

Sheesh. If you want THAT badly to be quoted, I'll quote you then, you can
print it up yourself as a Certificate of Recognition:

"My name really is Paul, even if it isn't Pecker."

> When we
> were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said
> anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to
> change my mind.

Quite likely you can't recognize sanity because you lack the personal
reflective context to do so.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

[Sander deWaal]

paghat said:

>-paghat the ratgirl

Can't you stay on RAO for a while?
I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[paghat]

In article >, Sander deWaal
> wrote:

> paghat said:
>
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
> Can't you stay on RAO for a while?
> I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-)

I would hang out with y'all a long time if I could contribute to the main
topic, but the electronic stuff that has found it into our home is all
just magic to me. And I'm still waiting most expectantly for that
futuristic world I saw on old pulp magazines, when we'll all have our
personal art deco jets with which to zip 'round & about Electro City
'twixt & between vaccuum tubes big as skyscrapers.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

[Sander deWaal]

paghat said:

>> >-paghat the ratgirl

>> Can't you stay on RAO for a while?
>> I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-)

>I would hang out with y'all a long time if I could contribute to the main
>topic, but the electronic stuff that has found it into our home is all
>just magic to me. And I'm still waiting most expectantly for that
>futuristic world I saw on old pulp magazines, when we'll all have our
>personal art deco jets with which to zip 'round & about Electro City
>'twixt & between vaccuum tubes big as skyscrapers.


LOL!!!!
RAO is about just anything and a little audio.
I love your style already!

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[paul packer]

>Howdy, Fudgie! I haven't thought of you for over four years! I'm surprised
>your pile is still steaming after a four-year-old flame in response to
>your homophobic denials about Mary Renault & Julie Mullard's life
>together. It was nice you'd even heard of them; beyond that, you were such
>a dork. You went all dubious that their fifty-year life-commitment was
>gay, charged me with having an "agenda" for even alluding to it, & you
>went so far as to misquote one of their biographers who you claimed said
>they weren't gay.

Wrong, my dear. Totally wrong, which is why I ceased conversing with
you. In your haste to defend lesbianism you imagined I was attacking
same. As I suggested at the time, I don't think you read my posts at
all, and given the length of your own it's not surprising--you didn't
have time. I was neither attacking homosexuality nor suggesting that
Renault wasn't homosexual. What I was saying was that her books were
not "homosexual"--that is, that is not what they were primarily about.
Rather she simply included a homosexual element where it was dictated
by the subject matter or, in her later works, by history. If you take
a book like "Last of the Wine" or "Mask of Apollo", yes, there is a
gay element, but never more than is dictated by the situation and
characters---these are simply not "gay" books in the sense that
homosexuality is the prime focus or is being "preached". My objection
to your interpretation, and indeed Sweetman's, was that far too much
emphasis is placed on that element at the expense of appreciating
Renault's wonderful scholarship and literary artistry. This is indeed
my objection to the gay community generally---that they're so busy
being gay they often forget that they're also just people, citizens of
a community. (I think this point is made by Renault in "The
Charioteer" if I remember correctly). I wonder why gays are so
defensive that they see attacks where there are none.

>(What he actually said was, in their youth together,
>"did not think of themselves as lesbians because they thought what they
>were doing was unique, that they had invented it. If asked, they would
>have said they were bisexual. They often found men attractive, even if
>they did prefer each other." Your denials were so moronic that I had a few
>jests at your whiny expense, though only after you'd started acusing me of
>a sinister queer agenda that you believed had nothing to do with books you
>liked.

All sheer fantasy. As for the "queer agenda", yes, I think gay many
people tend to wish that everyone was gay, tend to try to prove that
even innocent statements contain a gay subtext. I've been in gay
company and heard such assertions--that the whole world is really gay
but they're all denying it. Piffle.

>
>I would never have thought of you or that encounter ever again if Andy's
>sigfile hadn't given you the horrors. But a google archive search reminded
>me of the amusing long-ago encounter.

Same here. That's why I objected to it--because I thought I'd
forgotten you and it was so pleasant to have done so.
>
>They were dykes, Fudgie. So neener. And cute dykes too:
>http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/renault.jpg
>
>It was harder to be "out" in the 1940s & 1950s than it is now, & harder in
>South Africa than in Paris or London. When time caught up with them in the
>post-Stonewall era, it was still hard for a couple in their 70s to
>suddenly be expected by their enormous gay following to come out to the
>public, which was still risky, & neither Mary nor Julie ever wanted to do
>that. Yet Mary was brave for her time. As Caroline Zilboorg notes in THE
>MASKS OF MARY RENAULT, Renault's boldness was to write about homosexuality
>in fictional contexts which made her less closeted than many of the time,
>as "The classical settings allowed Renault to mask material too explosive
>to deal with directly while simultaneously giving her an 'academic'
>freedom to write about subjects vital to her--among them war, peace,
>career, women's roles, female and male homosexuality, and bisexuality."
>
>I'd think that after four years, if our exchange had even been worthy of a
>second thought let alone your continuous hostile reflection, you'd've
>ceased to be ballistic by now & just realized it was weird of you to find
>those cute dykes' love for one another so unbelievable. Your sense of
>disbelief in a favorite author's homosexuality was massively irrational,

Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh sorry. Did you really say the above? My disbelief in
Renault's homosexuality? Oh my dear, you couldn't be further from the
truth. I started reading Renault when I was 14, and at that age, as
often happens, I not at all certain of my sexual identity. (Look it
up; it's common). In fact I was drawn to the homosexual element; it
was a surprise and comfort to me. I thought the relationships between
Laurie and Andrew in "Charioteer" and Alexias and Lysis in "Last of
the wine" were beautifully drawn and in many ways the ideal of love;
there was not a homophobic bone in my body. Neither is there now. I
just object to gays interpreting eveything through a kind of "gay"
filter" that sees only the "gayness" of everything, often at the
expense of the humanity. The wonder of those books was their literary
artistry and sheer intelligence, not their gayness.


>as Mary herself addressed it in her contemporary lesbian novel FRIENDLY
>YOUNG LADIES (recently reprinted by Vintage Books), & she was even quite
>out & open to her & Julie's personal friends, with correspondence since
>published in which she is very open, as when she outlined to a friend how
>she'd once encouraged Julie to date a man so that Julie would be
>absolutely certain she had made the right choice with Mary, & admitted she
>had worried that without Julie she might have ended up only a "Sister
>George" type. Instead, she found true lifelong love.
>
>This stuff gave you fits four years ago, so I ended up thinking of you as
>Fudge Packer merely because it is so often the worst self-hating closety
>faggots who become the most irrationally convinced even gay icons like
>Renault, Gertrude Stein, or Tennessee Williams couldn't possibly be gay --
>the denials part of their their own inability to admit their personal
>interest is gay novels with gay subjects does in fact have something to do
>with being gay. That my opinion still rankles you four years later is
>simply you being loony. That you're worried I'm treated like a "sage"
>(when the most recent three folks to quote me in their sigfiles seem more
>to have regarded me as a commedienne) is still just your paranoia speaking
>to you.
>
>-paghat the ratgirl


Paghat, you're as far off the path now as you were then. If you've
interpreted Renault as well as you've interpreted me....well, that
explains everything.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:46:11 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> When we
>> were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said
>> anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to
>> change my mind.
>
>I just read Paghat's four-year-old post about Mary Renault and Julie
>Mullard. It looks to me like she cleaned your clock.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, George--by counting the words?
What you mean is she types faster than me.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:09:05 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

>In article >, Sander deWaal
> wrote:
>
>> paghat said:
>>
>> >-paghat the ratgirl
>>
>> Can't you stay on RAO for a while?
>> I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-)
>
>I would hang out with y'all a long time if I could contribute to the main
>topic,

No, it's okay....

[paul packer]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:31:00 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> When we
>> >> were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said
>> >> anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to
>> >> change my mind.
>> >
>> >I just read Paghat's four-year-old post about Mary Renault and Julie
>> >Mullard. It looks to me like she cleaned your clock.
>>
>> How did you arrive at that conclusion, George--by counting the words?
>> What you mean is she types faster than me.
>
>Well, now I've read your rebuttal, and I think you're tanked again.


Gee, George, and I really thought you'd support me in this
debate--not.

[paghat]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> Wrong, my dear. Totally wrong, which is why I ceased conversing with
> you. In your haste to defend lesbianism you imagined I was attacking
> same. As I suggested at the time, I don't think you read my posts at
> all, and given the length of your own it's not surprising--you didn't
> have time. I was neither attacking homosexuality nor suggesting that
> Renault wasn't homosexual.

YOU said "Renault and Mullard lived together but never considered
themselves Lesbians." Reality: In letters & with friends they ackowledged
overtly & specifically that they were lesbians. YOU said: "Mullard herself
said that if anyone mentioned lesbians they would take themselves
elsewhere" when in fact they had many gay friends, & Mary's reluctance to
talk to Sweetman about it had nothing whatsoever to do with avoidance of
anything but Gay Pride marches. Sweetman himself is quite clear that he
believes her fiction cannot be understood separately from her life long
love affair with Julie, so you relied on a single biographer's opinion
that you had to completely misrepresent to force it to match your own
phobic responses.

> What I was saying was that her books were
> not "homosexual"--that is, that is not what they were primarily about.
> Rather she simply included a homosexual element where it was dictated
> by the subject matter or, in her later works, by history. If you take
> a book like "Last of the Wine" or "Mask of Apollo", yes, there is a
> gay element, but never more than is dictated by the situation and
> characters---these are simply not "gay" books in the sense that
> homosexuality is the prime focus or is being "preached". My objection
> to your interpretation, and indeed Sweetman's, was that far too much
> emphasis is placed on that element at the expense of appreciating
> Renault's wonderful scholarship and literary artistry. This is indeed
> my objection to the gay community generally---that they're so busy
> being gay they often forget that they're also just people, citizens of
> a community. (I think this point is made by Renault in "The
> Charioteer" if I remember correctly). I wonder why gays are so
> defensive that they see attacks where there are none.

That you believe the only aspect of a gay person's life is having sex
shows what a sad view of you have of gays. That you think admitting a gay
author writing of gay characters couldn't be a gay novel & still embody
"wonderful scholarship & literary artistry" shows what a bigot you are --
OF COURSE gay novels about gay characters by gay authors can be scholarly
& literary. That you persist in thinking otherwise shows the amazing
limitation of your worldview.

So your arguments are loony to the very heart. And that heart is best
revealed when you admit to a bigotted homophobic "objection to the gay
community generally." Which I believed four years ago, & believe now,
makes you one of the worst self-hating fags of all time.

> As for the "queer agenda", yes, I think gay
> people tend to wish that everyone was gay, tend to try to prove that
> even innocent statements contain a gay subtext.

Your paranoia again speaking to yourself. There is no need to have an
agenda or ferret out a gay subtext in books by gay authors about gay
characters. That you think this takes an obsessive quest for subtexts
shows you're a nutter.

It was YOU, not me, who decided that the focus of discussion, argument, or
flame should be exclusively about the gay content of these books, so that
you could make your weird irrational denials of consequence. In my
innocuous post that set you off:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BADSPAMBADpaghat-2404010922300001%40soggy72.drizzle.com&output=gplain>
I made THREE points regarding Renault: 1) That her first editions were
still available cheaply ($25 vs hundreds of dollars for first of lesser
contemporaries) because she is still not taken as seriously as she
deserves to be & is not on the A-list of collectible authors; 2) that she
was ahead of her time treating homosexuality positively & well as it
actually existed in the ancient world; & 3) her greatest strength was her
ability to establish & maintain viewpoints of characters who are of their
time instead of ours.

I gave equal weight to these three points -- you only imagined it was
exclusively about homosexual content when YOU irrationally demanded to
know, "Would you appreciate Renault at all if there were no gay element in
her books? That seems to be your only area of interest," even though my
assessment was far broader than your own. It was frankly a question you
needed to ask nobody but yourself. Perhaps in another four years you'll be
able to answer it honestly rather than with all these weird denials &
paranoid delusions about agendas & impositions of the objectionable gay
community you so roundly misrepresent.

> >They were dykes, Fudgie. So neener. And cute dykes too:
> >http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/renault.jpg
> >
> >It was harder to be "out" in the 1940s & 1950s than it is now, & harder in
> >South Africa than in Paris or London. When time caught up with them in the
> >post-Stonewall era, it was still hard for a couple in their 70s to
> >suddenly be expected by their enormous gay following to come out to the
> >public, which was still risky, & neither Mary nor Julie ever wanted to do
> >that. Yet Mary was brave for her time. As Caroline Zilboorg notes in THE
> >MASKS OF MARY RENAULT, Renault's boldness was to write about homosexuality
> >in fictional contexts which made her less closeted than many of the time,
> >as "The classical settings allowed Renault to mask material too explosive
> >to deal with directly while simultaneously giving her an 'academic'
> >freedom to write about subjects vital to her--among them war, peace,
> >career, women's roles, female and male homosexuality, and bisexuality."
> >
> >I'd think that after four years, if our exchange had even been worthy of a
> >second thought let alone your continuous hostile reflection, you'd've
> >ceased to be ballistic by now & just realized it was weird of you to find
> >those cute dykes' love for one another so unbelievable. Your sense of
> >disbelief in a favorite author's homosexuality was massively irrational,
>
> Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh sorry. Did you really say the above? My disbelief in
> Renault's homosexuality? Oh my dear, you couldn't be further from the
> truth. I started reading Renault when I was 14, and at that age, as
> often happens, I not at all certain of my sexual identity. (Look it
> up; it's common). In fact I was drawn to the homosexual element; it
> was a surprise and comfort to me.

I'm glad after four years you've evolved enough to admit it was the
faggotiness of the stories that comforted you. You were incapable of
admitting that four years ago, when you most certainly did gripe that
those cute dykes weren't lesbians & you even claimed they deplored gays &
avoided them (a complete lie; they avoided opportunities to march at the
front of the parade), & you're still insisting books by gay authors with
gay characters can't be gay books if they also have literary value --
bigotted ignorant assertions all. Yes OF COURSE you were drawn to the gay
subject, being a self-loathing closet fag, but four years ago you
explicitly denied that could be their draw for you.

> I thought the relationships between
> Laurie and Andrew in "Charioteer" and Alexias and Lysis in "Last of
> the wine" were beautifully drawn and in many ways the ideal of love;
> there was not a homophobic bone in my body. Neither is there now. I
> just object to gays interpreting eveything through a kind of "gay"
> filter" that sees only the "gayness" of everything, often at the
> expense of the humanity. The wonder of those books was their literary
> artistry and sheer intelligence, not their gayness.

Still at it like a classic self-hating homophobe. Books by gay authors
about gay characters seen as gay books only with special filters, agendas,
& other things that your paranoid fears imagine. That you persist in
believing gay books can't have "literary artistry & sheer intelligence"
shows your problem runs EXTREMELY deep. And that fact, rather than my
existence, is why you had to revisit the issue after four years rather
than just getting over it.

This is in essence the same dumbass homophobic argument you made before,
claiming it was me who saw exclusively gayness in the books. YOU lost your
cookies over that one issue after I laid out a quarter-dozen areas of
consequence in Renault's themes & storytelling prowess. YOU, not I,
focused exclusively on the gay issue -- so the blinders or filters or
agendas your paranoic self-hate imposes on others in the end applies only
to you.

Your whole thought processes sounds like the kind of closet-case who has
no problem using the Glory Hole anonymously in some park toilet, but
afterward imagines all sorts of paranoid things about queers because of
the distorted view you have in your own mirror.

> >as Mary herself addressed it in her contemporary lesbian novel FRIENDLY
> >YOUNG LADIES (recently reprinted by Vintage Books), & she was even quite
> >out & open to her & Julie's personal friends, with correspondence since
> >published in which she is very open, as when she outlined to a friend how
> >she'd once encouraged Julie to date a man so that Julie would be
> >absolutely certain she had made the right choice with Mary, & admitted she
> >had worried that without Julie she might have ended up only a "Sister
> >George" type. Instead, she found true lifelong love.
> >
> >This stuff gave you fits four years ago, so I ended up thinking of you as
> >Fudge Packer merely because it is so often the worst self-hating closety
> >faggots who become the most irrationally convinced even gay icons like
> >Renault, Gertrude Stein, or Tennessee Williams couldn't possibly be gay --
> >the denials part of their their own inability to admit their personal
> >interest is gay novels with gay subjects does in fact have something to do
> >with being gay. That my opinion still rankles you four years later is
> >simply you being loony. That you're worried I'm treated like a "sage"
> >(when the most recent three folks to quote me in their sigfiles seem more
> >to have regarded me as a commedienne) is still just your paranoia speaking
> >to you.
> >
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
>
> Paghat, you're as far off the path now as you were then. If you've
> interpreted Renault as well as you've interpreted me....well, that
> explains everything.

If you knew yourself half as well as you think, you might've been able to
overcome your dread of sweet paghat by now. That you can at least finally
admit the queerness of Renault's books were their chief draw for you shows
there's hope, but you have a long, long, long way to grow.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

[N]

Andy Katz > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Sep 2004 07:21:28 -0700, (N) wrote:
>
> >If you're only hearing hiss occasionally, you might just be hearing
> >the hiss that might be in the recordings you're listening to.
>
> I actually hear it in broadcast occasionally. It was horrible when I
> hooked our TV up to run through the stereo. Ground loop I'd venture.
> Anyway, I hooked the TV up through an old stereo, and there's no hiss
> from that. The othe hiss is mild, at times nonexistent.

I'd think you'd have hum from ground loops, not hiss.

(snip)

> >But of anything in audio, headphones are something where you get the a
> >lot of bang for your buck. With headphones, you can buy much better
> >sound than even much more expensive speakers can provide.
>
> Oh, I agree. My first really good pair were the MDR V6 (matter of fact
> my son needs a new pair, and I see that some are still available, I'm
> going to get some for him). I can't imagine when I'll be able to
> afford a reference loudspeaker system. But phones aren't a bad
> compromise.

Exactly. And with really good speakers, you need a lot of room also,
so the headphones save a lot of space too. By the way, I think the
Sony MDR-7506 is the same as the V6, if you want to compare prices:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=v6+7506+sony+headphones&meta=

(snip)

> ROFL ... they're just down the street from me, I had no idea (we're on
> Fifth, they're on Seventh Ave). Curious that no one I know of carries
> them here ... maybe the audiophile outlets?

Probably so. I've only seen them at those sort of dealers, both online
and retail. They also turn up on eBay.

I've also had the experience of discovering audiophile products are
made almost in my backyard. It can be a bit surprising, as you
discovered.

> >> Absolutely, yes. One thing about the Sonys is their astonishing
> >> comfort.
> >
> >I have some older Sennheisers (can't remember model name) that I tend
> >to use the most because they're the most comfortable for me. In the
> >past and now, I've had fancier, pricier headphones (from Grado,
> >Sennheiser, Stax, and some other brands I've forgotten), but the
> >comfort issue always wins out for me. I also find the Grados pretty
> >comfy. The Sennheiser also looks better and has better ergonomics.
>
> Right. I was reading some reviews: a larger # of people find the Senns
> generally comfortable, but those who like the Grados really like them.

I think Sennheiser is the leader in ergonomics. I've owned Grado SR40,
SR80, and SR200 headphones, and while the sound is great, they just
don't look as sleek as Sennheisers either. Some people find the Grados
uncomfortable, but either I got used to them or they got used to me.

> Based on what I read, comparing the Grado RS 1 to the Senn 600, I
> would *probably* prefer the Grado because of its detail, its
> immediacy. That particular model, however, costs about twice what the
> 600 costs.

I've never been that far up the Grado line. Comparing the SR80 to the
SR200 (since replaced in Grado's line by the SR225), the SR80 had more
of that immediacy than the SR200. Both sounded fine, I just decided I
wasn't going to keep both, and I slightly preferred the SR80, so I
sold the SR200's.

That sense of immediacy, of being live, and sounding like really good
speakers in a room, is where the Grados really excel. With the
exception of the SR40, which has the SR60 drivers in a cheap plastic
frame and is aimed at the portable audio crowd, all the Grados have
the same basic design. While I haven't heard the Grado RS headphones,
I'm slightly suspicious that they might not sound a lot different than
the cheaper Grados like mine.

One more thought: The Grados have open backs, so people sitting near
you will also be hearing what you hear. That's true in a typical
office cubicle setting too--been there, done that! Grados also won't
seal out outside sounds, which can be either an advantage or a
disadvantage. If you want to really be alone with the music, get
headphones with closed backs, or else something that really goes
inside your ears, like the Etymotic or Shure earbuds. (Haven't heard
these myself.)

(snip)

> Sure ... our apartment is well located, but it's tiny.

Sounds like NYC, all right!

(snip)

> >But if I really want more of an audiophile experience, I get out the
> >headphone gear. Keeping that around is a good compromise that allows
> >me to have high-quality sound when I want it, without having to live
> >with the big speakers, amps, etc. which took up a lot of room and
> >tended to gather dust anyway.
> >
> >But I haven't used my Little Headroom amp this year, I bet, and I have
> >other gear that I can use with headphones, so I'll probably sell the
> >Headroom eventually.
>
> How much ya want for it;-)?

Hmmm...how about $125, including shipping within the US?

I see the current price is $259, plus shipping, at:

http://www.headphone.com/layout.php?topicID=3&subTopicID=27&productID=0010010010

If interested, post again in this thread and I'll contact you via
e-mail.

> Andy Katz

[Andy Katz]

On 24 Sep 2004 15:39:54 -0700, (N) wrote:

>> I actually hear it in broadcast occasionally. It was horrible when I
>> hooked our TV up to run through the stereo. Ground loop I'd venture.
>> Anyway, I hooked the TV up through an old stereo, and there's no hiss
>> from that. The othe hiss is mild, at times nonexistent.
>
>I'd think you'd have hum from ground loops, not hiss.

Oh, yes. It *was* hum. I was being careless in my diction;-). I'm sure
it didn't come from the recording source.

It was extreme when hooked up to the TV. Now it's only occasional and
far less of a nuisance. I've started to research the whole ground loop
issue, and it's apparently fairly recondite. Better just to use a
different receiver;-)

>> Oh, I agree. My first really good pair were the MDR V6 (matter of fact
>> my son needs a new pair, and I see that some are still available, I'm
>> going to get some for him). I can't imagine when I'll be able to
>> afford a reference loudspeaker system. But phones aren't a bad
>> compromise.
>
>Exactly. And with really good speakers, you need a lot of room also,
>so the headphones save a lot of space too. By the way, I think the
>Sony MDR-7506 is the same as the V6, if you want to compare prices:

Thanks. They certainly look similar. At least the 7506s are fairly
easy to check out.

>> Right. I was reading some reviews: a larger # of people find the Senns
>> generally comfortable, but those who like the Grados really like them.
>
>I think Sennheiser is the leader in ergonomics. I've owned Grado SR40,
>SR80, and SR200 headphones, and while the sound is great, they just
>don't look as sleek as Sennheisers either. Some people find the Grados
>uncomfortable, but either I got used to them or they got used to me.

Hmmm . . . I bought a pair of HD 595s, sight unseen, because the price
was terrific. They're not here yet, but I think they'll work out. I
needed to replace the Senns that broke, and the 595s look awesomely
comfortable. It's a small thing, but I really like the one cord rather
than bilateral cords. The SP 25s I use for outdoors have dual cords
and while I can see the utility--easier replacement if they break--the
trade-off's not worth it. Even though I won't take the Senns out, I'll
probably use them in the kitchen, so having one cord is a distinct
advantage.

>> Based on what I read, comparing the Grado RS 1 to the Senn 600, I
>> would *probably* prefer the Grado because of its detail, its
>> immediacy. That particular model, however, costs about twice what the
>> 600 costs.
>
>I've never been that far up the Grado line. Comparing the SR80 to the
>SR200 (since replaced in Grado's line by the SR225), the SR80 had more
>of that immediacy than the SR200. Both sounded fine, I just decided I
>wasn't going to keep both, and I slightly preferred the SR80, so I
>sold the SR200's.
>
>That sense of immediacy, of being live, and sounding like really good
>speakers in a room, is where the Grados really excel. With the
>exception of the SR40, which has the SR60 drivers in a cheap plastic
>frame and is aimed at the portable audio crowd, all the Grados have
>the same basic design. While I haven't heard the Grado RS headphones,
>I'm slightly suspicious that they might not sound a lot different than
>the cheaper Grados like mine.

This coincides with what I've been reading. I'm sure the reference
series have some advantages, but maybe not enough to warrant the
prices. I notice the SR 60s are very reasonably priced. While I'm
happy with my SP 25s I wouldn't mind trying out the Grados. Perhaps in
a couple of months.

>One more thought: The Grados have open backs, so people sitting near
>you will also be hearing what you hear. That's true in a typical
>office cubicle setting too--been there, done that! Grados also won't
>seal out outside sounds, which can be either an advantage or a
>disadvantage. If you want to really be alone with the music, get
>headphones with closed backs, or else something that really goes
>inside your ears, like the Etymotic or Shure earbuds. (Haven't heard
>these myself.)

I have a pair of E2s. My ear canals must be ususally narrow, because
even the smallest ear plugs are uncomfortable. I can manage using the
foam inserts. I do like them, but, ironically, I'm hard of hearing and
can't hear certain frequencies at all, especially those generated by
electronic sounds such as cell phone ringers (though I can hear better
over a cell phone than most land lines). Then I discovered the
Motorola V60 which has a harsh, clanging ring that I can hear just
fine. It was shortly after that that I bought the Shures. Suddenly I
couldn't hear the phone again;-)

But I do use them if I want to listen to music or TV late at night
while in bed. Even when she's asleep my wife can hear the sound of
closed headphones such as the CD 870.

>> How much ya want for it;-)?
>
>Hmmm...how about $125, including shipping within the US?

Sure.

>I see the current price is $259, plus shipping, at:
>
>http://www.headphone.com/layout.php?topicID=3&subTopicID=27&productID=0010010010
>
>If interested, post again in this thread and I'll contact you via
>e-mail.

Please do. For that price I'd be very happy to give it a go;-)

Andy Katz

[paul packer]

>Hmmm . . . I bought a pair of HD 595s, sight unseen, because the price
>was terrific. They're not here yet, but I think they'll work out. I
>needed to replace the Senns that broke, and the 595s look awesomely
>comfortable. It's a small thing, but I really like the one cord rather
>than bilateral cords. The SP 25s I use for outdoors have dual cords
>and while I can see the utility--easier replacement if they break--the
>trade-off's not worth it. Even though I won't take the Senns out, I'll
>probably use them in the kitchen, so having one cord is a distinct
>advantage.


I don't think there's much chance you'll be disappointed in the 595.
As I said on AudioReview they're incredibly well balanced--not
outstanding in any particular area but terrifically satisfying over a
long period. My major gripe is microphony. I really wish Senn would
address this issue. The odd thing is that it was never a problem in
earlier phones, and I had the 545, 565, 580, 590 & 600 at different
times--none of which I liked. Now along comes the perfect phone for me
sound-wise and it exhibits a different problem altogether--plus it's
not quite as comfortable as those phones. Sheesh....

[Andy Katz]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:47:38 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

>I don't think there's much chance you'll be disappointed in the 595.
>As I said on AudioReview they're incredibly well balanced--not
>outstanding in any particular area but terrifically satisfying over a
>long period. My major gripe is microphony. I really wish Senn would
>address this issue. The odd thing is that it was never a problem in
>earlier phones, and I had the 545, 565, 580, 590 & 600 at different
>times--none of which I liked. Now along comes the perfect phone for me
>sound-wise and it exhibits a different problem altogether--plus it's
>not quite as comfortable as those phones. Sheesh....

I read that one, Paul. Didn't realize it was you. I'm surprised to
hear, actually, that the other Senn models are more comfortable, but
otherwise they sound exactly like what I'm looking for.

Thanks

Andy Katz

Ps: What do you mean by "microphony"?

[paul packer]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:43:09 GMT, Andy Katz
> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:47:38 GMT, (paul packer)
>wrote:
>
>>I don't think there's much chance you'll be disappointed in the 595.
>>As I said on AudioReview they're incredibly well balanced--not
>>outstanding in any particular area but terrifically satisfying over a
>>long period. My major gripe is microphony. I really wish Senn would
>>address this issue. The odd thing is that it was never a problem in
>>earlier phones, and I had the 545, 565, 580, 590 & 600 at different
>>times--none of which I liked. Now along comes the perfect phone for me
>>sound-wise and it exhibits a different problem altogether--plus it's
>>not quite as comfortable as those phones. Sheesh....
>
>I read that one, Paul. Didn't realize it was you. I'm surprised to
>hear, actually, that the other Senn models are more comfortable, but
>otherwise they sound exactly like what I'm looking for.

Don't worry about the comfort thing--it's minor, and probably just me.
If you want to read a whole lot of opinions on the 595 and other
phones try:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=450ac4580127c9ad023c64f258148be 6&forumid=2

>
>Thanks
>
>Andy Katz
>
>Ps: What do you mean by "microphony"?

"Microphony" is when something acts as a microphone, that is transmits
the sound and amplifies it. If a headphone is microphonic you'll
certainly hear it by tapping the earpiece with your fingernail. It
often affects the cord too--just scrape the cord while wearing the
phones and you'll see what I mean. Not a huge problem unless you're
moving your head a lot or, as I found, your clothes (collar etc) keep
touching the phone. Again, a minor problem but occasionally
irritating. Something for Senn to look into.

[jw]

Park Avenue Audio on Park Ave south at 29th street in the city has grados -
and they are open sunday.

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Sep 2004 07:21:28 -0700, (N) wrote:
>
>
> >> Good point. I'm definitely planning to check out the Sennheisers (and
> >> possibly Grados, though I'm not sure where one can listen to Grados in
> >> NYC)
> >
> >I've never shopped for Grados in NYC, but they should be easily
> >available, given that Grado is in Brooklyn:
> >
> >http://www.gradolabs.com/frameset_main.htm
> >

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>"Microphony" is when something acts as a microphone, that is transmits
>the sound and amplifies it. If a headphone is microphonic you'll
>certainly hear it by tapping the earpiece with your fingernail. It
>often affects the cord too--just scrape the cord while wearing the
>phones and you'll see what I mean. Not a huge problem unless you're
>moving your head a lot or, as I found, your clothes (collar etc) keep
>touching the phone. Again, a minor problem but occasionally
>irritating. Something for Senn to look into.

Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
proper engineered loop NFB.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Andy Katz]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:09:25 GMT, "jw" > wrote:

>Park Avenue Audio on Park Ave south at 29th street in the city has grados -
>and they are open sunday.

Thanks. I'll check them out;-)

Andy Katz

************************************************** *************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

Paghat, the Rat Girl

[Andy Katz]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:05:06 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
>proper engineered loop NFB.

Wha dat?

Andy Katz
************************************************** *************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

Paghat, the Rat Girl

[Sander deWaal]

Andy Katz > said:

>>Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
>>proper engineered loop NFB.

>Wha dat?

Headphones acting like microphones, when the "microphone" signal is
fed back thru a FB loop into the FB input of the input differential.
Easy to **** this up, and easy to avoid.

Nothing to worry about with decent amplifiers, note.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[N]

Andy Katz > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:05:06 +0200, Sander deWaal >
> wrote:
>
> >Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
> >proper engineered loop NFB.
>
> Wha dat?

NFB = Negative feedback. Took me a moment or two to figure this out!

(snip)

[Andy Katz]

On 28 Sep 2004 10:09:37 -0700, (N) wrote:

>Andy Katz > wrote in message >...
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:05:06 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
>> >proper engineered loop NFB.
>>
>> Wha dat?
>
>NFB = Negative feedback. Took me a moment or two to figure this out!

I see. So what's loop NFB?

Andy Katz

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message

> On 28 Sep 2004 10:09:37 -0700, (N) wrote:
>
>> Andy Katz > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:05:06 +0200, Sander deWaal
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
>>>> proper engineered loop NFB.
>>>
>>> Wha dat?
>>
>> NFB = Negative feedback. Took me a moment or two to figure this out!
>
> I see. So what's loop NFB?

Usually, loop feedback takes some of the output of the amplifier, and
compares it to some of the input, and the amplifier has more than one stage
of amplification. This contrasts with local feedback, whose effective input
and outputs are in the same stage of amplification.

Can you read a schematic? If so, I could give you some examples.

[Sander deWaal]

Andy Katz > said:

>>> >Note that this doesn't happen with amplifiers without loop NFB or
>>> >proper engineered loop NFB.

>>> Wha dat?

>>NFB = Negative feedback. Took me a moment or two to figure this out!

>I see. So what's loop NFB?

Negative feedback is a system where part of the output signal is fed
back in antiphase to the input of an amplifier, in order to reduce
distortion, output impedance and gain.
Loop NFB means (part of) the output signal of several stages in the
amp is fed back to the input, often the other half of an input
differential stage (transistors) or a cathode ( with tubes).
Local NFB means the signal in just one stage is fed back, e.g. in a
single transistor or tube stage the emitter or cathode resistor
provides local feedback.

Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at the
output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.
For this kind of signals, there is no feedback since they have no
relationship to the real input signal.
They're amplified with the open loop amplifying factor of the amp,
thereby wreaking havoc with the desired signal.

This is, very simplified and in a nutshell, the story about NFB.
If you want to know more, do a Google search for negative feedback +
audio + amplifiers. There's tons of information on the net about it.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Andy Katz]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:54:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Usually, loop feedback takes some of the output of the amplifier, and
>compares it to some of the input, and the amplifier has more than one stage
>of amplification. This contrasts with local feedback, whose effective input
>and outputs are in the same stage of amplification.

I see . . . so it' s like a shadow signal, mirroring the primary one?

>Can you read a schematic? If so, I could give you some examples.

Yes, please...

Andy Katz

[Andy Katz]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:24:43 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Negative feedback is a system where part of the output signal is fed
>back in antiphase to the input of an amplifier, in order to reduce
>distortion, output impedance and gain.
>Loop NFB means (part of) the output signal of several stages in the
>amp is fed back to the input, often the other half of an input
>differential stage (transistors) or a cathode ( with tubes).
>Local NFB means the signal in just one stage is fed back, e.g. in a
>single transistor or tube stage the emitter or cathode resistor
>provides local feedback.

Okay. So this is all intentional, then, loop & local feedback?

>Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
>there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at the
>output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.

What causes them not to be applied properly? Is that poor design, or
setup issues?

>For this kind of signals, there is no feedback since they have no
>relationship to the real input signal.
>They're amplified with the open loop amplifying factor of the amp,
>thereby wreaking havoc with the desired signal.

Is the audible effect always a hum?

>This is, very simplified and in a nutshell, the story about NFB.
>If you want to know more, do a Google search for negative feedback +
>audio + amplifiers. There's tons of information on the net about it.

I will;-)

Thanks....

Andy Katz

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:54:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Usually, loop feedback takes some of the output of the amplifier,
>> and compares it to some of the input, and the amplifier has more
>> than one stage of amplification. This contrasts with local
>> feedback, whose effective input and outputs are in the same stage of
>> amplification.
>
> I see . . . so it' s like a shadow signal, mirroring the primary one?

Yes. The feedback is a portion of the output signal. It is compared to a
portion of the input signal, and the difference is used to correct the
output signal.

>> Can you read a schematic? If so, I could give you some examples.

> Yes, please...

http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14180/css/14180_31.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/opamp2.html#c2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_amplifier

http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/ece3050/notes/feedback/fdbkamps.pdf

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/dipa/dipa.htm

> Andy Katz

[Sander deWaal]

Andy Katz > said:

>Okay. So this is all intentional, then, loop & local feedback?

Yes, it's just a method to improve an amplifier.

>>Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
>>there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at the
>>output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.
>
>What causes them not to be applied properly? Is that poor design, or
>setup issues?

Mostly poor design, but the choice of components can play a role as
well.

>Is the audible effect always a hum?

It can be. Hum, noise, distortion, and microphony effects.

>I will;-)

See the links that Arny posted.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:24:43 +0200, Sander deWaal >
> wrote:
>
>> Negative feedback is a system where part of the output signal is fed
>> back in antiphase to the input of an amplifier, in order to reduce
>> distortion, output impedance and gain.
>> Loop NFB means (part of) the output signal of several stages in the
>> amp is fed back to the input, often the other half of an input
>> differential stage (transistors) or a cathode ( with tubes).
>> Local NFB means the signal in just one stage is fed back, e.g. in a
>> single transistor or tube stage the emitter or cathode resistor
>> provides local feedback.

> Okay. So this is all intentional, then, loop & local feedback?

Loop feedback is generally intentional. It is a sound engineering principle.
Local feedback can be intentional or not. Sometimes, its hard to avoid. For
example, the major difference between a Pentode and a Triode is the fact
that the Triode has lots of local feedback which limits its gain.

>> Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
>> there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at the
>> output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.

> What causes them not to be applied properly? Is that poor design, or
> setup issues?

Tell the truth, this is sadly yet another example of Sander's misplaced
technical priorities. The first and most obvious thing that happens when
feedback is improperly engineered is that you get an unstable amp. A mildly
unstable amp will have problems like uneven frequency response, most obvious
as ringing on square waves. A really unstable amp will start producing
modulated or continuous tones at specific frequencies related to the
instability. This can lead to the destruction of the amplifier and/or the
loudspeaker.

>> For this kind of signals, there is no feedback since they have no
>> relationship to the real input signal.

This is yet another one of Sander's frequent incorrect statements. When
feedback is properly applied, the output impedance of the amplifier is very
low, which makes the amplifier a good source of power for loudspeakers, and
also makes the amp more resistant to interference at the output terminals.
Sander is making a big thing out of a fairly rare pathology that is pretty
easy to avoid with good design techniques.

The general topic of feedback system design is widely taught in good
engineering schools because it can apply to a wide variety of technical
systems, not just power amplifiers. High end audio designers are often
self-taught and relatively poorly educated compared to say your typical
rocket scientist or machine designer.

>> They're amplified with the open loop amplifying factor of the amp,
>> thereby wreaking havoc with the desired signal.

> Is the audible effect always a hum?

No.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
>>> there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at the
>>> output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.

>> What causes them not to be applied properly? Is that poor design, or
>> setup issues?

>This is yet another one of Sander's frequent incorrect statements. When
>feedback is properly applied,

Read my first sentence, dork.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>> Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
>>>> there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at
>>>> the output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.
>
>>> What causes them not to be applied properly? Is that poor design, or
>>> setup issues?
>
>> This is yet another one of Sander's frequent incorrect statements.
>> When feedback is properly applied,
>
> Read my first sentence, dork.

I guess Sander, that you can't figure out that I was not addressing your
first sentence? To help you let me point out that I was addressing a
different sentence, specifically the one quoted immediately above my
comment.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>>> Essentially, when loop or global feedback isn't applied properly,
>>>>> there is the possibility for interference signals that arrive at
>>>>> the output of an amp to be injected into the input of the amp.

>>>> What causes them not to be applied properly? Is that poor design, or
>>>> setup issues?

>>> This is yet another one of Sander's frequent incorrect statements.
>>> When feedback is properly applied,

>> Read my first sentence, dork.

>I guess Sander, that you can't figure out that I was not addressing your
>first sentence? To help you let me point out that I was addressing a
>different sentence, specifically the one quoted immediately above my
>comment.

I guess Ahnuld, that you can't figure out that I was saying the same
thing as you.
"When loop or global feedback isn't applied properly......" and that
statement was valid for the entire post to mr. Katz.
To which you respond with :
"This is yet another of Sander's frequent incorrect statements. When
feedback is properly applied.........."

And I'm even ignoring the other sneers at me in your post.
Even when you're right, you're so terribly wrong.
And here you are "debating" me while we're essentially at the same
page.
You just can't help yourself, can you? ;-)

To quote a well-known published professional audio clown:
"Get a life, Slick. It is only a hobby, you know".

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."