Re: **** tubes...

[Marc Phillips]

Paul said:

>"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>
>>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>
>How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing. I'd get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Marc Phillips wrote:
> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>

Too bad no one ever told you that what you had was not a "jewel" but
rather a commodity product low end integrated amp on the cusp of
turning 40 years old. What??? Someone _did_ tell you??? And you were
too arrogant to listen??? What a surprise! ;-)

[Pooh Bear]

Marc Phillips wrote:

> Paul said:
>
> >"Marc Phillips" emitted :
> >
> >>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
> >
> >How so?
>
> It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it starts
> making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing. I'd get
> into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more modern?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
>> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>
>
>Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more modern?

Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Pooh Bear said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> Paul said:
>>
>> >"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>> >
>> >>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>> >
>> >How so?
>>
>> It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
>starts
>> making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing. I'd
>get
>> into more detail, but the assholes are coming.
>
>Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)
>

Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still there,
and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm going to
grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions, and
doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.

I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something like
a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55. That
Arny...what an audio genius.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>
>
>Too bad no one ever told you that what you had was not a "jewel" but
>rather a commodity product low end integrated amp on the cusp of
>turning 40 years old. What??? Someone _did_ tell you??? And you were
>too arrogant to listen??? What a surprise! ;-)

Actually, you're completely off the mark. But thanks for assuming and making
yourself look stupid again.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Good ol' Porky, just as stupid as ever:

Marc Phillips wrote:
> Richard Malesweski said:
>
You are _so_ predictable, Porky.....I baited the hook a few days before
I started posting on RAO again and I was waiting to see how long it
would take you to starting squawking "Richard Malesweski" again. You
need to learn something about screen names, numbnuts. :-))
>
<snip>
>
> Actually, you're completely off the mark.

"completely off the mark"?
Let's see, I wrote:

>>not a jewel

I think you just admitted that yourself.

>>commodity product

That's exactly what it was when it was new.

>>low end integrated amp

It was near the bottom of the Scott line at the time.

>>on the cusp of turning 40 years old.

Care to differ?

>>Someone did tell you

I remember Arny telling you that the Scott tube integrated amps were
designs heavily compromised by cost, size and weight constraints.

>>And you were too arrogant to listen

Perhaps you would prefer to substitute another word for "arrogant"?
"Stupid", "ignorant" and "uninformed" come quickly to mind. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear said:
>
>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> Paul said:
>>>
>>> >"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>>> >
>>> >>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>> >
>>> >How so?
>>>
>>> It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
>>starts
>>> making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
>>> I'd
>>get
>>> into more detail, but the assholes are coming.
>>
>>Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)
>>
>
> Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
> there,
> and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
> going to
> grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
> and
> doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.
>
> I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something
> like
> a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
> That
> Arny...what an audio genius.
>
> Boon

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

[Marc Phillips]

Clyde Slick said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> Pooh Bear said:
>>
>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul said:
>>>>
>>>> >"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>>>> >
>>>> >>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>>> >
>>>> >How so?
>>>>
>>>> It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
>>>starts
>>>> making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
>>>> I'd
>>>get
>>>> into more detail, but the assholes are coming.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
>> there,
>> and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
>> going to
>> grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
>> and
>> doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.
>>
>> I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something
>> like
>> a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
>> That
>> Arny...what an audio genius.
>>
>> Boon
>
>I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott around.
I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.

I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>Good ol' Porky, just as stupid as ever:
>
>Marc Phillips wrote:
>> Richard Malesweski said:
>>
>You are _so_ predictable, Porky.....I baited the hook a few days before
>I started posting on RAO again and I was waiting to see how long it
>would take you to starting squawking "Richard Malesweski" again.

That's a victory? I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates you.

You
>need to learn something about screen names, numbnuts. :-))

Like what? What could you possibly teach that I don't already know?

>>
><snip>
>>
>> Actually, you're completely off the mark.
>
>"completely off the mark"?
>Let's see, I wrote:
>
>>>not a jewel
>
>I think you just admitted that yourself.

You "think"? Sorry, but perhaps you should read the rest of the thread before
commenting. Then you might just figure out how you missed the mark.

>
>>>commodity product
>
>That's exactly what it was when it was new.

Yes, when it was new. But I remember rubbing your nose in the fact that this
is not a stock 299B. Hell, we were talking about the LK-48 back then, a
completely different amp. You do need to catch up.

>
>>>low end integrated amp
>
>It was near the bottom of the Scott line at the time.

Yes, a stock model certainly was.

>
>>>on the cusp of turning 40 years old.
>
>Care to differ?

Yes. It's 41 years old.

>
>>>Someone did tell you
>
>I remember Arny telling you that the Scott tube integrated amps were
>designs heavily compromised by cost, size and weight constraints.

Stock examples, perhaps.

>
>>>And you were too arrogant to listen

To what? Arny's comments on a different amplifier?
>
>Perhaps you would prefer to substitute another word for "arrogant"?
>"Stupid", "ignorant" and "uninformed" come quickly to mind. ;-)

Yes. Although I hate to resort to a IKYABWAI here, it is clear that you were
basing your comments on incorrect information. Your comments referred to a
stock LK-48, and what I have is a heavily modified 299B. Now spin away, little
Internet monkey. Tell us all how you're not ignorant, arrogant, stupid, and
uninformed.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
>> modern?
>
> Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?

I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp then,
so how can it get better simply by being old?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
>>> modern?
>>
>> Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?
>
>If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?
>
>I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp then,
>so how can it get better simply by being old?

New, larger transformers, for one. But I'd like to see you admit to a tube amp
"done right" first before telling you what else I had modified.

Boon

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Marc Phillips)
>Date: 12/11/2004 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Clyde Slick said:
>
>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>>> Pooh Bear said:
>>>
>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul said:
>>>>>
>>>>> >"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >How so?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
>>>>starts
>>>>> making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
>>>>> I'd
>>>>get
>>>>> into more detail, but the assholes are coming.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
>>> there,
>>> and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
>>> going to
>>> grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
>>> and
>>> doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.
>>>
>>> I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something
>
>>> like
>>> a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
>>> That
>>> Arny...what an audio genius.
>>>
>>> Boon
>>
>>I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.
>
>It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
>cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
>lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott
>around.
>I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.
>
>I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.
>
>Boon
>
>
>
>
>
>

Have you considered a step up transformer?

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
>> Arny said:
>>
>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
>>> modern?
>>
>> Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?
>
> If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?
>
> I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp
> then, so how can it get better simply by being old?

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

[Jeff S 386 Fla]

shoulds bought a Mcintosh

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
>
> > ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>
>
> Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more modern?
>
>

Something like these Chinese Amps?
http://www.diyhifisupply.com/diyhs_ladyday.htm

Certainly can't complain about the price but are they any better?

Regards TT

[Marc Phillips]

Clyde Slick said:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny said:
>>>
>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
>>>> modern?
>>>
>>> Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?
>>
>> If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?
>>
>> I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp
>> then, so how can it get better simply by being old?
>
>Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Agreed.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

S888Wheel said:

>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>Date: 12/11/2004 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Clyde Slick said:
>>
>>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Pooh Bear said:
>>>>
>>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>This Scott 299B is making me crazy.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >How so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
>>>>>starts
>>>>>> making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>get
>>>>>> into more detail, but the assholes are coming.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
>>>> there,
>>>> and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
>>>> going to
>>>> grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
>>>> and
>>>> doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.
>>>>
>>>> I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too.
>Something
>>
>>>> like
>>>> a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
>>>> That
>>>> Arny...what an audio genius.
>>>>
>>>> Boon
>>>
>>>I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.
>>
>>It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
>>cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
>>lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott
>>around.
>>I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.
>>
>>I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.
>>
>>Boon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Have you considered a step up transformer?

Got one. The problem is that if I use it, the output is way too high and
becomes outrageously distorted. If I bypass the outboard phono stage with the
step-up, only one configuration approaches reasonable sound, which I'm sure is
the correct setting. The problem is that there's too much tube rush, and the
overall sound quality is a step backwards from where I was last year. The bass
is a bit too mushy, and the dynamics are a bit too congested. What makes it
frustrating is that the line stage is pretty damned good.

The guy who sold it to me raved about the phono stage, but he uses an MM
cartridge. He seemed unsure about how my Koetsu would sound and had to check
with his tech to see if it would work okay. For the most part it does, but I'm
used to better.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>
>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
>>you.
>
>Irritates me? Au contraire, mon petit porc, it merely serves as a constant
>reminder of your abject stupidity. I have watched with great amusement as you
>have become utterly convinced that I was Doug Haugen (those emails are still
>archived, Porky) and, later, Richard Malesweski. You have also speculated
>that
>I was Arny, McCarty and Bret (aka Annika1980). You, in short, are a clueless
>moron. That's why "George M. Middius" likes you; if you were smarter, you
>would
>be a threat to him and you would have to go the way of Sanders, Singh and
>others.

Let me ask you a question, and I must warn you that every Internet geek in the
world will answer it wrong. Do you think that people on Usenet admire you, or
are impressed with you and your knowledge? Or do you think people here pity
you, or ignore you, or think you're pathetic? Now, you need to answer
honestly, without regard to the front you're putting on in front of your
imaginary audience. Answering "I don't care what people think" will not
suffice, because that is always an indication that you do care, Lot'S.

Here's your reality check, dude. I don't care who you are. I haven't for a
really long time. That's the truth. You annoyed me when I tried to ignore you
and you kept nipping at my heels. But when I faced you, your false bravado
withered, and you ****ed yourself like any other mangy stray dog would. I've
pretty much grown indifferent to your VERY occasional presence here. If RAO
has improved in any way over the last year or so, it is in the way that the
anonymous Usenet assholes have been weeded out. You're a bit of a dinosaur
these days, and a very small one at that.

The sad thing is that I happen to know that you're pretty knowledgeable about
audio, and you could really contribute to the group. But you've ****ed
yourself, and on the few occasions you do say something about audio, no one
responds, perhaps because quite a few people have killfiled you. You're
posting in a vacuum.

I invite you to shed your anonymity and contribute to the group beyond your
usual personal attacks and trolls. It might be more fun than your current
status as an obnoxious geek.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>
>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
>>you.
>
>Irritates me? Au contraire, mon petit porc, it merely serves as a constant
>reminder of your abject stupidity. I have watched with great amusement as you
>have become utterly convinced that I was Doug Haugen (those emails are still
>archived, Porky) and, later, Richard Malesweski. You have also speculated
>that
>I was Arny, McCarty and Bret (aka Annika1980). You, in short, are a clueless
>moron. That's why "George M. Middius" likes you; if you were smarter, you
>would
>be a threat to him and you would have to go the way of Sanders, Singh and
>others.

Let me ask you a question, and I must warn you that every Internet geek in the
world will answer it wrong. Do you think that people on Usenet admire you, or
are impressed with you and your knowledge? Or do you think people here pity
you, or ignore you, or think you're pathetic? Now, you need to answer
honestly, without regard to the front you're putting on in front of your
imaginary audience. Answering "I don't care what people think" will not
suffice, because that is always an indication that you do care, Lot'S.

Here's your reality check, dude. I don't care who you are. I haven't for a
really long time. That's the truth. You annoyed me when I tried to ignore you
and you kept nipping at my heels. But when I faced you, your false bravado
withered, and you ****ed yourself like any other mangy stray dog would. I've
pretty much grown indifferent to your VERY occasional presence here. If RAO
has improved in any way over the last year or so, it is in the way that the
anonymous Usenet assholes have been weeded out. You're a bit of a dinosaur
these days, and a very small one at that.

The sad thing is that I happen to know that you're pretty knowledgeable about
audio, and you could really contribute to the group. But you've ****ed
yourself, and on the few occasions you do say something about audio, no one
responds, perhaps because quite a few people have killfiled you. You're
posting in a vacuum.

I invite you to shed your anonymity and contribute to the group beyond your
usual personal attacks and trolls. It might be more fun than your current
status as an obnoxious geek.

Boon

[Torresists]

>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>From: "Clyde Slick" :

<snip>

>Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was what, a pair
of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or Garrard rim drive changer
or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally primitive Shure or Pickering
cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

[Arny Krueger]

"Torresists" > wrote in message

>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>
> <snip>
>
>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>
> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
> or Fisher tube electronics.
>
> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

[Torresists]

>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>From: (Marc Phillips)
>Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >

The stupidity continues:



>Richard Malesweski said:

>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>
>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
>>>you.

<snip>

>Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like (that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

[Torresists]

>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Torresists" > wrote in message

>>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>
>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
>> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
>> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
>> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
>> or Fisher tube electronics.
>>
>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>
>It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.
>
The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent. They will easily
dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and (for the most
part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about the electronics. Why??

As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify first hand
that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>
>The stupidity continues:
>
>
>
>>Richard Malesweski said:
>
>>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>>
>>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
>>>>you.
>
><snip>
>
>>Here's your reality check, dude.
>
>Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
>psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
>"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
>actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
>(that
>would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.
>
>Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I hope
>you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
>pathetic assholes is repugnant.
>
>**** you and your band of thugs.

If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
Arny," then so be it. It's your life.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Torresists" > wrote in message

>>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>
>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
>> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
>> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
>> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
>> or Fisher tube electronics.
>>
>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>
>It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

Krooglish!

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Torresists" > wrote in message

>>>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
>>> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
>>> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
>>> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
>>> or Fisher tube electronics.
>>>
>>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>>
>>It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.
>>
>The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent. They will easily
>dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and (for the most
>part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about the electronics. Why??
>
>As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify first hand
>that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

We're a band of thugs and we want you to blow your brains out in frustration.

Boon

[Torresists]

>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>From: (Marc Phillips)
>Date: 12/11/2004 10:02 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Richard Malesweski said:
>
>>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>>Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>
>>The stupidity continues:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>
>>>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>>>
>>>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
>irritates
>>>>>you.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Here's your reality check, dude.
>>
>>Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
>>psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
>>"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
>>actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
>>(that
>>would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.
>>
>>Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I hope
>>you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
>>pathetic assholes is repugnant.
>>
>>**** you and your band of thugs.
>
>If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
>Arny," then so be it. It's your life.
>
By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
"George M. Middius", the rather sad Art Sackman, Paul Dormer, the compleat
asshole posting as "The Devil", the jerkoff posting as "Leon North", et al.

Is that "everyone in the world except [me] and Arny"? Not hardly, IMO, but I'm
not nearly as subject to "group think" as are you, mon petit porc.

And, yes, it is _my_ life. And I enjoy it for that.

[Clyde Slick]

"Torresists" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: "Clyde Slick" :
>
> <snip>
>
>>Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>
> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was what, a
> pair
> of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or Garrard rim drive
> changer
> or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally primitive Shure or Pickering
> cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott or Fisher tube electronics.
>
> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

The phono cartridges were not.
The amplification was.
The speakers were not quite, and more limited in choice.
The source material (lp's, especially classical) were

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Torresists" > wrote in message
>
>>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>
>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
>> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
>> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
>> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
>> or Fisher tube electronics.
>>
>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>
> It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.
>

True that my ears were better then, but still, that also
holds for you. I am not quite as old as you are.

[Clyde Slick]

"Torresists" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Torresists" > wrote in message

>>>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
>>> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
>>> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
>>> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
>>> or Fisher tube electronics.
>>>
>>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>>
>>It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.
>>
> The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent. They will easily
> dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and (for the
> most
> part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about the electronics.
> Why??
>
> As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify first
> hand
> that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

I didn't like Dyna, either.

[Clyde Slick]

"Torresists" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>
> The stupidity continues:
>
>
>
>>Richard Malesweski said:
>
>>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>>
>>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
>>>>irritates
>>>>you.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Here's your reality check, dude.
>
> Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
> psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
> "anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage
> in
> actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
> (that
> would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.
>
> Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
> hope
> you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band
> of
> pathetic assholes is repugnant.
>
> **** you and your band of thugs.

Go listen to some music, maybe it will
cheer you up some.

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>Date: 12/11/2004 10:02 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>>>Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>The stupidity continues:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>
>>>>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
>>irritates
>>>>>>you.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Here's your reality check, dude.
>>>
>>>Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
>>>psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
>>>"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
>>>actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
>>>(that
>>>would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.
>>>
>>>Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
>hope
>>>you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
>>>pathetic assholes is repugnant.
>>>
>>>**** you and your band of thugs.
>>
>>If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
>>Arny," then so be it. It's your life.
>>
>By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
>"George M. Middius"

Yeah, he's obviously "pshychotic." I mean, you're a licensed pshychiatrist,
right?

, the rather sad Art Sackman

Rather sad? I know Art personally, and I'd say he's rather jovial, outgoing,
and funny. He has a nice career, and a good woman to love. Not to mention a
ton of really nifty vintage gear.

, Paul Dormer

I guess you didn't come up with a description for Paul because you couldn't
think of anything, other than the fact that he despises Arny, too. In your
world, hating pedophiles is obviously a bad thing.

, the compleat
>asshole posting as "The Devil"

He's rich, talented, famous...no wonder you hate him.


, the jerkoff posting as "Leon North"

Who utterly proved that Arny faked the e-mail concerning the child
pornography...again, no wonder you hate him. He exposed your hero...or is it
just your business partner?

, et al.

Translation: everyone else in the world except for you and Arny. And maybe
McKelvy. Oh, and Howard. And your chair. And your remote control. And your
ball and paddle.

>
>Is that "everyone in the world except [me] and Arny"? Not hardly, IMO, but
>I'm
>not nearly as subject to "group think" as are you, mon petit porc.

I think it may be as simple as this: Arny gave you a good deal on a computer,
and you find it difficult to be disloyal. I can dig that. That seems to be
the case with most Kroo-pologists...they battle us, but can't specifically
defend why they don't think Arny is a piece of ****. Most say something about
his helpfulness and expertise, which is something a satisfied customer would
say. A customer, that is, that got the special "RAO" price.

>
>And, yes, it is _my_ life. And I enjoy it for that.

Yes, it is clear that anonymously attacking strangers on the Internet is very
satisfying for you. That, and defending lying, hypocritical pedophiles.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Torresists" > wrote in message

>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "Torresists" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>>> From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
>>> what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
>>> Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
>>> primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
>>> or Fisher tube electronics.
>>>
>>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>>
>> It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

> The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent.

Common among people like them who allegedly *think* with their buttholes.

> They will
> easily dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and
> (for the most part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about
> the electronics. Why??

It's how their gurus, the guy down at the corner audio store, or fave
golden-eared reviewer, trained them.

> As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify
> first hand that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

Nostalgia, lies and bad training, intentionally administered by the high end
industry to relieve them of their cash while not provided added value.

[Torresists]

>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>From: (Marc Phillips)
>Date: 12/12/2004 12:06 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >

A glimpse into the small, twisted "mind" of a weak-minded fat **** from
California:
>
>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>>
>>>>>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>>>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
>>>irritates
>>>>>>>you.
>>>>
Thanks for demonstrating your stupidity, Porky. Keep on keepin' on!
>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Here's your reality check, dude.
>>>>
>>>>Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
>>>>psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
>>>>"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage
>in
>>>>actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
>>>>(that
>>>>would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.
>>>>
>>>>Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
>>hope
>>>>you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band
>of
>>>>pathetic assholes is repugnant.
>>>>
>>>>**** you and your band of thugs.
>>>
>>>If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
>>>Arny," then so be it. It's your life.
>>>
>>By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
>>"George M. Middius"
>
>Yeah, he's obviously "pshychotic."
>
Yes, "he" is. Perhaps your former RAO buds Sanders and Singh would like to
weigh in on this subject?
>
I mean, you're a licensed pshychiatrist,
>right?
>
Just as much as you are, Porky. Yet you can diagnose "pedophila" but I can't
point out obviously psychotic behavior?
>
>, the rather sad Art Sackman
>
>Rather sad? I know Art personally, and I'd say he's rather jovial, outgoing,
>and funny. He has a nice career, and a good woman to love. Not to mention a
>ton of really nifty vintage gear.
>
He seems a sad, placeboized putz who lives in the past. And weak enough to go
along with the "pedophila" hoax.
>
>, Paul Dormer
>
>I guess you didn't come up with a description for Paul because you couldn't
>think of anything, other than the fact that he despises Arny, too. In your
>world, hating pedophiles is obviously a bad thing.
>
Dormer's bizarre, hate driven behavior predates the "pedophilia" hoax, Porky.
Start telling more believable lies.
>
>, the compleat
>>asshole posting as "The Devil"
>
>He's rich, talented, famous.
>
Or so he postures. I think he is the UK version of "George M. Middius" and I
don't believe a word he posts.

>
>
>, the jerkoff posting as "Leon North"
>
>Who utterly proved that Arny faked the e-mail concerning the child
>pornography.
>
"Leon North" proved _nothing_ save that "he" is an arrogant, posturing gasbag.
>
>, et al.
>
>Translation: everyone else in the world except for you and Arny. And maybe
>McKelvy. Oh, and Howard.
>
"Everyone else in the world"? Try _no one_ else in the world except you and
your little band of inept, wannabe thugs.

>
>I think it may be as simple as this: Arny gave you a good deal on a
>computer,
>

Good grief, are you REALLY this stupid??

Yeah, I guess you probably are. :-(

[dave weil]

On 11 Dec 2004 22:50:05 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>>I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.
>
>It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
>cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
>lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott around.
>I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.
>
>I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.
>
>Boon

Then it really isn't "**** tubes", now is it? I'll bet that you
wouldn't be all that impressed with my Denon receiver either.

Also, sounds like a simple issue with your transformer/amp. Just to
satisfy your (and my) curiousity, you should probably try a few more
just to see if it's just a simple mismatch situation.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify
>> first hand that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

>Nostalgia, lies and bad training, intentionally administered by the high end
>industry to relieve them of their cash while not provided added value.

Oh, that evil High End Industry again! (capitalization mine)

Assuming for just one moment that there actually *is* something like a
High End Industry (HEI!) , I still fail to see the relevance to
someone liking a 40-year old tube amplifier.

How is the HEI benefiting from that?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

(Marc Phillips) said:

>But, as I've said before, my adventures with vintage sound is nothing more than
>a sidebar. I have a Michell Orbe SE, an SME V arm, and a Koetsu Rosewood
>cartridge, and no vintage amp short of a Marantz 7 and 8 is going to do that
>kind of setup justice. The Scott amp really cost me nothing to get...I traded
>it for an amp I was going to get rid of anyway. I have many friends who are
>completely into vintage audio, and I wanted to experiment around and see what
>it was like. For the most part it's a lot of fun. But it's also the
>equivalent of buying an old classic car and restoring it...it's fun to take out
>on weekends, but you don't want to drive it to work every day.

I do.......but that's a different story altogether.
I think you should get a good SS MC preamp, maybe also a SS RIAA
correction amp, and go from there.
Your source probably is too delicate to be handled by a simple
(vintage) tube + step-up transformer combination.

You'd definitely benefit from a tube preamp, I think.

Too bad you're not into DIY, I have several good designs for you to
try.......

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Marc Phillips]

dave said:

>On 11 Dec 2004 22:50:05 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>>>I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.
>>
>>It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
>>cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
>>lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott
>around.
>>I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.
>>
>>I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.
>>
>>Boon
>
>Then it really isn't "**** tubes", now is it? I'll bet that you
>wouldn't be all that impressed with my Denon receiver either.

Oh, it's definitely not "**** tubes." That was a joke. I still prefer the
sound of tube amplifiers to solid state. But with all of the experimenting
I've been doing over the last couple of years, I'm beginning to think that the
best sound I've ever had with my system is with Naim electronics in it. And I
have used a couple of more modern tube amps in my system, too.

I am getting a chance to borrow a Rogue Audio Tempest Magnum, though. At the
same time, Naim is getting ready to introduce a "super" integrated, and
something tells me that one of those, coupled with a HiCap power supply, will
be the answer for now.

>
>Also, sounds like a simple issue with your transformer/amp. Just to
>satisfy your (and my) curiousity, you should probably try a few more
>just to see if it's just a simple mismatch situation.

A few more what? Amps, or configurations? I've done both so far. Like I've
said, the sound isn't bad, just not as good as I'm used to.

Boon

[S888Wheel]

>From: Sander deWaal
>Date: 12/12/2004 10:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Marc Phillips) said:
>
>>But, as I've said before, my adventures with vintage sound is nothing more
>than
>>a sidebar. I have a Michell Orbe SE, an SME V arm, and a Koetsu Rosewood
>>cartridge, and no vintage amp short of a Marantz 7 and 8 is going to do that
>>kind of setup justice. The Scott amp really cost me nothing to get...I
>traded
>>it for an amp I was going to get rid of anyway. I have many friends who are
>>completely into vintage audio, and I wanted to experiment around and see
>what
>>it was like. For the most part it's a lot of fun. But it's also the
>>equivalent of buying an old classic car and restoring it...it's fun to take
>out
>>on weekends, but you don't want to drive it to work every day.
>
>I do.......but that's a different story altogether.
>I think you should get a good SS MC preamp, maybe also a SS RIAA
>correction amp, and go from there.
>Your source probably is too delicate to be handled by a simple
>(vintage) tube + step-up transformer combination.
>
>You'd definitely benefit from a tube preamp, I think.
>
>Too bad you're not into DIY, I have several good designs for you to
>try.......
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a very similar cartridge and my ARC SP 10 handles it quite nicely. Is
that considered vintage yet?

[Marc Phillips]

Sander said:

(Marc Phillips) said:
>
>>But, as I've said before, my adventures with vintage sound is nothing more
>than
>>a sidebar. I have a Michell Orbe SE, an SME V arm, and a Koetsu Rosewood
>>cartridge, and no vintage amp short of a Marantz 7 and 8 is going to do that
>>kind of setup justice. The Scott amp really cost me nothing to get...I
>traded
>>it for an amp I was going to get rid of anyway. I have many friends who are
>>completely into vintage audio, and I wanted to experiment around and see
>what
>>it was like. For the most part it's a lot of fun. But it's also the
>>equivalent of buying an old classic car and restoring it...it's fun to take
>out
>>on weekends, but you don't want to drive it to work every day.
>
>I do.......but that's a different story altogether.
>I think you should get a good SS MC preamp, maybe also a SS RIAA
>correction amp, and go from there.
>Your source probably is too delicate to be handled by a simple
>(vintage) tube + step-up transformer combination.
>
>You'd definitely benefit from a tube preamp, I think.

That's why the Mac 1500 receiver seems like something I might want to try. A
friend of mine has one and gets really nice sound with it. SS power section,
tubed preamp section.

>
>Too bad you're not into DIY, I have several good designs for you to
>try.......

I'm far from giving up on this. I definitely want to keep trying tubes. Some
of my friends who are into vintage electronics have warned me that I'll
probably wind up having several amps if I truly get into this. But I do want a
"daily driver," which is why I'm putting a Naim back in the system. I KNOW I
love Naim stuff, so I can relax and have fun fooling around with the other
stuff until I happen upon something great. And I may wind up getting into the
whole DIY thing...you never know. This Scott is my first tube amp, after all,
so it's bound to be a learning experience.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>Date: 12/12/2004 12:06 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>
>A glimpse into the small, twisted "mind" of a weak-minded fat **** from
>California:
>>
>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>>>>Richard Malesweski said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
>>>>>>>>you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
>>>>irritates
>>>>>>>>you.
>>>>>
>Thanks for demonstrating your stupidity, Porky. Keep on keepin' on!

How did that demonstrate anything? You have the habit of calling people names,
but pulling up short when it comes to explaining why. That's the sign of an
inferior mind at work...loves to call names, but doesn't quite know what those
names mean.

>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's your reality check, dude.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
>>>>>psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
>>>>>"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage
>>in
>>>>>actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
>>>>>(that
>>>>>would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
>>>hope
>>>>>you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band
>>of
>>>>>pathetic assholes is repugnant.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** you and your band of thugs.
>>>>
>>>>If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
>>>>Arny," then so be it. It's your life.
>>>>
>>>By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
>>>"George M. Middius"
>>
>>Yeah, he's obviously "pshychotic."
>>
>Yes, "he" is. Perhaps your former RAO buds Sanders and Singh would like to
>weigh in on this subject?

First, define the word "pshychotic," you dumb ****.

>>
> I mean, you're a licensed pshychiatrist,
>>right?
>>
>Just as much as you are, Porky. Yet you can diagnose "pedophila" but I can't
>point out obviously psychotic behavior?


"Pedophilia," isn't a professional diagnosis, you dumb ****, but an observable
behavior. That's like saying only a "pshychiatrist" can define when a woman is
being raped.

>>
>>, the rather sad Art Sackman
>>
>>Rather sad? I know Art personally, and I'd say he's rather jovial,
>outgoing,
>>and funny. He has a nice career, and a good woman to love. Not to mention
>a
>>ton of really nifty vintage gear.
>>
>He seems a sad, placeboized putz who lives in the past. And weak enough to go
>along with the "pedophila" hoax.

"Seems" is the operative word. As someone who blindly supports Arny, I would
take all of your observations with a grain of salt. Besides, you've clearly
demonstrated that what you DON'T know about the others on this NG, including
me, might just fill the Grand Canyon. Or do you still think I live in Orange
County, you dumb ****.

>>
>>, Paul Dormer
>>
>>I guess you didn't come up with a description for Paul because you couldn't
>>think of anything, other than the fact that he despises Arny, too. In your
>>world, hating pedophiles is obviously a bad thing.
>>
>Dormer's bizarre, hate driven behavior predates the "pedophilia" hoax, Porky.
>Start telling more believable lies.

So why didn't you say that in the first place? Sloppy thinking, that's why,
dumb ****.

Of course you could always give examples of Paul's bizarre, hate-driven
behavior, but that seems to be beyond your capabilities.

>>
>>, the compleat
>>>asshole posting as "The Devil"
>>
>>He's rich, talented, famous.
>>
>Or so he postures. I think he is the UK version of "George M. Middius" and I
>don't believe a word he posts.

Yeah, you're absolutely right on this one. Nobody is who they seem on the
Internet. There is some truth to that. But ultimately, who gives a rat's ass?
I know, you do. It defines your existence. But the reality of the matter is
that If George is someone else other than "George Middius," I don't really
care, because I continue to have nice conversations with him. Same with the
Devil. Same with anyone else.

You're so consumed with the whole sockpuppet thing that you're missing the
point. That's one of the reasons you're such a dinosaur. You see, you're
operating on the presumption that everyone lies on Usenet. Arny has the same
problem, as does Howard, and so does Mikey. And all of you come off as lonely,
bitter losers who are trapped in and addicted to Usenet. You're at odds with
the rest of us, who don't necessarily assume that everyone is someone else. We
have nice conversations, trade information, give meaningful advice to each
other, and meet each other in person and generally find out that we are who we
say we are. I think that's what Usenet, and the Internet in general, was
designed to be. People like you and Arny and Howard and Mikey are outsiders,
endlessly attacking, hoping that one day you'll be accepted, yet not having the
slightest idea on how to do it.

I know you think you're having fun here by attacking everyone, but you're
really not. If you doubt this, I dare you to consult a "pshychiatrist" or
"pshychologist" and have them evaluate your Internet behavior. And be
honest...tell them you act anonymously, and that you exist to attack others and
call them names, and that you "don't care what other people think." I'm sure
that professional will be blinded by all the red flags popping up.

>
>>
>>
>>, the jerkoff posting as "Leon North"
>>
>>Who utterly proved that Arny faked the e-mail concerning the child
>>pornography.
>>
>"Leon North" proved _nothing_ save that "he" is an arrogant, posturing
>gasbag.

Then why didn't you prove him wrong? You just assumed he was because it
assaulted you blind allegiance to Arny, and your world caved in.

>>
>>, et al.
>>
>>Translation: everyone else in the world except for you and Arny. And maybe
>>McKelvy. Oh, and Howard.
>>
>"Everyone else in the world"? Try _no one_ else in the world except you and
>your little band of inept, wannabe thugs.

I wouldn't say inept. Arny's a shadow of his former self, Howard has to take
several day breaks just to get the courage to come back and face his Internet
addiction, and you, well, you're not even a factor. Everyone here recognizes
you as a troll and ignores you. We've done well.

>
>>
>>I think it may be as simple as this: Arny gave you a good deal on a
>>computer,
>>
>
>Good grief, are you REALLY this stupid??
>
>Yeah, I guess you probably are. :-(

Saying things angrily doesn't make them sound right. I always know when I'm
close to the truth with you...I can almost see the throbbing veins in your
forehead from here.

Boon

[Sander deWaal]

(S888Wheel) said:

>I have a very similar cartridge and my ARC SP 10 handles it quite nicely. Is
>that considered vintage yet?

Nope. It's just considered "excellent". :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

(Marc Phillips) said:

>>You'd definitely benefit from a tube preamp, I think.

>That's why the Mac 1500 receiver seems like something I might want to try. A
>friend of mine has one and gets really nice sound with it. SS power section,
>tubed preamp section.

Add a good MC pre-pre and you're in business!
It'll sound different from your Naim system, though.

>>Too bad you're not into DIY, I have several good designs for you to
>>try.......

>I'm far from giving up on this. I definitely want to keep trying tubes. Some
>of my friends who are into vintage electronics have warned me that I'll
>probably wind up having several amps if I truly get into this. But I do want a
>"daily driver," which is why I'm putting a Naim back in the system. I KNOW I
>love Naim stuff, so I can relax and have fun fooling around with the other
>stuff until I happen upon something great. And I may wind up getting into the
>whole DIY thing...you never know. This Scott is my first tube amp, after all,
>so it's bound to be a learning experience.

Something tells me that you're looking for a tubed Naim replacement.
Well, keep the Naim stuff, build your own designs, and regard them as
a class by itself. Judge them on their own merits, because it'll never
sound the same.

I found there's little use in comparing DIY products with readily made
commercial stuff.
Just the fact that you've made something yourself, will make it
"sound" different (not always better!) . :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Marc Phillips]

Sander said:

(Marc Phillips) said:
>
>>>You'd definitely benefit from a tube preamp, I think.
>
>>That's why the Mac 1500 receiver seems like something I might want to try.
>A
>>friend of mine has one and gets really nice sound with it. SS power
>section,
>>tubed preamp section.
>
>Add a good MC pre-pre and you're in business!
>It'll sound different from your Naim system, though.
>
>>>Too bad you're not into DIY, I have several good designs for you to
>>>try.......
>
>>I'm far from giving up on this. I definitely want to keep trying tubes.
>Some
>>of my friends who are into vintage electronics have warned me that I'll
>>probably wind up having several amps if I truly get into this. But I do
>want a
>>"daily driver," which is why I'm putting a Naim back in the system. I KNOW
>I
>>love Naim stuff, so I can relax and have fun fooling around with the other
>>stuff until I happen upon something great. And I may wind up getting into
>the
>>whole DIY thing...you never know. This Scott is my first tube amp, after
>all,
>>so it's bound to be a learning experience.
>
>Something tells me that you're looking for a tubed Naim replacement.
>Well, keep the Naim stuff, build your own designs, and regard them as
>a class by itself. Judge them on their own merits, because it'll never
>sound the same.
>
>I found there's little use in comparing DIY products with readily made
>commercial stuff.
>Just the fact that you've made something yourself, will make it
>"sound" different (not always better!) . :-)

I'm not necessarily looking for a Naim replacement sound. I'm one of those
unusual audiophiles who can recognize that different-sounding gear can be
equally satisfying. For instance, I do enjoy the sound of SETs, especially 2A3
amps such as the ones from fi. But that would mean I'd have to get new
speakers as well. I've also set the bar kind of high with SETs by liking the
LAMMs and other hyper-expensive amps.

I do have a short list of modern tube integrateds that I have heard and
liked...the Manley Stingray, the Audiomat Arpege, the Audio Research VSi-55,
the Audio Note Oto SE. I also like some hybrids such as the Unison Unico SE
and the Pathos Classic One.

So there's a lot to choose from. At the same time, however, the new Naim stuff
sounds even better than the old stuff, introducing such new features as imaging
and soundstaging. I still think I may wind up with one of each, a Naim and a
tubed amp.

Boon

[Sander deWaal]

(Marc Phillips) said:

>I do have a short list of modern tube integrateds that I have heard and
>liked...the Manley Stingray, the Audiomat Arpege, the Audio Research VSi-55,
>the Audio Note Oto SE. I also like some hybrids such as the Unison Unico SE
>and the Pathos Classic One.
>
>So there's a lot to choose from. At the same time, however, the new Naim stuff
>sounds even better than the old stuff, introducing such new features as imaging
>and soundstaging. I still think I may wind up with one of each, a Naim and a
>tubed amp.


It is my opinion that if you want to have a tube amp, you'll
eventually end up by building one yourself.
You can tweak and twiddle it to your heart's content, and it's way
cheaper than commercial products.

Don't like the old Acrosound transformer? Put in a new one in from
Tango, Tamura, Sowther or whatever renowned manufacturer.
Don't like the driver tube? Pull it and plug in another one.
You can even sub different power tube types, within limits.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> (Marc Phillips) said:
>
> >I do have a short list of modern tube integrateds that I have heard
and
> >liked...the Manley Stingray, the Audiomat Arpege, the Audio Research
VSi-55,
> >the Audio Note Oto SE. I also like some hybrids such as the Unison
Unico SE
> >and the Pathos Classic One.
> >
> >So there's a lot to choose from. At the same time, however, the new
Naim stuff
> >sounds even better than the old stuff, introducing such new features
as imaging
> >and soundstaging. I still think I may wind up with one of each, a
Naim and a
> >tubed amp.
>
>
> It is my opinion that if you want to have a tube amp, you'll
> eventually end up by building one yourself.
> You can tweak and twiddle it to your heart's content, and it's way
> cheaper than commercial products.
>
> Don't like the old Acrosound transformer? Put in a new one in from
> Tango, Tamura, Sowther or whatever renowned manufacturer.
> Don't like the driver tube? Pull it and plug in another one.
> You can even sub different power tube types, within limits.

Tubes are really only for the homebrewer or those with professional
maintenance on salary or retainer. But that's true of a lot of solid
state too.

I would carefully remove the opt's from the Scott and build a simple
homebrew amp(s) around them as the Scotts were and are a mess to work
on. You could then put them back if the Japanese decide to drive the
price up. I understand these output transformers are actually pretty
good, at least as good as the Dynaco's. And you can build a halfway
decent amp out of a Stereo 70 if you really want to.

My opinion of Naim and Linn both is that they are mediocre-to-okay
sounding, if they were cheap they'd be ok, but they aren't. There is
actually not a lot of Brit solid state equipment that is actually all
that great although I thought Quad had aa good idea with current
dumping on the solid state Quads.

The Linn Sondek is a good table though, because it's a copy of the
essentially soundly designed but cheaply implemented AR table in
essence. When Merrill was in full swing his table was a uncontested
Sondek beater, but he's gone on to greener pastures.

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
>>"George M. Middius"

Typo or misspelling, dumb ****?

Boon

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Torresists" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>>Subject: Re: **** tubes...
>>>From: "Clyde Slick" :
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.
>>
>> Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was what, a
>> pair
>> of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or Garrard rim drive
>> changer
>> or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally primitive Shure or Pickering
>> cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott or Fisher tube electronics.
>>
>> That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?
>
> The phono cartridges were not.
> The amplification was.
> The speakers were not quite, and more limited in choice.

The majority of speakers in the 60's suffered from any number of problems.
Poor quality surrounds for one. Materials that weren't up to the levels of
today's stuff. Lack of affordable computing power or standardization of
their qualities. Much of speaker design was guesswork by comparison.

> The source material (lp's, especially classical) were
Some were, most weren't.