Honoring Arny Krueger

[Robert Morein]

Recently, Sander de Waal suggested, with respect to the debate, that Arny
should be honored for his "accomplishments."

I have always believed that Arny has some degree of engineering competence,
unfortunately devalued by his lust to find and enforce the Final Solution of
Audio. If Arny didn't believe he has the universal solution for every audio
problem, if he weren't so disdainful of the beliefs of others, which he
conveniently discounts through a debating argument called "ABX", I would
perhaps regard his evaluations of computer sound cards in a different light.

But perhaps I have been mistaken in pulling Arny's chain. If Arny has
genuinely accomplished anything to add to the "pyramid of human
accomplishment", it is my deepest wish that Arny should be appropriately
honored. Perhaps, instead of calling him "Lord Krueger", we could call him
"Mister." And, if Arny has served his country well, perhaps in the "training
of youth", he should be nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Is the sum total of Arny's beliefs, expositions, and investigations a plus
or a minus to the audio world? Is he a Force for Good, a Force for Evil, or
a Spent Battery?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>Recently, Sander de Waal suggested, with respect to the debate, that Arny
>should be honored for his "accomplishments."


Both Atkinson and Krueger are members of the AES. I am not.

Not that that bothers me, note. <bangs head against wall>

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

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >Recently, Sander de Waal suggested, with respect to the debate, that Arny
> >should be honored for his "accomplishments."
>
>
> Both Atkinson and Krueger are members of the AES. I am not.
>
> Not that that bothers me, note. <bangs head against wall>
>
> --
> Sander de Waal
> " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Permit me to offer you a consolation: you're a nice guy.

[John Atkinson]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Both Atkinson and Krueger are members of the AES.

Actually, while I am a member of the AES, Arny Krueger
let his membership lapse many years ago, according to a
posting of his from a couple of years ago. I don't know
if he has rejoined.

A short article announcing the forthcoming HE2005 debate goes
up at www.stereophile.com later this evening, BTW.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Lionel]

Robert Morein a écrit :
> Recently, Sander de Waal suggested, with respect to the debate, that Arny
> should be honored for his "accomplishments."
>
> I have always believed that Arny has some degree of engineering competence,
> unfortunately devalued by his lust to find and enforce the Final Solution of
> Audio. If Arny didn't believe he has the universal solution for every audio
> problem, if he weren't so disdainful of the beliefs of others, which he
> conveniently discounts through a debating argument called "ABX", I would
> perhaps regard his evaluations of computer sound cards in a different light.
>
> But perhaps I have been mistaken in pulling Arny's chain. If Arny has
> genuinely accomplished anything to add to the "pyramid of human
> accomplishment", it is my deepest wish that Arny should be appropriately
> honored. Perhaps, instead of calling him "Lord Krueger", we could call him
> "Mister." And, if Arny has served his country well, perhaps in the "training
> of youth", he should be nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
>
> Is the sum total of Arny's beliefs, expositions, and investigations a plus
> or a minus to the audio world? Is he a Force for Good, a Force for Evil, or
> a Spent Battery?

Only George M. Middius can offer answers to these questions
since he uses to spend 100% of his Usenet time to feed the
caricature. ;-)

> Inquiring minds would like to know.

"Inquiring minds" should try to put good questions if they
want to get fruitful answers.

[R]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>> Both Atkinson and Krueger are members of the AES.
>
> Actually, while I am a member of the AES, Arny Krueger
> let his membership lapse many years ago, according to a
> posting of his from a couple of years ago. I don't know
> if he has rejoined.
>
> A short article announcing the forthcoming HE2005 debate goes
> up at www.stereophile.com later this evening, BTW.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>

Arny, I am very glad you are going to debate JA. I wish you all the
best.

John, Thanks for making it possible.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Sander deWaal wrote:
> > Both Atkinson and Krueger are members of the AES.
>
> Actually, while I am a member of the AES, Arny Krueger
> let his membership lapse many years ago, according to a
> posting of his from a couple of years ago. I don't know
> if he has rejoined.
>
> A short article announcing the forthcoming HE2005 debate goes
> up at www.stereophile.com later this evening, BTW.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you no
honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass! (And
it's a big enough target, isn't it?)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you
> no honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass!
> (And it's a big enough target, isn't it?)

The full URL for this article is
http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/ .

The article seems to be poorly written, and contains factual errors, as well
as controversial claims that might detract from the actual subject matter of
the proposed debate.

For example the article says:

"Accordingly, Stereophile editor John Atkinson invited someone who has made
criticizing the magazine on the Internet almost a full-time job over the
past few years, Arny Krueger, to debate him one-on-one at the forthcoming
Home Entertainment 2005 Show as to where the line should lie between honest
reporting and audio delusion."

I'm under the impression that over the past few years, Nousaine has
criticized Stereophile much more often and much more vigorously than I have.

I continue to object at every reasonable opportunity to this use of the word
delusion as I have in the past, because I think that when audiophiles have
unreliable perceptions about product sound quality, the errors are more
likely to be due to illusions than delusions.

The article goes on:

"Krueger, a long-time member of the South-Western Michigan Woofer and
Tweeter Marching Society, long a home to audio skeptics, operates websites
devoted to the idea of computerized blind testing and soundcard testing. He
is skeptical of many if not most audiophile claims. He even doubts that SACD
and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard, other
than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."
A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's name -
which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Their
web site is at http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .

The previous paragraph's general contents creates the impression that
Atkinson and I have debated SACD, DVD-A to any serious degree which is at
best a stretch, and at worst simply not true. I don't think that we've ever
had any serious debates related to LPs or tubes. Indeed, most of our
discussions have been on RAO which has long been overwhelming antagonistic
to serious technical discussions due to the efforts of trolls who promote
personal antagonism, like Shain, Weil and Middius.

The article then says:

"Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on the
Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never in person"

BTW, I was not offered an opportunity to review this article before its
posting, so I have no responsibility for the factual errors or questionable
opinions that it expresses.

I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile. It possible that my
name ended up on a group letter that was written by someone else. But if
its the letter I'm thinking of, it dates back to the Holt years.

On balance the article seems to be about as factual as the rest of the
Stereophile ragazine. ;-(

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you
> > no honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass!
> > (And it's a big enough target, isn't it?)
>
> The full URL for this article is
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/ .
>
> The article seems to be poorly written, and contains factual errors, as
well
> as controversial claims that might detract from the actual subject matter
of
> the proposed debate.
>
>
[snip]
> On balance the article seems to be about as factual as the rest of the
> Stereophile ragazine. ;-(
>
Arny,
I hope that you win every point you are entitled to, and no more.
Personally, I will listen respectfully to both of you.

[Michael McKelvy]

MR. Atkinson:

I have suggested a couple of times, that I beleive adding something, even if
only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding DIY projects would open up SP to
more readers. It would also likely give more of them a chance to learn what
goes into their components. Speaker kits are plentiful and there are
projects available for a variety of skill levels.

I know the dealers of these kits would welcome the chance to have their
stuff reviewed in a magazine with as wide a distribution as yours has.

You have yet to respond about this idea, so I wondering if you forgot to
answer or simply don't care about finding a place for such a feature.

TIA for any response on the matter.

[Lionel]

In . com>,
wrote :

> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Sander deWaal wrote:
>> > Both Atkinson and Krueger are members of the AES.
>>
>> Actually, while I am a member of the AES, Arny Krueger
>> let his membership lapse many years ago, according to a
>> posting of his from a couple of years ago. I don't know
>> if he has rejoined.
>>
>> A short article announcing the forthcoming HE2005 debate goes
>> up at www.stereophile.com later this evening, BTW.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
> The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you no
> honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass! (And
> it's a big enough target, isn't it?)

This is, IMHO, Mr Atkinson's second gaffe.
The first one was this one :

------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :Lionel )
Objet :Re: Home Entertainment 2005 Invitation to Arny Krueger
Date :2005-02-02 17:07:03 PST
In . com>, John Atkinson
wrote :

>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
>> > get out of the event?
>>
>> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
>> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)
>
> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
> my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
> else who might wish to substitute for you.

As George pertinently remind us he cannot even count on a familial
subsitution.

Reassured ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It takes Atkinson a full day and my above caution before he reacts that he
has partially quoted/answered the following Middius' post :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :George M. Middius )
Objet :Re: Home Entertainment 2005 Invitation to Arny Krueger
Date :2005-02-02 12:28:26 PST

Krooglish alert!

> > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event that it
> > takes place.
> Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.


Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
predicting, not claiming. And I concur with Scott. Is Nousiane helping you
invent an excuse that you can use to get out of the event? You could
always kill off another family member. That way, you could be busy with
the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught with grief --
that would never fly.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO it's a very nasty and stupid thoughtlessness from a public person like
Mr Atkinson.
Since this first gaffe I cannot avoid to put myself some questions on
Atkinson's *real* intentions/agenda.

If it was totally involuntary I present him deepest excuses for my
pathologic suspicion.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's
> name - which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching
> Society. Their web site is at
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .

Thank you for the correction, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:37:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com
>
>> The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you
>> no honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass!
>> (And it's a big enough target, isn't it?)
>
>The full URL for this article is
>http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/ .
>
>The article seems to be poorly written, and contains factual errors, as well
>as controversial claims that might detract from the actual subject matter of
>the proposed debate.
>
>For example the article says:
>
>"Accordingly, Stereophile editor John Atkinson invited someone who has made
>criticizing the magazine on the Internet almost a full-time job over the
>past few years, Arny Krueger, to debate him one-on-one at the forthcoming
>Home Entertainment 2005 Show as to where the line should lie between honest
>reporting and audio delusion."
>
>I'm under the impression that over the past few years, Nousaine has
>criticized Stereophile much more often and much more vigorously than I have.

So? Which Schopenhauer is THIS debating trade strategy? Why it's the
famous #8:

The argument that we should not make efforts against X which is
admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our
efforts should be directed...

>I continue to object at every reasonable opportunity to this use of the word
>delusion as I have in the past, because I think that when audiophiles have
>unreliable perceptions about product sound quality, the errors are more
>likely to be due to illusions than delusions.

According to this wording, you admit that you think that delusions are
part of the equation, if less than illusions. Your quibble language
has come back to bite you.

>The article goes on:
>
>"Krueger, a long-time member of the South-Western Michigan Woofer and
>Tweeter Marching Society, long a home to audio skeptics, operates websites
>devoted to the idea of computerized blind testing and soundcard testing. He
>is skeptical of many if not most audiophile claims. He even doubts that SACD
>and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard, other
>than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
>audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."
>A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's name -
>which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Their
>web site is at http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .
>
>The previous paragraph's general contents creates the impression that
>Atkinson and I have debated SACD, DVD-A to any serious degree which is at
>best a stretch, and at worst simply not true.


>I don't think that we've ever had any serious debates related to LPs or tubes.

This passage, or the previous one doesn't make this claim. It is
certainly true that you constantly criticize not only Mr. Atkinson
directly, but his "ragazine" (your word) on many occasions.

You are correct that they bungled the name of the Society. It appears
that they have corrected it, however, except that they continue to
hyphenate the word Southeastern.

>Indeed, most of our
>discussions have been on RAO which has long been overwhelming antagonistic
>to serious technical discussions due to the efforts of trolls who promote
>personal antagonism, like Shain, Weil and Middius.

Ahhhh, number 8 again.

>The article then says:
>
>"Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on the
>Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never in person"
>
>BTW, I was not offered an opportunity to review this article before its
>posting, so I have no responsibility for the factual errors or questionable
>opinions that it expresses.

Of course you don't have any responsibility. This is irrelevant.

>I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile. It possible that my
>name ended up on a group letter that was written by someone else. But if
>its the letter I'm thinking of, it dates back to the Holt years.

>On balance the article seems to be about as factual as the rest of the
>Stereophile ragazine. ;-(

Another attack. Figures.

[dave weil]

On 7 Feb 2005 04:22:59 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's
>> name - which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching
>> Society. Their web site is at
>http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .
>
>Thank you for the correction, Mr. Krueger.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile

You still have it hyphenated. Can't you guys edit ANYTHING correctly?

<chuckle>

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On 7 Feb 2005 04:22:59 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's
>>> name - which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching
>>> Society. Their web site is at
>>http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .
>>
>>Thank you for the correction, Mr. Krueger.
>>
>>John Atkinson
>>Editor, Stereophile
>
> You still have it hyphenated. Can't you guys edit ANYTHING correctly?
>
> <chuckle>


LOL, Dave Weil in his prefered role...
....This guy obviously suffers from a serious professional bias. ;-)

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:37:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
oups.com
>>
>>> The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you
>>> no honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass!
>>> (And it's a big enough target, isn't it?)
>>
>>The full URL for this article is
>>http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/ .
>>
>>The article seems to be poorly written, and contains factual errors, as
>>well as controversial claims that might detract from the actual subject
>>matter of the proposed debate.
>>
>>For example the article says:
>>
>>"Accordingly, Stereophile editor John Atkinson invited someone who has
>>made criticizing the magazine on the Internet almost a full-time job over
>>the past few years, Arny Krueger, to debate him one-on-one at the
>>forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show as to where the line should lie
>>between honest reporting and audio delusion."
>>
>>I'm under the impression that over the past few years, Nousaine has
>>criticized Stereophile much more often and much more vigorously than I
>>have.
>
> So? Which Schopenhauer is THIS debating trade strategy? Why it's the
> famous #8:
>
> The argument that we should not make efforts against X which is
> admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our
> efforts should be directed...
>
>>I continue to object at every reasonable opportunity to this use of the
>>word delusion as I have in the past, because I think that when audiophiles
>>have unreliable perceptions about product sound quality, the errors are
>>more likely to be due to illusions than delusions.
>
> According to this wording, you admit that you think that delusions are
> part of the equation, if less than illusions. Your quibble language
> has come back to bite you.
>
>>The article goes on:
>>
>>"Krueger, a long-time member of the South-Western Michigan Woofer and
>>Tweeter Marching Society, long a home to audio skeptics, operates websites
>>devoted to the idea of computerized blind testing and soundcard testing.
>>He is skeptical of many if not most audiophile claims. He even doubts that
>>SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the 23-year-old CD
>>standard, other than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a
>>21st-century audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification
>>technology."
>>A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's name -
>>which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Their
>>web site is at http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .
>>
>>The previous paragraph's general contents creates the impression that
>>Atkinson and I have debated SACD, DVD-A to any serious degree which is at
>>best a stretch, and at worst simply not true.
>
>
>>I don't think that we've ever had any serious debates related to LPs or
>>tubes.
>
> This passage, or the previous one doesn't make this claim. It is
> certainly true that you constantly criticize not only Mr. Atkinson
> directly, but his "ragazine" (your word) on many occasions.
>
> You are correct that they bungled the name of the Society. It appears
> that they have corrected it, however, except that they continue to
> hyphenate the word Southeastern.
>
>>Indeed, most of our
>>discussions have been on RAO which has long been overwhelming antagonistic
>>to serious technical discussions due to the efforts of trolls who promote
>>personal antagonism, like Shain, Weil and Middius.
>
> Ahhhh, number 8 again.


You are demonstrating here and further that he is right, Idiot.



>>The article then says:
>>
>>"Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on the
>>Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never in person"
>>
>>BTW, I was not offered an opportunity to review this article before its
>>posting, so I have no responsibility for the factual errors or
>>questionable opinions that it expresses.
>
> Of course you don't have any responsibility. This is irrelevant.
>
>>I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile. It possible that my
>>name ended up on a group letter that was written by someone else. But if
>>its the letter I'm thinking of, it dates back to the Holt years.
>
>>On balance the article seems to be about as factual as the rest of the
>>Stereophile ragazine. ;-(
>
> Another attack. Figures.


An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
What else cretin ?


:-D

[John Atkinson]

dave weil wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2005 04:22:59 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> You still have it hyphenated. Can't you guys edit ANYTHING
> correctly?

Again my apologies. I dashed off the correction before running
for the subway this morning.

At least there's nothing else incorrect in the news story :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> I have suggested a couple of times, that I believe adding
> something, even if only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding
> DIY projects would open up SP to more readers.

It is a suggestion that is occasionally offered. I haven't implemented
it because a) I don't have the space to cover every aspect of the
audio hobby, so I have to weigh the benefits of what would have to
be omitted against those of DIY coverage, and b) Ed Dell's magazine
AudioXpress already does a very good job covering this area.

It also must be taken into consideration that DIY audio is a field
that appears, sadly, to be diminishing in interest.

> You have yet to respond about this idea, so I wondering if you
> forgot to answer or simply don't care about finding a place for
> such a feature.

I have commented occasionally on this subject both on the newsgroups
and on www.audioasylum.com, but no, I didn't respond to the suggestion
when you made it. My apologies; I can only assume that I missed the
postings where you discussed this subject.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

Given that Atkinson has shown hardly any sign of perceiving any of the
following, I am obliged to expand upon it.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message


> > wrote in message
> oups.com

>> The condescending attitude in your magazine re: this debate does you
>> no honor Mr. Atkinson. Here's hoping your opponent kicks your ass!
>> (And it's a big enough target, isn't it?)

I don't see as much condescension as error and paranoia.

> The full URL for this article is
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/ .

> The article seems to be poorly written, and contains factual errors,
> as well as controversial claims that might detract from the actual
> subject matter of the proposed debate.
>
> For example the article says:

> "Accordingly, Stereophile editor John Atkinson invited someone who
> has made criticizing the magazine on the Internet almost a full-time
> job over the past few years, Arny Krueger, to debate him one-on-one
> at the forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show as to where the line
> should lie between honest reporting and audio delusion."

> I'm under the impression that over the past few years, Nousaine has
> criticized Stereophile much more often and much more vigorously than
> I have.

For example, google searching finds that I mentioned Stereophile just 373
times from Jan 1, 2000 to Feb 7, 2005. 373 posts over just over 4 years is
hardly a reasonable work product for a full time job. In contrast google
estimates that I made something like 21,000 posts (about 15 posts a day) in
the same period. Even if one believed that posting to Usenet was my full
time job, posting about Stereophile is less than 2% of my work.

> I continue to object at every reasonable opportunity to this use of
> the word delusion as I have in the past, because I think that when
> audiophiles have unreliable perceptions about product sound quality,
> the errors are more likely to be due to illusions than delusions.

Illusions are normal perceptual errors that we are all prone to. Delusions
are related to mental pathologies that afflict a smaller people in any
significant way. Therefore the use of the word pathology is exceptional. It
may be the consequence of some kind a paranoid fear that one might be
thought crazy because they are an audiophile. In the context, it indicates
to me that the writer is trying to build a false consensus based on his
audience's perceptions that they are widely thought to be irrational, or
persecuted or some such.

> The article goes on:

> "Krueger, a long-time member of the South-Western Michigan Woofer and
> Tweeter Marching Society, long a home to audio skeptics, operates
> websites devoted to the idea of computerized blind testing and
> soundcard testing.

> A serious factual error in
> this paragraph is found in the club's name - which is Southeastern
> Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Their web site is at
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .


In addition the statement lacks balance because SMWTMS has also long been a
home for people who were not skeptics.

> He is skeptical of many if not most audiophile claims.

IME audiophiles don't make these claims up, and they don't develop them
based on their experiences. There's an awful lot of training and preaching
that they are subjected to by salesmen, advertising, and propaganda that is
whipped up for business reasons. Most of these claims start out in the
fevered brain of someone who is simply trying to make a buck.

>He even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages
> over the 23-year-old CD standard,

Something about the lack of reliable contrary evidence. I don't think that
wanting reliable evidence makes someone a skeptic - it just makes them a
smart consumer. Let's face it - there's no controversy over whether or not
there is audible difference between the CD and LP formats. There's no
controversy over whether or not 5.1 sounds different than regular 2-channel.
DBTs even show that 2-channel AC-3 is slightly audibly different and
degraded from 44/16 2-channel PCM. However, if SACD or 24/96 is necessarily
audibly degraded by downsampling to 16/44, the evidence is either highly
subtle or non-existent.

>other than surround channels, and

Actually I'm skeptical about surround channels, too. Not that the different
they can make can't be heard, just that other than the center channel they
seem to be more for stimulating strong but shallow emotional reactions,as
opposed to actually recreating a real world sonic event.

> completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century audiophile medium and tubes
> as a modern amplification technology."

Amen, brother.

But, while Atkinson can figure out that the CD standard might seem a bit
long in the tooth because its 23 years old, he can't bring himself to
similarly age the LP vinyl microgroove format (more like 53 years old) LP
stereo format (about 46 years old) or the exact tube types and circuits
still being sold as new audio equipment (55-65+ years old). For example, the
211 tubes that some audiophiles still lust over, first saw the light of day
in the mid-1930s. That makes them like 70-year-old technology.

To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is technology
in the 46 to 75 year range? We're talking 2-3 times as old! Of course he's
just posturing and spewing propaganda.

> The previous paragraph's general contents creates the impression that
> Atkinson and I have debated SACD, DVD-A to any serious degree which
> is at best a stretch, and at worst simply not true. I don't think
> that we've ever had any serious debates related to LPs or tubes.
> Indeed, most of our discussions have been on RAO which has long been
> overwhelming antagonistic to serious technical discussions due to the
> efforts of trolls who promote personal antagonism, like Shain, Weil
> and Middius.

> The article then says:

> "Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on the
> Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never in
> person"

> I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile. It possible that
> my name ended up on a group letter that was written by someone else.
> But if its the letter I'm thinking of, it dates back to the Holt
> years.

> BTW, I was not offered an opportunity to review this article before
> its posting, so I have no responsibility for the factual errors or
> questionable opinions that it expresses.

> On balance the article seems to be about as factual as the rest of the
> Stereophile ragazine. ;-(

[Michael McKelvy]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> I have suggested a couple of times, that I believe adding
>> something, even if only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding
>> DIY projects would open up SP to more readers.
>
> It is a suggestion that is occasionally offered. I haven't implemented
> it because a) I don't have the space to cover every aspect of the
> audio hobby, so I have to weigh the benefits of what would have to
> be omitted against those of DIY coverage, and b) Ed Dell's magazine
> AudioXpress already does a very good job covering this area.
>
It does cover it well, but the reviews of kits are few.

There are some instances where I think it would be worthwhile to review some
of the better kits to a wider audioence than strictly those who are already
so inclined. The SEAS Thor kit being just one example. This is a speaker
that certainly should qualifiy as a high end product, as are the subwooofers
both kits and finished from Adire Audio.



> It also must be taken into consideration that DIY audio is a field
> that appears, sadly, to be diminishing in interest.
>
So, a nudge would be nice.

>> You have yet to respond about this idea, so I wondering if you
>> forgot to answer or simply don't care about finding a place for
>> such a feature.
>
> I have commented occasionally on this subject both on the newsgroups
> and on www.audioasylum.com, but no, I didn't respond to the suggestion
> when you made it. My apologies; I can only assume that I missed the
> postings where you discussed this subject.
>

That would indeed be the case.

I suspect another reason would be that there isn't a lot advertising money,
although, it would seem that the driver manufacturers might be able to cough
up a few bucks.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
> questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is technology
> in the 46 to 75 year range?

*Just* because? There's your problem: you've misstated the case.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> In >, dave weil wrote :
>
> > On 7 Feb 2005 04:22:59 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> A serious factual error in this paragraph is found in the club's
> >>> name - which is Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching
> >>> Society. Their web site is at
> >>http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/smwtms.htm .
> >>
> >>Thank you for the correction, Mr. Krueger.
> >>
> >>John Atkinson
> >>Editor, Stereophile
> >
> > You still have it hyphenated. Can't you guys edit ANYTHING correctly?
> >
> > <chuckle>
>
>
> LOL, Dave Weil in his prefered role...
> ...This guy obviously suffers from a serious professional bias. ;-)

You owe us an 'r'...Good thin RAO were informal!

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
>> questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is
>> technology in the 46 to 75 year range?

> *Just* because? There's your problem: you've misstated the case.

I misstated nothing. Here's your challege Stephen - find Atkinson comparing
CDA to SACD & DVD-A in his little Stereophile web site piece, on any basis
but age.

Now Stephen, if you want to argue that Atkinson misstated the case, be my
guest and I'll even be happy to join in with you. ;-)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
> >> questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is
> >> technology in the 46 to 75 year range?
>
> > *Just* because? There's your problem: you've misstated the case.
>
> I misstated nothing.

It's a long way from "[Arny] doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic
advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard," to "[JA finds] the CD
format...questionable just because it is 23 years old..."

> Here's your challege Stephen - find Atkinson comparing
> CDA to SACD & DVD-A in his little Stereophile web site piece, on any basis
> but age.

Hmm. Let's look again. Nope, I don't find JA comparing those things at
all. I do see a description of your views, which you are free to respond
to.

> Now Stephen, if you want to argue that Atkinson misstated the case, be my
> guest and I'll even be happy to join in with you. ;-)

Good luck with the debate.

Stephen

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17893

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>Permit me to offer you a consolation: you're a nice guy.


This reminds me of a job interview I had many years ago.
At some point the man who did the interview said to me:
"Well, you miss some qualifications for this job, but you're a real
nice guy".

Whenever people say I'm nice, my mind wanders back to that interview.

:-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

"John Atkinson" > said:


>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> I have suggested a couple of times, that I believe adding
>> something, even if only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding
>> DIY projects would open up SP to more readers.

>It is a suggestion that is occasionally offered. I haven't implemented
>it because a) I don't have the space to cover every aspect of the
>audio hobby, so I have to weigh the benefits of what would have to
>be omitted against those of DIY coverage, and b) Ed Dell's magazine
>AudioXpress already does a very good job covering this area.


While I'm not familiar with AudioXpress, I think that DIY articles
would certainly be a reason for many people to start reading
Stereophile.


>It also must be taken into consideration that DIY audio is a field
>that appears, sadly, to be diminishing in interest.


Not in the circles where I travel (phrase borrowed from AK).
At least here in the Netherlands, DIY is gaining more and more
momentum, both in speakers and electronics.

Also, in the tube world (admittedly a niche market) DIY is probably
more common than buying commercial gear. Makes more sense too, IMHO.

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

[Sander deWaal]

MINe 109 > said:

>http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17893


A neat description of how Lionel became a "Hamas lover".

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

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message


> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>>> To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
>>>> questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is
>>>> technology in the 46 to 75 year range?

>>> *Just* because? There's your problem: you've misstated the case.

>> I misstated nothing.

> It's a long way from "[Arny] doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any
> sonic advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard," to "[JA finds]
> the CD format...questionable just because it is 23 years old..."

Say what?

So Stephen, then you're saying that the CD format is not questionable if
these other newer competitive formats do have sonic advantages over it?

>> Here's your challege Stephen - find Atkinson comparing
>> CDA to SACD & DVD-A in his little Stereophile web site piece, on
>> any basis but age.

> Hmm. Let's look again. Nope, I don't find JA comparing those things at
> all.

Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No, Atkinson
intended no comparison between the formats at all. They just ended up in the
same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)

Stephen do you think that Atkinson is such a bad writer that he would
mention three formats in the same sentence and draw no connection between
them?

> I do see a description of your views, which you are free to
> respond to.

Why can you see that Stephen, when you miss something equally as obvious?

>> Now Stephen, if you want to argue that Atkinson misstated the case,
>> be my guest and I'll even be happy to join in with you. ;-)

> Good luck with the debate.


Luck will have very little to do with it. I figure that most of those who
read, see or hear of it will audiophiles and will be as biased, and
therefore as blind to the obvious as you are, Stephen.

[John Atkinson]

MINe 109 wrote:
> http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17893

This would be funny if it weren't true! :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message


> http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17893

Great example of how the RAO *Normals* spin posts from people they hate.

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> MINe 109 > said:
>
>
>>http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17893
>
>
>
> A neat description of how Lionel became a "Hamas lover".


LOL !!!

Impossible to find a better illustration! ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Luck will have very little to do with it. I figure that most of those who
>read, see or hear of it will audiophiles and will be as biased, and
>therefore as blind to the obvious as you are, Stephen.


That's why we wish you luck (strength, courage etc) ;-)

Personally, I wouldn't dare to do what you're about to do.
Anyway, take the opportunity to have a listen to some of the gear.

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

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17893
>
> Great example of how the RAO *Normals* spin posts from people they hate.

Glad the link works on Bizarro World.

Stephen

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>"Robert Morein" > said:
>
>>Permit me to offer you a consolation: you're a nice guy.
>
>
>This reminds me of a job interview I had many years ago.
>At some point the man who did the interview said to me:
>"Well, you miss some qualifications for this job, but you're a real
>nice guy".
>
>Whenever people say I'm nice, my mind wanders back to that interview.
>
> :-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>

I had a professor in graduate school that was a very good clinician, but was a
horrible teacher. In fact, he was so bad that some of the students would
openly read the newspapers during his classes.

jHowever, everybody agreed and always said, "he's a helluva nice guy!"

This also reminds me of things I would sometimes hear said about a young lady
before a "blind date".with a girly that was not......shall, we say, physically
attractive. The fatal, tell-tale words were "she's got a wonderful
personality". :)




Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> This reminds me of a job interview I had many years ago.
>> At some point the man who did the interview said to me:
>> "Well, you miss some qualifications for this job, but you're a real
>> nice guy".

>> Whenever people say I'm nice, my mind wanders back to that interview.

>When he turned you down, did you blast him with your Beretta?


Who do you think I am? I cut his brake hose.


>> :-)

>A nice guy wouldn't do that.


;-)

There. Better?

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

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>"Robert Morein" > said:

>>>Permit me to offer you a consolation: you're a nice guy.

>I had a professor in graduate school that was a very good clinician, but was a
>horrible teacher. In fact, he was so bad that some of the students would
>openly read the newspapers during his classes.

>jHowever, everybody agreed and always said, "he's a helluva nice guy!"

>This also reminds me of things I would sometimes hear said about a young lady
>before a "blind date".with a girly that was not......shall, we say, physically
>attractive. The fatal, tell-tale words were "she's got a wonderful
>personality". :)


Thanks Bruce, the tiny bit of self-esteem that I managed to build up
in 38 years just went with one post :-)

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

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>"John Atkinson" > said:
>
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>> I have suggested a couple of times, that I believe adding
>>> something, even if only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding
>>> DIY projects would open up SP to more readers.
>
>>It is a suggestion that is occasionally offered. I haven't implemented
>>it because a) I don't have the space to cover every aspect of the
>>audio hobby, so I have to weigh the benefits of what would have to
>>be omitted against those of DIY coverage, and b) Ed Dell's magazine
>>AudioXpress already does a very good job covering this area.
>
>
>While I'm not familiar with AudioXpress, I think that DIY articles
>would certainly be a reason for many people to start reading
>Stereophile.
>
>
>>It also must be taken into consideration that DIY audio is a field
>>that appears, sadly, to be diminishing in interest.
>
>
>Not in the circles where I travel (phrase borrowed from AK).
>At least here in the Netherlands, DIY is gaining more and more
>momentum, both in speakers and electronics.
>
>Also, in the tube world (admittedly a niche market) DIY is probably
>more common than buying commercial gear. Makes more sense too, IMHO.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>

Since the first piece of audio quippment I ever owned was a DIY project that I
completed one summer - an H.H. Scott integrated stereo amplifier kit - I can
certainly appreciate the sense of accomplishment, and also the sometimes hard
work, that goes into building one's own stereo equipment.

However, for reviews of DIY projects to be meaningful, I thinik that several
considerations would have to be discussed in such articles.

(1) What type of special equipment is needed to complete the project?
Obviously, the cost of tools, measurement equipment, etc. would have to be
factored in to the total cost of the product.

(2) What type of training or practice would be needed to ensure realtively
error-free construction? While this may seem like a trivial matter, not
everybody has experience with soldering irons, voltmeters, etc.

(3) From the reviewer's perspective, and this is very important, how clear
and/or detailed are the instructions that are provided with the DIY kit? Are
they written in language that the average layman can understand?

Finally, while I don't know how often this situation occurs, it might be a good
idea, if possible, to have a reviewer describe his experiences with a product
that is available in both kit and factory assembled versions, to compare their
performance. I would think that this would increase the level of interest in
such a project.




Bruce J. Richman

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >>>> To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
> >>>> questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is
> >>>> technology in the 46 to 75 year range?
>
> >>> *Just* because? There's your problem: you've misstated the case.
>
> >> I misstated nothing.
>
> > It's a long way from "[Arny] doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any
> > sonic advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard," to "[JA finds]
> > the CD format...questionable just because it is 23 years old..."
>
> Say what?

I'd sharpen up those comprehension skills if I were preparing for a
debate.

> So Stephen, then you're saying that the CD format is not questionable if
> these other newer competitive formats do have sonic advantages over it?

See, that's my point: I'm not saying anything at all about formats. Yet,
here you are changing the subject and doing the convolution go-go with
boots on.

> >> Here's your challege Stephen - find Atkinson comparing
> >> CDA to SACD & DVD-A in his little Stereophile web site piece, on
> >> any basis but age.
>
> > Hmm. Let's look again. Nope, I don't find JA comparing those things at
> > all.
>
> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No, Atkinson
> intended no comparison between the formats at all. They just ended up in the
> same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)

There's that word, 'mention.' The sentence in question: "He [that's
*you*] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over
the 23-year-old CD standard, other than surround channels, and
completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century audiophile medium and tubes as
a modern amplification technology."

The comparison implied is yours!

> Stephen do you think that Atkinson is such a bad writer that he would
> mention three formats in the same sentence and draw no connection between
> them?

The connection is you and your doubting of "sonic advantages."
Debatable, no?

> > I do see a description of your views, which you are free to
> > respond to.
>
> Why can you see that Stephen, when you miss something equally as obvious?

Ah, the implication that he disagrees with you. You'll have to ask him
why at the debate.

> >> Now Stephen, if you want to argue that Atkinson misstated the case,
> >> be my guest and I'll even be happy to join in with you. ;-)
>
> > Good luck with the debate.
>
>
> Luck will have very little to do with it.

Too bad, then.

> I figure that most of those who
> read, see or hear of it will audiophiles and will be as biased, and
> therefore as blind to the obvious as you are, Stephen.

You know where to put the cork.

Stephen

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Given that Atkinson has shown hardly any sign of perceiving any of
> the following...

I did read your response, Mr. Krueger. Other than the error
concerning the full name of SMWTMS, which I subsequently
corrected, I didn't feel I had misrepresented your views. I also
felt that my linking to your two websites on www.stereophile.com
might generate some increased traffic for you.

> google searching finds that I mentioned Stereophile just 373
> times from Jan 1, 2000 to Feb 7, 2005. 373 posts over just over 4
> years is hardly a reasonable work product for a full time job.

Please note my reference to your criticism of Stereophile
amounting to a full-time job was poetic hyperbole. I felt it
justified given the very high number of postings you have made
over the years. (Many more than either Tom Nousaine or Howard
Ferstler, for example, to name two other critics of Stereophile.)

The 373 postings you mention don't appear to include alternative
spellings you have used over the years, such as $tereophile and
Stereopile, or your interjecting asterisks into the magazine's name.
You also neglected to include posting you made from different email
addresses from the one you currently use, which does change matters
somewhat. Going back to the first posting in which you mentioned
Stereophile, on r.a.o. alone you have mentioned Stereophile or the
alternative spellings in 1662 postings.

> > [Arny Krueger] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic
> > advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard,
>
> Something about the lack of reliable contrary evidence.

Whatever your reason, I don't think I mispresrepresented your position
on this subject.

> > Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on
> > the Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never
> > in person.
>
> I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile.

I think your memory is letting you down, Mr. Krueger.

> It is possible that my name ended up on a group letter that was
> written by someone else. But if it's the letter I'm thinking of,
> it dates back to the Holt years.

It appeared in the December 1997 issue of Stereophile (pp.21-23), and
was signed by yourself, along with David Carlstrom, Davd Clark, Gary
Eickmeier, Bernhard Muller, and Tom Nousaine.

Incidentally, given your annoyance over my now-corrected error over
the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society, it
is ironic that you refer to SMWTMS in that letter as the "South"
Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Perhaps it changed
is name (or its location).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[JBorg]

> Robert Morein wrote
>
>
>
> Recently, Sander de Waal suggested, with respect to the debate, that Arny
> should be honored for his "accomplishments."
>
> I have always believed that Arny has some degree of engineering competence,
> unfortunately devalued by his lust to find and enforce the Final Solution of
> Audio. If Arny didn't believe he has the universal solution for every audio
> problem, if he weren't so disdainful of the beliefs of others, which he
> conveniently discounts through a debating argument called "ABX", I would
> perhaps regard his evaluations of computer sound cards in a different light.
>
> But perhaps I have been mistaken in pulling Arny's chain. If Arny has
> genuinely accomplished anything to add to the "pyramid of human
> accomplishment", it is my deepest wish that Arny should be appropriately
> honored. Perhaps, instead of calling him "Lord Krueger", we could call him
> "Mister." And, if Arny has served his country well, perhaps in the "training
> of youth", he should be nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
>
> Is the sum total of Arny's beliefs, expositions, and investigations a plus
> or a minus to the audio world? Is he a Force for Good, a Force for Evil, or
> a Spent Battery?
>
> Inquiring minds would like to know.



This announcement requesting forth commendation, kudos, or laurels of
eminence to honor the most loathsome and revolting worm to ever crawl
the celestial sphere of cyber space is heinous offense. This is an act of
horror and betrayal of trust.

I shall make a print of this and throw it into the fire!

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>>"Robert Morein" > said:
>
>>>>Permit me to offer you a consolation: you're a nice guy.
>
>>I had a professor in graduate school that was a very good clinician, but was
>a
>>horrible teacher. In fact, he was so bad that some of the students would
>>openly read the newspapers during his classes.
>
>>jHowever, everybody agreed and always said, "he's a helluva nice guy!"
>
>>This also reminds me of things I would sometimes hear said about a young
>lady
>>before a "blind date".with a girly that was not......shall, we say,
>physically
>>attractive. The fatal, tell-tale words were "she's got a wonderful
>>personality". :)
>
>
>Thanks Bruce, the tiny bit of self-esteem that I managed to build up
>in 38 years just went with one post :-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Naaaaaaaaah ! Not really ::)

According to Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the world's most famous living
psychologists and the founder of Rational-Emotive Therapy, a precursor of
Cogntivire-Behavioral Therapy, nobody affects a person's self-esteem (or any
other emotion that they experience) --------- but they, themselves. IOW, a
person's own thoughts, not his external environment or other people, determine
how he feels.




:)



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No, Atkinson
>> intended no comparison between the formats at all. They just ended
>> up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)

> There's that word, 'mention.'

Which means exactly what, Stephen?

> The sentence in question: "He [that's
> *you*] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over
> the 23-year-old CD standard, other than surround channels, and
> completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century audiophile medium and tubes
> as a modern amplification technology."

> The comparison implied is yours!

Right, silly me for reading what Atkinson said, and trying to ascribe any
meaning to it at all.

OK Stephen, you've done your assignment of wasting my time.

<It's too bad that John Atkinson can't take responsibility for his own
writing. >

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>However, for reviews of DIY projects to be meaningful, I thinik that several
>considerations would have to be discussed in such articles.

>(1) What type of special equipment is needed to complete the project?
>Obviously, the cost of tools, measurement equipment, etc. would have to be
>factored in to the total cost of the product.


For loudspeakers etc. that are offered in kit form, most people
interested in DIY will probably have woodworking equipment at hand.
Measurement gear isn't necessary, except perhaps a simple AVO-meter.
For building tube kits, one doesn't need much more than said meter and
some tools.

For people interested in building things from scratch, tools etc. are
not that much of a problem I'd think.

Reviews of completed kits or gear could be helpful in deciding what
one wants to build.


>(2) What type of training or practice would be needed to ensure realtively
>error-free construction? While this may seem like a trivial matter, not
>everybody has experience with soldering irons, voltmeters, etc.


IMO, such reviews will be intended for people who actually have some
soldering and/or woodworking skills.


>(3) From the reviewer's perspective, and this is very important, how clear
>and/or detailed are the instructions that are provided with the DIY kit? Are
>they written in language that the average layman can understand?


That's what the review is for, isn't it? :-)


>Finally, while I don't know how often this situation occurs, it might be a good
>idea, if possible, to have a reviewer describe his experiences with a product
>that is available in both kit and factory assembled versions, to compare their
>performance. I would think that this would increase the level of interest in
>such a project.


Absolutely, and it'll probably attract people who never thought of DIY
before because they had no reference.
Because of reviews, they can obtain their information.


I know, I'm a naive and idealistic person :-)


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

[dave weil]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:00:12 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>What else cretin ?

What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
lately?

BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
bodyguard for Arnold.

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>>That's why we wish you luck (strength, courage etc) ;-)

>>Personally, I wouldn't dare to do what you're about to do.

>Courage or stupidity?


Courage.
It would be like me debating the virtues of a Citroen to a BMW-forum.

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

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>>Thanks Bruce, the tiny bit of self-esteem that I managed to build up
>>in 38 years just went with one post :-)

>Naaaaaaaaah ! Not really ::)

> According to Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the world's most famous living
>psychologists and the founder of Rational-Emotive Therapy, a precursor of
>Cogntivire-Behavioral Therapy, nobody affects a person's self-esteem (or any
>other emotion that they experience) --------- but they, themselves. IOW, a
>person's own thoughts, not his external environment or other people, determine
>how he feels.


Ahh, but the stimulae...........


>:)


Oh, OK.

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

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:00:12 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>>What else cretin ?
>
>
> What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
> lately?

What are you speaking about, Dave ?
Seems that with the age you are becoming a little bit paranoid.
You'd better propose an other "accordion" contest. :-)


> BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
> bodyguard for Arnold.

I'm not a bodyguard Dave, just a charitable guy who makes
you the handout of a conversation.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No, Atkinson
> >> intended no comparison between the formats at all. They just ended
> >> up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
>
> > There's that word, 'mention.'
>
> Which means exactly what, Stephen?

You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.

> > The sentence in question: "He [that's
> > *you*] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over
> > the 23-year-old CD standard, other than surround channels, and
> > completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century audiophile medium and tubes
> > as a modern amplification technology."
>
> > The comparison implied is yours!
>
> Right, silly me for reading what Atkinson said, and trying to ascribe any
> meaning to it at all.

Considering he's describing *your* audio philosophy, you might admit to
some meaning.

BTW, if you try this tack in the debate, arguing that because you think
there's no sonic difference among the formats, the only thing JA could
have in mind is their relative ages, well:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/P0222100.html

> OK Stephen, you've done your assignment of wasting my time.
>
> <It's too bad that John Atkinson can't take responsibility for his own
> writing. >

Dude, he removed that hyphen.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Given that Atkinson has shown hardly any sign of perceiving any of
>> the following...

> I did read your response, Mr. Krueger. Other than the error
> concerning the full name of SMWTMS, which I subsequently
> corrected, I didn't feel I had misrepresented your views.

Of course not, that would indicate that you made more than just one error,
John. Silly me! ;-)

>I also felt that my linking to your two websites on www.stereophile.com
> might generate some increased traffic for you.

In recent history, SP mention hasn't done much for usage.

>> google searching finds that I mentioned Stereophile just 373
>> times from Jan 1, 2000 to Feb 7, 2005. 373 posts over just over 4
>> years is hardly a reasonable work product for a full time job.

> Please note my reference to your criticism of Stereophile
> amounting to a full-time job was poetic hyperbole.

Oh, yeah hyperbole - one of those things that has made Stereophile what it
is today. ;-)

> I felt it
> justified given the very high number of postings you have made
> over the years. (Many more than either Tom Nousaine or Howard
> Ferstler, for example, to name two other critics of Stereophile.)

Given Ferstler's recent history of generally not posting at all, I guess
this means that if you set the bar low enough...

> The 373 postings you mention don't appear to include alternative
> spellings you have used over the years, such as $tereophile and
> Stereopile, or your interjecting asterisks into the magazine's name.

Gosh that might bring the count up to a total of 400, more-or-less.

> You also neglected to include posting you made from different email
> addresses from the one you currently use, which does change matters
> somewhat.

I sidestepped that issue by using the spelling I've used consistently over
the years surveyed. Nice try, but no cigar.

>Going back to the first posting in which you mentioned
> Stereophile, on r.a.o. alone you have mentioned Stereophile or the
> alternative spellings in 1662 postings.

Yes, but not all those mentions of Stereophile were critical. I believe the
topic was mentions of Stereophile that would establish me as the foremost
Usenet critic of Stereophile.

Well if 1662 mentions is worth a free expense-paid trip to New York, so be
it! ;-)

>>> [Arny Krueger] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic
>>> advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard,

>> Something about the lack of reliable contrary evidence.

> Whatever your reason, I don't think I misresrepresented your position
> on this subject.

Never said you did John, but you do look ever so good with a straw man in
one hand and a red herring in the other... ;-)

>>> Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on
>>> the Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never
>>> in person.

>> I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile.

> I think your memory is letting you down, Mr. Krueger.

>> It is possible that my name ended up on a group letter that was
>> written by someone else. But if it's the letter I'm thinking of,
>> it dates back to the Holt years.

> It appeared in the December 1997 issue of Stereophile (pp.21-23), and
> was signed by yourself, along with David Carlstrom, David Clark, Gary
> Eickmeier, Bernhard Muller, and Tom Nousaine.

As I said and therefore correctly remembered, my name ended up on a group
letter that was written by someone else.

> Incidentally, given your annoyance over my now-corrected error over
> the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society, it
> is ironic that you refer to SMWTMS in that letter as the "South"
> Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Perhaps it changed
> is name (or its location).

I didn't write the letter, I just agreed with the author(s) about its
general contents. Hey, it was what 6 years ago? Since the club name was
misspelled, I'd bet that Gary was the motivating force behind it. Now that
I think about the signing party, I seem to recall saying something about
futility. ;-)

John, I *am* amused by your lack of knowledge about US geography - not
knowing which part of Michigan Detroit is in. I recollect that you once said
that you stop here from time to time on airplane flights. So now I'm
wondering if you avoid window seats, or just don't get what you see when you
look down and see the Great Lakes and all that other geographical stuff from
your plane?

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> dave weil said to Slut:
>
> > BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
> > bodyguard for Arnold.
>
> Is that how it looks? I'm surprised Mickey is letting Lionella move in on
> his beloved without a struggle.


...Since you haven't any problems with Dave who is a devoted flunkey and an occasional ass-licker. :O)




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all. They
>>>> just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
>>
>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
>>
>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
>
> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.

Why would I?

>>> The sentence in question: "He [that's
>>> *you*] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages
>>> over the 23-year-old CD standard, other than surround channels, and
>>> completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century audiophile medium and
>>> tubes as a modern amplification technology."
>>
>>> The comparison implied is yours!
>>
>> Right, silly me for reading what Atkinson said, and trying to
>> ascribe any meaning to it at all.

> Considering he's describing *your* audio philosophy, you might admit
> to some meaning.

I would admit to the proper meaning, were Atkinson able to bring himself to
admit what my audio philosophy is, which is pure subjectivism.

> BTW, if you try this tack in the debate, arguing that because you
> think there's no sonic difference among the formats, the only thing
> JA could have in mind is their relative ages, well:

> http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/P0222100.html

One might be less pompus and just whine about begging the question. Or one
might just stay clear of questions that are so easily begged. YMMV.

[Lionel]

Arny Krueger a écrit :
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ups.com

>>Please note my reference to your criticism of Stereophile
>>amounting to a full-time job was poetic hyperbole.
>
>
> Oh, yeah hyperbole - one of those things that has made Stereophile what it
> is today. ;-)

Nice one Arnold.
Keep on the good job.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>However, for reviews of DIY projects to be meaningful, I thinik that
>several
>>considerations would have to be discussed in such articles.
>
>>(1) What type of special equipment is needed to complete the project?
>>Obviously, the cost of tools, measurement equipment, etc. would have to be
>>factored in to the total cost of the product.
>
>
>For loudspeakers etc. that are offered in kit form, most people
>interested in DIY will probably have woodworking equipment at hand.
>Measurement gear isn't necessary, except perhaps a simple AVO-meter.
>For building tube kits, one doesn't need much more than said meter and
>some tools.
>

I wouldn't assume that the average person has woodworking equipment unless they
are used to building furniture or other things like this. Compared to finished
products, the cost might not be all that great for some basic tools, but unless
a speaker kit at least comes with precut cabinets, I'd think this chore could
be discouraging to some people.



>For people interested in building things from scratch, tools etc. are
>not that much of a problem I'd think.
>
>Reviews of completed kits or gear could be helpful in deciding what
>one wants to build.
>
>

Agreed, provided they also focus on the ease or difficulty of construction for
the average person.



>>(2) What type of training or practice would be needed to ensure realtively
>>error-free construction? While this may seem like a trivial matter, not
>>everybody has experience with soldering irons, voltmeters, etc.
>
>
>IMO, such reviews will be intended for people who actually have some
>soldering and/or woodworking skills.
>
>

It that were the case, then it would be unlikely that new hobbyists would be
interested. In my judgment, failure to address this issue in the review wuold
be a serious omission, since it could discourage potential builders from taking
a chance on a DIY project.




>>(3) From the reviewer's perspective, and this is very important, how clear
>>and/or detailed are the instructions that are provided with the DIY kit?
>Are
>>they written in language that the average layman can understand?
>
>
>That's what the review is for, isn't it? :-)
>

It should be, but in conventional reviews, of course, performance is what is
the focus of attention. In reviewing a DIY project, the reviewer wouild have
to be careful not to overlook describing the ease or difficulty of construction
and the clarity with which the instructions are written. For example, when I
built my first kit, I was 16 years old, and had no prior soldering experience
or experience reading schematics. And this was at a time when point-to-point
wiring was required. Fortunately, the kit did not presume any prior
electronics or electrical equpment construction experience and had a very well
written and illustrated manual.


>
>>Finally, while I don't know how often this situation occurs, it might be a
>good
>>idea, if possible, to have a reviewer describe his experiences with a
>product
>>that is available in both kit and factory assembled versions, to compare
>their
>>performance. I would think that this would increase the level of interest
>in
>>such a project.
>
>
>Absolutely, and it'll probably attract people who never thought of DIY
>before because they had no reference.
>Because of reviews, they can obtain their information.
>
>
>I know, I'm a naive and idealistic person :-)
>
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>>Thanks Bruce, the tiny bit of self-esteem that I managed to build up
>>>in 38 years just went with one post :-)
>
>>Naaaaaaaaah ! Not really ::)
>
>> According to Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the world's most famous living
>>psychologists and the founder of Rational-Emotive Therapy, a precursor of
>>Cogntivire-Behavioral Therapy, nobody affects a person's self-esteem (or any
>>other emotion that they experience) --------- but they, themselves. IOW, a
>>person's own thoughts, not his external environment or other people,
>determine
>>how he feels.
>
>
>Ahh, but the stimulae...........
>
>
>>:)
>
>
>Oh, OK.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your own thoughts = the stimuli. :-)

Epictetus, one of the ancient philosophers, said "The thought is father of the
deed".

So Epictetus probably would have made a good cognitive-behavioral therapist.
:-)

FWIW, most modern nonpharmacological treatments of depression also rest on the
central notion that so called "depressogenic" or negative thoughts are the
major etiological factor in the development of most depressive disorders
(except Bipolar Disorder). Therefore, treatment involves teaching the patient
how to change their thoughts so that they can experience a change in their
feelings.



Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>... Bipolar Disorder........


Ah, but I'm quite sure I don't suffer from that.
I use tubes, and MOSFETs at most.

What a relief!

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

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> MINe 109 said:
>
>> > To follow what seems to be Atkinson's logic, if the CD format is
>> > questionable just because it is 23 years old, how questionable is
>> > technology
>> > in the 46 to 75 year range?
>>
>> *Just* because? There's your problem: you've misstated the case.
>
> Will Krooger try the putting-words-in-JA's-mouth tactic in NYC? Tune in to
> find out.
>

I'm sure he'll be up on his Schropenhauers.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
> >>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all. They
> >>>> just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
> >>
> >>> There's that word, 'mention.'
> >>
> >> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
> >
> > You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
>
> Why would I?

Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic standards. In
this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that he debate
your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in addition to.

> >>> The sentence in question: "He [that's
> >>> *you*] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages
> >>> over the 23-year-old CD standard, other than surround channels, and
> >>> completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century audiophile medium and
> >>> tubes as a modern amplification technology."
> >>
> >>> The comparison implied is yours!
> >>
> >> Right, silly me for reading what Atkinson said, and trying to
> >> ascribe any meaning to it at all.
>
> > Considering he's describing *your* audio philosophy, you might admit
> > to some meaning.
>
> I would admit to the proper meaning, were Atkinson able to bring himself to
> admit what my audio philosophy is, which is pure subjectivism.

Do you not doubt "that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages
over...CD"? Don't you completely dismiss lp and tubes?

Or would you be content if I rephrase?: he's describing *your* opinions
on those subjects.

> > BTW, if you try this tack in the debate, arguing that because you
> > think there's no sonic difference among the formats, the only thing
> > JA could have in mind is their relative ages, well:
>
> > http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/P0222100.html
>
> One might be less pompus and just whine about begging the question. Or one
> might just stay clear of questions that are so easily begged. YMMV.

It certainly will, as you've managed to miss the meaning:

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

That is, *not* "raising the question."

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Given that Atkinson has shown hardly any sign of perceiving any of
>> the following...
>
> I did read your response, Mr. Krueger. Other than the error
> concerning the full name of SMWTMS, which I subsequently
> corrected, I didn't feel I had misrepresented your views. I also
> felt that my linking to your two websites on www.stereophile.com
> might generate some increased traffic for you.
>
>> google searching finds that I mentioned Stereophile just 373
>> times from Jan 1, 2000 to Feb 7, 2005. 373 posts over just over 4
>> years is hardly a reasonable work product for a full time job.
>
> Please note my reference to your criticism of Stereophile
> amounting to a full-time job was poetic hyperbole. I felt it
> justified given the very high number of postings you have made
> over the years. (Many more than either Tom Nousaine or Howard
> Ferstler, for example, to name two other critics of Stereophile.)
>
> The 373 postings you mention don't appear to include alternative
> spellings you have used over the years, such as $tereophile and
> Stereopile, or your interjecting asterisks into the magazine's name.
> You also neglected to include posting you made from different email
> addresses from the one you currently use, which does change matters
> somewhat. Going back to the first posting in which you mentioned
> Stereophile, on r.a.o. alone you have mentioned Stereophile or the
> alternative spellings in 1662 postings.
>
>> > [Arny Krueger] even doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic
>> > advantages over the 23-year-old CD standard,
>>
>> Something about the lack of reliable contrary evidence.
>
> Whatever your reason, I don't think I mispresrepresented your position
> on this subject.
>
>> > Not surprisingly, Atkinson and Krueger have clashed many times on
>> > the Internet and even in Stereophile's "Letters" pages, but never
>> > in person.
>>
>> I don't recall ever writing a letter to Stereophile.
>
> I think your memory is letting you down, Mr. Krueger.
>
>> It is possible that my name ended up on a group letter that was
>> written by someone else. But if it's the letter I'm thinking of,
>> it dates back to the Holt years.
>
> It appeared in the December 1997 issue of Stereophile (pp.21-23), and
> was signed by yourself, along with David Carlstrom, Davd Clark, Gary
> Eickmeier, Bernhard Muller, and Tom Nousaine.
>
> Incidentally, given your annoyance over my now-corrected error over
> the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society, it
> is ironic that you refer to SMWTMS in that letter as the "South"
> Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society. Perhaps it changed
> is name (or its location).
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

Keep up the Psych Ops you're running on Arny.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" emitted :
>
>>That's why we wish you luck (strength, courage etc) ;-)
>>
>>Personally, I wouldn't dare to do what you're about to do.
>
> Courage or stupidity?
>
sometimes, they aren't so different.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:00:12 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>>What else cretin ?
>
> What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
> lately?
>
> BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
> bodyguard for Arnold.

if irony killed, Arny would be stupid enough
to trust a Frenchman as a bodyguard.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>I wouldn't assume that the average person has woodworking equipment unless they
>are used to building furniture or other things like this. Compared to finished
>products, the cost might not be all that great for some basic tools, but unless
>a speaker kit at least comes with precut cabinets, I'd think this chore could
>be discouraging to some people.


Precut cabinet panels are a prerequisite in this case, sorry I didn't
mention that.


>>IMO, such reviews will be intended for people who actually have some
>>soldering and/or woodworking skills.

>It that were the case, then it would be unlikely that new hobbyists would be
>interested. In my judgment, failure to address this issue in the review wuold
>be a serious omission, since it could discourage potential builders from taking
>a chance on a DIY project.


While I agree on that, I think there are more people out there with
soldering and/or handcrafting skills than you might think.

Take my employer: he asked me what to buy for a new system.
Had to be multichannel for the kids and all.
I know he went through technical school, but he hasn't touched a
soldering iron in 30 or so years (he's a software developer).
Yet I showed him what can be done with good material these days.
He now has a new hobby, he already made a 5 ch. amplifier (from a kit,
and solid state, but hey, it's a start) :-)

He now wants to build a surround speaker set from a kit that's offered
here in the Netherlands, including a powered subwoofer!

Haven't seen him so happy in all the time I work there ( well, about 4
months actually). His wife concurs.

So, again the proof is there: DIY is a reward by itself, and one ends
up with useful equipment to be proud of.


>It should be, but in conventional reviews, of course, performance is what is
>the focus of attention. In reviewing a DIY project, the reviewer wouild have
>to be careful not to overlook describing the ease or difficulty of construction
>and the clarity with which the instructions are written. For example, when I
>built my first kit, I was 16 years old, and had no prior soldering experience
>or experience reading schematics. And this was at a time when point-to-point
>wiring was required. Fortunately, the kit did not presume any prior
>electronics or electrical equpment construction experience and had a very well
>written and illustrated manual.


Was it perhaps a Heathkit?
From what I've seen, they had about the best manuals out there.

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

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said to Slut:
>
>> BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
>> bodyguard for Arnold.
>
> Is that how it looks? I'm surprised Mickey is letting Lionella move in on
> his beloved without a struggle.
>

"at least" Mikey is more qualified for the task.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well if 1662 mentions is worth a free expense-paid trip to New York, so be
> it! ;-)

Is this Arny's startegy? A no-show and a free
vacation at Sterophile expense?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
>>>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all. They
>>>>>> just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
>>>>
>>>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
>>>
>>> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
>>
>> Why would I?
>
> Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic standards.

Says who?

> In this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that he debate
> your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in addition to.

I have no problems with the mention of my views. However, it appears that he
chose to editorialize about them a bit. Obviously, he wants to start the
bull-baiting well in advance. It'ss quite clear that the logical approach he
chose to use to editorialize on my views doesn't work so well on his other
mention of my views on tubes and LPs.

Let's pretend that someplace there was a John Akinson who can give a fair
and balanced view of other people's opinions:

Plan "A" - Atkinson just does a unbiased job of representing my views with
no gratuitous editorialization:

"He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the CD
standard, other
than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."

Plan "B" - Atkinson editorializes on both issues with equal vigor:

"He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
23-year-old CD standard other
than surround channels, and completely dismisses the 53-year-old LP as a
21st-century audiophile medium and the 95-year old vacuum tube as a modern
amplification technology."

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>I wouldn't assume that the average person has woodworking equipment unless
>they
>>are used to building furniture or other things like this. Compared to
>finished
>>products, the cost might not be all that great for some basic tools, but
>unless
>>a speaker kit at least comes with precut cabinets, I'd think this chore
>could
>>be discouraging to some people.
>
>
>Precut cabinet panels are a prerequisite in this case, sorry I didn't
>mention that.
>
>
>>>IMO, such reviews will be intended for people who actually have some
>>>soldering and/or woodworking skills.
>
>>It that were the case, then it would be unlikely that new hobbyists would be
>>interested. In my judgment, failure to address this issue in the review
>wuold
>>be a serious omission, since it could discourage potential builders from
>taking
>>a chance on a DIY project.
>
>
>While I agree on that, I think there are more people out there with
>soldering and/or handcrafting skills than you might think.
>
>Take my employer: he asked me what to buy for a new system.
>Had to be multichannel for the kids and all.
>I know he went through technical school, but he hasn't touched a
>soldering iron in 30 or so years (he's a software developer).
>Yet I showed him what can be done with good material these days.
>He now has a new hobby, he already made a 5 ch. amplifier (from a kit,
>and solid state, but hey, it's a start) :-)
>
>He now wants to build a surround speaker set from a kit that's offered
>here in the Netherlands, including a powered subwoofer!
>
>Haven't seen him so happy in all the time I work there ( well, about 4
>months actually). His wife concurs.
>
>So, again the proof is there: DIY is a reward by itself, and one ends
>up with useful equipment to be proud of.
>
>
>>It should be, but in conventional reviews, of course, performance is what is
>>the focus of attention. In reviewing a DIY project, the reviewer wouild
>have
>>to be careful not to overlook describing the ease or difficulty of
>construction
>>and the clarity with which the instructions are written. For example, when
>I
>>built my first kit, I was 16 years old, and had no prior soldering
>experience
>>or experience reading schematics. And this was at a time when
>point-to-point
>>wiring was required. Fortunately, the kit did not presume any prior
>>electronics or electrical equpment construction experience and had a very
>well
>>written and illustrated manual.
>
>
>Was it perhaps a Heathkit?
>From what I've seen, they had about the best manuals out there.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No, it was made by a company called H.H. Scott. They also made factory
assembled versions of their products.
The manual was superb, and even included basic instructions on soldering and
how to practice doing this before getting into the kit, per se. When the
moment of truth came and it was time to plug it in, the gradual glow of the
tubes and seeing that nothing exploded or burnt was quite a rush !!! :)

I also built a few Heathkits, including a small clock. Instructions were easy
to follow. The most elaborate Heathkit I ever saw advertised was for, IIRC, a
27" color TV set. Considering the large number of parts involved, I don't want
to even guess how long it would take to have constructed this monster. And the
cost was about the same as an assembled set, so the person building it
obviously had to enjoy buiilding things. It also had the advanrage - according
to its advertising, at least, that if a person built it, they could then
service it themselves if anything went wrong.


Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>>>... Bipolar Disorder........

>>Ah, but I'm quite sure I don't suffer from that.
>>I use tubes, and MOSFETs at most.


>That's a good move. But are your circuits all balanced? :-)


Nope, don't do that stuff. I'm married, you know.


>Note that some sufferers are unbalanced and also prone to blowing fuses. :)


Parasitic oscillations can do that to a man.


>Also, I occasionallly encounter patients with a lot of resistance and
>therefore, a lowered capacitance for change. :(


Some inductive reasoning.
Watch out you don't choke on that, might transform your personality!
Currently, my voltages are stable, thank you.

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

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
> >>>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all. They
> >>>>>> just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
> >>>>
> >>>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
> >>>
> >>> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
> >>
> >> Why would I?
> >
> > Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic standards.
>
> Says who?

Common sense. A 'mention' may be less than a 'quote' but it still has to
found in the source text.

> > In this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that he debate
> > your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in addition to.
>
> I have no problems with the mention of my views. However, it appears that he
> chose to editorialize about them a bit. Obviously, he wants to start the
> bull-baiting well in advance. It'ss quite clear that the logical approach he
> chose to use to editorialize on my views doesn't work so well on his other
> mention of my views on tubes and LPs.
>
> Let's pretend that someplace there was a John Akinson who can give a fair
> and balanced view of other people's opinions:
>
> Plan "A" - Atkinson just does a unbiased job of representing my views with
> no gratuitous editorialization:
>
> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the CD
> standard, other
> than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
> audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."
>
> Plan "B" - Atkinson editorializes on both issues with equal vigor:
>
> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
> 23-year-old CD standard other
> than surround channels, and completely dismisses the 53-year-old LP as a
> 21st-century audiophile medium and the 95-year old vacuum tube as a modern
> amplification technology."

Wow. You were in the neighborhood of a legitimate point. Too bad you
offer these small potatoes instead.

Stephen

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>> Well if 1662 mentions is worth a free expense-paid trip to New York, so be
>> it! ;-)

>Is this Arny's startegy? A no-show and a free
>vacation at Sterophile expense?


That would be the mentioning of 666.

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

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>I also built a few Heathkits, including a small clock. Instructions were easy
>to follow. The most elaborate Heathkit I ever saw advertised was for, IIRC, a
>27" color TV set. Considering the large number of parts involved, I don't want
>to even guess how long it would take to have constructed this monster. And the
>cost was about the same as an assembled set, so the person building it
>obviously had to enjoy buiilding things. It also had the advanrage - according
>to its advertising, at least, that if a person built it, they could then
>service it themselves if anything went wrong.


I think we've arrived at the heart of my problems:
Of everything I own or acquire, I *have* to know how and why it works.

And when I finally understand, I want to make it better :-)

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

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>>>... Bipolar Disorder........
>
>>>Ah, but I'm quite sure I don't suffer from that.
>>>I use tubes, and MOSFETs at most.
>
>
>>That's a good move. But are your circuits all balanced? :-)
>
>
>Nope, don't do that stuff. I'm married, you know.
>
>
>>Note that some sufferers are unbalanced and also prone to blowing fuses. :)
>
>
>Parasitic oscillations can do that to a man.
>
>
>>Also, I occasionallly encounter patients with a lot of resistance and
>>therefore, a lowered capacitance for change. :(
>
>
>Some inductive reasoning.
>Watch out you don't choke on that, might transform your personality!
>Currently, my voltages are stable, thank you.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There's no place like ohm.



Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>There's no place like ohm.


Only if you know it from a Volt ;-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>There's no place like ohm.


Watt's that song again?

"Joule never walk alone....."

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

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
>>>>>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all.
>>>>>>>> They just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
>>>>
>>>> Why would I?
>>>
>>> Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic standards.
>>
>> Says who?
>
> Common sense. A 'mention' may be less than a 'quote' but it still has
> to found in the source text.
>
>>> In this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that he
>>> debate your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in addition
>>> to.
>>
>> I have no problems with the mention of my views. However, it appears
>> that he chose to editorialize about them a bit. Obviously, he wants
>> to start the bull-baiting well in advance. It'ss quite clear that
>> the logical approach he chose to use to editorialize on my views
>> doesn't work so well on his other mention of my views on tubes and
>> LPs.
>>
>> Let's pretend that someplace there was a John Akinson who can give a
>> fair and balanced view of other people's opinions:
>>
>> Plan "A" - Atkinson just does a unbiased job of representing my
>> views with no gratuitous editorialization:
>>
>> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
>> CD standard, other
>> than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
>> audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."
>>
>> Plan "B" - Atkinson editorializes on both issues with equal vigor:
>>
>> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
>> 23-year-old CD standard other
>> than surround channels, and completely dismisses the 53-year-old LP
>> as a 21st-century audiophile medium and the 95-year old vacuum tube
>> as a modern amplification technology."
>
> Wow. You were in the neighborhood of a legitimate point. Too bad you
> offer these small potatoes instead.

Yawn. If they every come up with a cure for posturing Stephen, I'll be sure
to send you a bottle. ;-)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
> >>>>>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all.
> >>>>>>>> They just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would I?
> >>>
> >>> Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic standards.
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> > Common sense. A 'mention' may be less than a 'quote' but it still has
> > to found in the source text.
> >
> >>> In this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that he
> >>> debate your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in addition
> >>> to.
> >>
> >> I have no problems with the mention of my views. However, it appears
> >> that he chose to editorialize about them a bit. Obviously, he wants
> >> to start the bull-baiting well in advance. It'ss quite clear that
> >> the logical approach he chose to use to editorialize on my views
> >> doesn't work so well on his other mention of my views on tubes and
> >> LPs.
> >>
> >> Let's pretend that someplace there was a John Akinson who can give a
> >> fair and balanced view of other people's opinions:
> >>
> >> Plan "A" - Atkinson just does a unbiased job of representing my
> >> views with no gratuitous editorialization:
> >>
> >> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
> >> CD standard, other
> >> than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
> >> audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."
> >>
> >> Plan "B" - Atkinson editorializes on both issues with equal vigor:
> >>
> >> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
> >> 23-year-old CD standard other
> >> than surround channels, and completely dismisses the 53-year-old LP
> >> as a 21st-century audiophile medium and the 95-year old vacuum tube
> >> as a modern amplification technology."
> >
> > Wow. You were in the neighborhood of a legitimate point. Too bad you
> > offer these small potatoes instead.
>
> Yawn. If they every come up with a cure for posturing Stephen, I'll be sure
> to send you a bottle. ;-)

The age of the cd medium is a point of fact, hardly editorializing.

Better hold on to those bottles.

Stephen

[Joseph Oberlander]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>I have suggested a couple of times, that I believe adding
>>>something, even if only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding
>>>DIY projects would open up SP to more readers.
>>
>>It is a suggestion that is occasionally offered. I haven't implemented
>>it because a) I don't have the space to cover every aspect of the
>>audio hobby, so I have to weigh the benefits of what would have to
>>be omitted against those of DIY coverage, and b) Ed Dell's magazine
>>AudioXpress already does a very good job covering this area.
>>
>
> It does cover it well, but the reviews of kits are few.
>
> There are some instances where I think it would be worthwhile to review some
> of the better kits to a wider audioence than strictly those who are already
> so inclined. The SEAS Thor kit being just one example. This is a speaker
> that certainly should qualifiy as a high end product, as are the subwooofers
> both kits and finished from Adire Audio.

I would also add Ellis Audio to the list. My gut feeling
is that Atkinson doesn't want small non-advertizing companies
with better sound for less money to be reviewed. Purely
a matter of protecting his bottom line.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>"Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>>> Well if 1662 mentions is worth a free expense-paid trip to New York, so be
>
>>> it! ;-)
>
>>Is this Arny's startegy? A no-show and a free
>>vacation at Sterophile expense?
>
>
>That would be the mentioning of 666.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>

I didn't think Graham was involved in this thread.


Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have suggested a couple of times, that I believe adding
>>>>something, even if only occaisonally in Stereophile, regarding
>>>>DIY projects would open up SP to more readers.
>>>
>>>It is a suggestion that is occasionally offered. I haven't implemented
>>>it because a) I don't have the space to cover every aspect of the
>>>audio hobby, so I have to weigh the benefits of what would have to
>>>be omitted against those of DIY coverage, and b) Ed Dell's magazine
>>>AudioXpress already does a very good job covering this area.
>>>
>>
>> It does cover it well, but the reviews of kits are few.
>>
>> There are some instances where I think it would be worthwhile to review
>some
>> of the better kits to a wider audioence than strictly those who are already
>
>> so inclined. The SEAS Thor kit being just one example. This is a speaker
>> that certainly should qualifiy as a high end product, as are the
>subwooofers
>> both kits and finished from Adire Audio.
>
>I would also add Ellis Audio to the list. My gut feeling
>is that Atkinson doesn't want small non-advertizing companies
>with better sound for less money to be reviewed. Purely
>a matter of protecting his bottom line.
>
>
>

This tiresome canard has been leveled before, but Stereophile has certainly
reviewed products that have not been spending money in their pages on
advertising. And re. "better sound for less money", it is not unheard of
certainly, for a reviewer, to claim that a given product sounds better than
other products in the same equipment category costing more.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
>>>>>>>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all.
>>>>>>>>>> They just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis.
>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic
>>>>> standards.
>>>>
>>>> Says who?
>>>
>>> Common sense. A 'mention' may be less than a 'quote' but it still
>>> has to found in the source text.
>>>
>>>>> In this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that
>>>>> he debate your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in
>>>>> addition to.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problems with the mention of my views. However, it
>>>> appears that he chose to editorialize about them a bit. Obviously,
>>>> he wants to start the bull-baiting well in advance. It'ss quite
>>>> clear that the logical approach he chose to use to editorialize on
>>>> my views doesn't work so well on his other mention of my views on
>>>> tubes and LPs.
>>>>
>>>> Let's pretend that someplace there was a John Akinson who can give
>>>> a fair and balanced view of other people's opinions:
>>>>
>>>> Plan "A" - Atkinson just does a unbiased job of representing my
>>>> views with no gratuitous editorialization:
>>>>
>>>> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
>>>> CD standard, other
>>>> than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a
>>>> 21st-century audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification
>>>> technology."
>>>>
>>>> Plan "B" - Atkinson editorializes on both issues with equal vigor:
>>>>
>>>> "He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
>>>> 23-year-old CD standard other
>>>> than surround channels, and completely dismisses the 53-year-old LP
>>>> as a 21st-century audiophile medium and the 95-year old vacuum tube
>>>> as a modern amplification technology."

>>> Wow. You were in the neighborhood of a legitimate point. Too bad you
>>> offer these small potatoes instead.

>> Yawn. If they every come up with a cure for posturing Stephen, I'll
>> be sure to send you a bottle. ;-)

> The age of the cd medium is a point of fact, hardly editorializing.

If the age of the CD medium is relevant, then so is the age of tubes and
vinyl. If the age of tubes and vinyl are too much editorializing for you
Stepehn, than forget about trying to make a point based on the relatively
youthful CD format.

> Better hold on to those bottles.

Actually Stephen, its the tubes uber alles people who are holding onto those
bottles. ;-)

Thanks Stephen for admitting that even though posturing is considered bad
form in most intelligent circles, its something you don't want to give up

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> If the age of the CD medium is relevant, then so is the age of tubes and
> vinyl. If the age of tubes and vinyl are too much editorializing for you
> Stepehn, than forget about trying to make a point based on the relatively
> youthful CD format.

Well, it's your point.

> > Better hold on to those bottles.
>
> Actually Stephen, its the tubes uber alles people who are holding onto those
> bottles. ;-)

At last, a joke!

> Thanks Stephen for admitting that even though posturing is considered bad
> form in most intelligent circles, its something you don't want to give up

How is putting words in others' mouths considered?

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Actually Stephen, its the tubes uber alles people who are holding onto
>> those
>> bottles. ;-)
>
> At last, a joke!
>

haw, haw, haw, I guess.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:30:39 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:00:12 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>>>What else cretin ?
>>
>>
>> What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
>> lately?
>
>What are you speaking about, Dave ?

I like the way you play dumb when it suits your purpose.

>Seems that with the age you are becoming a little bit paranoid.

Actually, it sounds like at *your* age, you're not very bright.

>You'd better propose an other "accordion" contest. :-)

Never proposed such a thing. It's all a figment of your fevered French
imagination.

>> BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
>> bodyguard for Arnold.
>
>I'm not a bodyguard Dave, just a charitable guy who makes
>you the handout of a conversation.

Make sure you wipe your hand afterwards. You wouldn't want to get your
wife pregnant again by accident.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:35:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>Going back to the first posting in which you mentioned
>> Stereophile, on r.a.o. alone you have mentioned Stereophile or the
>> alternative spellings in 1662 postings.
>
>Yes, but not all those mentions of Stereophile were critical. I believe the
>topic was mentions of Stereophile that would establish me as the foremost
>Usenet critic of Stereophile.

I'd like to hear about all of the non-critical mentions that you imply
here.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:23:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"MINe 109" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atkinson mentioned these formats in the same sentence. No,
>>>>>>> Atkinson intended no comparison between the formats at all. They
>>>>>>> just ended up in the same sentence by ummm, osmosis. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's that word, 'mention.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means exactly what, Stephen?
>>>>
>>>> You haven't deleted all those 'mention' posts yet.
>>>
>>> Why would I?
>>
>> Your definition of "mention" falls short of journalistic standards.
>
>Says who?
>
>> In this case, JA 'mentioned' your views. Or do you propose that he debate
>> your view as well as his own? Oh, as well as = in addition to.
>
>I have no problems with the mention of my views. However, it appears that he
>chose to editorialize about them a bit. Obviously, he wants to start the
>bull-baiting well in advance. It'ss quite clear that the logical approach he
>chose to use to editorialize on my views doesn't work so well on his other
>mention of my views on tubes and LPs.
>
>Let's pretend that someplace there was a John Akinson who can give a fair
>and balanced view of other people's opinions:
>
>Plan "A" - Atkinson just does a unbiased job of representing my views with
>no gratuitous editorialization:
>
>"He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the CD
>standard, other
>than surround channels, and completely dismisses LP as a 21st-century
>audiophile medium and tubes as a modern amplification technology."
>
>Plan "B" - Atkinson editorializes on both issues with equal vigor:
>
>"He doubts that SACD and DVD-A offer any sonic advantages over the
>23-year-old CD standard other
>than surround channels, and completely dismisses the 53-year-old LP as a
>21st-century audiophile medium and the 95-year old vacuum tube as a modern
>amplification technology."

This debate is going to be a hoot...

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> This debate is going to be a hoot...

Dave is surely right here, he is a specialist. :-)

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:30:39 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:00:12 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>>>>What else cretin ?
>>>
>>>
>>>What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
>>>lately?
>>
>>What are you speaking about, Dave ?
>
>
> I like the way you play dumb when it suits your purpose.


???????????????

;-)

>>Seems that with the age you are becoming a little bit paranoid.
>
>
> Actually, it sounds like at *your* age, you're not very bright.


Poor Dave, coming from an simpleton like you this sounds
like an encouragement.

>
>>You'd better propose an other "accordion" contest. :-)
>
>
> Never proposed such a thing. It's all a figment of your fevered French
> imagination.

You are a liar. Nothing new.


>>>BTW, I think it's charming that you've become a self-appointed
>>>bodyguard for Arnold.
>>
>>I'm not a bodyguard Dave, just a charitable guy who makes
>>you the handout of a conversation.
>
>
> Make sure you wipe your hand afterwards. You wouldn't want to get your
> wife pregnant again by accident.

LOL, thank you for confriming that you don't even get the
basic notions...

50 years old ? Forget it it's a little bit too late now. :-D

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:35:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Going back to the first posting in which you mentioned
>>>Stereophile, on r.a.o. alone you have mentioned Stereophile or the
>>>alternative spellings in 1662 postings.
>>
>>Yes, but not all those mentions of Stereophile were critical. I believe the
>>topic was mentions of Stereophile that would establish me as the foremost
>>Usenet critic of Stereophile.
>
>
> I'd like to hear about all of the non-critical mentions that you imply
> here.

Have you verified the logic validity of this one ?
Be careful Dave ! Remember the last time, you was asking for
more punition...

:-D

[Lionel]

Paul Dormer a écrit :
> "Sander deWaal" emitted :
>
>
>>I think we've arrived at the heart of my problems:
>>Of everything I own or acquire, I *have* to know how and why it works.
>>
>>And when I finally understand, I want to make it better :-)
>
>
> Now I see why you buy Citreon.. ;-)


Is "Citreon" an english car ?

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> If the age of the CD medium is relevant, then so is the age of tubes
>> and vinyl. If the age of tubes and vinyl are too much editorializing
>> for you Stephen, than forget about trying to make a point based on
>> the relatively youthful CD format.

> Well, it's your point.

Reading diasability, Stephen? Short memory? Confused about who you are
conversing with? The guy who tried to make a point based on the relatively
youthful CD format was named Atkinson. Remember that name Stephen, Atkinson!

>>> Better hold on to those bottles.

>> Actually Stephen, its the tubes uber alles people who are holding
>> onto those bottles. ;-)

> At last, a joke!

No Stephen, you've been the running joke in this thread all along.

>> Thanks Stephen for admitting that even though posturing is
>> considered bad form in most intelligent circles, its something you
>> don't want to give up

> How is putting words in others' mouths considered?

Atkinsonian! ;-)

[Lionel]

Paul Dormer a écrit :
> "Lionel" emitted :
>
>
>>>>I think we've arrived at the heart of my problems:
>>>>Of everything I own or acquire, I *have* to know how and why it works.
>>>>
>>>>And when I finally understand, I want to make it better :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Now I see why you buy Citreon.. ;-)
>>
>>Is "Citreon" an english car ?
>
>
> We sometimes spell it that way in England.
> www.citreon.co.uk/

Silly me ! Coming from this side of the channel it was
foreseeable.

:-)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> If the age of the CD medium is relevant, then so is the age of tubes
> >> and vinyl. If the age of tubes and vinyl are too much editorializing
> >> for you Stephen, than forget about trying to make a point based on
> >> the relatively youthful CD format.
>
> > Well, it's your point.
>
> Reading diasability, Stephen? Short memory? Confused about who you are
> conversing with? The guy who tried to make a point based on the relatively
> youthful CD format was named Atkinson. Remember that name Stephen, Atkinson!

Wow, you've been saving up all these "zingers" that you've righteously
earned in the past just hoping for the chance to turn them around.

You're building your house on sand.

> >>> Better hold on to those bottles.
>
> >> Actually Stephen, its the tubes uber alles people who are holding
> >> onto those bottles. ;-)
>
> > At last, a joke!
>
> No Stephen, you've been the running joke in this thread all along.

You're running on empty, down to insults only.

> >> Thanks Stephen for admitting that even though posturing is
> >> considered bad form in most intelligent circles, its something you
> >> don't want to give up
>
> > How is putting words in others' mouths considered?
>
> Atkinsonian! ;-)

IKYABWAI

[dave weil]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:31:12 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>>>>>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>>>>>What else cretin ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
>>>>lately?
>>>
>>>What are you speaking about, Dave ?
>>
>>
>> I like the way you play dumb when it suits your purpose.
>
>
>???????????????

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message


> You're running on empty, down to insults only.

You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made a
single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good bye!

[Joseph Oberlander]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> This tiresome canard has been leveled before, but Stereophile has certainly
> reviewed products that have not been spending money in their pages on
> advertising.

Yet none of the ons mentioned have appeared. Virtually nothing
from small independant firms.

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>>I think we've arrived at the heart of my problems:
>>Of everything I own or acquire, I *have* to know how and why it works.

>>And when I finally understand, I want to make it better :-)

>Now I see why you buy Citreon.. ;-)


Nothing moves you like a Citreon ©.

BTW the CX is the last *real* Citroen, you will note.
Everything thereafter is either rebadged Peugeots, junk, or both.

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

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:31:12 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>An other proof that you are promoting personal antagonism only...
>>>>>>What else cretin ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What about YOU? How's YOUR personal antagonism quotient toward me
>>>>>lately?
>>>>
>>>>What are you speaking about, Dave ?
>>>
>>>
>>>I like the way you play dumb when it suits your purpose.
>>
>>
>>???????????????


:O)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > You're running on empty, down to insults only.
>
> You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made a
> single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
> self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good bye!

Oh, no. More trolling to look forward to.

IIRC, "posturing" is already in the Krooglish dictionary, is it not?

Stephen

[Lionel]

In >, MINe 109 wrote :

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > You're running on empty, down to insults only.
>>
>> You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made
>> a single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
>> self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good
>> bye!
>
> Oh, no. More trolling to look forward to.


Too late !!!!
In the dungeon with Dave...
Don't forget to take your Chess with you. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>The only problem with owning a Citroen is that it's a Citroen.. ;-)


Funny, the same goes for Marantz amplifiers ;-)

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

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> In >, MINe 109 wrote :
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > You're running on empty, down to insults only.
> >>
> >> You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made
> >> a single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
> >> self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good
> >> bye!
> >
> > Oh, no. More trolling to look forward to.
>
>
> Too late !!!!
> In the dungeon with Dave...
> Don't forget to take your Chess with you. ;-)

Ugh! Tim Rice couplets without religious appeal!

How about Abba instead?

Stephen

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>>These days, too many technical corners are cut to get a nice champagne
>>coloured unit in the stores ;-)

>OK... so *what* corners are cut. Parts quality? Circuit design (how)?
>C'mon, throw me a bone... ;-)


Power supply quality and -capacity.
Parts quality in general.
Overcomplex designs because op-amps are oh-so-easy to work with.
Even if they're called HDAM ;-)


>>You *really* ought to consider one of mine.
>>I'm even prepared to spray it in champagne-colour for you ;-)

>Haven't had time to put my mind to it, really. I *would* like to give
>one a whirl. Do you do remote control? :-)


I can always put in an RC5 unit if you like.
That would be an off-the-shelf solution BTW (Mikkel Simonsen).

At present, I don't have any at hand, and with the upcoming move I
won't have the time to add one to an existing unit.

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

[dave weil]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:54:26 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>> In >, MINe 109 wrote :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > You're running on empty, down to insults only.
>> >>
>> >> You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made
>> >> a single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
>> >> self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good
>> >> bye!
>> >
>> > Oh, no. More trolling to look forward to.
>>
>>
>> Too late !!!!
>> In the dungeon with Dave...
>> Don't forget to take your Chess with you. ;-)
>
>Ugh! Tim Rice couplets without religious appeal!

Yeah, but you've got Murray Head.

>How about Abba instead?

That works for me too...

Are you guys getting The Finn Brothers in the coming weeks? We've got
them the 19th in a small club. I'm really looking forward to that,
even if I haven't really warmed up to the new album yet.

[Lionel_Chapuis]

MINe 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
> > In >, MINe 109 wrote :
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > You're running on empty, down to insults only.
> > >>
> > >> You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made
> > >> a single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
> > >> self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good
> > >> bye!
> > >
> > > Oh, no. More trolling to look forward to.
> >
> >
> > Too late !!!!
> > In the dungeon with Dave...
> > Don't forget to take your Chess with you. ;-)
>
> Ugh! Tim Rice couplets without religious appeal!
>
> How about Abba instead?

FOR-BID-DEN !!!
Note that you are lucky...
...Imagine that you could have been confined with Middius !

:-D




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:54:26 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Lionel > wrote:

> >> Too late !!!!
> >> In the dungeon with Dave...
> >> Don't forget to take your Chess with you. ;-)
> >
> >Ugh! Tim Rice couplets without religious appeal!
>
> Yeah, but you've got Murray Head.

I prefer him 'damned for all time' for narc'ing on that Deep Purple guy.

Maybe his coffee-swilling brother can help him out.

> >How about Abba instead?
>
> That works for me too...
>
> Are you guys getting The Finn Brothers in the coming weeks? We've got
> them the 19th in a small club. I'm really looking forward to that,
> even if I haven't really warmed up to the new album yet.

It looks like no Texas dates at all; they're bypassing the Hole In The
Wall for the Royal Albert Hall in March.

Stephen

[Lionel]

MINe 109 a écrit :
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>In >, MINe 109 wrote :
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You're running on empty, down to insults only.
>>>>
>>>>You set the pace Stephen with your on-going posturing. You've never made
>>>>a single on-topic comment. Then you crowned your non-achievments with a
>>>>self-proclaimed victory. I think I'll put you in the "Weil box". Good
>>>>bye!
>>>
>>>Oh, no. More trolling to look forward to.
>>
>>
>>Too late !!!!
>>In the dungeon with Dave...
>>Don't forget to take your Chess with you. ;-)
>
>
> Ugh! Tim Rice couplets without religious appeal!
>
> How about Abba instead?

NO IT IS FOR-BID-DEN !!!!

....Note that you are lucky, you could have been confined
with George M. Middius !



:-D

[Fella]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Paul Dormer > said:
>
>
>>>These days, too many technical corners are cut to get a nice champagne
>>>coloured unit in the stores ;-)
>
>
>>OK... so *what* corners are cut. Parts quality? Circuit design (how)?
>>C'mon, throw me a bone... ;-)
>
>
>
> Power supply quality and -capacity.


Sander, in your opinion, is there a general rule of thumb applicable
about the power supply capacity and the wattage rating of an amplifier?
For instance, if an amp is rated at 2*60 watts into 8ohms, and, I quote:

"The powersupply is massive and consist of a 500VA transformer and a
storage capacity of 40.000uF with 3 seperate rectifiers of which the 2
of them are capable of 1.000VA."

is this sufficient for a 2*60 watter SS amp in your opinion?

Again, allow me to ask you one more question: With all the various SS
amps I have auditioned I have noticed that the higher the power rating
the less airiness, fluency in the midrange, and more brutishness, with
all the finer, distant details brought up in front of the soundstage.
For example, I auditioned a mark levinson 335 power amp and I thought
that it was absolutely inaccaptable that it slammed every bit of detail
right out of proportion. Same thing with the hovland pre-power combo I
listened to yesterday.

http://www.hovlandcompany.com/products/electronics/radia/default.html

What I would like to have is more power without sacrificing delicacy. Is
this achievable in your opinion?

[Tom]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
> Luck will have very little to do with it. I figure that most of those who
> read, see or hear of it will audiophiles and will be as biased, and
> therefore as blind to the obvious as you are, Stephen.


Arny - remember when you accused me of three times referring to your
wife as "Kroobitch" and then I pointed out that you were lying and then
you ran a way from the conversation?

Remember that? Why is it OK for you to lie? Is it because you're a
self-deceiving, proud nerd?

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>>>>These days, too many technical corners are cut to get a nice champagne
>>>>coloured unit in the stores ;-)

>>>OK... so *what* corners are cut. Parts quality? Circuit design (how)?
>>>C'mon, throw me a bone... ;-)

>>Power supply quality and -capacity.
>>Parts quality in general.
>>Overcomplex designs because op-amps are oh-so-easy to work with.
>>Even if they're called HDAM ;-)

>Right -- OK. But we all know that specifications, individual parts
>quality, circuit design and sound quality have little to do with how
>an amplifier actually sounds.


Read that again please.
Anyway, individual parts quality, circuit design and even parts layout
have *everything* to do with how an amp sounds into a given speaker.

What else would ber responsible for a different sound do you think?
;-)


>Compared to the Audiolab (which I think you said was **** too :) the
>Marantz seems to have more power and bite (Class A mode) and great
>imaging. OTOH instruments can appear to come as if from nowhere (I'm
>more used to hearing a more definite canvas - ie. a solid impression
>of the multitrack tape with the instruments coming forth from that).
>Sometimes I'm left with a 'gray' impression, even though timbres seem
>to be present and correct. Could these characteristics be ascribed to
>the things you've mention above?


If you think that individual parts quality, circuit design and layout
don't have anything to do with how an amp sounds, they obviously do
not :-)

No, that's "pulling an Arny", so to speak.
I think this is highly dependable on the kind of circuit and
especially the power supply.

So what you're after can be dexcribed as correct imaging, or do you
want a synthesized imaging?
Both are possible.

My take on this: imaging is with most recordings artificial.

BTW I never said the Audiolab was ****, it just doesn't do the things
I like an amp to do.


>I'm not knocking it btw. For a £250 amp it's very good - it doesn't
>embarrass itself (in egg-frying mode) against more expensive solid
>state amps I've heard. Don't think it's better or worse than the 8000A
>- just different. More different than I expected. I've been made to
>look a few times ("..is that on the hifi or outside..?") so it must be
>doing *something* right. Still.. it's an ugly ****er - I'll be dumping
>it soon :-)


Good.


>I need to put my thinking hat on. Right now I'm not sure what I want.
>Perhaps we can sort something out after your move.


That's OK. First, we have to define what you want.
Do you want a Rembrandt, or a high-resolution Canon EOS picture? ;-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>Sander, in your opinion, is there a general rule of thumb applicable
>about the power supply capacity and the wattage rating of an amplifier?

There is no direct relation to current reserves and the given power in
8 ohms, as published by most manufacturers.
Power mentioned just by itself is pretty meaningless IMO.
Over what frequency range, at what distortion rates, how does the
amplifier handle different loads, how does it handle phase-shifting
loads?

For example, your 60 watts/8 ohm amp will put out ca. 22 volts,
assuming the rated power is continous sine power.
Presumably, this was measured at 1 kHz.

I can assure you that even the ****tiest Yoko can accomplish that.

Now, what will the amp do in 4 , in 2, in 1 ohm?
When we assume an ideal amplifier is a voltage soutce, the current has
to double with every halving of the impedance.
For simplicity, we're assuming the impedance is not reactive and
therefor a constant, not frequency-dependent and not shifting phase

This behaviour is an indication of the ability of the amplifier to
keep the voltage constant in a variety of loads.

It gets worse.
Speakers are not constant resistors.
Look at the impedance graph of a speaker, it varies wildly from Rdc,
to a high at the low resonant frequency, then down again, and, if no
measures are taken in the crossover filter, up again at high
frequencies because a voice coil is a coil, and the impedance of a
coil goes up with frequency.

It gets even worse.
There is in most cases not 1 speaker, but 2, 3 or even more.
Then there has to be a crossover filter also, to ensure that every
speaker gets the intended frequency range it was designed for.
A speaker in an enclosure has a different electrical and acoustical
behaviour than when in free air.
Also, different enclosure types have different characteristics.
A bass-reflex for instance has a lowered LF resonance frequency, but
it is divided in two peaks, whereas a closed box only has one Fres,
but with higher impedance.

The complex of speakers, filters and enclosure results in a different
behaviour than the 8 or 4 ohms resistor it is supposed in the specs.
These factors may result in phase shifting between applied voltage and
current through the complete speaker.
Sometimes this phase angle gets close to 180 degrees, which means that
when e.g. a sinewave is applied, the voltage can be at a peak while
the current can be at a null (not really, but I'm simplifying things).
The reverse can happen as well: voltage at zero, current at max or
close.
Hey! We just said the amp has to act as a voltage source.
Now we have the situation that there is no driving voltage, but there
still is a current.
Apart from the fact that because of that current, the voice coil hence
the cone will move, the current has to go somewhere.
Where? The only place it can go is into the amp (for a current to run,
a circuit has to be closed. Currents don't run just in a component
without anything attached). Note to the hams: yep, they do in a
parallel tuning circuit, but that's different. ;-)

How does the amp deal with the "reflected" current?
Part of it will flow through a network called Zobel network, which is
in parallel with the amp's output.
Part of it will go through the output devices.

Now it gets really interesting: in a class B push-pull amp, there are
two active devices on top of eachother, and they're conducting one by
one, but never together (except at high frequencies, which we'll
neglect for this moment).
So, if the current is going negative, and the amp's positive output
device is turned on because of the audio signal, or even when both
devices are turned off because there's a zero voltage in the drive
signal, where can the remainder of the current go in that case?
Up until the negative output device is turned on again by the signal,
only then a current can flow back into the amp.

Yes I know, I grossly oversimplified and exaggerated this example, but
i guess you get the point.

A class A output stage will conduct whether or not a driving signal is
present, so back EMF can be, in theory, better dealt with.

All of the above is just describing a simple sinewave driving signal.
Music, as you no doubt know, is composed of much more complex signals
than just asingle sinewave.

Hence, the impedance will vary under dynamic conditions even more than
it will with just a steady test tone, or even a sweep tone.

OK, now back to your example of the 60 watts amp:


>For instance, if an amp is rated at 2*60 watts into 8ohms, and, I quote:

>"The powersupply is massive and consist of a 500VA transformer and a
>storage capacity of 40.000uF with 3 seperate rectifiers of which the 2
>of them are capable of 1.000VA."


All this says is that the power supply is capable, in theory, of
delivering 500 watts (VA) of DC power into a given resistor (load).
No more, no less.
The 40.000 uF capacity is an indication of the ability to supress
power supply ripple, and to a lesser extend, current in the load.
The rectifier spec 1000 VA (hah!) is pretty meaningless, even if DC
power was expressed in VA, which it is not.

So far, all we can say here is that this is a reasonable beefy power
supply for a 2*60 watts amplifier. Nothing more, nothing less.


>is this sufficient for a 2*60 watter SS amp in your opinion?


For the static specs, it would be.
However, the ability of an amplifier to deliver current in a load
depends on more than just the power supply: the internal "on"
resistance of the output devices, the internal wiring, etc.
Internal resistance or impedance of the output stage can be infuenced
by applying loop feedback.

By now, we're getting into amplifier development quite a bit.
If you want to hear more, just ask.


>Again, allow me to ask you one more question: With all the various SS
>amps I have auditioned I have noticed that the higher the power rating
>the less airiness, fluency in the midrange, and more brutishness, with
>all the finer, distant details brought up in front of the soundstage.
>For example, I auditioned a mark levinson 335 power amp and I thought
>that it was absolutely inaccaptable that it slammed every bit of detail
>right out of proportion. Same thing with the hovland pre-power combo I
>listened to yesterday.
>
>http://www.hovlandcompany.com/products/electronics/radia/default.html
>
>What I would like to have is more power without sacrificing delicacy. Is
>this achievable in your opinion?


In general, the concensus is that the less components one uses, the
better it should be (in theory).
More power = more components.

Nothing is ever that simple, however.

So, while I'm a huge fan of relatively small amps with high current
capability (except when a tube power stage is used, but that's an
entirely different design outlook), I'd say that it should be
possible to have more power while maintaining the subtle sound, but it
takes some design efforts.


Note: In this post it seems that I'm emphasizing current capability a
bit much.
While I consider that an important factor of a solid state or hybrid
amp, there are some more factors that are equally important IMO.

Note 2: please realize that in the above, I oversimplified and
exaggerated things a bit, but the principle in general is how I
perceive amplifier design with regard to current capability.

Note3: an amp with enormous curent reserves doesn't have to be a good
sounding amp per se ;-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

<snip story>

>My head is spinning.. but I'm learning so that is good.


How so? I only scratched the surface here, and did so in a simplified
and superficial way.......... ;-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>Sorry, it appears I suffered an attack of Krooneurism when I wrote
>that paragraph...


Twenty-two Hail Marys for you (and a substantial donation) .


>I want boring old accuracy/neutrality/reality.. ;-)


Then take a Quad 303/405 (whatever fits in with the furniture) ;-)


>>That's OK. First, we have to define what you want.
>>Do you want a Rembrandt, or a high-resolution Canon EOS picture? ;-)

>I've been known to linger in the Photorealism section of the Tate..


Whatever that means, I take it you want to have your cake and eat it,
too.
That cannot be tolerated, note.

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

[Fella]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Fella > said:
>
>
>>Sander, in your opinion, is there a general rule of thumb applicable
>>about the power supply capacity and the wattage rating of an amplifier?
>
>
> There is no direct relation to current reserves and the given power in
> 8 ohms, as published by most manufacturers.

Thank you Sander for such an elaborate, informative answer. I clipped
your response for purposes of bandwidth and scrolling burden. But again,
thank you.

This is one of the last posts that I will make to this group. But I *do*
have possiblly more questions, and hopefully a purchase to make from
you. :) So please email me at for me to get your
email that we are able to correspond in those terms in the future.
Please trust me enough to do this.

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:


>Thank you Sander for such an elaborate, informative answer. I clipped
>your response for purposes of bandwidth and scrolling burden. But again,
>thank you.


You're welcome, but please realize that there's more involved than
just this.


>This is one of the last posts that I will make to this group. But I *do*
>have possiblly more questions, and hopefully a purchase to make from
>you. :) So please email me at for me to get your
>email that we are able to correspond in those terms in the future.
>Please trust me enough to do this.


You have mail!

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


>
> Sander, in your opinion, is there a general rule of thumb applicable
> about the power supply capacity and the wattage rating of an
> amplifier? For instance, if an amp is rated at 2*60 watts into 8ohms,
> and, I quote:
> "The powersupply is massive and consist of a 500VA transformer and a
> storage capacity of 40.000uF with 3 seperate rectifiers of which the 2
> of them are capable of 1.000VA."

> is this sufficient for a 2*60 watter SS amp in your opinion?

1000 VA worth of power transformers is overkill for a 60wpc SS power amp, to
say the least.


> Again, allow me to ask you one more question: With all the various SS
> amps I have auditioned I have noticed that the higher the power rating
> the less airiness, fluency in the midrange, and more brutishness, with
> all the finer, distant details brought up in front of the soundstage.

That's because you've been mistrained to believe that this balderdash is
true.

> For example, I auditioned a mark levinson 335 power amp and I thought
> that it was absolutely inaccaptable that it slammed every bit of
> detail right out of proportion.

It must be a POS. Sad, given the price.

>Same thing with the hovland pre-power
> combo I listened to yesterday.

It's kinda sad to hear that such an elegant-looking high end amp has failed
to do what a well-built PA does with aplomb.

> What I would like to have is more power without sacrificing delicacy.

Next time avoid high end amps, and learn how to listen with your biases and
preconceptions invalidated.

> Is this achievable in your opinion?

Absolutely.