Proof that Arny Krueger wants CENSORSHIP

[Robert Morein]

Toward the end of the noxious post reproduced below, Arny Krueger reveals
his secret desire to muzzle his enemies. He says,

"Why don't you both show this group a little
respect and keep your pie holes shut until you have some relevant emperical
experiences to report?"

Arny Krueger is a dangerous enemy of free speech on usenet.

Path:
local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news .comcast.com.POSTED!not-fo
r-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:26:42 -0600
From: "Arny Krueger" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
References: >
. com>
>
. com>
Subject: Re: Arny Krueger's "hifi"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:26:46 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: >
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.42.250.144
X-Trace:
sv3-B2ubHpDokzSPrh0BB6XLbqFO+8Nb3nqEyuMa5LkN/fzbKfsRSlF92OFbPsefGBXwKni74kBR
7shW7nI!YwGEMBBk/XpeurP1BmsavwlUwqzzYjSE+QcjxluiELYGUL1OFh3Mq9I30h8 cHw==
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.31
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:757307

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Having never heard them in a serious listening setting I can't say
> whether these particular QSC amps sound bad or good for this purpose.
> I can say that if they are convection cooled and designed to go in the
> 19" relay rack (in a reasonable number of rack units, i.e. height)
> the semiconductor junction temperatures are higher than if they had
> the large heatsink area in free air possible with high-end products
> and will probably not last as long. Solid state amplifiers designed
> for domestic use should have big heat sinks to keep the poewer
> devices cool quietly.

Cal's superficial analysis fails to consider the fact that the power amp
testing standards applied to hi fi amps in the US by FTC law virtually
ensure that in typical hi fi (not clipping) use, power amp heat sinks and
power supplies are vastly over-sized.

> It's likely they are significantly better than what you could get at
> Wal-Mart, however, so that by Kroo's standards they are probably
> excellent.

Cal for me the relevant test of a power amp is a straight-wire bypass
bias-controlled listening test with a loudspeaker or loudspeaker-like load.
Fact is there are not a lot of living humans who have ever done such a
thing, other than myself and the numerous clients of my www.pcabx.com web
site.

I'm quite sure that neither you nor Morein are members of the great unwashed
who are inexperienced with this sort of thing. Way too much Science for your
pea-sized brains, it seems. Why don't you both show this group a little
respect and keep your pie holes shut until you have some relevant emperical
experiences to report?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> Toward the end of the noxious post reproduced below, Arny Krueger
> reveals his secret desire to muzzle his enemies. He says,
>
> "Why don't you both show this group a little
> respect and keep your pie holes shut until you have some relevant
> emperical experiences to report?"

Just shows that you haven't got a clue about what what relevance or
censorship is, Morein.

[Mike McKelvy]

Robert Morein Feb 27, 8:01 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "Robert Morein" > - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:01:01 -0500
Local: Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:01 pm
Subject: Proof that Arny Krueger wants CENSORSHIP
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Toward the end of the noxious post reproduced below, Arny Krueger
reveals
his secret desire to muzzle his enemies. He says,


"Why don't you both show this group a little
respect and keep your pie holes shut until you have some relevant
emperical
experiences to report?"


Arny Krueger is a dangerous enemy of free speech on usenet.




So in Morein world asking people not to comment on things they don't
seem to understand, or possibly avoid understanding is the same as
forbidding someone to speak.

The sound you hear, that's the multitude of ideas that seem to
constantly be flying over your head.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > Toward the end of the noxious post reproduced below, Arny Krueger
> > reveals his secret desire to muzzle his enemies. He says,
> >
> > "Why don't you both show this group a little
> > respect and keep your pie holes shut until you have some relevant
> > emperical experiences to report?"
>
> Just shows that you haven't got a clue about what what relevance or
> censorship is, Morein.
>
My Dear Arny,
You have have the right to express your opinions here. You do not have
the right to deny the validity of others' self expression, as you did with

"Why don't you both show this group a littlerespect and keep your pie holes
shut until you have some relevant emperical experiences to report?"

Your statement implies that you are defining the purpose and membership of
this group, which you are not entitled to do.

I suspect that if fate did grant you absolute powers, you would use them to
force me to keep my "pie hole shut", a most vulgar expression.

Arny, you are a vulgar person.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Toward the end of the noxious post reproduced below, Arny Krueger
>>> reveals his secret desire to muzzle his enemies. He says,
>>>
>>> "Why don't you both show this group a little
>>> respect and keep your pie holes shut until you have some relevant
>>> emperical experiences to report?"
>>
>> Just shows that you haven't got a clue about what what relevance or
>> censorship is, Morein.
>>
> My Dear Arny,
> You have have the right to express your opinions here. You do not
> have the right to deny the validity of others' self expression, as
> you did with
>
> "Why don't you both show this group a littler espect and keep your pie
> holes shut until you have some relevant emperical experiences to
> report?"
>
> Your statement implies that you are defining the purpose and
> membership of this group, which you are not entitled to do.

I don't know what is wrong with you Morein, but you clearly don't know what
freedom of speech is. Denying the validity of someone else's self expression
is AKA disagreeing with them.

Furthermore Morein, your claims that I don't have the right to deny the
validity of other's self-expression is exactly what you are trying to do
with me! You're saying that my self-expression is invalid because it denys
someone else's self-expression.

Well Morein, if my denial of self-expression is invalid, then so is yours!

<I don't know where all these zombies come from, but I'm beginning to long
for the days of Ed Shain, who for all his faults and weirdness was a mental
giant and a paragon of rationality, compared to the cretins that Middius is
pushing foreward these days.

[George M. Middius]

Mr. **** said:

> Middius

In addition to being vulgar, you are also a dork.

[[email protected]]

Kroo basically thinks that people who do not accept his TRVTH are
idiots or hopelessly deranged.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Kroo basically thinks that people who do not accept his TRVTH are
> idiots or hopelessly deranged.

Cal can't seem to comprehend how wrong so many of his ideas about audio are.
He blames his outdated knowlege on me.

[[email protected]]

The laws of physics haven't changed. Not in their basics, nor in the
consequences thereof. That's why in 1950, a sports car and a tractor
trailer had about the same horsepower but the truck's engine made it at
a third the RPM and weighed more than the sports car. That's still true
except the truck engines now turn slower and the sports car engines
turn faster.

My knowledge isn't outdated. My thesis is that audio technology has
made a few wrong turns, and it's not unique to me. Most working
recording people think it has too or they wouldn't be using piles of
vintage gear.

You deride every manifestation of this simple idea , and common sense
says at least some of them have to be right. All technologies become
cheaper in build cost as time goes on and sacrifices are made for cost,
legislative compliance, materials use, and other things. The user
experience is usually degraded in some ways.

The Hamm paper, which you refuse to address on a point by point basis,
is still largely relevant despite the specific devices being several
iterations older. The physics have not changed. The efficiency of horn
speakers vs. the sealed boxes with high compliance woofers hasn't
changed. Air is still air, voice coils are still copper. Drivers have
had improvements and we can and should incorporate them without
throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The massive revival of tube
amplifiers in the High End market-despite the fact that many were poor
compared to the 1960 state of the art, let alone the current one, which
actually has made considerable progress-was fueled by a general
realization that many of the Japanese solid state amplifiers with
immense global feedback measured very well-better than the vaunted
McIntoshes-and sounded ****ty. Complicated large speakers such as
Carvers, McIntoshes, and Legacys with a cornucopia of drivers and very
complicated crossovers measured beautifully and made many good
recordings sound mediocre and bad ones artifically fluffed. Although
High End sales were heavily dependent on non-sonic factors-prestiege,
peer acceptance, virtual penis enlargement- there were more than just a
kernel of real deciding factors in the evolution it followed.

My kind of audio tends to sound good and yours tends to sound dull,
boring, and mediocre. No ABX test is needed or desired.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The laws of physics haven't changed. Not in their basics, nor in the
> consequences thereof. That's why in 1950, a sports car and a tractor
> trailer had about the same horsepower but the truck's engine made it at
> a third the RPM and weighed more than the sports car. That's still true
> except the truck engines now turn slower and the sports car engines
> turn faster.
>
> My knowledge isn't outdated. My thesis is that audio technology has
> made a few wrong turns, and it's not unique to me. Most working
> recording people think it has too or they wouldn't be using piles of
> vintage gear.
>
> You deride every manifestation of this simple idea , and common sense
> says at least some of them have to be right. All technologies become
> cheaper in build cost as time goes on and sacrifices are made for cost,
> legislative compliance, materials use, and other things. The user
> experience is usually degraded in some ways.
>
> The Hamm paper, which you refuse to address on a point by point basis,
> is still largely relevant despite the specific devices being several
> iterations older. The physics have not changed. The efficiency of horn
> speakers vs. the sealed boxes with high compliance woofers hasn't
> changed. Air is still air, voice coils are still copper. Drivers have
> had improvements and we can and should incorporate them without
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The massive revival of tube
> amplifiers in the High End market-despite the fact that many were poor
> compared to the 1960 state of the art, let alone the current one, which
> actually has made considerable progress-was fueled by a general
> realization that many of the Japanese solid state amplifiers with
> immense global feedback measured very well-better than the vaunted
> McIntoshes-and sounded ****ty. Complicated large speakers such as
> Carvers, McIntoshes, and Legacys with a cornucopia of drivers and very
> complicated crossovers measured beautifully and made many good
> recordings sound mediocre and bad ones artifically fluffed. Although
> High End sales were heavily dependent on non-sonic factors-prestiege,
> peer acceptance, virtual penis enlargement- there were more than just a
> kernel of real deciding factors in the evolution it followed.
>
> My kind of audio tends to sound good and yours tends to sound dull,
> boring, and mediocre. No ABX test is needed or desired.

A very eloquent statement.
The selective positivism attracts.
You build, rather than tear down.
Kudos.
JA, if you're listening, this guy deserves at least one guest editorial.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> The laws of physics haven't changed.

Yep, there's been no change or extensions to the laws of physics since you
dropped out of high school, Cal.

> My knowledge isn't outdated.

Huh! Cal, your audio knowlege is so outdated that you don't know that it is
outdated.

>My thesis is that audio technology has
> made a few wrong turns, and it's not unique to me. Most working
> recording people think it has too or they wouldn't be using piles of
> vintage gear.

Yeah Cal, in the outdated world that you live the last operational mag tape
manufacturing plant hasn't closed.

> You deride every manifestation of this simple idea , and common sense
> says at least some of them have to be right.

No, you get to be totally wrong, Cal. It comes with being outdated.

> All technologies become
> cheaper in build cost as time goes on and sacrifices are made for
> cost, legislative compliance, materials use, and other things. The
> user experience is usually degraded in some ways.

Yeah, no glowing tubes to obsess over and bias and replace.

> The Hamm paper, which you refuse to address on a point by point
> basis, is still largely relevant despite the specific devices being
> several iterations older.

The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534 LM3875 and
LM3886 exactly where?

> The physics have not changed. The
> efficiency of horn speakers vs. the sealed boxes with high compliance
> woofers hasn't changed.

Never said it did, but since your Klipsch LaScala was built there were two
highly releveant revolutions in audio. One was the high-Xmax driver and the
other was the constant-directivity horn.

>Air is still air, voice coils are still copper.

I guess they haven't yet invented aluminum voice coils in that alternative
universe in which you live, Cal.

>Drivers have had improvements and we can and should
> incorporate them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> The massive revival of tube amplifiers in the High End market-despite
> the fact that many were poor compared to the 1960 state of the art,
> let alone the current one, which actually has made considerable
> progress-was fueled by a general realization that many of the
> Japanese solid state amplifiers with immense global feedback measured
> very well-better than the vaunted McIntoshes-and sounded ****ty.

Cal, you're 20 years out of date. high-feedback Japanese amplifiers were so
late 1970s and early 1980s.

> Complicated large speakers such as Carvers, McIntoshes, and Legacys
> with a cornucopia of drivers and very complicated crossovers measured
> beautifully and made many good recordings sound mediocre and bad ones
> artifically fluffed.

Cal, again you're out of date.

>Although High End sales were heavily dependent
> on non-sonic factors-prestiege, peer acceptance, virtual penis
> enlargement- there were more than just a kernel of real deciding
> factors in the evolution it followed.

You're doing a nice job of indicting the high end, Cal. Keep up the good
work! ;-)

> My kind of audio tends to sound good and yours tends to sound dull,
> boring, and mediocre.

Cal when did you break into my house and listen to my stereo so you could
credibly make claims like this?

> No ABX test is needed or desired.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Yeah Cal, in the outdated world that you live the last operational mag tape
> manufacturing plant hasn't closed.

http://www.prosoundnews.com/articles/article_1573.shtml

With Quantegy getting back on track and ATR gearing up to enter the
marketplace, it seems the U.S. analog tape stock is not running out
anytime soon. At the moment, Lindenmuth encourages those in need of tape
to call Quantegy's customer service number at 800-752-0732, where "Ruth
Trimble will be glad to take orders."

Spitz, who pledges commitment to "ensure the survival of the art of
analog recording," defies the analog death threats of the near future.
He assures that, "ATR intends to release other products to make
high-quality analog recording more available to those who have come into
the industry through digital, and are about to discover how truly
superior analog recording and mixing can be."

__

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: > wrote in message
: oups.com
: > The laws of physics haven't changed.
:
: Yep, there's been no change or extensions to the laws of physics since you
: dropped out of high school, Cal.
:
: > My knowledge isn't outdated.
:
: Huh! Cal, your audio knowlege is so outdated that you don't know that it is
: outdated.

:
: The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534 LM3875 and
: LM3886 exactly where?
:
: Cal, you're 20 years out of date. high-feedback Japanese amplifiers were so
: late 1970s and early 1980s.
:
: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
:
Sorry to disrupt your bubble, Arn, but modern - NE5534 ??? "you're 20 years
out of date",
mate :-)

Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> The laws of physics haven't changed.
>>
>> Yep, there's been no change or extensions to the laws of physics
>> since you dropped out of high school, Cal.
>>
>>> My knowledge isn't outdated.
>>
>> Huh! Cal, your audio knowlege is so outdated that you don't know
>> that it is outdated.
>
>>
>> The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534
>> LM3875 and LM3886 exactly where?
>>
>> Cal, you're 20 years out of date. high-feedback Japanese amplifiers
>> were so late 1970s and early 1980s.
>>
>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
>>
> Sorry to disrupt your bubble, Arn, but modern - NE5534 ??? "you're
> 20 years out of date",
> mate :-)

Can't read can you Ruddy. I was pointing out that Cal's technological spirit
guide Russell Hamm had nothing at all to say about even the old ICs, like
the 5534. In fact if you read Hamm's article and compare it to the
technology of the day, you'll find that his SS examples were obsolete even
way back then. Even cheap Hethkits had better circuitry than what Hamm
implictly portrayed as the SOTA in SS.

[[email protected]]

The part number or fab process of the device wasn't the deciding
factor. The nature of the devices hasn't changed, you still have two
kinds of transistors, FETs and bipolars. Read Hamm's paper again-better
yet look up other papers referencing it, such as the one Van Alstine's
kid wrote.

I don't think a rebuttal per se is in the scholarly literature, if you
want to write one be my guest and if it is generally accepted as
debunking Hamm et al I won't be using the Hamm paper aymore. But it's
still the horse's mouth document until that happens. Regardless of your
ad hominem unscientific attacks.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: >
: >>
: >> The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534
: >> LM3875 and LM3886 exactly where?
: >>
: >> Cal, you're 20 years out of date. high-feedback Japanese amplifiers
: >> were so late 1970s and early 1980s.
: >>
: >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
: >>
: > Sorry to disrupt your bubble, Arn, but modern - NE5534 ??? "you're
: > 20 years out of date",
: > mate :-)
:
: Can't read can you Ruddy.

.......... yeah, sure Arn ;-)


I was pointing out that Cal's technological spirit
: guide Russell Hamm had nothing at all to say about even the old ICs, like
: the 5534.

... even the old ICs <|> covers more modern ..exactly where?
........... ehh, Krooparsing required ??


In fact if you read Hamm's article and compare it to the
: technology of the day, you'll find that his SS examples were obsolete even
: way back then. Even cheap Hethkits had better circuitry than what Hamm
: implictly portrayed as the SOTA in SS.

Hethkits: yeah, i can't read *that*, Arn

Rruud

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534 LM3875 and
>LM3886 exactly where?


Umm......the 5532/5534 opamps are around more than 25 years.......
OP2604/627, AD844/845 etc. would be a better choice IMHO.

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

[Sander deWaal]

said:

> The part number or fab process of the device wasn't the deciding
>factor. The nature of the devices hasn't changed, you still have two
>kinds of transistors, FETs and bipolars. Read Hamm's paper again-better
>yet look up other papers referencing it, such as the one Van Alstine's
>kid wrote.


To be fair, there *has* been some development in the opamp area.
In 1974, the 301, 709 and 741 were widely used in audio. Yecch!

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Arny Krueger" > said:
:
: >The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534 LM3875 and
: >LM3886 exactly where?
:
:
: Umm......the 5532/5534 opamps are around more than 25 years.......
: OP2604/627, AD844/845 etc. would be a better choice IMHO.
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

.........and they're cheaper than those oldies were in them AK glory days:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534
>> LM3875 and LM3886 exactly where?
>
>
> Umm......the 5532/5534 opamps are around more than 25 years.......

So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment. According
to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.

> OP2604/627, AD844/845 etc. would be a better choice IMHO.

Since when was your opinon humble? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> The part number or fab process of the device wasn't the deciding
> factor. The nature of the devices hasn't changed, you still have two
> kinds of transistors, FETs and bipolars. Read Hamm's paper
> again-better yet look up other papers referencing it, such as the one
> Van Alstine's kid wrote.

Totally unresponsive.

> I don't think a rebuttal per se is in the scholarly literature, if
> you want to write one be my guest and if it is generally accepted as
> debunking Hamm et al I won't be using the Hamm paper aymore. But it's
> still the horse's mouth document until that happens. Regardless of
> your ad hominem unscientific attacks.

Totally unresponsive.

BTW Cal, when are you going to learn how to properly quote the posts you are
trying and failing to respond to?

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> OP2604/627, AD844/845 etc. would be a better choice IMHO.

>Since when was your opinon humble? ;-)


Since you converted me to class B current-starving 400 watts/8 ohms
amplifiers using NE5534 at the input.


NoT! ;-)

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Arny Krueger" > said:
:
: >> OP2604/627, AD844/845 etc. would be a better choice IMHO.
:
: >Since when was your opinon humble? ;-)
:
:
: Since you converted me to class B current-starving 400 watts/8 ohms
: amplifiers using NE5534 at the input.
:
:
: NoT! ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

what are you saying ? you don't want to give my QB5-1750 class B
5000 Volts 2200 Watts PP amp a try ? OK, i'll remove the NE5534
front-end, then :-)
Rudy

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>what are you saying ? you don't want to give my QB5-1750 class B
>5000 Volts 2200 Watts PP amp a try ? OK, i'll remove the NE5534
>front-end, then :-)
>Rudy


Pentodes and 5534 opamps? You *gotta* be kidding...........

You freako-tweako audio bozos with your obsolete component choices ;-)

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >what are you saying ? you don't want to give my QB5-1750 class B
: >5000 Volts 2200 Watts PP amp a try ? OK, i'll remove the NE5534
: >front-end, then :-)
: >Rudy
:
:
: Pentodes and 5534 opamps? You *gotta* be kidding...........
:
: You freako-tweako audio bozos with your obsolete component choices ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

I have to admit, the 20 KV arcing protection looks like a Tesla contraption :)
Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> OP2604/627, AD844/845 etc. would be a better choice IMHO.
>
>> Since when was your opinon humble? ;-)
>
>
> Since you converted me to class B current-starving 400 watts/8 ohms
> amplifiers using NE5534 at the input.
>
>
> NoT! ;-)

of course not, because such an amp would be a figment of your imagination.

However, if you got real and allowed that the amp is really class AB, then
you are pretty close to one of my USA 850s.

[Rich.Andrews]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in news:MuCdnUH924U1dL7fRVn-
:

>> Complicated large speakers such as
>> Carvers, McIntoshes, and Legacys with a cornucopia of drivers and very
>> complicated crossovers measured beautifully and made many good
>> recordings sound mediocre and bad ones artifically fluffed. >
> A very eloquent statement.
> The selective positivism attracts.
> You build, rather than tear down.
> Kudos.
> JA, if you're listening, this guy deserves at least one guest editorial.
>
>
>

Bob,

I quite disagree with you as his experiences quite limited at best. Anyone
who has had the opportunity to listen to a pair of McIntsh XR290 or XRT30
speakers has never come away saying they make the music sound anything but
wonderful. Not once have I heard anyone say mediocre or fluffed when
describing any of the better McIntosh speakers.

I find that there is much much wrong with nearly every one of cals postings
that I find it pointless to comment on them even indirectly. His postings
are not based in fact, but based on personal and quite illogical prejudices
and preconcieved assumptions.

His comparison with engines is an example. He looks at only part of the
picture and applies old technology traits to new technology when in fact
they are very different from one another. His simple horsepower example is
flawed because he fails to take into consideration torque. The proof of
this can be demonstrated quite easily. Imagine trying to move a 30,000
pound load with a 1957 Cadillac! Both have the same horsepower yet the
Caddy will barely budge it let alone pull it down the highway at 60 mph.
It would almost appear he does that purposely in an attempt to prove his
erroneous conclusions.

His RPM example is another example. Car engines today have a higher
maximum RPM than they did in 1950 but truck engines do as well. S a matter
of fact it is quite amazing how high the maximum RPM is on modern truck
engines compared to the diesels in 1950 or even 1960.

Other than that it is quite possible he is a nice guy.

rich

[[email protected]]

Truck engines have a _lower_ maximum RPM than before. An example:
Early 855 Cumminses could be run up to 3000 or 3200 rpm. In the 70s
with the fuel crisis and increasing diesel prices they came up with the
Big Cam series which made the same horsepower at progressively lower
RPM. Doing this requires increasing BMEP (a term now forgotten by
everyone, it seems.) They were called Big Cam because they had to make
the cam bearing bores and lobes much bigger, but the main change was
that the lower end was beefed up and so was the piston pin diameter.
The "little end" of the Big Cam IV engines' (and subsequent) con rods
was nearly the diameter of the crank end on early ones. With the
increase in reciprocating weight and valvetrain components, max safe
RPM plummeted as well.

This is also true of Detroit and Cat. Series 71 engines in gen set
service turned at continuous RPM that would have a Series 60 throwing
rods.

Smaller diesels are another matter. VW engines will go to 5000 rpm. I
don't know what redline is on the Duramax, but it isn't terribly high
on the ISB Cummins in Dodges.

[[email protected]]

Kroo>>So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment.
According
to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.

So are 12AT7s. What's your point??

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Kroo>>So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment.
> According
> to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.
>
> So are 12AT7s.

Wrong, less that 1% of new audio production equipment has any kind of tubes.

>What's your point??

You're living in the past, Cal.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: > wrote in message
: oups.com
: > Kroo>>So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment.
: > According
: > to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.
: >
: > So are 12AT7s.
:
: Wrong, less that 1% of new audio production equipment has any kind of tubes.

...inability to note that argument of authority does not hold, noted.
Inabiltity to see that first arguing against 'old tech', then using examples of
said old tech as SOTA is _very_ low fidelity argumenting, noted :-)
Inability to differentiate between quality and quantity, noted 2 ;-)

: >What's your point??
:
: You're living in the past, Cal.
:
.....look who's taking, part IV ??

;-)
Rudy

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > said:
> >
> >> The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534
> >> LM3875 and LM3886 exactly where?
> >
> >
> > Umm......the 5532/5534 opamps are around more than 25 years.......
>
> So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment.
According
> to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.
>

Some authorities assert the Jensen 990 discrete op amp is the best.
Others eschew op amps altogether for audio amplification preferring
open loop discrete circuits. Which authorities you want to believe??

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>>
>>>> The Hamm paper covers more modern SS devices such as the NE5534
>>>> LM3875 and LM3886 exactly where?
>>>
>>>
>>> Umm......the 5532/5534 opamps are around more than 25 years.......
>>
>> So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment.
>> According to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.
>>
>
> Some authorities assert the Jensen 990 discrete op amp is the best.
> Others eschew op amps altogether for audio amplification preferring
> open loop discrete circuits. Which authorities you want to believe??

The ones with reliable evidence to back themselves up with. Anybody can say
what they will - the beauty is in the supporting evidence.

[[email protected]]

You mean like the great records Walter Sear makes? Pretty convincing
evidence to me.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> You mean like the great records Walter Sear makes? Pretty convincing
> evidence to me.

Evidence of what?

[Sander deWaal]

said:

>> > Umm......the 5532/5534 opamps are around more than 25 years.......

>> So what, they are widely used in new production audio equipment.
>According
>> to some authorities they are very hard to eclipse.

> Some authorities assert the Jensen 990 discrete op amp is the best.
>Others eschew op amps altogether for audio amplification preferring
>open loop discrete circuits. Which authorities you want to believe??


My ears.

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

[Robert Morein]

"Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:MuCdnUH924U1dL7fRVn-
> :
>
> >> Complicated large speakers such as
> >> Carvers, McIntoshes, and Legacys with a cornucopia of drivers and very
> >> complicated crossovers measured beautifully and made many good
> >> recordings sound mediocre and bad ones artifically fluffed. >
> > A very eloquent statement.
> > The selective positivism attracts.
> > You build, rather than tear down.
> > Kudos.
> > JA, if you're listening, this guy deserves at least one guest editorial.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bob,
>
> I quite disagree with you as his experiences quite limited at best.
Anyone
> who has had the opportunity to listen to a pair of McIntsh XR290 or XRT30
> speakers has never come away saying they make the music sound anything but
> wonderful. Not once have I heard anyone say mediocre or fluffed when
> describing any of the better McIntosh speakers.
>
You may well be right -- that would require estimating the abilities of
Stereophile reviewers as a grouop, but the most important thing for me,
personally, is that Cal does not appear to be malevolent. One can disagree
with him, and get a response that is worth further responding to.