Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system

[Alex]

Hi all :)

For around 6 years now, I've been using an Aiwa Mini Hi-Fi system to
play my music on. However, although its been pretty good to me (I've
had no complaints up to now), I've been toying with the idea of
upgrading this with a ‘separates system'. Now, I have to admit I'm a
bit of a ‘newbie' when it comes to Hi-Fi equipment but hopefully after
your help and expertise I will be in a better position to make a final
decision…

Now coincidence or not, it just so happened that What Hi*Fi? has
issued an ‘Ultimate Hi-Fi Guide' this month. In this its summarised
virtually all the five star equipment its reviewed over the years
(highlighting best buys, best for bass, best for classical etc). But
in order to gain other opinions and user feedback I've been browsing
the net for any useful bits of information and looking through past
posts on various forums and newgroups - including this one…

It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to outline
two systems that I've ‘ended up' with (purely based on reviews and
user opinions):

The First (and most favourable one I guess):

CD Player: NAD C521BEE
Amplifier: NAD C320BEE
Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo One
Interconnects: QED Qunex 2
Speaker Cable: QED Silver Anniversary Biwire


The Second one:

CD Player: Marantz CD5400
Amplifier: Marantz PM7200
Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo One
Interconnects: QED Qunex 2
Speaker Cable: QED Silver Anniversary Biwire

Before asking any questions relating to these setups, I would like to
give you a few facts to base your answers on first:

- My budget is around £650 (that's around $975 for you US folk).
- The type of music I mostly listen to is Rock and Metal.
- The approximate dimensions of my room is 3.5m by 2.5m.
- The system will be sitting on either a desk or unit.

Now, with these points in mind I was wondering what would be the best
equipment for my purpose? (It doesn't have to be confined to the above
– but please keep in mind my budget ;)). Will either of the two above
setups be able to handle my music ok? And what kind of benefits will
result from buying a slightly more expensive CD Player to what is
listed? That is the NAD C542 (as opposed to the NAD C521BEE) and the
Marantz CD6000-OSE (as opposed to the Marantz CD5400). Is the extra
cost justified?

If possible it would be nice to have optical out for my Minidisc
player (but I guess coaxial wouldn't be the end of the world).

I also have a few more ‘general' questions to ask if you don't mind.
Maybe you could shed some light on them… ;)

- With regards to speakers its pretty obvious that ‘floorstanders' are
speakers that stand on the floor but What Hi*Fi are using these other
terms as well: ‘Standmount' and ‘Bookshelf'. What do these actually
mean?
- When purchasing a new system what precedence do you place on
potential components? Should it be CD Player first, then Amp, then
Speakers since the output of the system can only be good as its input?
- Its obvious that speaker cable comes on the roll and either plugs or
connectors are required for it. Is this a simple job to do? Does it
require soldering or something? Also how many plugs are required? I've
been looking at pictures of the cable and I get the impression I need
8 – that's 4 for each cable. Is that right?

Finally with regards to retailers, I'm at a bit of a loss. The only
local Hi-Fi shop that I know of is Richer Sounds and after looking at
their website, they don't appear to sell any of the above. However, I
have found this equipment on various online retailers. Which ones have
a good reputation because to be honest I haven't heard of any of them.
They are:

http://www.prcdirect.co.uk/PRC/PRC.storefront
http://www.hifi4less.com
http://www.empiredirect.co.uk
http://www.unbeatable.co.uk
http://www.hifibitz.co.uk

I apologise for all the questions but hopefully you can provide some
answers or at least point me in the right direction. I'm sure with
your guidance I could come up with a terrific system!

Thanks in advance,

Alex

[Bob Morein]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi all :)
>
> For around 6 years now, I've been using an Aiwa Mini Hi-Fi system to
> play my music on. However, although its been pretty good to me (I've
> had no complaints up to now), I've been toying with the idea of
> upgrading this with a 'separates system'. Now, I have to admit I'm a
> bit of a 'newbie' when it comes to Hi-Fi equipment but hopefully after
> your help and expertise I will be in a better position to make a final
> decision.
>
I don't trust the magazines in their reviews of midfi components.
"Audiophile" was good at that, but it's gone.

These choices are not bad, but not exceptional either. You are hamstringing
yourself by requiring the amp and the CD player to be the same brand, but
it's a newbie characteristic to want uniformity of appearance, as opposed to
the ultimate in sound or the best at a price point.

IMHO
Sony ES CD players are technically the best, in terms of the performance of
the DAC, and read the widest range of disks. My personal listening
experience confirms this with subjective pleasure. And ES components are
designed in Britain.
The following American companies make very reasonable amplifiers, which have
far higher construction standards than the mass-market imports:
Hafler -- try a P1500: http://hafler.com/home/
B&K: www.bkcomp.com
Also in the high construction quality realm is Parasound, whose products are
designed here and manufactured in Taiwan.
Amplifiers made by these companies frequently show up on the used market.

To get an idea of the difference, understand that Marantz and NAD amplifiers
use circuit boards made out of paper!

The amplifiers I've mentioned have glass-expoxy double sided circuit boards
with plated-through eyelets. This vastly improves the reliability. Haflers,
in particular, are rated for professional use. You will not be able to blow
the outputs of a Hafler with rock or metal.
A British manufacturer of equivalent quality is Sugden; there are others. In
fact, the British excel at low power, high quality amplifiers.

In comparison to the importance of the amp and player, I suggest you drop
your budget for interconnects to near zero. You could do very well at Radio
Shack.


> Now coincidence or not, it just so happened that What Hi*Fi? has
> issued an 'Ultimate Hi-Fi Guide' this month. In this its summarised
> virtually all the five star equipment its reviewed over the years
> (highlighting best buys, best for bass, best for classical etc). But
> in order to gain other opinions and user feedback I've been browsing
> the net for any useful bits of information and looking through past
> posts on various forums and newgroups - including this one.
>
> It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to outline
> two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on reviews and
> user opinions):
>
> The First (and most favourable one I guess):
>
> CD Player: NAD C521BEE
> Amplifier: NAD C320BEE
> Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo One
> Interconnects: QED Qunex 2
> Speaker Cable: QED Silver Anniversary Biwire
>
>
> The Second one:
>
> CD Player: Marantz CD5400
> Amplifier: Marantz PM7200
> Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo One
> Interconnects: QED Qunex 2
> Speaker Cable: QED Silver Anniversary Biwire
>
> Before asking any questions relating to these setups, I would like to
> give you a few facts to base your answers on first:
>
> - My budget is around £650 (that's around $975 for you US folk).
> - The type of music I mostly listen to is Rock and Metal.
> - The approximate dimensions of my room is 3.5m by 2.5m.
> - The system will be sitting on either a desk or unit.
>
> Now, with these points in mind I was wondering what would be the best
> equipment for my purpose? (It doesn't have to be confined to the above
> - but please keep in mind my budget ;)). Will either of the two above
> setups be able to handle my music ok? And what kind of benefits will
> result from buying a slightly more expensive CD Player to what is
> listed? That is the NAD C542 (as opposed to the NAD C521BEE) and the
> Marantz CD6000-OSE (as opposed to the Marantz CD5400). Is the extra
> cost justified?
>
> If possible it would be nice to have optical out for my Minidisc
> player (but I guess coaxial wouldn't be the end of the world).
>
> I also have a few more 'general' questions to ask if you don't mind.
> Maybe you could shed some light on them. ;)
>
> - With regards to speakers its pretty obvious that 'floorstanders' are
> speakers that stand on the floor but What Hi*Fi are using these other
> terms as well: 'Standmount' and 'Bookshelf'. What do these actually
> mean?
> - When purchasing a new system what precedence do you place on
> potential components? Should it be CD Player first, then Amp, then
> Speakers since the output of the system can only be good as its input?
> - Its obvious that speaker cable comes on the roll and either plugs or
> connectors are required for it. Is this a simple job to do? Does it
> require soldering or something? Also how many plugs are required? I've
> been looking at pictures of the cable and I get the impression I need
> 8 - that's 4 for each cable. Is that right?
>
> Finally with regards to retailers, I'm at a bit of a loss. The only
> local Hi-Fi shop that I know of is Richer Sounds and after looking at
> their website, they don't appear to sell any of the above. However, I
> have found this equipment on various online retailers. Which ones have
> a good reputation because to be honest I haven't heard of any of them.
> They are:
>
> http://www.prcdirect.co.uk/PRC/PRC.storefront
> http://www.hifi4less.com
> http://www.empiredirect.co.uk
> http://www.unbeatable.co.uk
> http://www.hifibitz.co.uk
>
> I apologise for all the questions but hopefully you can provide some
> answers or at least point me in the right direction. I'm sure with
> your guidance I could come up with a terrific system!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alex

[Richard Wall]

Dear Alex
Richer Sounds is the most successful retailer (based on volume of sales vs.
size of store) of any product in the UK. They pride themselves on providing
the best sound per £ of any Hi-Fi retailer. I do not believe a word written
in What Hi-Fi and advise you to visit ant Hi-Fi shops and listen to what
they offer for your budget. Five star awards are always (supposedly) based
on value for money so does today's 5* product for £150 beat yesterdays 5*
product at £300 ? Use mags as a guide but listen to the systems, you may
not agree what is best and don't fall for the biggest discount/ most highly
acclaimed rubbish.

Good luck
Richard
New Ash Green Hi-Fi Club
"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi all :)
>
> For around 6 years now, I've been using an Aiwa Mini Hi-Fi system to
> play my music on. However, although its been pretty good to me (I've
> had no complaints up to now), I've been toying with the idea of
> upgrading this with a 'separates system'. Now, I have to admit I'm a
> bit of a 'newbie' when it comes to Hi-Fi equipment but hopefully after
> your help and expertise I will be in a better position to make a final
> decision.
>
> Now coincidence or not, it just so happened that What Hi*Fi? has
> issued an 'Ultimate Hi-Fi Guide' this month. In this its summarised
> virtually all the five star equipment its reviewed over the years
> (highlighting best buys, best for bass, best for classical etc). But
> in order to gain other opinions and user feedback I've been browsing
> the net for any useful bits of information and looking through past
> posts on various forums and newgroups - including this one.
>
> It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to outline
> two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on reviews and
> user opinions):
>
> The First (and most favourable one I guess):
>
> CD Player: NAD C521BEE
> Amplifier: NAD C320BEE
> Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo One
> Interconnects: QED Qunex 2
> Speaker Cable: QED Silver Anniversary Biwire
>
>
> The Second one:
>
> CD Player: Marantz CD5400
> Amplifier: Marantz PM7200
> Speakers: Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo One
> Interconnects: QED Qunex 2
> Speaker Cable: QED Silver Anniversary Biwire
>
> Before asking any questions relating to these setups, I would like to
> give you a few facts to base your answers on first:
>
> - My budget is around £650 (that's around $975 for you US folk).
> - The type of music I mostly listen to is Rock and Metal.
> - The approximate dimensions of my room is 3.5m by 2.5m.
> - The system will be sitting on either a desk or unit.
>
> Now, with these points in mind I was wondering what would be the best
> equipment for my purpose? (It doesn't have to be confined to the above
> - but please keep in mind my budget ;)). Will either of the two above
> setups be able to handle my music ok? And what kind of benefits will
> result from buying a slightly more expensive CD Player to what is
> listed? That is the NAD C542 (as opposed to the NAD C521BEE) and the
> Marantz CD6000-OSE (as opposed to the Marantz CD5400). Is the extra
> cost justified?
>
> If possible it would be nice to have optical out for my Minidisc
> player (but I guess coaxial wouldn't be the end of the world).
>
> I also have a few more 'general' questions to ask if you don't mind.
> Maybe you could shed some light on them. ;)
>
> - With regards to speakers its pretty obvious that 'floorstanders' are
> speakers that stand on the floor but What Hi*Fi are using these other
> terms as well: 'Standmount' and 'Bookshelf'. What do these actually
> mean?
> - When purchasing a new system what precedence do you place on
> potential components? Should it be CD Player first, then Amp, then
> Speakers since the output of the system can only be good as its input?
> - Its obvious that speaker cable comes on the roll and either plugs or
> connectors are required for it. Is this a simple job to do? Does it
> require soldering or something? Also how many plugs are required? I've
> been looking at pictures of the cable and I get the impression I need
> 8 - that's 4 for each cable. Is that right?
>
> Finally with regards to retailers, I'm at a bit of a loss. The only
> local Hi-Fi shop that I know of is Richer Sounds and after looking at
> their website, they don't appear to sell any of the above. However, I
> have found this equipment on various online retailers. Which ones have
> a good reputation because to be honest I haven't heard of any of them.
> They are:
>
> http://www.prcdirect.co.uk/PRC/PRC.storefront
> http://www.hifi4less.com
> http://www.empiredirect.co.uk
> http://www.unbeatable.co.uk
> http://www.hifibitz.co.uk
>
> I apologise for all the questions but hopefully you can provide some
> answers or at least point me in the right direction. I'm sure with
> your guidance I could come up with a terrific system!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alex

[MrBitsy]

Alex wrote:
> Hi all :)
>
> For around 6 years now, I've been using an Aiwa Mini Hi-Fi system to
> play my music on. However, although its been pretty good to me (I've
> had no complaints up to now), I've been toying with the idea of
> upgrading this with a 'separates system'. Now, I have to admit I'm a
> bit of a 'newbie' when it comes to Hi-Fi equipment but hopefully after
> your help and expertise I will be in a better position to make a final
> decision.
>
<snip>

I was in EXACTLY the same position as you about 18 months ago and asked the
same question. One reply said to forget the magazines and listen to the
equipement. Thats exactly what I did and I got a great sounding system for
£650 at Richer Sounds.

I too had the idea of buying one of the systems out of what HiFI but my mind
was soon changed at a listening session. I hated the sound of the HiFi in
What HiFi! I ended up buying a Cambridge audio A500 amp and Cambridge Audio
D500SE CD Player. Much better to my ears than the tinny What HiFi
recomendation.

That system lasted me for a year until the bug to upgrade got me. I got all
Arcam gear and thought the sound was great - until a month later when I
realised I wasn't listening to as much stuff! I also thought I needed big
floorstanders as I liked bass - 3 pairs of What iFi awards floorstanders
later, I purchased some standmounters that sounded super in my small room.

I currently have the Roksan Mk 3 amp and CD player with Quad 11L speakers.
An awsome sounding trio that cost £1700 (more like £2500 after I went
through all the Arcam gear that I hate)

All of my current gear is well regarded in What HiFi BUT the best tip I can
give you is DO NOT BUY WITHOUT LISTENING!

MrBitsy.

[Lionel]

Alex a écrit :


>
> - My budget is around £650 (that's around $975 for you US folk).
> - The type of music I mostly listen to is Rock and Metal.
> - The approximate dimensions of my room is 3.5m by 2.5m.

Hello Alex,

Considering the above parameters may I suggest you the following :

1. Purchase immediately second hand "good" elements for a maximum amount
of 1/4 of your today budget.
2. Put the rest of your budget in bank at 4.5 - 5% per year.
3. Continue to save money for your project.
4. During this time you should borrow music from your neighbourhood
media libraries to educate your ear.

Finally let say that in 2 or 3 years you will have a nice amount of
money to purchase a very good music system.

*Bonus* : you will also have good music to listen on !

Friendly,
Lionel

[Laurence Payne]

>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to outline
>two systems that I've ‘ended up' with (purely based on reviews and
>user opinions):

Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.

Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).

Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.

Enjoy your music.
Remember, moving your listening position a few inches makes much more
difference than changing cables. Finding the best room position for
your speakers makes much more difference than just about anything
else.

[MrBitsy]

Laurence Payne wrote:
>> It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>> outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>> reviews and user opinions):
>
> Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
> "high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
> and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>
> Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
> sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
> Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>
> Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
> Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
> and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.

With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.

Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are important and
should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a selection
for you to try in a listening session.

>
> Enjoy your music.
> Remember, moving your listening position a few inches makes much more
> difference than changing cables. Finding the best room position for
> your speakers makes much more difference than just about anything
> else.

I can agree to that strongly. Try your speakers in as many different
positions as possible, a few inches really can make a huge difference (and
then try the different interconnects )
;-)

--
MrBitsy

[Lionel]

Laurence Payne a écrit :

>
> Enjoy your music.
> Remember, moving your listening position a few inches makes much more
> difference than changing cables. Finding the best room position for
> your speakers makes much more difference than just about anything
> else.

....But doesn't help copper mines and high-end audio industry, to kick
out of moroseness !
;-)

Lionel

[Tim S Kemp]

> To get an idea of the difference, understand that Marantz and NAD
amplifiers
> use circuit boards made out of paper!

So?

[Tim S Kemp]

> Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are important
and
> should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
selection
> for you to try in a listening session.

Simple rules for interconnects -as short as possible, as heavy as possible,
and construction quality for consistency.

If you can solder **well** then make your own, neutrik connectors, any high
quality cable (van damme, canare, belden whatever). Otherwise buy the
cheapest of the heavy ones, and unscrew the plugs before buying to see the
quality of workmanship on the joint.

[Glenn Booth]

Hi,

In message >, Tim S Kemp
> writes
>> To get an idea of the difference, understand that Marantz and NAD
>amplifiers
>> use circuit boards made out of paper!
>
>So?

I personally know of two NAD amplifiers that have gone up in flames when
the PCBs caught fire. I couldn't say what caused this to happen or how
common it is, but when it happened to a colleague, he called NAD from
work to moan about it, only to be told 'Oh yes... they sometimes do
that'. His face was a picture, and the NAD support guy got a case of
earache that day.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

[Bob Morein]

"MrBitsy" > wrote in message
...
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>[snip]
> With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
> different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
> speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>
Many costly interconnects deliberately modify the sound. MIT is one of the
worst offenders.

Simple, low cost interconnects cause very little modification, with the
exception of the very cheap ones sometimes included with the components
themselves.

[Bob Morein]

"Glenn Booth" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> In message >, Tim S Kemp
> > writes
> >> To get an idea of the difference, understand that Marantz and NAD
> >amplifiers
> >> use circuit boards made out of paper!
> >
> >So?
>
> I personally know of two NAD amplifiers that have gone up in flames when
> the PCBs caught fire. I couldn't say what caused this to happen or how
> common it is, but when it happened to a colleague, he called NAD from
> work to moan about it, only to be told 'Oh yes... they sometimes do
> that'. His face was a picture, and the NAD support guy got a case of
> earache that day.
>
Yes. They use an elaborate system of thermal fusing, but it doesn't always
work with the proximity of so much combusible material.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
> wrote:

>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>> It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>>> outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>>> reviews and user opinions):
>>
>> Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>> "high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>> and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>>
>> Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>> sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>> Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>>
>> Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>> Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>> and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>
>With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.

With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
*anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
the most pathological cables.

BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
with bass' is fundamentally impossible.

>Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are important and
>should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a selection
>for you to try in a listening session.

Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Bob Morein]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
> > wrote:
[snip]
>
> BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
> with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>
Not impossible if you intepret his subjective experience, rather than take
it literally. When treble is knocked out, some individuals perceive the
result as increased bass. Apparently, their brain has some kind of a
broad-band energy weighting scheme which fails to differentiate.

Also, there are some pathological cables out there -- the ones with little
terminator boxes. These are quite capable of the effect.
[snip]
>
> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
> --
I'm inclined to agree with you, but not absolutely sure. Have you examined
the work of your countryman, Macolm Hawksford?

[Dave Plowman]

In article >,
MrBitsy > wrote:
> With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
> different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
> speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.

That's because some 'designer' leads deliberately set out to alter things
- and a non specific application lead which alters the tonal balance like
this is crap - designed to remove money from the wallets of fools.

There's nothing magical about making an interconnect that has a poor
frequency response - only bad engineering.

--
*I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

[trotsky]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
> wrote:
>
>
> >Laurence Payne wrote:
> >
> >>>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
> >>>outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
> >>>reviews and user opinions):
> >>
> >>Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
> >>"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
> >>and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
> >>
> >>Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
> >>sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
> >>Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
> >>
> >>Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
> >>Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
> >>and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
> >
> >With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
> >different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
> >speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>
>
> With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
> believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
> *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
> the most pathological cables.
>
> BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
> with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>
>
> >Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
> important and
> >should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
> selection
> >for you to try in a listening session.
>
>
> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.



Isn't that how you got married?

[Lionel]

trotsky a écrit :
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Laurence Payne wrote:
>> >
>> >>>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>> >>>outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>> >>>reviews and user opinions):
>> >>
>> >>Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>> >>"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>> >>and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>> >>
>> >>Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>> >>sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>> >>Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>> >>
>> >>Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>> >>Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>> >>and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>> >
>> >With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>> >different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>> >speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>>
>>
>> With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
>> believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
>> *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>> the most pathological cables.
>>
>> BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
>> with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>>
>>
>> >Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
>> important and
>> >should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>> selection
>> >for you to try in a listening session.
>>
>>
>> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>
>
>
>
> Isn't that how you got married?
>

Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)

[dave weil]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:44:40 +0200, Lionel
<lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:

>trotsky a écrit :
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Laurence Payne wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>>> >>>outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>>> >>>reviews and user opinions):
>>> >>
>>> >>Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>>> >>"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>>> >>and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>>> >>
>>> >>Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>>> >>sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>>> >>Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>>> >>
>>> >>Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>>> >>Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>>> >>and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>>> >
>>> >With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>>> >different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>>> >speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>>>
>>>
>>> With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
>>> believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
>>> *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>>> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>>> the most pathological cables.
>>>
>>> BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
>>> with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>> >Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
>>> important and
>>> >should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>>> selection
>>> >for you to try in a listening session.
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't that how you got married?
>>
>
>Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
>with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)

Or your air conditioner.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:44:40 +0200, Lionel
> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>
>
>>trotsky a écrit :
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>>>>>>>outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>>>>>>>reviews and user opinions):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>>>>>>"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>>>>>>and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>>>>>>sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>>>>>>Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>>>>>>Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>>>>>>and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>>With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>>>>>different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>>>>>speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
>>>>believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
>>>>*anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>>conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>>>>20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>>>>the most pathological cables.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
>>>>with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
>>>>
>>>>important and
>>>>
>>>>>should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>>>>
>>>>selection
>>>>
>>>>>for you to try in a listening session.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't that how you got married?
>>>
>>
>>Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
>>with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)
>
>
> Or your air conditioner.

Do you know what would be Krueger answer to the above ?
I guess you know !
This is the difference between him and me...
:o)

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[dave weil]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:46:12 +0200, Lionel
> wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:44:40 +0200, Lionel
>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>trotsky a écrit :
>>>
>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>>>>>>>>outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>>>>>>>>reviews and user opinions):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>>>>>>>"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>>>>>>>and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>>>>>>>sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>>>>>>>Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>>>>>>>Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>>>>>>>and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>>>>>>different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>>>>>>speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
>>>>>believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
>>>>>*anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>>>conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>>>>>20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>>>>>the most pathological cables.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
>>>>>with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
>>>>>
>>>>>important and
>>>>>
>>>>>>should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>>>>>
>>>>>selection
>>>>>
>>>>>>for you to try in a listening session.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Isn't that how you got married?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
>>>with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)
>>
>>
>> Or your air conditioner.
>
>Do you know what would be Krueger answer to the above ?

No I don't.

>I guess you know !

I guess you're wrong then.

>This is the difference between him and me...
> :o)
No, the difference is that you've got a better command of the English
language than he does.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:46:12 +0200, Lionel
> > wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:44:40 +0200, Lionel
>>><lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>trotsky a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>>>>>>>>>outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>>>>>>>>>reviews and user opinions):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>>>>>>>>"high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>>>>>>>>and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>>>>>>>>sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>>>>>>>>Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>>>>>>>>Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>>>>>>>>and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>>>>>>>different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>>>>>>>speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. If you really
>>>>>>believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000 to
>>>>>>*anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>>>>conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>>>>>>20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>>>>>>the most pathological cables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
>>>>>>with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>important and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>selection
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>for you to try in a listening session.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't that how you got married?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
>>>>with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>>Or your air conditioner.
>>
>>Do you know what would be Krueger answer to the above ?
>
>
> No I don't.
>
>
>>I guess you know !
>
>
> I guess you're wrong then.
>
>
>>This is the difference between him and me...
>> :o)
>
> No, the difference is that you've got a better command of the English
> language than he does.

Good one !

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[trotsky]

Lionel wrote:

> trotsky a écrit :
>
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >> >Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
> >> important and
> >> >should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
> >> selection
> >> >for you to try in a listening session.
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Isn't that how you got married?
> >
>
> Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
> with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)
>

Hey Lionel--love your trains.

[Tim S Kemp]

"Glenn Booth" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> In message >, Tim S Kemp
> > writes
> >> To get an idea of the difference, understand that Marantz and NAD
> >amplifiers
> >> use circuit boards made out of paper!
> >
> >So?
>
> I personally know of two NAD amplifiers that have gone up in flames when
> the PCBs caught fire. I couldn't say what caused this to happen or how
> common it is, but when it happened to a colleague, he called NAD from
> work to moan about it, only to be told 'Oh yes... they sometimes do
> that'. His face was a picture, and the NAD support guy got a case of
> earache that day.

Ouch... not good... but there are so many products out there with SRBP
circuit boards I can't see it as more than a small additional risk from a
safety point of view, any component that hits the flash point of the PCB
should be heatsinked (??heatsunk??) anyway.

[Bob Morein]

"Tim S Kemp" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Glenn Booth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message >, Tim S Kemp
> > > writes
> > >> To get an idea of the difference, understand that Marantz and NAD
> > >amplifiers
> > >> use circuit boards made out of paper!
> > >
> > >So?
> >
> > I personally know of two NAD amplifiers that have gone up in flames when
> > the PCBs caught fire. I couldn't say what caused this to happen or how
> > common it is, but when it happened to a colleague, he called NAD from
> > work to moan about it, only to be told 'Oh yes... they sometimes do
> > that'. His face was a picture, and the NAD support guy got a case of
> > earache that day.
>
> Ouch... not good... but there are so many products out there with SRBP
> circuit boards I can't see it as more than a small additional risk from a
> safety point of view, any component that hits the flash point of the PCB
> should be heatsinked (??heatsunk??) anyway.
>
You can't see it as more than a small additional risk?
Compare paper to FR-4 fiberglass, which will not burn at all in the
horizontal position.
FR stands for "fire retardant".
Building electronic equipment out of inherently flammable materials cannot
be made safe by heatsinking, because the component which causes the fire may
not become hot in normal use. It may be a tantalum, or a low wattage
resistor sinking a shorted transistor. Such components frequently turn to
ashes, indicating at least momentary temperatures of over 1000 degrees
Fahrenheit.

The companies that do use epoxy paper incorporate an elaborate network of
thermal fuses. Unfortunately, the problem of fault prediction is
essentially unsolved; the search space is too large.

IMHO, a rational policy is:

1. Since power amplifiers contain a lot of circuitry operating at high power
levels, such as the predrivers, avoid Japanese mass market amplifiers.
Parasound amplifiers, which are designed in the U.S. but made in Taiwan, are
made equivalently to domestic American amplifiers. British amplifiers are
also well constructed.

2. Since CD players and preamplifiers have far fewer components that
dissipate significant power, the risks are tolerable.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 04:18:46 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:33:08 +0100, "MrBitsy"
>> > wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
>> with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>>
>Not impossible if you intepret his subjective experience, rather than take
>it literally. When treble is knocked out, some individuals perceive the
>result as increased bass. Apparently, their brain has some kind of a
>broad-band energy weighting scheme which fails to differentiate.

That's true enough, in the same way that a subwoofer can smooth out
the treble.

>Also, there are some pathological cables out there -- the ones with little
>terminator boxes. These are quite capable of the effect.

Indeed yes! :-(

>[snip]
>>
>> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>> --
>I'm inclined to agree with you, but not absolutely sure. Have you examined
>the work of your countryman, Macolm Hawksford?

Yup - he's a *seriously* mad Professor! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[JBorg]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>> Alex said:
>
>
>
>
>>>> It's a lot of information to take in but I would first like to
>>>> outline two systems that I've 'ended up' with (purely based on
>>>> reviews and user opinions):
>>>
>>> Book a session at your local Richer Sounds or similar (i.e. NOT a
>>> "high-end" audio shop) to listen to a selection of speakers. These,
>>> and where you put them in your room, make by far the most difference.
>>>
>>> Spend around £100 on an amp, rather less on a CD player. (Richer
>>> sounds use the "Cambridge Audio" name now. It's not the old Cambridge
>>> Audio stuff, but it's pretty good, and inexpensive).
>>>
>>> Don't believe a word of what they tell you about interconnects. Go to
>>> Maplins or your local electrical shop and buy something multi-stranded
>>> and as thick as will go into the terminals for the speakers.
>>
>> With the greatest respect, that is not good advice. I have tried several
>> different interconnects on my system and they do affect the sound at the
>> speakers. One set of costly interconnects flooded my system with bass.
>
>
>
> With the greatest respect, that was *excellent* advice. [...]

> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000
> to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
> conditions, [...]



You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?

If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
thread at RAO.



> the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
> the most pathological cables.


Ok.


> BTW, your assertion that a set of interconnects 'flooded you system
> with bass' is fundamentally impossible.
>
>
>> Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are important
>> and should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>> selection for you to try in a listening session.
>
> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.

[Lionel]

trotsky a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> trotsky a écrit :
>>
>> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> >> >Whatever the technical aspects of this are - interconnects are
>> >> important and
>> >> >should be listened on your test system. Richer sounds will have a
>> >> selection
>> >> >for you to try in a listening session.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Indeed they will - buy the cheapest that seem solidly constructed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Isn't that how you got married?
>> >
>>
>> Starting from Pinkerton's statement there's also a good joke to make
>> with your speakers rather than his wife. ;o)
>>
>
> Hey Lionel--love your trains.
>
I understand... since you missed yours !

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 19 Sep 2003 19:03:13 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:

>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000
>> to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>> conditions, [...]
>
>You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?
>
>If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
>thread at RAO.

Yes, I'm sure, and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio. I unsubscribed from
the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.
>
>
>> the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>> the most pathological cables.
>
>Ok.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[JBorg]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000
>>> to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>> conditions, [...]
>>
>> You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?
>>
>> If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
>> thread at RAO.
>
>
>
> Yes, I'm sure, [...]



And so you are. If you're sure of what you have proclaimed, then you must
specify the conditions involved under your double-blind experiment.

For example, will you be using a "blackbox" or QSC device among other things
.... etc, etc.


http://www.qscstore.com/noname.html



In addition, how would you determine whether your participant positively
hears sound differences between the unit under test?


> and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio.

So?


> I unsubscribed from the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.

And the reasons RAO is in the state as you said it is--is due to
charlatans such as yourself who unsurprisingly lie to himself
in order to mislead unsuspecting audiophiles.


From the original thread: The Truth about DBT vs Reality (RAO)


You admitted to have positive results after numerous DBTs,
yet you stated that:

"... I still imagine that there are differences. Luckily,
I now *know* that they are not physically present."


How did you differentiate the differences?


http://tinyurl.com/o2tk






Please make an effort to redeem yourself.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 20 Sep 2003 16:37:01 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:

>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000
>>>> to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>> conditions, [...]
>>>
>>> You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?
>>>
>>> If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
>>> thread at RAO.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure, [...]
>
>And so you are. If you're sure of what you have proclaimed, then you must
>specify the conditions involved under your double-blind experiment.
>
>For example, will you be using a "blackbox" or QSC device among other things
>... etc, etc.
>
>http://www.qscstore.com/noname.html
>
I no longer have such a device, but I'm happy for anyone to bring
along their own.

>In addition, how would you determine whether your participant positively
>hears sound differences between the unit under test?

The benchmark is set at 16 out of 20 correct identifications. That's
necessary to get 95% confidence that the result is not radndom chance.

>> and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio.
>
>So?

So if the post appears on r.a.o it's because someone else crossposted
the thread at some point.

>> I unsubscribed from the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.
>
>And the reasons RAO is in the state as you said it is--is due to
>charlatans such as yourself who unsurprisingly lie to himself
>in order to mislead unsuspecting audiophiles.

What utter ********!

>From the original thread: The Truth about DBT vs Reality (RAO)

>You admitted to have positive results after numerous DBTs,
>yet you stated that:
>
> "... I still imagine that there are differences. Luckily,
> I now *know* that they are not physically present."
>
>How did you differentiate the differences?

Since you bothered to pick up that quote, you obviously read the rest
of the post, which refers to 'differences' between two amps which are
sonically indistinguishable under controlled conditions, but which I
still imagine to sound different when I *know* which one is playing.
You are the charlatan here, deliberately quoting out of context in a
pathetic attempt to score a cheap shot.

>http://tinyurl.com/o2tk

>Please make an effort to redeem yourself.

**** off.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[JBorg]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> JBorg) wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>>> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
>>>>> £1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>>> conditions, [...]
>>>>
>>>> You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?
>>>>
>>>> If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
>>>> thread at RAO.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm sure, [...]
>>
>> And so you are. If you're sure of what you have proclaimed, then you must
>> specify the conditions involved under your double-blind experiment.
>>
>> For example, will you be using a "blackbox" or QSC device among other
>> things ... etc, etc.
>>
>> http://www.qscstore.com/noname.html
>>
>
>
>
> I no longer have such a device, but I'm happy for anyone to bring
> along their own.


What is your specific procedure when comparing the cables as you listen
from one to the other during the test, a quick plug and switch?

It's your experiment, could you "walk" me to this part-- in a sentence
or two?




>> In addition, how would you determine whether your participant positively
>> hears sound differences between the unit under test?
>
>
>
> The benchmark is set at 16 out of 20 correct identifications. That's
> necessary to get 95% confidence that the result is not radndom chance.


But that's after your experiment when you tally the results under your
conditions.

How do you determine when one positively hears or not, the sound difference
between cables during the test, again, under your conditions?



>>> and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio.
>>
>> So?
>
>
>
> So if the post appears on r.a.o it's because someone else crossposted
> the thread at some point.



Your inanity is showing again. I object to your apparent delusiveness of
blaming someone for handing out your foolish agendas at RAO.

Care to comment about newsgroup headers?


>>> I unsubscribed from the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.
>>
>> And the reasons RAO is in the state as you said it is--is due to
>> charlatans such as yourself who unsurprisingly lie to himself
>> in order to mislead unsuspecting audiophiles.
>
>
>
> What utter ********!


That's not ********. You are attempting to cover your lie with
another lie as a distraction by accusing me of quoting you out
of context. This is your diverting tactic for failing to response
to the question of how were you able to differentiate the
differences as I ask below.

Please explain how I quoted you out of context.


>> From the original thread: The Truth about DBT vs Reality (RAO)
>
>> You admitted to have positive results after numerous DBTs,
>> yet you stated that:
>>
>> "... I still imagine that there are differences. Luckily,
>> I now *know* that they are not physically present."
>>
>>
>>
>> How did you differentiate the differences?
>
>
>
> Since you bothered to pick up that quote, you obviously read the rest
> of the post, which refers to 'differences' between two amps which are
> sonically indistinguishable under controlled conditions, [...]


You will have difficulty covering up your lie here.

Here's what Yustabe said in that thread:


" I take it, from reading George's blurb about your experience,
that, before the test, you heard differences between the
amps, and during the DBT, you heard no differences. What
happened after the test was over, and you went back sighted?"


To which you directly replied:


" If you've done your homework, you already know this - I
still imagine that there are differences. Luckily, I now
*know* that they are not physically present."


I was not contesting whether you were comparing amps that were
sonically indistinguishable.


> but which I
> still imagine to sound different when I *know* which one is playing.


If you're comparing 2 amps that are sonically indistinguishable under
controlled conditions yet still imagine to hear sound differences
when you *know* which one is playing, wouldn't that means that there's
a psychological disturbances occuring between your ears?


Agree or disagree?


> You are the charlatan here, deliberately quoting out of context in a
> pathetic attempt to score a cheap shot.


Please explain how I quoted you out of context?


>> http://tinyurl.com/o2tk
>
>> Please make an effort to redeem yourself.
>
>
>
> **** off.


You are very stubborn.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 21 Sep 2003 20:16:17 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:

>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>> JBorg) wrote:
>>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>>> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
>>>>>> £1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>>>> conditions, [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
>>>>> thread at RAO.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm sure, [...]
>>>
>>> And so you are. If you're sure of what you have proclaimed, then you must
>>> specify the conditions involved under your double-blind experiment.
>>>
>>> For example, will you be using a "blackbox" or QSC device among other
>>> things ... etc, etc.
>>>
>>> http://www.qscstore.com/noname.html
>>>
>> I no longer have such a device, but I'm happy for anyone to bring
>> along their own.
>
>What is your specific procedure when comparing the cables as you listen
>from one to the other during the test, a quick plug and switch?
>
>It's your experiment, could you "walk" me to this part-- in a sentence
>or two?

When I was comparing amplifiers, I used a 4-channel attenuator to set
the gain of both amplifiers to be exactly the same within +/- 0.1dB,
and I used a 4-pole relay to perform quick switching. The control box
had 3 positions, A, B and X. X could be connected to either A or B by
operation of a concealed 3-way switch with centre 'off' position, so
that every time the switch was changed to begin a new trial, there
were two clicks.

The listener has his own choice of sound source, and has control of
the box, so that he can refer to A and B as often as he needs before
deciding the identity of X. When he has decided, he notes down his
decision on a scoresheet and calls in the test assistant, who has an
equivalent scoresheet with a randomised set of As and Bs. The
assistant verifies that this is the completion of trial 5 (or
whatever), and sets the X switch to the appropriate A or B setting for
trial 6, and then leaves the room. It's not as perfectly double-blind
as a computer-controlled ABX box, but it seems to work pretty well.

In the absence of an ABX switchbox (and some people claim that they're
not totally transparent), the assistant will simply change over the
connections while the listener turns his back, and will then leave the
room. Under these conditions, it is of course necessary to ensure that
the amps and/or cable connection points are not visible from the
listening position. Obviously, it takes a lot longer to do the A to B
to X changing in this case, so the switchbox is really useful and
saves wear and tear on the assistant!

>>> In addition, how would you determine whether your participant positively
>>> hears sound differences between the unit under test?

>> The benchmark is set at 16 out of 20 correct identifications. That's
>> necessary to get 95% confidence that the result is not radndom chance.
>
>But that's after your experiment when you tally the results under your
>conditions.

Yes.

>How do you determine when one positively hears or not, the sound difference
>between cables during the test, again, under your conditions?

What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)


>>>> and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio.
>>>
>>> So?

>> So if the post appears on r.a.o it's because someone else crossposted
>> the thread at some point.

>Your inanity is showing again. I object to your apparent delusiveness of
>blaming someone for handing out your foolish agendas at RAO.

What the heck are you blathering about? I have no 'foolish agenda', so
what's your point?

>Care to comment about newsgroup headers?

Care to comment about what is your point (aside from the one on top of
your head)?

>>>> I unsubscribed from the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.
>>>
>>> And the reasons RAO is in the state as you said it is--is due to
>>> charlatans such as yourself who unsurprisingly lie to himself
>>> in order to mislead unsuspecting audiophiles.
>>
>> What utter ********!
>
>That's not ********. You are attempting to cover your lie with
>another lie as a distraction by accusing me of quoting you out
>of context. This is your diverting tactic for failing to response
>to the question of how were you able to differentiate the
>differences as I ask below.

I responded exactly to your question, you are simply trolling.

>Please explain how I quoted you out of context.
>
>>> From the original thread: The Truth about DBT vs Reality (RAO)
>>
>>> You admitted to have positive results after numerous DBTs,
>>> yet you stated that:
>>>
>>> "... I still imagine that there are differences. Luckily,
>>> I now *know* that they are not physically present."
>>>
>>> How did you differentiate the differences?
>>
>> Since you bothered to pick up that quote, you obviously read the rest
>> of the post, which refers to 'differences' between two amps which are
>> sonically indistinguishable under controlled conditions, [...]
>
>You will have difficulty covering up your lie here.

What 'lie'? WTF are you blathering about?
>
>Here's what Yustabe said in that thread:
>
> " I take it, from reading George's blurb about your experience,
> that, before the test, you heard differences between the
> amps, and during the DBT, you heard no differences. What
> happened after the test was over, and you went back sighted?"
>
>To which you directly replied:
>
> " If you've done your homework, you already know this - I
> still imagine that there are differences. Luckily, I now
> *know* that they are not physically present."
>
>I was not contesting whether you were comparing amps that were
>sonically indistinguishable.

But I *was*, which was the entire point. The point of the above is
that it's a demonstration of the fatally flawed nature of sighted
listening.

>> but which I
>> still imagine to sound different when I *know* which one is playing.
>
>If you're comparing 2 amps that are sonically indistinguishable under
>controlled conditions yet still imagine to hear sound differences
>when you *know* which one is playing, wouldn't that means that there's
>a psychological disturbances occuring between your ears?

Of course, *that's the point*. Another popular demonstration of this
effect is the 'false sighted' test, where the audience believes that
they are listening to two devices, but in fact they are *not*
switched. The listeners will still record all the usual audiobabble
about 'ambience' and 'inner detail' etc etc, even though the physical
soundfield has definitely not changed.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)

If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
> Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>
>>What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>
>
> If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
> same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
> the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?

Price ?

[Lionel]

Lionel a écrit :

> dave weil a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>> that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>> correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>> difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>> audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
>> same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>> the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?
>
>
> Price ?
>
bread-roaster function ?

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[Lionel]

Lionel a écrit :

> Lionel a écrit :
>
>> dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>>> that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>>> correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>>> difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>>> audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
>>> same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>>> the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Price ?
>>
> bread-roaster function ?
>
Rivetage de la gliture ?

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[Lionel]

Lionel a écrit :

> Lionel a écrit :
>
>> Lionel a écrit :
>>
>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>>>> that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>>>> correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>>>> difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>>>> audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
>>>> same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>>>> the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Price ?
>>>
>> bread-roaster function ?
>>
> Rivetage de la gliture ?
>
Fragrance diffuser possibility ?

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[Lionel]

Lionel a écrit :

> Lionel a écrit :
>
>> Lionel a écrit :
>>
>>> Lionel a écrit :
>>>
>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>>>>> that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>>>>> correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>>>>> difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or
>>>>>> so). We
>>>>>> audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
>>>>> same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>>>>> the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Price ?
>>>>
>>> bread-roaster function ?
>>>
>> Rivetage de la gliture ?
>>
> Fragrance diffuser possibility ?
>
Gliturage du rivet ?

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:31:02 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>
>If you think thatscience has proved that virtually all amps are the
>same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?

The test is there to verify that such is indeed the case for the amps
being compared. As you are well aware, not *all* amps came out the
same when I compared them, although this was about eight years ago.
You score it the same as any other test - but I'd expect mostly random
chance results these days, except from some of the 'boutique' amps
which are either deliberately 'voiced' or plain incompetent.

Having determined that there's no *sonic* difference, you would likely
go on to choose on power output, facilities, price and appearance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:46:58 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:31:02 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>>that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>>correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>>difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>>audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>>
>>If you think that science has proved that virtually all amps are the
>>same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>>the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?
>
>The test is there to verify that such is indeed the case for the amps
>being compared. As you are well aware, not *all* amps came out the
>same when I compared them, although this was about eight years ago.

Actaully I'm not aware of that. I haven't been around that long. Can
you reproduce your findings (not all that interested in the exact
scoring, but just general conclusions)?

>You score it the same as any other test - but I'd expect mostly random
>chance results these days, except from some of the 'boutique' amps
>which are either deliberately 'voiced' or plain incompetent.

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

Also, do you think that it's impossible for an amp that's
'deliberately voiced" to sound 'as good" or "better" than the others,
i.e. are most amps pretty much perfect in amplifying signals?

>Having determined that there's no *sonic* difference, you would likely
>go on to choose on power output, facilities, price and appearance.

Realizing of course that power output can create a sonic difference,
of course. I'm assuming that you're assuming this.

[JBorg]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>>>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>> If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
>>>>>>> £1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under
>>>>>>> double-blind conditions, [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
>>>>>> thread at RAO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm sure, [...]
>>>>
>>>> And so you are. If you're sure of what you have proclaimed, then you
>>>> must specify the conditions involved under your double-blind experiment.
>>>>
>>>> For example, will you be using a "blackbox" or QSC device among other
>>>> things ... etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.qscstore.com/noname.html
>>>>
>>> I no longer have such a device, but I'm happy for anyone to bring
>>> along their own.
>>
>> What is your specific procedure when comparing the cables as you listen
>> from one to the other during the test, a quick plug and switch?
>>
>> It's your experiment, could you "walk" me to this part-- in a sentence
>> or two?
>
>
>
> When I was comparing amplifiers, I used a 4-channel attenuator to set
> the gain of both amplifiers to be exactly the same within +/- 0.1dB,
> and I used a 4-pole relay to perform quick switching. The control box
> had 3 positions, A, B and X. X could be connected to either A or B by
> operation of a concealed 3-way switch with centre 'off' position, so
> that every time the switch was changed to begin a new trial, there
> were two clicks.

I thank you for a concise, 3 paragraph explanation. I particularly enjoy
your ability to recognize basic sentence structure, proper use of tense,
and correct subject to verb agreement. Good use of caps too!

But this is about comparing amplifiers, is it not?

> The listener has his own choice of sound source, and has control of
> the box, so that he can refer to A and B as often as he needs before
> deciding the identity of X. When he has decided, he notes down his
> decision on a scoresheet and calls in the test assistant, who has an
> equivalent scoresheet with a randomised set of As and Bs. The
> assistant verifies that this is the completion of trial 5 (or
> whatever), and sets the X switch to the appropriate A or B setting for
> trial 6, and then leaves the room. It's not as perfectly double-blind
> as a computer-controlled ABX box, but it seems to work pretty well.

This, too, is still about amplifiers, is it not?

Good use of parenthesis though, and how about those commas.


> In the absence of an ABX switchbox (and some people claim that they're
> not totally transparent), the assistant will simply change over the
> connections while the listener turns his back, and will then leave the
> room. Under these conditions, it is of course necessary to ensure that
> the amps and/or cable connection points are not visible from the
> listening position. Obviously, it takes a lot longer to do the A to B
> to X changing in this case, so the switchbox is really useful and
> saves wear and tear on the assistant!

Here, you are describing manual operation which, as you admitted, some
participant believe to be not totally transparent, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I commend your concerns about the wear and tear it brings to
your assistant. How about the interruptions, disruptions, and distractions
that it bring to the participant, are these not an important concerns?




>>>> In addition, how would you determine whether your participant positively
>>>> hears sound differences between the unit under test?
>
>>> The benchmark is set at 16 out of 20 correct identifications. That's
>>> necessary to get 95% confidence that the result is not radndom chance.
>>
>> But that's after your experiment when you tally the results under your
>> conditions.
>
> Yes.

Good.

>> How do you determine when one positively hears or not, the sound
>> difference between cables during the test, again, under your conditions?
>
>
> What do you mean by that?

I meant exactly that-- how do you determine when one positively hears or
not, the sound differences "during" your test?


> The listener decides when they are happy that X is either A or B, the
> scoresheet determines whether they were correct.

Are you saying that your experiment will be 100% accurate only when the
listener is "happy" ? What if the listener is tired and "not happy" like,
for example, due to confusion and exhaustion as the test progress. Would
your scoresheet still determine then whether the listener is still accurate
and correct?



> It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
> difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
> audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)


But did the listener able to hear the sound difference before the test?


# 1 If you believe that, due to mental and/or psychological disturbances,
the listener was able to hear sound diferences before the test,
how do you know?



>>>>> and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio.
>>>>
>>>> So?
>
>>> So if the post appears on r.a.o it's because someone else crossposted
>>> the thread at some point.
>
>> Your inanity is showing again. I object to your apparent delusiveness of
>> blaming someone for handing out your foolish agendas at RAO.
>
>
> What the heck are you blathering about? I have no 'foolish agenda', so
> what's your point?


Pls. see question #1


>> Care to comment about newsgroup headers?
>
>
> Care to comment about what is your point (aside from the one on top of
> your head)?


Pls. see question #1


>>>>> I unsubscribed from the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.
>>>>
>>>> And the reasons RAO is in the state as you said it is--is due to
>>>> charlatans such as yourself who unsurprisingly lie to himself
>>>> in order to mislead unsuspecting audiophiles.
>>>
>>> What utter ********!
>>
>> That's not ********. You are attempting to cover your lie with
>> another lie as a distraction by accusing me of quoting you out
>> of context. This is your diverting tactic for failing to response
>> to the question of how were you able to differentiate the
>> differences as I ask below.
>
>
>
> I responded exactly to your question, you are simply trolling.


NO, you did not exactly respond ...


>> Please explain how I quoted you out of context.
>>



.... LOOK here, where is your exact respond explaining how I quoted
you out of context?


So again, you stated:

" If you've done your homework, you already know this - I
still imagine that there are differences. Luckily, I now
*know* that they are not physically present."

So again, I ask:


#2 " If you imagine that there are these differences that exist
and that you are able to differentiate these imaginations
from the physical world, how did you *physically* *know*
and conclude that they were not *physically* present if it
in fact exist, by your own admission, during sighted
listening?"


http://tinyurl.com/oag0


----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> From the original thread: The Truth about DBT vs Reality (RAO)
>>>
>>>> You admitted to have positive results after numerous DBTs,
>>>> yet you stated that:
>>>>
>>>> "... I still imagine that there are differences. Luckily,
>>>> I now *know* that they are not physically present."
>>>>
>>>> How did you differentiate the differences?
>>>
>>> Since you bothered to pick up that quote, you obviously read the rest
>>> of the post, which refers to 'differences' between two amps which are
>>> sonically indistinguishable under controlled conditions, [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>> You will have difficulty covering up your lie here.
>
>
> What 'lie'? WTF are you blathering about?


How about the LIE of you accusing me of quoting you out of context.

BUT YOU SNIP IT. Here's what you accused me of on your previous
post:

"... You are the charlatan here, deliberately quoting out of
context in a pathetic attempt to score a cheap shot."


#3 Why did you snip it, why did you not respond?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Here's what Yustabe said in that thread:
>>
>> " I take it, from reading George's blurb about your experience,
>> that, before the test, you heard differences between the
>> amps, and during the DBT, you heard no differences. What
>> happened after the test was over, and you went back sighted?"
>>
>> To which you directly replied:
>>
>> " If you've done your homework, you already know this - I
>> still imagine that there are differences. Luckily, I now
>> *know* that they are not physically present."
--------------------------------------------------------------------


>> I was not contesting whether you were comparing amps that were
>> sonically indistinguishable.
>
>
> But I *was*, which was the entire point. The point of the above is
> that it's a demonstration of the fatally flawed nature of sighted
> listening.


Look, I am questioning the comment alone you made which you use to
support your arguments against Yustabe [see Q. #2 above]. I am not
querying your belief about the flawed nature of sighted comparison.
I know it's flawed.


>
>>> but which I
>>> still imagine to sound different when I *know* which one is playing.
>>
>> If you're comparing 2 amps that are sonically indistinguishable under
>> controlled conditions yet still imagine to hear sound differences
>> when you *know* which one is playing, wouldn't that means that there's
>> a psychological disturbances occuring between your ears?
>
>
> Of course, *that's the point*. Another popular demonstration of this
> effect is the 'false sighted' test, where the audience believes that
> they are listening to two devices, but in fact they are *not*
> switched. The listeners will still record all the usual audiobabble
> about 'ambience' and 'inner detail' etc etc, even though the physical
> soundfield has definitely not changed.

This is about the flaws of making sighted comparison, and I'm glad we
both agreed it's flawed.

Now pls. answer question #1, #2, #3, and others above.


--

.... ball is on your court.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 22 Sep 2003 17:17:15 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:

>... ball is on your court.

You are a tiresome troll, Middius - but I knew that before.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:59:31 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:46:58 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:31:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:32:20 GMT, (Stewart
>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>>What do you mean by that? The listener decides when they are happy
>>>>that X is either A or B, the scoresheet determines whether they were
>>>>correct. It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
>>>>difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
>>>>audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)
>>>
>>>If you think that science has proved that virtually all amps are the
>>>same (under your normal qualifications) why would you choose one over
>>>the other? And, if you did, how would you score it?
>>
>>The test is there to verify that such is indeed the case for the amps
>>being compared. As you are well aware, not *all* amps came out the
>>same when I compared them, although this was about eight years ago.
>
>Actaully I'm not aware of that. I haven't been around that long. Can
>you reproduce your findings (not all that interested in the exact
>scoring, but just general conclusions)?

The Krell KSA-50mkII, Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
indistinguishable into Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Yamaha AX-570 was
almost identical aside from a tiny amount of treble brightness, while
other amps from Rega, Musical Fidelity and Arcam were sonically
distinguishable for various reasons.

>>You score it the same as any other test - but I'd expect mostly random
>>chance results these days, except from some of the 'boutique' amps
>>which are either deliberately 'voiced' or plain incompetent.
>
>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

>Also, do you think that it's impossible for an amp that's
>'deliberately voiced" to sound 'as good" or "better" than the others,
>i.e. are most amps pretty much perfect in amplifying signals?

I take it as obvious that half a dozen amps which all sound the same,
despite widely varying topologies, are effectively transparent,
whereas one that sounds different is technically inferiopr.

You may of course *like* that sound, typically a single ended valve
amp, and thereby consider it 'better' for your own purposes, but it's
certainly not a perfectly transparent amplifier.

>>Having determined that there's no *sonic* difference, you would likely
>>go on to choose on power output, facilities, price and appearance.
>
>Realizing of course that power output can create a sonic difference,
>of course. I'm assuming that you're assuming this.

The basic qualifier for all DBTs is that the amps are used below
clipping, so no, power output cannot create a sonic difference aside
from a simple incease in SPL.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George M. Middius]

Stewart Pinkerton blithered:

> On 22 Sep 2003 17:17:15 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:
>
> >... ball is on your court.
>
> You are a tiresome troll, Middius - but I knew that before.

Have a few too many drinkies today, Pukey? You can't even read names
properly now. Sad.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> Stewart Pinkerton blithered:
>
>
>>On 22 Sep 2003 17:17:15 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... ball is on your court.
>>
>>You are a tiresome troll, Middius - but I knew that before.
>
>
> Have a few too many drinkies today, Pukey? You can't even read names
> properly now. Sad.
>
>
*HE* IS BACK !

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>The Krell KSA-50mkII, Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
>indistinguishable into Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Yamaha AX-570 was
>almost identical aside from a tiny amount of treble brightness, while
>other amps from Rega, Musical Fidelity and Arcam were sonically
>distinguishable for various reasons.

Could you elaborate?

So, I would assume that these tests indicate that the Yamaha and all
of the others aren't properly designed. Or was there the possibility
of malfunction?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
>>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?
>
>You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
>test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
>point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here? Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place. To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place. If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right? Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks). In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Does this make sense?

[trotsky]

S888Wheel wrote:

> >Does this make sense?
> >
>
>
> It makes complete sense. The argument for DBTs is to eliminate sighted
> bias.


It sounds like Pinkerton bought a Krell because of sighted bias anyway,
so you're point is moot.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> so you're point

Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
> Pinkerton) wrote:

> >>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
> >>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

> >You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
> >test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
> >point in carrying on.

> But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

Hence the PCABX Training Room

>Certainly you can
> test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
> differences in the first place.

Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the larger
differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

> To elaborate, if someone can't tell
> the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
> expressing an opinion in the first place.

That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
tests.

>If they are being willful
> and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
> like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
> that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
> tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
> being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
> for testing, right?

Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced difference
based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility of
the difference.

> Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
> (like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
> audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
> the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

>In other words, you
> either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
> Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.

Always done in half of an ABX comparison.


> Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
> differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
> telling them and see if they pick it up.

Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its augmented
by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too small
for them to hear.

> Does this make sense?

Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
Angeles and back.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>> >>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
>> >>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?
>
>> >You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
>> >test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
>> >point in carrying on.
>
>> But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?
>
>Hence the PCABX Training Room

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You one isn't
*willing* to have the acuity, it should be tested for.

>>Certainly you can
>> test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
>> differences in the first place.
>
>Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the larger
>differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

You still don't understand my point. I'm talking about the possibility
that someone might not *want* to hear differences, even
subconsciously, because of some bias.

>> To elaborate, if someone can't tell
>> the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
>> expressing an opinion in the first place.
>
>That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
>tests.

I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
"sounds" differently.

>>If they are being willful
>> and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
>> like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
>> that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
>> tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
>> being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
>> for testing, right?
>
>Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced difference
>based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.
>
>Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility of
>the difference.

Please speak plainly.

>> Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
>> (like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
>> audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
>> the audiophile note no difference for weeks).
>
>The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
>hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

Tom Nousiane spoke about such a case, and I'm sure that weeks were
involved (it could have been from one wek to the other).

I have to wonder how you would howl (and how you would perform for
that matter) if the shoe were on the other foot.

>>In other words, you
>> either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
>> Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
>
>Always done in half of an ABX comparison.

Please explain.

>> Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
>> differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
>> telling them and see if they pick it up.
>
>Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its augmented
>by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
>themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too small
>for them to hear.

We aren't talking about that. Please don't change the subject. That's
a different issue entirely.

>> Does this make sense?
>
>Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
>Angeles and back.

<shrug>

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
> >> Pinkerton) wrote:
> >
> >> >>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
> >> >>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?
> >
> >> >You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
> >> >test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
> >> >point in carrying on.
> >
> >> But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?
> >
> >Hence the PCABX Training Room
>
> That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You one isn't
> *willing* to have the acuity, it should be tested for.

Next time try posting in English, Weil.

> >>Certainly you can
> >> test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
> >> differences in the first place.

> >Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the
larger
> >differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

> You still don't understand my point. I'm talking about the possibility
> that someone might not *want* to hear differences, even
> subconsciously, because of some bias.

Only in Weil land do audiophiles say to themselves: "Goody-goody gumdrops,
I'm going to fail a listening test".

> >> To elaborate, if someone can't tell
> >> the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
> >> expressing an opinion in the first place.

> >That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of
the
> >tests.

> I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
> "sounds" differently.

If you had only said what you meant the first time, Weil. Presuming of
course that is what you knew, the first time.


> >>If they are being willful
> >> and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
> >> like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
> >> that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
> >> tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
> >> being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
> >> for testing, right?
>
> >Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced
difference
> >based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

> >Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility
of
> >the difference.

> Please speak plainly.

Communication is composed of transmitting information and receiving it.
Sorry to hear that your receiver is broken, Weil.

> >> Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
> >> (like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
> >> audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
> >> the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

> >The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
> >hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

> Tom Nousiane spoke about such a case, and I'm sure that weeks were
> involved (it could have been from one week to the other).

The story was told clearly, and clearly said otherwise.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=JMGO2.36%24ou1.67%40news.flash.net

> I have to wonder how you would howl (and how you would perform for
> that matter) if the shoe were on the other foot.

Weil you wonder only due to your inability to understand plain English.

> >>In other words, you
> >> either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
> >> Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
> >
> >Always done in half of an ABX comparison.

> Please explain.

Half of an ABX test (either AX or BX) is a comparison in which the unknown
and the reference are the same. Half is a comparison in which the unknown
and the reference are different (BX or AX, respectively).

> >> Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
> >> differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
> >> telling them and see if they pick it up.
>
> >Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its
augmented
> >by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
> >themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too
small
> >for them to hear.

> We aren't talking about that.

We usually describes more than one person. Since at least one of us is
talking about exactly that, you are exactly wrong, Weil.

> Please don't change the subject. That's
> a different issue entirely.

Only in your narrow mind, Weil.


> >> Does this make sense?

> >Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
> >Angeles and back.

> <shrug>

Horse taken to water, horse refused to drink for the jillionth time. Not
news!

[dave weil]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:57:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

<snip>
>Horse taken to water, horse refused to drink for the jillionth time. Not
>news!

Typical Arnold stuff.

A total waste of a post.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said, for the second time today:

>Communication is composed of transmitting information and receiving it.
>Sorry to hear that your receiver is broken, Weil.

You spent all week working on a new comeback, and this was all you came up
with, ****head?

Boon

[George M. Middius]

Marc Phillips said to Turd-on-a-Rope:

> >Communication is composed of transmitting information and receiving it.
> >Sorry to hear that your receiver is broken, Weil.
>
> You spent all week working on a new comeback, and this was all you came up
> with, ****head?

You have to admit it's better than the one he rehearsed for his
vacation: "I'm teaching Johnny about computers, officer! Honest!"

[JBorg]

> Stewart "I'm a qualified physicist and an engineer" Pinkerton wrote:
>> JBorg wrote:
>
>
>
>> ... ball is on your court.
>
> You are a tiresome troll, Middius - but I knew that before.



That was a total snip job you made there, this time. What happen to
the rest of the post? Once again, you've proven yourself to be
a flapdoodle that wilt, tilt, and limp. And why are you trolling
fine others instead of replying to the post? Why did you lie by
falsely accusing me of quoting you out of context?

Is this the best you can do? Only cowards do such things. How could
uk.rec.audio tolerate your absurdity?



You said:

> " If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000
> to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
> the most pathological cables. "



Are you still sure about this offer at RAO ?


HELllllllooooooooo ??






JBorg, Jr
Reporting for RAO

[malcolm]

is it over yet?

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:57:28 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>The Krell KSA-50mkII, Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
>>indistinguishable into Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Yamaha AX-570 was
>>almost identical aside from a tiny amount of treble brightness, while
>>other amps from Rega, Musical Fidelity and Arcam were sonically
>>distinguishable for various reasons.
>
>Could you elaborate?

I've done so several times, I can't be bothered any more.

>So, I would assume that these tests indicate that the Yamaha and all
>of the others aren't properly designed. Or was there the possibility
>of malfunction?

The Rega was so harsh that there was certainly a possibity of
malfunction, the MF I believe would have had a falling treble
response, and the Yamaha might well have shown a little excess HF IMD
or switching distortion. As it was part of a buying decision, I wasn't
that interested in *why* the also-rans fell out.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:05:56 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
>>>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?
>>
>>You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
>>test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
>>point in carrying on.
>
>But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

You already have - you can't tell a difference. Hence, for *you*,
there is no difference.

Why would you?

>In other words, you
>either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
>Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
>Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
>differences.

Been there, done that, works every time. Wear your running shoes! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:27:49 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

>>> To elaborate, if someone can't tell
>>> the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
>>> expressing an opinion in the first place.
>>
>>That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
>>tests.
>
>I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
>"sounds" differently.

And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not* sound
differently at normal listening levels................

Of course, *all* amplifiers *measure* differently - but what does that
matter? Naturally, the 'Golden-Eared Subjectivists' will all *claim*
that they are 'night and day', as you have implied above, but it ain't
necessarily so.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 23 Sep 2003 19:10:36 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:

>You said:
>
>> " If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of £1,000
>> to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>> the most pathological cables. "
>
>Are you still sure about this offer at RAO ?

I don't read r.a.o, but the offer stands.

>HELllllllooooooooo ??

Of course, it doesn't help if you're deaf...........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:35:55 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:57:28 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>The Krell KSA-50mkII, Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
>>>indistinguishable into Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Yamaha AX-570 was
>>>almost identical aside from a tiny amount of treble brightness, while
>>>other amps from Rega, Musical Fidelity and Arcam were sonically
>>>distinguishable for various reasons.
>>
>>Could you elaborate?
>
>I've done so several times, I can't be bothered any more.

OK.

I guess I'll just discount your comments at this point.

>>So, I would assume that these tests indicate that the Yamaha and all
>>of the others aren't properly designed. Or was there the possibility
>>of malfunction?
>
>The Rega was so harsh that there was certainly a possibity of
>malfunction, the MF I believe would have had a falling treble
>response, and the Yamaha might well have shown a little excess HF IMD
>or switching distortion. As it was part of a buying decision, I wasn't
>that interested in *why* the also-rans fell out.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:35:57 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:05:56 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
>>>>you supposed to choose one amp or the other?
>>>
>>>You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
>>>test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
>>>point in carrying on.
>>
>>But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?
>
>You already have - you can't tell a difference. Hence, for *you*,
>there is no difference.
>
>Why would you?

I guess you *wouldn't* want to challenge your own personal religion.
But dbts are all about making such judgments univerally applicable.

I guess you're just like the tweakoids - you only want to believe what
you believe.

>>In other words, you
>>either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
>>Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
>>Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
>>differences.
>
>Been there, done that, works every time. Wear your running shoes! :-)

I don't believe you.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:57:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Horse taken to water, horse refused to drink for the jillionth time. Not
> >news!
>
> Typical Arnold stuff.
>
> A total waste of a post.

You are just being evasive, Weil. You're running away!

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Arny said, for the second time today:
>
> >Communication is composed of transmitting information and receiving it.
> >Sorry to hear that your receiver is broken, Weil.
>
> You spent all week working on a new comeback, and this was all you came up
> with, ****head?

I see it stopped you both times, Phillips.

Do try to come back with something sensible in the future, please.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:27:49 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> To elaborate, if someone can't tell
> >>> the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
> >>> expressing an opinion in the first place.
> >>
> >>That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of
the
> >>tests.
> >
> >I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
> >"sounds" differently.
>
> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not* sound
> differently at normal listening levels................

Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.

> Of course, *all* amplifiers *measure* differently - but what does that
> matter? Naturally, the 'Golden-Eared Subjectivists' will all *claim*
> that they are 'night and day', as you have implied above, but it ain't
> necessarily so.

And frankly, Weil has zero track record for spending any reasonable amount
of effort to find out.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not* sound
>> differently at normal listening levels................
>
>Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.

The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not* sound
> >> differently at normal listening levels................
> >
> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
>
> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...

The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.

You lose Weil.

Again.

Try checking your facts next time...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not* sound
>> >> differently at normal listening levels................
>> >
>> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
>>
>> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...
>
>The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.
>
>You lose Weil.
>
>Again.
>
>Try checking your facts next time...

OK, 10 watt tube amp then. whatever *that* was. As far as I know from
the site, it *could* be an SET, so I only "partially" lose.

<chuckle>

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not*
sound
> >> >> differently at normal listening levels................
> >> >
> >> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
> >>
> >> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...
> >
> >The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.
> >
> >You lose Weil.
> >
> >Again.
> >
> >Try checking your facts next time...

> OK, 10 watt tube amp then. whatever *that* was.

Push pull, power tetrodes with loop feedback.

>As far as I know from
> the site, it *could* be an SET, so I only "partially" lose.

You could have asked for more relevant facts if you had the brains and
decency to do so, Weil.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:42:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not*
>sound
>> >> >> differently at normal listening levels................
>> >> >
>> >> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
>> >>
>> >> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...
>> >
>> >The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.
>> >
>> >You lose Weil.
>> >
>> >Again.
>> >
>> >Try checking your facts next time...
>
>> OK, 10 watt tube amp then. whatever *that* was.
>
>Push pull, power tetrodes with loop feedback.

Prove it.

>>As far as I know from
>> the site, it *could* be an SET, so I only "partially" lose.
>
>You could have asked for more relevant facts if you had the brains and
>decency to do so, Weil.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny said, for the second time today:
>>
>> >Communication is composed of transmitting information and receiving it.
>> >Sorry to hear that your receiver is broken, Weil.
>>
>> You spent all week working on a new comeback, and this was all you came up
>> with, ****head?
>
>I see it stopped you both times, Phillips.
>
>Do try to come back with something sensible in the future, please.

What the **** are you talking about, crazy man?

Boon

[JBorg]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
> >> Stewrat Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> " If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
> >> £1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
> >> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
> >> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
> >> the most pathological cables. "
> >
> >
> >
> >Are you still sure about this offer at RAO ?
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't read r.a.o, but the offer stands.


Well you ought to stay off RAO from making a fraudulent, deceptive
offer 'cause I will personally kick your ass every time you do, every
time.


Keep your stupidity at Uk.rec.audio if that's what they want.
You are an English embarrassment, and a coward to boot..


> >HELllllllooooooooo ??
>
> Of course, it doesn't help if you're deaf...........


..... and watch those snip job you delightfully do, Mr. Scam Artist.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:42:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not*
> >sound
> >> >> >> differently at normal listening levels................
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
> >> >>
> >> >> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...
> >> >
> >> >The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.
> >> >
> >> >You lose Weil.

> >> >Again.

> >> >Try checking your facts next time...

> >> OK, 10 watt tube amp then. whatever *that* was.

> >Push pull, power tetrodes with loop feedback.

> Prove it.

Please see http://www.mods.com/heath-hifi/schema.html . I really don't know
which Heath amp it was, but the reference shows that *all* or virtually all
Heath tubed HiFi amps of the day had those features.

> >>As far as I know from
> >> the site, it *could* be an SET, so I only "partially" lose.

> >You could have asked for more relevant facts if you had the brains and
> >decency to do so, Weil.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 24 Sep 2003 19:06:52 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:

>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>> JBorg wrote:
>> >> Stewrat Pinkerton wrote:

>> >> " If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
>> >> £1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>> >> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>> >> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>> >> the most pathological cables. "

>> >Are you still sure about this offer at RAO ?

>> I don't read r.a.o, but the offer stands.
>
>Well you ought to stay off RAO from making a fraudulent, deceptive
>offer 'cause I will personally kick your ass every time you do, every
>time.

Judging by your posts so far, you couldn't find your own ass with both
hands, never mind kick anyone else's. The offer is genuine, has been
on the table for years, and none of you gutless wonders has even
*tried* to collect it.

>Keep your stupidity at Uk.rec.audio if that's what they want.

I do. Some other clown cross-posted this thread to r.a.o. Clearly, you
prefer that brain-dead environment.

>You are an English embarrassment, and a coward to boot..

I'm Scottish, and I'm the one putting his cash where his mouth is,
unlike you..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:54:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:42:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will *not*
>> >sound
>> >> >> >> differently at normal listening levels................
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...
>> >> >
>> >> >The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.
>> >> >
>> >> >You lose Weil.
>
>> >> >Again.
>
>> >> >Try checking your facts next time...
>
>> >> OK, 10 watt tube amp then. whatever *that* was.
>
>> >Push pull, power tetrodes with loop feedback.
>
>> Prove it.
>
>Please see http://www.mods.com/heath-hifi/schema.html . I really don't know
>which Heath amp it was, but the reference shows that *all* or virtually all
>Heath tubed HiFi amps of the day had those features.

Prove that it was a Heath amp. You can't because you don't even know
what model it was. Prove that it wasn't an SET.

>> >>As far as I know from
>> >> the site, it *could* be an SET, so I only "partially" lose.
>
>> >You could have asked for more relevant facts if you had the brains and
>> >decency to do so, Weil.
>
>

[George M. Middius]

Stewart Pinkerton said:

> >Well you ought to stay off RAO from making a fraudulent, deceptive
> >offer 'cause I will personally kick your ass every time you do, every
> >time.
>
> Judging by your posts so far

Did you figure it out yet, Pukey? Do you remember who you're chatting
with now?

[JBorg]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>>> Stewrat Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>> " If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
>>>>> £1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under double-blind
>>>>> conditions, the only proviso being that they measure +/- 0.1dB from
>>>>> 20-20kHz at the speaker terminals. This is trivially easy for all but
>>>>> the most pathological cables. "
>
>>>> Are you still sure about this offer at RAO ?
>
>>> I don't read r.a.o, but the offer stands.
>>
>> Well you ought to stay off RAO from making a fraudulent, deceptive
>> offer 'cause I will personally kick your a** every time you do, every
>> time.
>
>
> Judging by your posts so far, you couldn't find your own ass with both
> hands, never mind kick anyone else's. The offer is genuine, has been
> on the table for years, and none of you gutless wonders has even
> *tried* to collect it.


The offer is genuine? All you're good at is yak like Ferstler. You'll
"snip" your trouser and bury your head in your ass under artillery fire.
Your a bad joke.



NOW for some gut-busting scream:


I SAID:

>> Keep your stupidity at Uk.rec.audio if that's what they want.


STEWART "I'm a qualified physicist and an engineer" PINKERTON replied:


> I do. Some other clown cross-posted this thread to r.a.o.


BWAHahahahah!!! There it is fine gentlemen of English blood!! and other
parts of the Kingdom !! LOL LOL LOL He said it, he said it, hahahah
I do I do I do !!! He is now determine to give you all his willies !

Because it is what you want! Hahahaha!

LOL again!!, and bouncing my a** on the floor this time!! and rolling...
Goofball will be proud of him.


> Clearly, you prefer that brain-dead environment.

No we just detest scammers hahaha lol! We like to spin 'em around,
toss 'em in the air, and, well, send them to other newsgroup.
Hahahah


>> You are an English embarrassment, and a coward to boot..
>
>
> I'm Scottish, and I'm the one putting his cash where his mouth is,
> unlike you..........


....... unlike you, you're a lying scam artist who uses money as a bait
to delude gullible audiophiles just so to satiate your cantankerous,
revolting selfish ego. Hahahahah...

--

You're dismissed.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:54:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:42:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:46:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And I can put up a SET amp and a Denon which I'd bet will
*not*
> >> >sound
> >> >> >> >> differently at normal listening levels................
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Right, but Weil apparently doesn't know that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The ole ABX site didn't seem to think so...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The old ABX site tested exactly zero SETs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You lose Weil.
> >
> >> >> >Again.
> >
> >> >> >Try checking your facts next time...
> >
> >> >> OK, 10 watt tube amp then. whatever *that* was.
> >
> >> >Push pull, power tetrodes with loop feedback.
> >
> >> Prove it.
> >
> >Please see http://www.mods.com/heath-hifi/schema.html . I really don't
know
> >which Heath amp it was, but the reference shows that *all* or virtually
all
> >Heath tubed HiFi amps of the day had those features.

> Prove that it was a Heath amp.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6fhit9%246ba%241%40excalibur.flash.net

"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
reproducers."


> You can't because you don't even know
> what model it was.

I don't have to know what model it was. Ironically, SETs were virtually
unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time. Of course you weren't even aware of
these issues at the time, Weil. One of these days you'll have to learn that
there was a world before your litter was ejected from its mother.

> Prove that it wasn't an SET.

I did, but you're in denial again, Weil.

> >> >>As far as I know from
> >> >> the site, it *could* be an SET, so I only "partially" lose.
> >
> >> >You could have asked for more relevant facts if you had the brains and
> >> >decency to do so, Weil.

Weil bites the dust, again.

Yawn!

[dave weil]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
>several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
>David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
>Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
>the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
>reproducers."

This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

<guffaw!>

[dave weil]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.

Maybe to *your* crew.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:40:05 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
>>several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
>>David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
>>Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
>>the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
>>reproducers."
>
>This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.

Given that the test took place in 1977, anyone who actually *knew*
anything about hi-fi would be aware that only the cheapest and
nastiest available valve amps were single-ended at that time. The
Mullard 10/7 is a classic push-pull design which was co-opted by
Heath.

>BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
>home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?
BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>
>Maybe to *your* crew.

To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
SET amp from before 1980.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George M. Middius]

Stewart Pinkerton said:

> >BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
> >home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?
>
> Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?
> BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
> Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.

I hope you're not seriously telling us that Krooger and a bunch of
other idiots are (or were) capable of designing a meaningful test.
That would make you the king of the idiots, Pukey.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:50 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On , 25 Sep 2003 10:40:05 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
>>>several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
>>>David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
>>>Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
>>>the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
>>>reproducers."
>>
>>This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.
>
>Given that the test took place in 1977, anyone who actually *knew*
>anything about hi-fi would be aware that only the cheapest and
>nastiest available valve amps were single-ended at that time. The
>Mullard 10/7 is a classic push-pull design which was co-opted by
>Heath.

What does have to do with Arnold's "proof" that the unidentified 10
watt amp tested on the ABX site was actually a Heath? Is this the kind
of "science" that you use?

>>BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
>>home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?
>
>Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?

That wouldn't "prove" that an amp was sonically transparent. It would
just show the difference between a poorly built amp and another amp.
It wouldn't "prove" that the other amp was "transparent", just
different.

>BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
>Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.

Tell me, if it *were* a 'classic push-pull design" "properly
constructed", wouldn't it have sounded the SAME as the other amp?
Isn't that what you claim? You say that an SET would sound the same,
right?

Oooops, looks like you blew a fuse there, Stewie.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>
>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>
>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>SET amp from before 1980.

Try looking in Japan.

If you can see that far...

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
> Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>
>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>
>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>SET amp from before 1980.
>
>
> Try looking in Japan.
>
> If you can see that far...

You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> Of course, *all* amplifiers *measure* differently - but what does that
> matter? Naturally, the 'Golden-Eared Subjectivists' will all *claim*
> that they are 'night and day', as you have implied above, but it ain't
> necessarily so.


Right, it ain't necessarily so. But it could be so.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:20:59 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:50 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
>>Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
>
>Tell me, if it *were* a 'classic push-pull design" "properly
>constructed", wouldn't it have sounded the SAME as the other amp?

Possibly, but tube amps tend also to have problems with microphony and
noise. The '62 Corvette is also a 'classic design', but that doesn't
mean that it has decent performance!

>Isn't that what you claim? You say that an SET would sound the same,
>right?
>
>Oooops, looks like you blew a fuse there, Stewie.

typical Vile sophistry. I said that I could put up *a* SET amp that
would sound the same as a SS amp, I did not say that *most* SET amps
could achieve this.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
<lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>
>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>
>> Try looking in Japan.
>>
>> If you can see that far...
>
>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.

Not SETs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:02:27 -0400, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> Of course, *all* amplifiers *measure* differently - but what does that
>> matter? Naturally, the 'Golden-Eared Subjectivists' will all *claim*
>> that they are 'night and day', as you have implied above, but it ain't
>> necessarily so.
>
>
>Right, it ain't necessarily so. But it could be so.

Indeed yes, with similar probability to the Moon being made from green
cheese........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Lionel]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>
>>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>>
>>>
>>>Try looking in Japan.
>>>
>>>If you can see that far...
>>
>>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.
>
>
> Not SETs.

Ooops !

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:02:27 -0400, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Of course, *all* amplifiers *measure* differently - but what does that
> >> matter? Naturally, the 'Golden-Eared Subjectivists' will all *claim*
> >> that they are 'night and day', as you have implied above, but it ain't
> >> necessarily so.
> >
> >
> >Right, it ain't necessarily so. But it could be so.
>
> Indeed yes, with similar probability to the Moon being made from green
> cheese........
> --
>

In your case, with your ears, probably so.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:11 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:20:59 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:50 GMT, (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
>>>Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
>>
>>Tell me, if it *were* a 'classic push-pull design" "properly
>>constructed", wouldn't it have sounded the SAME as the other amp?
>
>Possibly, but tube amps tend also to have problems with microphony and
>noise. The '62 Corvette is also a 'classic design', but that doesn't
>mean that it has decent performance!

Now you're qualifying and you know that this is mere sophistry.

>>Isn't that what you claim? You say that an SET would sound the same,
>>right?
>>
>>Oooops, looks like you blew a fuse there, Stewie.
>
>typical Vile sophistry. I said that I could put up *a* SET amp that
>would sound the same as a SS amp, I did not say that *most* SET amps
>could achieve this.

Fair enough.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
><lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>
>>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>>
>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>
>>> If you can see that far...
>>
>>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.
>
>Not SETs.

Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:00:25 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>
>>>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Try looking in Japan.
>>>>
>>>>If you can see that far...
>>>
>>>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.
>>
>>
>> Not SETs.
>
>Ooops !


Well, I stand corrected. Apparently it was shooting from the hip, not
sarcasm.

[Lionel Chapuis]

dave weil wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:00:25 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>><lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you can see that far...
>>>>
>>>>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not SETs.
>>
>>Ooops !
>
>
>
> Well, I stand corrected. Apparently it was shooting from the hip, not
> sarcasm.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:00:25 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at
>>>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi
>>>>>> fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>
>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>> this time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not SETs.
>>
>> Ooops !
>
>
> Well, I stand corrected. Apparently it was shooting from the hip, not
> sarcasm.


Here we go again with the Weil denial act. He was clearly wrong but it was
only said in jest...

LOL!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:25:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>>> Not SETs.
>>>
>>> Ooops !
>>
>>
>> Well, I stand corrected. Apparently it was shooting from the hip, not
>> sarcasm.
>
>
>Here we go again with the Weil denial act.

No denial.

>He was clearly wrong

Yes, that's exactly what "I stand corrected" meant.

> but it was only said in jest...

Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.

Only *you* could claim that I was in denial for admitting that I was
wrong.

<shrug>

One would think that you'd have better things to do with your time. At
least I have an excuse - this is my time off...

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.

He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
'70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>><lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>wrote:

>>>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>
>>>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>
>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>
>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>
>>>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.
>>
>>Not SETs.
>
>Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?

There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:34:30 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:11 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:20:59 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:50 GMT, (Stewart
>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
>>>>Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
>>>
>>>Tell me, if it *were* a 'classic push-pull design" "properly
>>>constructed", wouldn't it have sounded the SAME as the other amp?
>>
>>Possibly, but tube amps tend also to have problems with microphony and
>>noise. The '62 Corvette is also a 'classic design', but that doesn't
>>mean that it has decent performance!
>
>Now you're qualifying and you know that this is mere sophistry.

Not at all. In the early '60s, the Mullard 10 and 20 watt designs were
just about state of the art for medium power amplifiers, and are
certainly classic designs, but in no way compare with modern
amplifiers, or indeed with their Radford and Leak contemporaries.

While it's *possible* that a Mullard 5/20 would sound the same as a
good modern SS integrated amp such as the Yamaha AX-592 below say 10
watts output, I wouldn't put money on it!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:33 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.
>
>He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
>'70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.

Agreed. They also had a nice preamp in the late 80s. I owned one for a
while. I don't recall the number. It was the last gasp of a decent
company, as far as I know.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:34 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>><lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
>>>>>>SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>
>>>>You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at this time.
>>>
>>>Not SETs.
>>
>>Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?
>
>There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.

No I'm not. The Japanese had them back into the 60s.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:36 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:34:30 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:11 GMT, (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:20:59 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:50 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
>>>>>Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
>>>>
>>>>Tell me, if it *were* a 'classic push-pull design" "properly
>>>>constructed", wouldn't it have sounded the SAME as the other amp?
>>>
>>>Possibly, but tube amps tend also to have problems with microphony and
>>>noise. The '62 Corvette is also a 'classic design', but that doesn't
>>>mean that it has decent performance!
>>
>>Now you're qualifying and you know that this is mere sophistry.
>
>Not at all. In the early '60s, the Mullard 10 and 20 watt designs were
>just about state of the art for medium power amplifiers, and are
>certainly classic designs, but in no way compare with modern
>amplifiers, or indeed with their Radford and Leak contemporaries.
>
>While it's *possible* that a Mullard 5/20 would sound the same as a
>good modern SS integrated amp such as the Yamaha AX-592 below say 10
>watts output, I wouldn't put money on it!

Heck, I totally agree with this. I find tube amps to generally have a
different sound than SS models.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.
>
> He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
> '70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.

Yes, the tip-off is "nice amps".

But seriously, Sansui made some credible tubed amps with fairly conventional
p-p design in the 60s and 70s. I believe I saw some for sale in Germany.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:33 GMT, (Stewart
> Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.
>>
>> He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
>> '70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.
>
> Agreed. They also had a nice preamp in the late 80s. I owned one for a
> while. I don't recall the number. It was the last gasp of a decent
> company, as far as I know.

Some place along the line Sansui stopped being such a decent company. They
disemboweled themselves with a range of receivers that had very a
short-lived, critical, hard-to-replace part.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
>>>>>> > wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at
>>>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi
>>>>>> fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>
>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>> this time.
>>>
>>> Not SETs.
>>
>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?
>
> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.

Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague unsupported claim
or other.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:28:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at
>>>>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi
>>>>>>> fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>>> this time.
>>>>
>>>> Not SETs.
>>>
>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?
>>
>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>
>Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague unsupported claim
>or other.

Your xenophobia is duly noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:28:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at
>>>>>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi
>>>>>>>> fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>>>> this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not SETs.
>>>>
>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?
>>>
>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>>
>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
>> unsupported claim or other.
>
> Your xenophobia is duly noted.

Say what?

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:33 GMT, (Stewart
> Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.
>>
>>He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
>>'70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.
>
>
> Agreed. They also had a nice preamp in the late 80s. I owned one for a
> while. I don't recall the number. It was the last gasp of a decent
> company, as far as I know.

Glad to remember you nice "souvenirs".
My Sansui is still my daily friend, and it feels like a teenager.
;-)

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:55:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:28:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>>>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at
>>>>>>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi
>>>>>>>>> fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>>>>> this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not SETs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it translate?
>>>>
>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>>>
>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
>>> unsupported claim or other.
>>
>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
>
>Say what?

Look it up.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:55:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:28:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
>>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
>>>>>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT,
>>>>>>>>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers
>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly
>>>>>>>>>> 'hi fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>>>>>> this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not SETs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it
>>>>>> translate?
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>>>>
>>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
>>>> unsupported claim or other.
>>>
>>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
>>
>> Say what?
>
> Look it up.

More evasion and deceit.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:50:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly
>>>>>>>>>>> 'hi fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>>>>>>>>> this time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not SETs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it
>>>>>>> translate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>>>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
>>>>> unsupported claim or other.
>>>>
>>>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
>>>
>>> Say what?
>>
>> Look it up.
>
>More evasion and deceit.

I can't hold your hand here. If you don't know what xenophbia means,
just ask.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:50:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'hi fi' SET amp from before 1980.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
> >>>>>>>>> this time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not SETs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it
> >>>>>>> translate?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
> >>>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
> >>>>> unsupported claim or other.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
> >>>
> >>> Say what?
> >>
> >> Look it up.
> >
> >More evasion and deceit.
>
> I can't hold your hand here. If you don't know what xenophbia means,
> just ask.

I don't know what xenophbia means, I doubt anybody does. But xenophbia isn't
the word in question, so this would be another one of your deceptive
attempts to avoid answering a simple question, eh Weil?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:31:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I can't hold your hand here. If you don't know what xenophbia means,
>> just ask.
>
>I don't know what xenophbia means, I doubt anybody does. But xenophbia isn't
>the word in question, so this would be another one of your deceptive
>attempts to avoid answering a simple question, eh Weil?

I see. This is your deceptive way to avoid the question.

Cool.

PS, let me give you a hint, the word is correctly spelled earlier in
the post as is the answer to your snide question.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> PS, let me give you a hint, the word is correctly spelled earlier in
> the post as is the answer to your snide question.

The funny thing about this week is none of Krooger's sockpuppets or
Normal-haters have shown their faces to prop him up. Nothing from
duh-Mikey, The Thing, or Dr. Not. Even Lionella turned on him.

Poor Kroo must feel like the only turd in the septic tank.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>
>>PS, let me give you a hint, the word is correctly spelled earlier in
>>the post as is the answer to your snide question.
>
>
> The funny thing about this week is none of Krooger's sockpuppets or
> Normal-haters have shown their faces to prop him up. Nothing from
> duh-Mikey, The Thing, or Dr. Not. Even Lionella turned on him.
>
> Poor Kroo must feel like the only turd in the septic tank.
>
>
>
Do you mean he is waiting to be eaten by microscopic bugs ?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:55:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:28:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:35:14 -0500, dave weil
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:47:13 GMT, (Stewart
> >>>>>> Pinkerton) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:02:16 +0200, Lionel
> >>>>>>> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> dave weil a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:58 GMT,
> >>>>>>>>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers
> >>>>>>>>>>>> at the time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly
> >>>>>>>>>> 'hi fi' SET amp from before 1980.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
> >>>>>>>> this time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not SETs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it
> >>>>>> translate?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
> >>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
> >>>>
> >>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
> >>>> unsupported claim or other.
> >>>
> >>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
> >>
> >> Say what?
> >
> > Look it up.
>
> More evasion and deceit.
>
>

Prove it!!

Ooops!

More evasion and deceit.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:50:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 'hi fi' SET amp from before 1980.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
> > >>>>>>>>> this time.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Not SETs.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it
> > >>>>>>> translate?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of
course
> > >>>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
> > >>>>> unsupported claim or other.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
> > >>>
> > >>> Say what?
> > >>
> > >> Look it up.
> > >
> > >More evasion and deceit.
> >
> > I can't hold your hand here. If you don't know what xenophbia means,
> > just ask.
>
> I don't know what xenophbia means, I doubt anybody does. But xenophbia
isn't
> the word in question, so this would be another one of your deceptive
> attempts to avoid answering a simple question, eh Weil?
>
>

Fear of strangers or foreigners.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:17:57 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:34 GMT, (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:

>>There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>>still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>
>No I'm not. The Japanese had them back into the 60s.

Examples?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:31:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:50:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe to *your* crew.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 'hi fi' SET amp from before 1980.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Try looking in Japan.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> If you can see that far...
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You are right Dave, Sansui has manufactured good amplifiers at
>> >>>>>>>>> this time.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Not SETs.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Ummmm Stewart, couldn't you read the sarcasm? Didn't it
>> >>>>>>> translate?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> There was no sarcasm, as you belatedly realised. You are of course
>> >>>>>> still wrong about the existence of 'high end' SETs before 1980.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Watch Vile try to wriggle out of this one with some vague
>> >>>>> unsupported claim or other.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your xenophobia is duly noted.
>> >>>
>> >>> Say what?
>> >>
>> >> Look it up.
>> >
>> >More evasion and deceit.
>>
>> I can't hold your hand here. If you don't know what xenophbia means,
>> just ask.
>
>I don't know what xenophbia means, I doubt anybody does.

It's fear of strangers, normally now translated as fear of foreigners.
But Vile still hasn't provided any examples of 'high end' SET amps pre
1980.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George M. Middius]

Stewart Pinkerton said:

> >I don't know what xenophbia means, I doubt anybody does.
>
> It's fear of strangers, normally now translated as fear of foreigners.

As long as you've been observing Krooger, and this is the limit of
your understanding?

[S888Wheel]

>
>I don't know what xenophbia means, I doubt anybody does.

A fear of warrior princesses

[Mike Gilmour]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:33 GMT, (Stewart
> > Pinkerton) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.
> >>
> >> He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
> >> '70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.
> >
> > Agreed. They also had a nice preamp in the late 80s. I owned one for a
> > while. I don't recall the number. It was the last gasp of a decent
> > company, as far as I know.
>
> Some place along the line Sansui stopped being such a decent company. They
> disemboweled themselves with a range of receivers that had very a
> short-lived, critical, hard-to-replace part.
>
>

I wonder what made the change in Sansui from being a decent company? I've
still got a Model 2000 tuner/amp. Can't remember the year I bought it but I
was impressed that it came with a very comprehensive service manual (I've
never yet needed it yet) performs faultlessly even all the original panel
lamps still work. An Ok sounding & well built unit :-)

Mike

[Keith G]

"Mike Gilmour" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:08:33 GMT, (Stewart
> > > Pinkerton) wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:46:51 -0500, dave weil >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yes, I thought that Lionel was kidding when apparently he wasn't.
> > >>
> > >> He was half right, too. Sansui did indeed make some nice amps in the
> > >> '70s, but of course they were push-pull solid state, not SETs.
> > >
> > > Agreed. They also had a nice preamp in the late 80s. I owned one for a
> > > while. I don't recall the number. It was the last gasp of a decent
> > > company, as far as I know.
> >
> > Some place along the line Sansui stopped being such a decent company.
They
> > disemboweled themselves with a range of receivers that had very a
> > short-lived, critical, hard-to-replace part.
> >
> >
>
> I wonder what made the change in Sansui from being a decent company? I've
> still got a Model 2000 tuner/amp. Can't remember the year I bought it but
I
> was impressed that it came with a very comprehensive service manual (I've
> never yet needed it yet) performs faultlessly even all the original panel
> lamps still work. An Ok sounding & well built unit :-)



Ultimately, the Chinese.....

[George M. Middius]

Mike Gilmour said to ****-for-Brains:

> > Some place along the line Sansui stopped being such a decent company.

> I wonder what made the change in Sansui from being a decent company?

The Krooger version is that Sansui suddenly "grew a brain" and decided
to stop "ripping off the public". If you ask Krooger, he'll say
anything other than this simple explanation, and we know what that
means.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Mike Gilmour said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>>> Some place along the line Sansui stopped being such a decent
>>> company.
>
>> I wonder what made the change in Sansui from being a decent company?
>
> The Krooger version is that Sansui suddenly "grew a brain" and decided
> to stop "ripping off the public".

Of course Middius is making this up. If you want to read what I've *really*
said about Sansui, try this retrieval:

http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=sansui&as_uauthors=arny%20krueger

> If you ask Krooger, he'll say anything other than this simple explanation,
and we know what that
> means.

It means that Middius has been caught lying, again. Such a common thing
these days that it hardly merits notice.