QSC amps are junk!

[Robert Morein]

I'm tired of people shilling QSC amps in this newsgroup.
These amps sound awful.
It's ironic that the ABXers would discredit themselves by choosing QSC as
their "poster amp".
If they want a poster amp, surely there are better choices. Parasound's
larger amps have been mentioned as giant killers.
But QSC? NOT.
QSC makes junky, workaday amps for sound reinforcement. Great for rockers
listening to killowatts at 200 meters. Venue amplification is an entirely
different thing from hifi, as anyone who has ever been to a concert knows.

Special amps for "special people."

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.


Real men DIY their amps :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.
>
>
> Real men DIY their amps :-)
>
Some would say tubes are for girlie men :)

[Bret Ludwig]

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.

[[email protected]]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
> which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
> system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
> a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
>
> As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
> thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
> efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
> a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
> channel.
>
When jused with normal speakers at normal levels, they should be more than
adequate and sonically transparent.

[Arny Krueger]

" > wrote in
message
link.net
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and
>> sold purpose, which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a
>> HOW organ and PA integrated system that used three of
>> them in "straight" mode and one other used as a rotating
>> speaker driver. Sounded great. As a hi-fi amp they are
>> probably better than some of the
>> **** sold thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly
>> deficient when used with high efficiency speakers at low
>> volumes. In other words, they sound just lie a Mcintosh
>> MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
>> channel.
> When jused with normal speakers at normal levels, they
> should be more than adequate and sonically transparent.

QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
sighted testing.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
:
: QSC amps are designed to be clean *
: with low impedance
: reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Rudy

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<snip>>

> QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>
> Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
> sighted testing.

The sonic flaws of high power Class B solid state amplifiers operating
at very low power levels are well known. I think Walker at Quad
documented them which led to his "current dumping" work. Those Quad
solid state amps sounded pretty good for their day as solid state
went;I understand modernized ones are excellent by any standard.

But then, QSC does not market their product for domestic use, and
cannot be held liable for any fault from such use. It's the same
principle as putting a 3.8 liter Ford V6 in a homebuilt airplane. If it
quits and puts you into a mountain some night, you cannot sue Ford. And
rightly not. On the other hand you can sue Textron Lycoming, if it is
the fault of negligence, and rightly so, when an IO-540 quits.

This Halloween, I'm going to have a borrowed Leslie that has been
de-amped for playing the Disney Haunted Mansion tracks. I'm going to
drive it with an old solid state McIntosh I have which I use as a bench
amp. Should work great, even though by then Mac had totally abandoned
the pro market.

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
> > QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
> > reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >
> > Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
> > sighted testing.
>
> The sonic flaws of high power Class B solid state amplifiers operating
> at very low power levels are well known. I think Walker at Quad
> documented them which led to his "current dumping" work. Those Quad
> solid state amps sounded pretty good for their day as solid state
> went;I understand modernized ones are excellent by any standard.
>
True indeed. Simple biasing circuits lead to crossover distortion that is
bothersome to many ears.
Solutions: current dumping, precision biasing, Class A at low power levels,
MOSFETs.

If it doesn't bother Arny, he can save money.

[Bret Ludwig]

Robert Morein wrote:
<<snip>>
> If it doesn't bother Arny, he can save money.

It doesn't and he does.

Having inefficient speakers helps him greatly with this, of course, as
does being partially deaf in the first place.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> with low impedance
>> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>
> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>> QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
>> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>>
>> Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy
>> of sighted testing.
>
> The sonic flaws of high power Class B solid state
> amplifiers operating at very low power levels are well
> known.

Good thing that Class B audio amps are so rare.

>I think Walker at Quad documented them which led
> to his "current dumping" work. Those Quad solid state
> amps sounded pretty good for their day as solid state
> went;I understand modernized ones are excellent by any
> standard.

Hmmm.

> But then, QSC does not market their product for domestic
> use,

So what?

> and cannot be held liable for any fault from such
> use.

What fault might that be?

> It's the same principle as putting a 3.8 liter Ford
> V6 in a homebuilt airplane. If it quits and puts you into
> a mountain some night, you cannot sue Ford. And rightly
> not. On the other hand you can sue Textron Lycoming, if
> it is the fault of negligence, and rightly so, when an
> IO-540 quits.

You're lost in the ozone, Bret.

I'll remember all this when my living room starts losing
altitude.

LOL!

> This Halloween, I'm going to have a borrowed Leslie that
> has been de-amped for playing the Disney Haunted Mansion
> tracks. I'm going to drive it with an old solid state
> McIntosh I have which I use as a bench amp. Should work
> great, even though by then Mac had totally abandoned the
> pro market.

Whatever.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> True indeed. Simple biasing circuits lead to crossover
> distortion that is bothersome to many ears.

Spoken by someone who has never done a circuit analysis or
design of a biasing network in his life.


Yawn!

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> <<snip>>
> > If it doesn't bother Arny, he can save money.
>
> It doesn't and he does.
>
> Having inefficient speakers helps him greatly with this, of course, as
> does being partially deaf in the first place.
>
In theory, it does, but the amp has other problems.
The following three amplifiers, which have radically different technology,
sound similarly muddy to me: QSC, Sunfire, and Bryston (old, I haven't heard
new.)
I find that amplifiers that sound revealing to me usually have
specifications indicating bandwidth far beyond the audible range. Since this
cannot in itself be the cause, I speculate that high amplitude transient
reproduction in the audio range is facilitated in some way by amplifiers
that have high bandwidth.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > True indeed. Simple biasing circuits lead to crossover
> > distortion that is bothersome to many ears.
>
> Spoken by someone who has never done a circuit analysis or
> design of a biasing network in his life.
>
>
> Yawn!
>
It is typical of your debating trade tactics that you would assert something
like that without knowing. You're a dirty guy.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> with low impedance
> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >
> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>
> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>
Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting reference
framework they call "truth".

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>>>> with low impedance
>>>> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>>>
>>> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>>> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>>> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>>
>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>>
> Another relative term.

So what?

It's also as old as the hills.

> Apparently, Arny's gang feels free
> to throw in such relative terms whenever they like, in
> that constantly shifting reference framework they call
> "truth".

Where did I say otherwise?

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> with low impedance
>> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >
>> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>>
>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>>
> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in such
> relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting reference
> framework they call "truth".

Does anyone think 1% THD is low distortion for an amp?

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:JMu6f.3539$Ix3.303@dukeread05
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>>>>> with low impedance
>>>>> reactive loads and at either high or low output
>>>>> levels.
>>>>
>>>> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>>>> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>>>> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>>>
>>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>>>
>> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
>> free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
>> like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
>> they call "truth".
>
> Does anyone think 1% THD is low distortion for an amp?

Not at all.

If a QSC amp is producing 1% THD the clipping indicator is
glowing brightly.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> with low impedance
>> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >
>> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>>
>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>>
> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in such
> relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting reference
> framework they call "truth".
>
>
I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> >> with low impedance
> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >> >
> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
> >>
> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
> >>
> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
such
> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
> > framework they call "truth".
> >
> >
> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring
to
> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
> talking about the sound of an audio system?
>
This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers. But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent. By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others. It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers. When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
"preference", or "distinguishable".. "Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.
According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made without
switching quickly between them.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer, are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good science,
as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode of
thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process. "Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> >> with low impedance
>> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >> >
>> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>> >>
>> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>> >>
>> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
> such
>> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
> reference
>> > framework they call "truth".
>> >
>> >
>> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring
> to
>> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
>> talking about the sound of an audio system?
>>
> This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to argue
> that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
> to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
> By
> invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>
Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and low
noise.

> Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
> perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
> ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?

When one amplifier is
> found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
> "preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
> an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
> referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

> According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
> "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
> sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
> without
> switching quickly between them.
>

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
rooms.

> The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have
> an
> absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
> season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
> attend,
> my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not
> challenge
> subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
> symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer, are
> trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
> science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.

> as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode of
> thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
> prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process.

The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

"Clean" is
> not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
> attempts
> to scientifically compare amplifiers.
>
>
It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> >> >> with low impedance
> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
> >> >>
> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
> > such
> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
> > reference
> >> > framework they call "truth".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
> > to
> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
> >>
> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
argue
> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
>
> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
enver
> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
>
> But you owe it
> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
> > By
> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
> >
> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and
low
> noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories, there is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
>
> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
> > perceptions of others.
>
> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
>
> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
>
> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?
>
> When one amplifier is
> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>
> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
>
> "Clean" implies that the listener has
> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.
>
> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard more
> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
>
> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
> > without
> > switching quickly between them.
> >
>
> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
> rooms.
>
> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have
> > an
> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
> > attend,
> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not
> > challenge
> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer,
are
> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
> > science,
>
> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces
and
> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
>
> > as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode
of
> > thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
> > prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process.
>
> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
> assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently inaccurate.
>
> "Clean" is
> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
> > attempts
> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
> >
> >
> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
> challenged.
>
Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
beneficial to your argument.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > link.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> >> >> with low impedance
>> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw
>> >> > in
>> > such
>> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
>> > reference
>> >> > framework they call "truth".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
> referring
>> > to
>> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
>> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
>> >>
>> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
> argue
>> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
>>
>> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
> enver
>> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
>>
>> But you owe it
>> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
>> > consistent.
>> > By
>> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>> >
>> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
>> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and
> low
>> noise.
> Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find the
> truth.
> But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
> undistorted
> sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories, there
> is
> no way that they could.
> Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
> Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
>>
>> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
>> > perceptions of others.
>>
>> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
> Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
>>
>> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
>> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
>>
>> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
> Why contradict yourself by lying?
>>


Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






>> When one amplifier is
>> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
>> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>>
>> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
>> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
>>
>> "Clean" implies that the listener has
>> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
>> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.
>>
>> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard
>> more
>> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
>
> Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether something
> is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
>>
They can remember as good sounding.

>> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
>> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
>> > amplifiers
>> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
>> > without
>> > switching quickly between them.
>> >
Actually it implies the opposite.
>>
>> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
> meaningless
>> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
>> rooms.
>>
>> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not
>> > have
>> > an
>> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have
>> > a
>> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
>> > attend,
>> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
>> > challenge
>> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
>> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer,
> are
>> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
>> > science,
>>
>> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces
> and
>> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
>>
>>
>> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
>> assumptions, that's why they are used.
>
> They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
> proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
> another
> ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
> inaccurate.
>>
You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of circuit, to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

>> "Clean" is
>> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
>> > attempts
>> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
>> >
I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
>> >
>> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
>> challenged.
>>
> Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
> beneficial to your argument.
>
What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the wall
and hoping it sticks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> " > wrote in
> message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>>>>>> with low impedance
>>>>>> reactive loads and at either high or low output
>>>>>> levels.

>>>>> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>>>>> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>>>>> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

>>>> Clean = low noise and distortion.

>>> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
>>> free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
>>> like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
>>> they call "truth".

*Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been
around for at least 50 years that I can remember.

>> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
>> way when referring to the sound of an audio system.

Agreed.

>> What other meaning do you think of when talking about
>> the sound of an audio system?

Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he
hears in his head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)

> This is about self consistency.

What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?

> I understand that you
> are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
> to compare amplifiers.

That would be a big misunderstanding.

> But you owe it to yourself, or
> your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
> By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob,
this can only go downhill.

> Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
> the claimed perceptions of others.

That would be another big misunderstanding.

>It only weakens your own argument.


> You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
> to compare amplifiers.

That would remain a big misunderstanding.

>When one amplifier is found to be
> preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
> are "preference", or "distinguishable"..

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

If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd
probably call it *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little
systematic about the nature of my preferences, I'd probably
express them along the lines of AES standard 22.

> "Clean" implies
> that the listener has an internal reference of
> undistorted sound.

Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass
tests, just to cite one popular and effective
counter-example.

> But, I believe you recently referred
> to a finding that people have very short auditory
> memories.

Just for small differences.

> According to that, a listener could not have an
> internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.

That would be a another big misunderstanding.

> If he could,
> then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
> well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
> without switching quickly between them.

Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only
in small amounts.

However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI
amps, it might get interesting.

> The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,

Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"

> because I do not have an absolute remembered standard of
> what undistorted sound is like.

Didn't we just discuss straight wire bypass type tests?
Where were you, Bob?

> I have a season
> subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
> time I attend, my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

Reality can do that, You should get out more, Bob.

> Nevertheless, I do not challenge subjectivists when they
> use the word "clean", because it is one of the symbols
> they use to organize their perceptions.


> But you, as an ABXer, are trying to do science.

That would be yet another big misunderstanding.

> Personally, I do not
> believe that it is good science, as it has been practiced
> with respect to hifi.

Given all the misapprehensions of it that you have Bob...

> But if that is the mode of thought
> that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all
> of your prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate
> the process.

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

> "Clean" is not a scientific term, and it
> should not be used in the context of attempts to
> scientifically compare amplifiers.

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

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > et...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > link.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw
> >> >> > in
> >> > such
> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
> >> > reference
> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
> > referring
> >> > to
> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of
when
> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
> >> >>
> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
> > argue
> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
> >>
> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
> > enver
> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
> >>
> >> But you owe it
> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
> >> > consistent.
> >> > By
> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
> >> >
> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
never
> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion
and
> > low
> >> noise.
> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find the
> > truth.
> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
> > undistorted
> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
there
> > is
> > no way that they could.
> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
> >>
> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
> >> > perceptions of others.
> >>
> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
> >>
> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
> >>
> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
> >>
>
>
> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> When one amplifier is
> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are
> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
> >>
> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
> >>
> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.
> >>
> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard
> >> more
> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
> >
> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
> >>
> They can remember as good sounding.
>
> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of
what
> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
> >> > amplifiers
> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
> >> > without
> >> > switching quickly between them.
> >> >
> Actually it implies the opposite.
> >>
> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
> > meaningless
> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
> >> rooms.
> >>
> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not
> >> > have
> >> > an
> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
have
> >> > a
> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
> >> > attend,
> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
>
> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have some
> idea of what clean sounds like?
>
> Nevertheless, I do not
> >> > challenge
> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of
the
> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer,
> > are
> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
> >> > science,
> >>
> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
> > and
> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
> >>
> >>
> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
> >
> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
> > another
> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
> > inaccurate.
> >>
> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of circuit,
to
> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
> measurable.
>
> >> "Clean" is
> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
> >> > attempts
> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
> >> >
> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply means
> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
> >> >
> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
> >> challenged.
> >>
> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
> > beneficial to your argument.
> >
> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the wall
> and hoping it sticks.
>
Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > " > wrote in
> > message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >>>>>> with low impedance
> >>>>>> reactive loads and at either high or low output
> >>>>>> levels.
>
> >>>>> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >>>>> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >>>>> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>
> >>>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>
> >>> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
> >>> free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
> >>> like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
> >>> they call "truth".
>
> *Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been
> around for at least 50 years that I can remember.

Age promotes prejudice, and prejudice promotes fraud.
>
> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
> >> way when referring to the sound of an audio system.
>
> Agreed.
That does not mean that the term has meaning.
>
> >> What other meaning do you think of when talking about
> >> the sound of an audio system?
>
> Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he
> hears in his head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)
>
> > This is about self consistency.
>
> What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?
The term is well known. It refers for the need of any cogent argument to be
internally self consistent. As grotesquely inflated your sense of self is,
you should recognize I am not referring to the "self" that is Arny Kreuger.
>
> > I understand that you
> > are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
> > to compare amplifiers.
>
> That would be a big misunderstanding.
Being coy, Arny?
>
> > But you owe it to yourself, or
> > your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
> > By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>
> Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob,
> this can only go downhill.
Your position is already six feet under. I have to use a shovel to find you.
>
> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
> > the claimed perceptions of others.
>
> That would be another big misunderstanding.
Being coy, Arny?
>
> >It only weakens your own argument.
>
>
> > You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
> > to compare amplifiers.
>
> That would remain a big misunderstanding.
Don't be coy, Arny.
Passive-aggressive does not play here.
>
> >When one amplifier is found to be
> > preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
> > are "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>
> ???????????????
>
> If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd
> probably call it *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little
> systematic about the nature of my preferences, I'd probably
> express them along the lines of AES standard 22.
>
> > "Clean" implies
> > that the listener has an internal reference of
> > undistorted sound.
>
> Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass
> tests, just to cite one popular and effective
> counter-example.
>
> > But, I believe you recently referred
> > to a finding that people have very short auditory
> > memories.
>
> Just for small differences.
All these imprecise terms, "small", "clean", etc., are doorways for you to
impose your own arbitrary prejudices on what should be a neutral scientific
process.
>
> > According to that, a listener could not have an
> > internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.
>
> That would be a another big misunderstanding.
>
> > If he could,
> > then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
> > well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
> > without switching quickly between them.
>
> Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only
> in small amounts.
>
> However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI
> amps, it might get interesting.
>
> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,
>
> Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"
>
> > because I do not have an absolute remembered standard of
> > what undistorted sound is like.
>
> Didn't we just discuss straight wire bypass type tests?
> Where were you, Bob?
>
> > I have a season
> > subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
> > time I attend, my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
>
> Reality can do that, You should get out more, Bob.
>
> > Nevertheless, I do not challenge subjectivists when they
> > use the word "clean", because it is one of the symbols
> > they use to organize their perceptions.
>
>
> > But you, as an ABXer, are trying to do science.
>
> That would be yet another big misunderstanding.
No misunderstanding. I didn't say you were successful.
>
> > Personally, I do not
> > believe that it is good science, as it has been practiced
> > with respect to hifi.
>
> Given all the misapprehensions of it that you have Bob...
>
> > But if that is the mode of thought
> > that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all
> > of your prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate
> > the process.
>
> ?????????????
Eh?
>
> > "Clean" is not a scientific term, and it
> > should not be used in the context of attempts to
> > scientifically compare amplifiers.
>
> ????????????????
Eh?

[Mark D]

"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

[Mark D]

"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > et...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > link.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
>> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
>> >> >> > throw
>> >> >> > in
>> >> > such
>> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
>> >> > reference
>> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
>> > referring
>> >> > to
>> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of
> when
>> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
>> >> >>
>> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
>> > argue
>> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
>> >>
>> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
>> > enver
>> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
>> >>
>> >> But you owe it
>> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
>> >> > consistent.
>> >> > By
>> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>> >> >
>> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
> never
>> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion
> and
>> > low
>> >> noise.
>> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find
>> > the
>> > truth.
>> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
>> > undistorted
>> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
> there
>> > is
>> > no way that they could.
>> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
>> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
>> >>
>> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
>> >> > perceptions of others.
>> >>
>> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
>> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
>> >>
>> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
>> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
>> >>
>> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
>> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> When one amplifier is
>> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
> are
>> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>> >>
>> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
>> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
>> >>
>> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
>> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
> recently
>> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.
>> >>
>> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard
>> >> more
>> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
>> >
>> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
> something
>> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
>> >>
>> They can remember as good sounding.
>>
>> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of
> what
>> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
>> >> > amplifiers
>> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
>> >> > without
>> >> > switching quickly between them.
>> >> >
>> Actually it implies the opposite.
>> >>
>> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
>> > meaningless
>> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
> different
>> >> rooms.
>> >>
>> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not
>> >> > have
>> >> > an
>> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
> have
>> >> > a
>> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
>> >> > attend,
>> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
>>
>> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have
>> some
>> idea of what clean sounds like?
>>
>> Nevertheless, I do not
>> >> > challenge
>> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of
> the
>> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
>> >> > ABXer,
>> > are
>> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
>> >> > science,
>> >>
>> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
> differnces
>> > and
>> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
>> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
>> >
>> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
>> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
>> > another
>> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
>> > inaccurate.
>> >>
>> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of circuit,
> to
>> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
>> measurable.
>>
>> >> "Clean" is
>> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
>> >> > attempts
>> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
>> >> >
>> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
>> means
>> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
>> >> >
>> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
>> >> challenged.
>> >>
>> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
>> > beneficial to your argument.
>> >
>> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the wall
>> and hoping it sticks.
>>
> Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.
>
Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an argument.

[[email protected]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> " > wrote in
>> message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>>>>>>> with low impedance
>>>>>>> reactive loads and at either high or low output
>>>>>>> levels.
>
>>>>>> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>>>>>> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>>>>>> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>
>>>>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>
>>>> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
>>>> free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
>>>> like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
>>>> they call "truth".
>
> *Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been around for at
> least 50 years that I can remember.
>
>>> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
>>> way when referring to the sound of an audio system.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> What other meaning do you think of when talking about
>>> the sound of an audio system?
>
> Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he hears in his
> head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)
>
I have to call you on this one Arny, that should Bore Moron.


>> This is about self consistency.
>
> What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?
>
>> I understand that you
>> are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
>> to compare amplifiers.
>
> That would be a big misunderstanding.
>
>> But you owe it to yourself, or
>> your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
>> By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>
> Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob, this can only
> go downhill.
>
>> Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
>> the claimed perceptions of others.
>
> That would be another big misunderstanding.
>
>>It only weakens your own argument.
>
>
>> You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
>> to compare amplifiers.
>
> That would remain a big misunderstanding.
>
>>When one amplifier is found to be
>> preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
>> are "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>
> ???????????????
>
> If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd probably call it
> *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little systematic about the nature of my
> preferences, I'd probably express them along the lines of AES standard 22.
>
>> "Clean" implies
>> that the listener has an internal reference of
>> undistorted sound.
>
> Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass tests, just
> to cite one popular and effective counter-example.
>
>> But, I believe you recently referred
>> to a finding that people have very short auditory
>> memories.
>
> Just for small differences.
>
>> According to that, a listener could not have an
>> internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.
>
> That would be a another big misunderstanding.
>
>> If he could,
>> then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
>> well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
>> without switching quickly between them.
>
> Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only in small
> amounts.
>
> However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI amps, it might
> get interesting.
>
>> The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,
>
> Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"
>
>> because I do not have an absolute remembered standard of
>> what undistorted sound is like.
>
> Didn't we just discuss straight wire bypass type tests? Where were you,
> Bob?
>
>> I have a season
>> subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
>> time I attend, my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
>
> Reality can do that, You should get out more, Bob.
>
>> Nevertheless, I do not challenge subjectivists when they
>> use the word "clean", because it is one of the symbols
>> they use to organize their perceptions.
>
>
>> But you, as an ABXer, are trying to do science.
>
> That would be yet another big misunderstanding.
>
>> Personally, I do not
>> believe that it is good science, as it has been practiced
>> with respect to hifi.
>
> Given all the misapprehensions of it that you have Bob...
>
>> But if that is the mode of thought
>> that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all
>> of your prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate
>> the process.
>
> ?????????????
>
>> "Clean" is not a scientific term, and it
>> should not be used in the context of attempts to
>> scientifically compare amplifiers.
>
> ????????????????
>

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>> > " > wrote in
>> > message
>> > link.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >>>>>> with low impedance
>> >>>>>> reactive loads and at either high or low output
>> >>>>>> levels.
>>
>> >>>>> Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> >>>>> Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> >>>>> that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>>
>> >>>> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>>
>> >>> Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
>> >>> free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
>> >>> like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
>> >>> they call "truth".
>>
>> *Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been
>> around for at least 50 years that I can remember.
>
> Age promotes prejudice, and prejudice promotes fraud.
>>

Thank you for admitting that you are an old fraud.

>> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
>> >> way when referring to the sound of an audio system.
>>
>> Agreed.
> That does not mean that the term has meaning.
>>
That means it has meaning just not to you, because you are a liar and a
fool.

>> >> What other meaning do you think of when talking about
>> >> the sound of an audio system?
>>
>> Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he
>> hears in his head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)
>>
>> > This is about self consistency.
>>
>> What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?
> The term is well known. It refers for the need of any cogent argument to
> be
> internally self consistent. As grotesquely inflated your sense of self is,
> you should recognize I am not referring to the "self" that is Arny
> Kreuger.
>>
>> > I understand that you
>> > are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
>> > to compare amplifiers.
>>
>> That would be a big misunderstanding.
> Being coy, Arny?
>>
He's just calling you on you rlie Bob. Please provide one quote that backs
up the allegation.

>> > But you owe it to yourself, or
>> > your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
>> > By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>>
>> Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob,
>> this can only go downhill.

> Your position is already six feet under. I have to use a shovel to find
> you.
>>
That's just your own bull**** you have to plow through to get to the light.

>> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
>> > the claimed perceptions of others.
>>
>> That would be another big misunderstanding.

> Being coy, Arny?
>>
No, he's just calling you on another lie that you can't provide a quote for.

>> >It only weakens your own argument.
>>
>>
>> > You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
>> > to compare amplifiers.
>>
>> That would remain a big misunderstanding.
> Don't be coy, Arny.
> Passive-aggressive does not play here.
>>

Provide a quote, Bob.

>> >When one amplifier is found to be
>> > preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
>> > are "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>>
>> ???????????????
>>
>> If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd
>> probably call it *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little
>> systematic about the nature of my preferences, I'd probably
>> express them along the lines of AES standard 22.
>>
>> > "Clean" implies
>> > that the listener has an internal reference of
>> > undistorted sound.
>>
>> Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass
>> tests, just to cite one popular and effective
>> counter-example.
>>
>> > But, I believe you recently referred
>> > to a finding that people have very short auditory
>> > memories.
>>
>> Just for small differences.

> All these imprecise terms, "small", "clean", etc., are doorways for you to
> impose your own arbitrary prejudices on what should be a neutral
> scientific
> process.

You are the King of Imprecise. List the times you'vedone any bias
controlled, level matched comparisons.
>>
>> > According to that, a listener could not have an
>> > internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.
>>
>> That would be a another big misunderstanding.
>>
>> > If he could,
>> > then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
>> > well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
>> > without switching quickly between them.
>>
>> Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only
>> in small amounts.
>>
>> However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI
>> amps, it might get interesting.
>>
>> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,
>>
>> Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"
>>

[[email protected]]

"Mark D" > wrote in message
...
"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound,

If the mega watt amp is flat with low distorion and noise over it's
operatiing range, as most are, then it certainly could. SS amps I've seen
measured are usually flat over their oeprating range until they get to the
limit of their max power, tehn they start to go through the roof.

If you had something like the QSC putting out 700 wpc into 8 ohms and you
know you will never need it deliver anything near that for more than a few
milliseconds, it would indeed be quality sound. Certianly better than a 150
WPC amp being driven to clipping frequently, which probably happens more
often than people realize.


but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

In what sense do you mean properly mate?

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

The subjective review portions of SP's equipment reviews are essentially
worthless IMO, since they don't use any sort of quick switching.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs?

I don't hink so, for the reasons I outlined above.

That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

If you can get a mega watt amp for the same price as a lesser powered amp,
that keeps you from running the risk of ever clipping, I think I vote for
the bigger wattage amp every time.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > et...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > link.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
> >> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
> >> >> >> > throw
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> > such
> >> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
> >> >> > reference
> >> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
> >> > referring
> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of
> > when
> >> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying
to
> >> > argue
> >> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I
ahve
> >> > enver
> >> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you owe it
> >> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
> >> >> > consistent.
> >> >> > By
> >> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
> > never
> >> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion
> > and
> >> > low
> >> >> noise.
> >> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find
> >> > the
> >> > truth.
> >> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
> >> > undistorted
> >> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
> > there
> >> > is
> >> > no way that they could.
> >> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
> >> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
claimed
> >> >> > perceptions of others.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
> >> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
> >> >>
> >> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
> >> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
> >> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> When one amplifier is
> >> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
> > are
> >> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
> >> >>
> >> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
> >> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
> >> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
> > recently
> >> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
heard
> >> >> more
> >> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
> >> >
> >> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
> > something
> >> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
> >> >>
> >> They can remember as good sounding.
> >>
> >> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of
> > what
> >> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
> >> >> > amplifiers
> >> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
made
> >> >> > without
> >> >> > switching quickly between them.
> >> >> >
> >> Actually it implies the opposite.
> >> >>
> >> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
> >> > meaningless
> >> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
> > different
> >> >> rooms.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do
not
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > an
> >> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
> > have
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time
I
> >> >> > attend,
> >> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
> >>
> >> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have
> >> some
> >> idea of what clean sounds like?
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, I do not
> >> >> > challenge
> >> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of
> > the
> >> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
> >> >> > ABXer,
> >> > are
> >> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
> >> >> > science,
> >> >>
> >> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
> > differnces
> >> > and
> >> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices
and
> >> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
> >> >
> >> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot
be
> >> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
> >> > another
> >> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
> >> > inaccurate.
> >> >>
> >> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
circuit,
> > to
> >> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
> >> measurable.
> >>
> >> >> "Clean" is
> >> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
> >> >> > attempts
> >> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >
> >> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
> >> means
> >> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
> >> >> challenged.
> >> >>
> >> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is
not
> >> > beneficial to your argument.
> >> >
> >> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the
wall
> >> and hoping it sticks.
> >>
> > Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.
> >
> Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an argument.
>
Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
You are a stooge.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
You are a stooge.

[Robert Morein]

"Mark D" > wrote in message
...
"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much of the finesse in
the reproduction of music is with transients. Certain CD recordings have
enormous dynamic range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails. This produces dynamic
compression within the amp.
Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not be undersized,
since crossover distortion is not a concern.
Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated circuitry than smaller
ones. This can manifest in extended low frequency response even at small
signal conditions.
British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that there are many low power
British amps that seem to work without the compromises I have seen in low
power offerings from many companies.
Bob Morein

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > .net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > et...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > link.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
>> >> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> >> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> >> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
>> >> >> >> > throw
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > such
>> >> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
>> >> >> >> > shifting
>> >> >> > reference
>> >> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
>> >> > referring
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think
>> >> >> >> of
>> > when
>> >> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying
> to
>> >> > argue
>> >> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I
> ahve
>> >> > enver
>> >> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you owe it
>> >> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
>> >> >> > consistent.
>> >> >> > By
>> >> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
>> > never
>> >> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
>> >> >> distortion
>> > and
>> >> > low
>> >> >> noise.
>> >> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find
>> >> > the
>> >> > truth.
>> >> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
>> >> > undistorted
>> >> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
>> > there
>> >> > is
>> >> > no way that they could.
>> >> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
>> >> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
> claimed
>> >> >> > perceptions of others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
>> >> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
>> >> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
>> >> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> When one amplifier is
>> >> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be
>> >> >> > used
>> > are
>> >> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
>> >> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
>> > recently
>> >> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
> memories.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
> heard
>> >> >> more
>> >> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
>> > something
>> >> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
>> >> >>
>> >> They can remember as good sounding.
>> >>
>> >> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory
>> >> >> > of
>> > what
>> >> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
>> >> >> > amplifiers
>> >> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
> made
>> >> >> > without
>> >> >> > switching quickly between them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> Actually it implies the opposite.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
>> >> > meaningless
>> >> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
>> > different
>> >> >> rooms.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do
> not
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
>> > have
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time
> I
>> >> >> > attend,
>> >> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
>> >>
>> >> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have
>> >> some
>> >> idea of what clean sounds like?
>> >>
>> >> Nevertheless, I do not
>> >> >> > challenge
>> >> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one
>> >> >> > of
>> > the
>> >> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
>> >> >> > ABXer,
>> >> > are
>> >> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is
>> >> >> > good
>> >> >> > science,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
>> > differnces
>> >> > and
>> >> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices
> and
>> >> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
>> >> >
>> >> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot
> be
>> >> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
>> >> > another
>> >> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
>> >> > inaccurate.
>> >> >>
>> >> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
> circuit,
>> > to
>> >> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
>> >> measurable.
>> >>
>> >> >> "Clean" is
>> >> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > attempts
>> >> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
>> >> means
>> >> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
>> >> >> challenged.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is
> not
>> >> > beneficial to your argument.
>> >> >
>> >> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the
> wall
>> >> and hoping it sticks.
>> >>
>> > Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.
>> >
>> Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an argument.
>>
> Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.
>
Change your flea collar.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > .net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > et...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > link.net...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> >> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
> >> >> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >> >> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
> >> >> >> >> > throw
> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > such
> >> >> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
> >> >> >> >> > shifting
> >> >> >> > reference
> >> >> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
> >> >> > referring
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> > when
> >> >> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are
trying
> > to
> >> >> > argue
> >> >> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I
> > ahve
> >> >> > enver
> >> >> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But you owe it
> >> >> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
> >> >> >> > consistent.
> >> >> >> > By
> >> >> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used
and
> >> > never
> >> >> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
> >> >> >> distortion
> >> > and
> >> >> > low
> >> >> >> noise.
> >> >> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never
find
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > truth.
> >> >> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
> >> >> > undistorted
> >> >> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory
memories,
> >> > there
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > no way that they could.
> >> >> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
> >> >> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
> > claimed
> >> >> >> > perceptions of others.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never
have.
> >> >> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
> >> >> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
> >> >> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> When one amplifier is
> >> >> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be
> >> >> >> > used
> >> > are
> >> >> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
> >> >> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
> >> > recently
> >> >> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
> > memories.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
> > heard
> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
> >> > something
> >> >> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> They can remember as good sounding.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory
> >> >> >> > of
> >> > what
> >> >> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
> >> >> >> > amplifiers
> >> >> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
> > made
> >> >> >> > without
> >> >> >> > switching quickly between them.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> Actually it implies the opposite.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
> >> >> > meaningless
> >> >> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
> >> > different
> >> >> >> rooms.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do
> > not
> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like.
I
> >> > have
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
time
> > I
> >> >> >> > attend,
> >> >> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not
have
> >> >> some
> >> >> idea of what clean sounds like?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nevertheless, I do not
> >> >> >> > challenge
> >> >> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one
> >> >> >> > of
> >> > the
> >> >> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
> >> >> >> > ABXer,
> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is
> >> >> >> > good
> >> >> >> > science,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
> >> > differnces
> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices
> > and
> >> >> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box
cannot
> > be
> >> >> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence
of
> >> >> > another
> >> >> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
> >> >> > inaccurate.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
> > circuit,
> >> > to
> >> >> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
> >> >> measurable.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Clean" is
> >> >> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > attempts
> >> >> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
> >> >> means
> >> >> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are
so
> >> >> >> challenged.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand"
is
> > not
> >> >> > beneficial to your argument.
> >> >> >
> >> >> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the
> > wall
> >> >> and hoping it sticks.
> >> >>
> >> > Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.
> >> >
> >> Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an
argument.
> >>
> > Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.
> >
> Change your flea collar.
>
Non sequitur reply noted. Thanks for admitting to lying.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > .net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > .net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > et...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > link.net...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > throw
>> >> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > such
>> >> >> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
>> >> >> >> >> > shifting
>> >> >> >> > reference
>> >> >> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way
>> >> >> >> >> when
>> >> >> > referring
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you
>> >> >> >> >> think
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> > when
>> >> >> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are
> trying
>> > to
>> >> >> > argue
>> >> >> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since
>> >> >> >> I
>> > ahve
>> >> >> > enver
>> >> >> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But you owe it
>> >> >> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
>> >> >> >> > consistent.
>> >> >> >> > By
>> >> >> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used
> and
>> >> > never
>> >> >> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
>> >> >> >> distortion
>> >> > and
>> >> >> > low
>> >> >> >> noise.
>> >> >> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never
> find
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > truth.
>> >> >> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
>> >> >> > undistorted
>> >> >> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory
> memories,
>> >> > there
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > no way that they could.
>> >> >> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
>> >> >> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
>> > claimed
>> >> >> >> > perceptions of others.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never
> have.
>> >> >> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
>> >> >> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
>> >> >> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> When one amplifier is
>> >> >> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be
>> >> >> >> > used
>> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
>> >> >> >> about
>> >> >> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
>> >> >> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
>> >> > recently
>> >> >> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
>> > memories.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
>> > heard
>> >> >> >> more
>> >> >> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
>> >> > something
>> >> >> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> They can remember as good sounding.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal
>> >> >> >> > memory
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> > what
>> >> >> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
>> >> >> >> > amplifiers
>> >> >> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
>> > made
>> >> >> >> > without
>> >> >> >> > switching quickly between them.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> Actually it implies the opposite.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
>> >> >> > meaningless
>> >> >> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
>> >> > different
>> >> >> >> rooms.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I
>> >> >> >> > do
>> > not
>> >> >> >> > have
>> >> >> >> > an
>> >> >> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is
>> >> >> >> > like.
> I
>> >> > have
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
> time
>> > I
>> >> >> >> > attend,
>> >> >> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not
> have
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> idea of what clean sounds like?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nevertheless, I do not
>> >> >> >> > challenge
>> >> >> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is
>> >> >> >> > one
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
>> >> >> >> > ABXer,
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is
>> >> >> >> > good
>> >> >> >> > science,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
>> >> > differnces
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many
>> >> >> >> predjudices
>> > and
>> >> >> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box
> cannot
>> > be
>> >> >> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence
> of
>> >> >> > another
>> >> >> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
>> >> >> > inaccurate.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
>> > circuit,
>> >> > to
>> >> >> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
>> >> >> measurable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Clean" is
>> >> >> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the
>> >> >> >> > context
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > attempts
>> >> >> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it
>> >> >> simply
>> >> >> means
>> >> >> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are
> so
>> >> >> >> challenged.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand"
> is
>> > not
>> >> >> > beneficial to your argument.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against
>> >> >> the
>> > wall
>> >> >> and hoping it sticks.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.
>> >> >
>> >> Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an
> argument.
>> >>
>> > Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.
>> >
>> Change your flea collar.
>>
> Non sequitur reply noted. Thanks for admitting to lying.
>
>
Thanks for being so crushingly predictable.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark D" > wrote in message
> ...
> "Bret Said"
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much of the finesse in
> the reproduction of music is with transients. Certain CD recordings have
> enormous dynamic range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails. This produces
> dynamic
> compression within the amp.
> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not be undersized,
> since crossover distortion is not a concern.
> Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated circuitry than smaller
> ones. This can manifest in extended low frequency response even at small
> signal conditions.
> British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that there are many low
> power
> British amps that seem to work without the compromises I have seen in low
> power offerings from many companies.
> Bob Morein
>
So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for an good amp?

[Sander deWaal]

> said:

>So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for an good amp?


Hint: it depends on the output voltage of the amp.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Bret Ludwig]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Mark D" > wrote in message
> ...
> "Bret Said"
<<snip>>


> I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
> statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
> 150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
> essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
> Mark D.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much of the finesse in
> the reproduction of music is with transients. Certain CD recordings have
> enormous dynamic range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails. This produces dynamic
> compression within the amp.
> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not be undersized,
> since crossover distortion is not a concern.
> Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated circuitry than smaller
> ones. This can manifest in extended low frequency response even at small
> signal conditions.
> British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that there are many low power
> British amps that seem to work without the compromises I have seen in low
> power offerings from many companies.

I haven't listened to many solid state Brit amps, but I do have some
limited experience with stock and upgraded Quads and my listening to
these was favorable and more favorable respectively. In general, I
think people tend to prefer British speakers and American amplifiers
rather than the other way around.

But to address the issue, firstly, I haven't listened to the 1 kW
monoblock Mac through any but huge Mac speakers but I can remember well
listening to the 300 or so watt autoformer coupled (there was also a
non-autoformer version) stereo amp through K-horns-late model stock
ones-and being well and truly horrified.

I'm not a huge Klipsch fan (unlike Cal, who listens to nothing else,
albeit substantially modified) but this was a bestial experience. One
aspect of this was the fact that the dealer involved chose to affix a
hidden fixed L-pad inside each speaker so that the meter needles would
respond in a more salesworthy fashion without damaging the building or
deafening the staff. (Never mind the customers, the deafer the better,
I'm sure he figured.) Despite killing the damping factor of the amp the
speakers did sound better that way!

What does this tell us?

So I can't condemn the Stereophile reviewer unheard, but my guess (and
only that) is that the 1 kW Mac is actually biased enough forward that
he was hearing the "residual class A" so to speak. I am sure they are
conducting some miniscule current at quiescent, or at least I think
they would be.

But the bottom line is that if you have an unprocessed audio source,
(and all real world ones are processed by necessity) there is no such
thing as absolutely enough. And generally you lose more than you gain
with huge amps-I'd say if you have a powered subwoofer, if 100 wpc
won't make you happy, I'd look to the speakers first before buying more
amp. A thousand watts a channel in a house is nuts. I think McIntosh is
selling pure "statutory peckerage" and not audio quality at that point.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mark D" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> "Bret Said"
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much
>> of the finesse in the reproduction of music is with
>> transients. Certain CD recordings have enormous dynamic
>> range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
>> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails.
>> This produces dynamic compression within the amp.
>> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not
>> be undersized, since crossover distortion is not a
>> concern. Larger amplifiers tend to have more
>> sophisticated
>> circuitry than smaller ones. This can manifest in
>> extended low frequency response even at small signal
>> conditions. British amplifiers seem to be an exception,
>> in that
>> there are many low power
>> British amps that seem to work without the compromises I
>> have seen in low power offerings from many companies.
>> Bob Morein
>>
> So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for
> an good amp?

If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified yields
a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there can't be a
problem.

In the case of amps that are driven by digital sources, the
maximum slew rate can be calculated from the maximum
peak-peak output voltage of the player, multiplied by the
sample rate.

Figure that 10 volts would be a very high estimate for
peak-peak output voltage of a digital player, and
200,000/sec would be the maximum sample rate. That gives 2
million volts per second, or 2 volts per microsecond.

Pretty modest, eh?

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>>So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for an good amp?
>
>
> Hint: it depends on the output voltage of the amp.
>
> --
>
How is Bob gonna learn anything if you keep giving him the answers?

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "Mark D" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> "Bret Said"
> <<snip>>
>
>
>> I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
>> statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
>> 150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
>> essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
>> Mark D.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much of the finesse in
>> the reproduction of music is with transients. Certain CD recordings have
>> enormous dynamic range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
>> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails. This produces
>> dynamic
>> compression within the amp.
>> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not be undersized,
>> since crossover distortion is not a concern.
>> Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated circuitry than smaller
>> ones. This can manifest in extended low frequency response even at small
>> signal conditions.
>> British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that there are many low
>> power
>> British amps that seem to work without the compromises I have seen in low
>> power offerings from many companies.
>
> I haven't listened to many solid state Brit amps, but I do have some
> limited experience with stock and upgraded Quads and my listening to
> these was favorable and more favorable respectively. In general, I
> think people tend to prefer British speakers and American amplifiers
> rather than the other way around.
>
> But to address the issue, firstly, I haven't listened to the 1 kW
> monoblock Mac through any but huge Mac speakers but I can remember well
> listening to the 300 or so watt autoformer coupled (there was also a
> non-autoformer version) stereo amp through K-horns-late model stock
> ones-and being well and truly horrified.
>
> I'm not a huge Klipsch fan (unlike Cal, who listens to nothing else,
> albeit substantially modified) but this was a bestial experience. One
> aspect of this was the fact that the dealer involved chose to affix a
> hidden fixed L-pad inside each speaker so that the meter needles would
> respond in a more salesworthy fashion without damaging the building or
> deafening the staff. (Never mind the customers, the deafer the better,
> I'm sure he figured.) Despite killing the damping factor of the amp the
> speakers did sound better that way!
>
> What does this tell us?
>
> So I can't condemn the Stereophile reviewer unheard, but my guess (and
> only that) is that the 1 kW Mac is actually biased enough forward that
> he was hearing the "residual class A" so to speak. I am sure they are
> conducting some miniscule current at quiescent, or at least I think
> they would be.
>
> But the bottom line is that if you have an unprocessed audio source,
> (and all real world ones are processed by necessity) there is no such
> thing as absolutely enough. And generally you lose more than you gain
> with huge amps-I'd say if you have a powered subwoofer, if 100 wpc
> won't make you happy, I'd look to the speakers first before buying more
> amp. A thousand watts a channel in a house is nuts. I think McIntosh is
> selling pure "statutory peckerage" and not audio quality at that point.
>
It's prpbably more than anyone would ever need for a normal set of speakers,
but if you could get 500 wpc for less than $400.00, knowing you will never
need all of it, it makes good sense to do it. Transients can and do go that
high for short periods.

Subwoofers are essentially defined by how much power drives them and by how
much air they can move. Without enough power they can't move as much air as
they might be capable. If you've got a subwoofer like Nousaine or some of
the guys at www.cultoftheinfitelybaffled.com(I think that's the site) then
2400 wats may not be enough.

It's not so much about absolute spl as it about tranient response.

The web site for cult of the infinitely baffled is:
http://f20.parsimony.net/forum36475/

These guys are serious about bass.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> nk.net
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mark D" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> "Bret Said"
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much
>>> of the finesse in the reproduction of music is with
>>> transients. Certain CD recordings have enormous dynamic
>>> range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
>>> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails.
>>> This produces dynamic compression within the amp.
>>> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not
>>> be undersized, since crossover distortion is not a
>>> concern. Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated
>>> circuitry than smaller ones. This can manifest in
>>> extended low frequency response even at small signal
>>> conditions. British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that
>>> there are many low power
>>> British amps that seem to work without the compromises I
>>> have seen in low power offerings from many companies.
>>> Bob Morein
>>>
>> So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for
>> an good amp?
>
> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified yields a slew rate
> that is smaller than the amp, there can't be a problem.
>
> In the case of amps that are driven by digital sources, the maximum slew
> rate can be calculated from the maximum peak-peak output voltage of the
> player, multiplied by the sample rate.
>
> Figure that 10 volts would be a very high estimate for peak-peak output
> voltage of a digital player, and 200,000/sec would be the maximum sample
> rate. That gives 2 million volts per second, or 2 volts per microsecond.
>
> Pretty modest, eh?
How would rate 30mV/sec for the PLX 3402?

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> nk.net
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mark D" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> "Bret Said"
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much
>>> of the finesse in the reproduction of music is with
>>> transients. Certain CD recordings have enormous dynamic
>>> range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
>>> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails.
>>> This produces dynamic compression within the amp.
>>> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not
>>> be undersized, since crossover distortion is not a
>>> concern. Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated
>>> circuitry than smaller ones. This can manifest in
>>> extended low frequency response even at small signal
>>> conditions. British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that
>>> there are many low power
>>> British amps that seem to work without the compromises I
>>> have seen in low power offerings from many companies.
>>> Bob Morein
>>>
>> So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for
>> an good amp?
>
> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified yields a slew rate
> that is smaller than the amp, there can't be a problem.
>
> In the case of amps that are driven by digital sources, the maximum slew
> rate can be calculated from the maximum peak-peak output voltage of the
> player, multiplied by the sample rate.
>
> Figure that 10 volts would be a very high estimate for peak-peak output
> voltage of a digital player, and 200,000/sec would be the maximum sample
> rate. That gives 2 million volts per second, or 2 volts per microsecond.
>
> Pretty modest, eh?
Is there any validity to Morein's comment :" While the amplifier may not
audibly clip, the
slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails."

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > .net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > .net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > et...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote in
message
> >> >> >> >> >
link.net...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> QSC amps are designed to be clean *
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> with low impedance
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reactive loads and at either high or low output
levels.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Clean = low noise and distortion.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free
> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> > throw
> >> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> > such
> >> >> >> >> >> > relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
> >> >> >> >> >> > shifting
> >> >> >> >> > reference
> >> >> >> >> >> > framework they call "truth".
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way
> >> >> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> > referring
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you
> >> >> >> >> >> think
> >> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> > when
> >> >> >> >> >> talking about the sound of an audio system?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are
> > trying
> >> > to
> >> >> >> > argue
> >> >> >> >> > that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot,
since
> >> >> >> >> I
> >> > ahve
> >> >> >> > enver
> >> >> >> >> said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> But you owe it
> >> >> >> >> > to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
> >> >> >> >> > consistent.
> >> >> >> >> > By
> >> >> >> >> > invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard
used
> > and
> >> >> > never
> >> >> >> >> doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
> >> >> >> >> distortion
> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > low
> >> >> >> >> noise.
> >> >> >> > Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never
> > find
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > truth.
> >> >> >> > But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember
what
> >> >> >> > undistorted
> >> >> >> > sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory
> > memories,
> >> >> > there
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > no way that they could.
> >> >> >> > Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
> >> >> >> > Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
> >> > claimed
> >> >> >> >> > perceptions of others.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never
> > have.
> >> >> >> > Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
> >> >> >> >> > ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
> >> >> >> > Why contradict yourself by lying?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> When one amplifier is
> >> >> >> >> > found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can
be
> >> >> >> >> > used
> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> > "preference", or "distinguishable"..
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
> >> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >> >> difference, without which prefernce is moot.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Clean" implies that the listener has
> >> >> >> >> > an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe
you
> >> >> > recently
> >> >> >> >> > referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
> >> > memories.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound
you
> >> > heard
> >> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> >> than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know
whether
> >> >> > something
> >> >> >> > is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They can remember as good sounding.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > According to that, a listener could not have an internal
> >> >> >> >> > memory
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> > what
> >> >> >> >> > "clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember
what
> >> >> >> >> > amplifiers
> >> >> >> >> > sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could
be
> >> > made
> >> >> >> >> > without
> >> >> >> >> > switching quickly between them.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Actually it implies the opposite.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind
of
> >> >> >> > meaningless
> >> >> >> >> when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
> >> >> > different
> >> >> >> >> rooms.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I
> >> >> >> >> > do
> >> > not
> >> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> >> > absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is
> >> >> >> >> > like.
> > I
> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> > season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
> > time
> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> > attend,
> >> >> >> >> > my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not
> > have
> >> >> >> some
> >> >> >> idea of what clean sounds like?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nevertheless, I do not
> >> >> >> >> > challenge
> >> >> >> >> > subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is
> >> >> >> >> > one
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as
an
> >> >> >> >> > ABXer,
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> > trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it
is
> >> >> >> >> > good
> >> >> >> >> > science,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
> >> >> > differnces
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many
> >> >> >> >> predjudices
> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> assumptions, that's why they are used.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box
> > cannot
> >> > be
> >> >> >> > proven to be transparent, because it would require the
existence
> > of
> >> >> >> > another
> >> >> >> > ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is
inherently
> >> >> >> > inaccurate.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
> >> > circuit,
> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also
be
> >> >> >> measurable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Clean" is
> >> >> >> >> > not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the
> >> >> >> >> > context
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > attempts
> >> >> >> >> > to scientifically compare amplifiers.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it
> >> >> >> simply
> >> >> >> means
> >> >> >> it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you
are
> > so
> >> >> >> >> challenged.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to
understand"
> > is
> >> > not
> >> >> >> > beneficial to your argument.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against
> >> >> >> the
> >> > wall
> >> >> >> and hoping it sticks.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an
> > argument.
> >> >>
> >> > Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.
> >> >
> >> Change your flea collar.
> >>
> > Non sequitur reply noted. Thanks for admitting to lying.
> >
> >
> Thanks for being so crushingly predictable.
>
Thanks for admitting you are a dishonest person.

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
> >So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for an good amp?
>
>
> Hint: it depends on the output voltage of the amp.
>
Answer to Sander:
1. Damping factor measured under small signal conditions is not in itself
significant, but in the absence of published specs on the same measured
under large signal conditions, there may be a correlation with the number if
it were measured under large signal conditions.. In my experience, it seems
to. Amplifiers with extremely high small signal damping factors provide a
different character to the bass than those with a smaller damping factor.

2. Slew rate is not measured in a standard way. Therefore, it is impossible
to directly compare amps based on this number. Some slew rates are measured
small signal; others halfway to rail; and occasionally, all the way to the
rail. I find that amplifiers with an extremley high slewing rate have a more
detailed presentation, not because they reproduce ultrasonics, but because
they are still faster when, near the rails, they inevitably slow down.

These specifications provide a glimpse of the continued failure of the
industry to provide specs that can accurately predict how an amplifier will
sound.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> nk.net
[snip]
>
> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified yields
> a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there can't be a
> problem.
>
Arny, you don't understand basic systems theory. The above is not correct.
All amplifiers have a low pass filter function. For a minimum phase low pass
filter, there is a specific inverse relationship between filter cutoff and
slewing rate. When a source feeds an amplifier, the effect is to put the
source through a low pass filter. The slower the slewing rate, the more
rapid the rolloff of the filter.

The specific point of your statement that is incorrect is to portray
acceptable slewing rate as some kind of threshold. It is not. Any slewing
rate which is not finite has the effect of a lowpass filter applied to the
signal.

I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully unaware of the
limitations of your knowledge. You function quite well within your knowledge
base, but tend to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a clue
would not help you.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:31:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully unaware of the
>limitations of your knowledge. You function quite well within your knowledge
>base, but tend to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a clue
>would not help you.

You don't mean I've been upbraided for my ignorance by someone who's
ignorant?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully unaware of the
> >limitations of your knowledge. You function quite well within your knowledge
> >base, but tend to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a clue
> >would not help you.
>
> You don't mean I've been upbraided for my ignorance by someone who's
> ignorant?

Arnii is also one of the world's leading authorities on sin. Just ask him. ;-)

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:11:59 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully unaware of the
>> >limitations of your knowledge. You function quite well within your knowledge
>> >base, but tend to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a clue
>> >would not help you.
>>
>> You don't mean I've been upbraided for my ignorance by someone who's
>> ignorant?
>
>Arnii is also one of the world's leading authorities on sin. Just ask him. ;-)

I can't. I'm in Arny's blackest book right now. I don't know my
electronics, and what's worse I'm weak on my concepts too. There's
nothing for it but to take a make-up exam. :-(

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:31:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully unaware of the
> >limitations of your knowledge. You function quite well within your
knowledge
> >base, but tend to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a
clue
> >would not help you.
>
> You don't mean I've been upbraided for my ignorance by someone who's
> ignorant?

Yes.
Wait for his reply. It will be your opportunity to use "Thanks for
admitting..." on him.

[Robert Morein]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
Should read
> The specific point of your statement that is incorrect is to portray
> acceptable slewing rate as some kind of threshold. It is not. Any slewing
> rate which IS FINITE has the effect of a lowpass filter applied to the
> signal.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:31:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>[snip]
>>
>> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified yields
>> a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there can't be a
>> problem.
>>
>Arny, you don't understand basic systems theory. The above is not correct.
>All amplifiers have a low pass filter function. For a minimum phase low pass
>filter, there is a specific inverse relationship between filter cutoff and
>slewing rate. When a source feeds an amplifier, the effect is to put the
>source through a low pass filter. The slower the slewing rate, the more
>rapid the rolloff of the filter.
>
>The specific point of your statement that is incorrect is to portray
>acceptable slewing rate as some kind of threshold. It is not. Any slewing
>rate which is not finite has the effect of a lowpass filter applied to the
>signal.
>
>I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully unaware of the
>limitations of your knowledge. You function quite well within your knowledge
>base, but tend to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a clue
>would not help you.
>

Total ********!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
.net

> Is there any validity to Morein's comment :" While the
> amplifier may not audibly clip, the
> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails."

It's true that an amp's max slew rate may change over the
output cycle. However, since the liklihood of the amp being
driven into slew limiting in actual use is either very low
or non-existent, its a moot point.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
. net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mark D" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> "Bret Said"
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much
>>>> of the finesse in the reproduction of music is with
>>>> transients. Certain CD recordings have enormous dynamic
>>>> range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
>>>> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails.
>>>> This produces dynamic compression within the amp.
>>>> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need
>>>> not be undersized, since crossover distortion is not a
>>>> concern. Larger amplifiers tend to have more
>>>> sophisticated circuitry than smaller ones. This can
>>>> manifest in extended low frequency response even at
>>>> small signal
>>>> conditions. British amplifiers seem to be an
>>>> exception, in that there are many low power
>>>> British amps that seem to work without the compromises
>>>> I have seen in low power offerings from many companies.
>>>> Bob Morein
>>>>
>>> So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for
>>> an good amp?
>>
>> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified
>> yields a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there
>> can't be a problem. In the case of amps that are driven
>> by digital sources,
>> the maximum slew rate can be calculated from the maximum
>> peak-peak output voltage of the player, multiplied by
>> the sample rate. Figure that 10 volts would be a very
>> high estimate for
>> peak-peak output voltage of a digital player, and
>> 200,000/sec would be the maximum sample rate. That gives
>> 2 million volts per second, or 2 volts per microsecond.
>> Pretty modest, eh?

> How would rate 30mV/sec for the PLX 3402?

More than plenty.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net
> [snip]

>> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified
>> yields a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there
>> can't be a problem.

> Arny, you don't understand basic systems theory.

Typical of your lies, Morein.

>The above is not correct. All amplifiers have a low pass
> filter function. For a minimum phase low pass filter,
> there is a specific inverse relationship between filter
> cutoff and slewing rate.

Inverse?

As in a low cutoff frequency gives a high slewing rate?

LOL!

> When a source feeds an
> amplifier, the effect is to put the source through a low
> pass filter.

Some amps have a passive low pass filter right at their
input terminals.

> The slower the slewing rate, the more rapid
> the rolloff of the filter.

Wrong, the relationship between slewing and bandpass is
mostly dependent on the filter's cutoff frequency, less so
on its cutoff rate.

But, this discussion is misplaced, as filter theory is about
linear systems, and slewing is a nonlinear effect.

> The specific point of your statement that is incorrect is
> to portray acceptable slewing rate as some kind of
> threshold. It is not. Any slewing rate which is not
> finite has the effect of a lowpass filter applied to the
> signal.

Now Morein's confusion between slewing, which is a nonlinear
effect and filter theory, which is about linear systems
comes to the forefront.

> I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully
> unaware of the limitations of your knowledge.

If irony killed.

>You function quite well within your knowledge base, but
>tend
> to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a
> clue would not help you.

If irony killed.

Very sad.

<shaking head>

[Arny Krueger]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
message
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:31:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified
>>> yields a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there
>>> can't be a problem.
>>>
>> Arny, you don't understand basic systems theory. The
>> above is not correct. All amplifiers have a low pass
>> filter function. For a minimum phase low pass filter,
>> there is a specific inverse relationship between filter
>> cutoff and slewing rate. When a source feeds an
>> amplifier, the effect is to put the source through a low
>> pass filter. The slower the slewing rate, the more rapid
>> the rolloff of the filter.
>>
>> The specific point of your statement that is incorrect
>> is to portray acceptable slewing rate as some kind of
>> threshold. It is not. Any slewing rate which is not
>> finite has the effect of a lowpass filter applied to the
>> signal.
>>
>> I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully
>> unaware of the limitations of your knowledge. You
>> function quite well within your knowledge base, but tend
>> to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a
>> clue would not help you.

> Total ********!

Ain't it sad? :-(

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> . net
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark D" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> "Bret Said"
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much
>>>>> of the finesse in the reproduction of music is with
>>>>> transients. Certain CD recordings have enormous dynamic
>>>>> range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
>>>>> slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails.
>>>>> This produces dynamic compression within the amp.
>>>>> Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need
>>>>> not be undersized, since crossover distortion is not a
>>>>> concern. Larger amplifiers tend to have more
>>>>> sophisticated circuitry than smaller ones. This can manifest in
>>>>> extended low frequency response even at small signal
>>>>> conditions. British amplifiers seem to be an
>>>>> exception, in that there are many low power
>>>>> British amps that seem to work without the compromises
>>>>> I have seen in low power offerings from many companies.
>>>>> Bob Morein
>>>>>
>>>> So what do you consider to be an adequate slew rate for
>>>> an good amp?
>>>
>>> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified
>>> yields a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there
>>> can't be a problem. In the case of amps that are driven by digital
>>> sources,
>>> the maximum slew rate can be calculated from the maximum
>>> peak-peak output voltage of the player, multiplied by
>>> the sample rate. Figure that 10 volts would be a very high estimate for
>>> peak-peak output voltage of a digital player, and
>>> 200,000/sec would be the maximum sample rate. That gives
>>> 2 million volts per second, or 2 volts per microsecond. Pretty modest,
>>> eh?
>
>> How would rate 30mV/sec for the PLX 3402?
>
> More than plenty.
Good, since that the figure the factory gave me.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> <shaking head>
>

<hearing rattle>

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:13:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>message
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:31:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> If the maximum possible input signal, when amplified
>>>> yields a slew rate that is smaller than the amp, there
>>>> can't be a problem.
>>>>
>>> Arny, you don't understand basic systems theory. The
>>> above is not correct. All amplifiers have a low pass
>>> filter function. For a minimum phase low pass filter,
>>> there is a specific inverse relationship between filter
>>> cutoff and slewing rate. When a source feeds an
>>> amplifier, the effect is to put the source through a low
>>> pass filter. The slower the slewing rate, the more rapid
>>> the rolloff of the filter.
>>>
>>> The specific point of your statement that is incorrect
>>> is to portray acceptable slewing rate as some kind of
>>> threshold. It is not. Any slewing rate which is not
>>> finite has the effect of a lowpass filter applied to the
>>> signal.
>>>
>>> I have pointed out in the past that you seem blissfully
>>> unaware of the limitations of your knowledge. You
>>> function quite well within your knowledge base, but tend
>>> to step into the abyss of ignorance. I'm afraid buying a
>>> clue would not help you.
>
>> Total ********!
>
>Ain't it sad? :-(

I think he must be hoping that if he says quiet then nobody will
notice.

I bet it even made JA cringe..

Rarely does one so find so much dinosaur **** in one place. I'm
beginning to think Micky was right about oil, after all.