Re: Stereophile still under Randi's radar [Archive]

Arny Krueger

October 24th 05, 10:19 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Chevdo wrote:
>> John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile
>> when he allows the publication of articles which claim
>> that magic stones and tice clocks work.
>
> When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's
> coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its
> advertising and has
> had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the
> Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a
> high-end true believer, the other a skeptic.

Given the low standards demonstrated by Stereophile when it
comes to audio skepticism...

> Both reported similar impressions, which I admit I found
> surprising.

(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions to a
non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a skeptic.

(2) A true skeptic does not believe in anything but
skepticism, and he should be in doubt about that.

(3) A true skeptic will not affirm anything, he'll just
report his momentary inability to find any definate reason
to say that its all in error.

> You can find the entirety of Stereophile's
> coverage of these products in the magazine's free on-line
> archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..

FWIW...

paul packer

October 25th 05, 07:43 AM

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions to a
>non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing exists?
Should not then both, having similar senses, report similar results,
skeptic or otherwise? Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or
non-skeptics are intrinsically liars?

Margaret von B.

October 25th 05, 12:35 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> wrote:
>> Chevdo wrote:
>> > John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
>> > he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
>> > stones and tice clocks work.
>>
>> When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
>> the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
>> had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
>> Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
>> believer, the other a skeptic.
>
> At the risk of being repititous... I read both reviews and still can't
> tell... who was the skeptic?
>

So what else is new?

Arny Krueger

October 25th 05, 01:29 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
>> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
>> skeptic.
>
> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
> exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
full.

>Should not then both, having similar senses,
> report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

One word: nope.

>Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or non-skeptics
>are
> intrinsically liars?

No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
what their impressions fo the world are.

October 25th 05, 05:29 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Chevdo wrote:
>> John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
>> he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
>> stones and tice clocks work.
>
> When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
> the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
> had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
> Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
> believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
> which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
> Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
> on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..
>
>> That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion.
>
> Nope, it is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.
>
>> It's also known as fraud.
>
You allowed to be printed, priase for a device for which you have
(allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of, but did not do so.
The fact that it's efficacy was never verified is at the very least stupid
and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil, not that that's
anything new.

George Middius

October 25th 05, 06:42 PM

The Bug Eater pleads for protection from the big, bad Snake Oil Establishment.

>> Following Stereophile's coverage of
>> the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
>> had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
>> Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
>> believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
>> which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
>> Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
>> on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..
>> [This] is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.

>You allowed to be printed,[sic] priase[sic] for a device for which you have
>(allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of[sic], but did not do so.
>The fact that it's[sic] efficacy was never verified is at the very least
>stupid and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil,[sic] not that
>that's anything new.

Mickey, your ranting raises more than a few questions about your mental
competency. On the one hand, you claim these devices are "snake oil" (an
American idiom that means "worthless or fraudulent goods"). On the other hand,
you bleat about Stereophile not telling you they are "snake oil". Just one
question for you before you go back to banging your head on the sidewalk: If you
already know what you know, why do you need Stereophile to tell you anyway?

..
..
..
..

October 25th 05, 07:48 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> The Bug Eater pleads for protection from the big, bad Snake Oil
> Establishment.
>
>>> Following Stereophile's coverage of
>>> the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
>>> had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
>>> Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
>>> believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
>>> which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
>>> Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
>>> on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..
>>> [This] is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.
>
>>You allowed to be printed,[sic] priase[sic] for a device for which you
>>have
>>(allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of[sic], but did not do
>>so.
>>The fact that it's[sic] efficacy was never verified is at the very least
>>stupid and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil,[sic] not that
>>that's anything new.
>
> Mickey, your ranting raises more than a few questions about your mental
> competency. On the one hand, you claim these devices are "snake oil" (an
> American idiom that means "worthless or fraudulent goods"). On the other
> hand,
> you bleat about Stereophile not telling you they are "snake oil". Just one
> question for you before you go back to banging your head on the sidewalk:
> If you
> already know what you know, why do you need Stereophile to tell you
> anyway?
>
>
> .
As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to audiophiles.
Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti stone
might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people who
think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 08:07 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
> >> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
> >> skeptic.
> >
> > Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
> > exists?
>
> OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:
>
> Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
> affected by his world view, just like everything a
> non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>
> A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
> can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.
>
> A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
> impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
> water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
> full.
>
Arny, you are such a paradox.
The above is a very sophisticated worldview.
But it appears to me that you except yourself from it.
You appear to your adversaries on this group to be a true believer.
I anticipate your reply would be, "these are opinions you get to have."
If that is so, then my reply to you is, somewhere in the process of getting
these opinions, you picked up the mental baggage of a true believer.
This is a shame. With your apparent grasp of the subtleties, much more is
open to you.

Arny Krueger

October 25th 05, 09:15 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
>>>> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
>>>> skeptic.
>>>
>>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
>>> exists?
>>
>> OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
>> you:
>>
>> Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
>> is affected by his world view, just like everything a
>> non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>>
>> A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
>> can't possibly have the identically same impressions of
>> it.
>>
>> A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
>> impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a
>> glass of water and has the impression that the glass
>> appears to be full.
>>
> Arny, you are such a paradox.
> The above is a very sophisticated worldview.

Really? I think it's pretty simple.

> But it appears to me that you except yourself from it.

Hey Robert all sorts of things seem to appear to you that
don't actually exist.

> You appear to your adversaries on this group to be a
> true believer.

Believer in what?

> I anticipate your reply would be, "these are opinions you
> get to have."

I was thinking more along the lines of "You get to be
wrong". ;-)

> If that is so, then my reply to you is, somewhere in the
> process of getting these opinions, you picked up the
> mental baggage of a true believer.

Speaks to your inability to relate to people as being
cohorts, Robert.

> This is a shame. With your apparent grasp of the
> subtleties, much more is open to you.

Much more than what?

But thanks for perceiving that I may actually know something
of value, Robert. I guess. :-(

Pooh Bear

October 26th 05, 02:38 AM

wrote:

> As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to audiophiles.
> Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti stone
> might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people who
> think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.

Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for SS amps
are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of choosing one
over another based on that parameter.

Graham

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 04:35 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
> > As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to
audiophiles.
> > Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti
stone
> > might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people
who
> > think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.
>
> Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for SS
amps
> are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of
choosing one
> over another based on that parameter.
>
> Graham
>
For small signal conditions, yes.
But have you experienced the condition where one amplifier which is rated
nearly flat to 20 Hz provides noticeably inferior bass to another with
similar specs? The reason is that damping factor is not reported for large
signals. IMHO, this is one of the major shortcomings in the quantitative
analysis of amplifier performance.

paul packer

October 26th 05, 05:56 AM

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
>>> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
>>> skeptic.
>>
>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
>> exists?
>
>OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:
>
>Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
>affected by his world view, just like everything a
>non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate reality.
A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a doubting
outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it, is nevertheless
prepared to admit that truth and value. Now either you're saying that
a skeptic is one who is unable to see any truth or value in anything
due to his blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed of
skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which is it?

>
>A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
>can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.

They can if that's what there.

>A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
>impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
>water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
>full.

But they're both saying the same thing. The only difference is in the
interpretation.

>>Should not then both, having similar senses,
>> report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?
>
>One word: nope.

That's one word alright.

>>Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or non-skeptics
>>are
>> intrinsically liars?
>
>No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
>what their impressions fo the world are.

But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict reality. If
a stone is there in front of you, that's a reality and a fact. What
you're saying is that the fact of being a skeptic fatally colours your
impression of anything. If that's so, it says little for the creed of
skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool of science.

October 26th 05, 07:59 AM

Arny Krueger

October 26th 05, 02:14 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Pooh Bear" >
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly
>>> helpful to audiophiles. Believe it or not there are
>>> people who might actually think a Shakti stone might
>>> acutally do something for their stereo, just like there
>>> are people who think that damping factor is an
>>> important specification for amplifiers.
>>
>> Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical
>> numbers quoted for SS amps are so high as to be beyond
>> worrying about from the perspective of choosing one over
>> another based on that parameter.

> For small signal conditions, yes.

For large signal conditions, yes as well.

> But have you experienced the condition where one
> amplifier which is rated nearly flat to 20 Hz provides
> noticeably inferior bass to another with similar specs?

Obviously you haven't reliably experienced *anything*
relevant to your claims, Robert. A lot of your strange
perceptions seem to be related to the observable fact that
you hate doing listening tests where relevant variables are
maintained as stable as is reasonbly possible. For evidence
of your hatred for controlling relevant variables during amp
tests, anybody can see all your ranting and raving here re:
ABX.

ABX is just about basic experimental controls.

In addition Robert, I seriously doubt you are controlling
other relevant parameters, momentarily putting bias controls
aside. Things like level matching and checking frequency
response with real-world loads. If you were actually
monitoring these parameters, your posts would loose their
profound aroma of ignorance of real-world facts.

> The reason is that damping factor is not reported for
> large signals.

Don't know about that, but every time I've measured amp
source impedance at its output terminals with large signals,
nothing changes appreciably from the small signal numbers.

But Robert you're playing expert here. Why haven't you
delved into any of this stuff yourself? You say you're so
much smarter and wiser than I am - why do I have so much
practical experience with this relatively speaking, and you
demonstrate none?

Robert, is it that you are locked up some place where you
can't get your hands on sharp objects like meter probes?
Meter probes and all the stuff that goes with them are
readily availble for reasonable prices. Why aren't you more
familiar with their use in an audio context?

> IMHO, this is one of the major
> shortcomings in the quantitative analysis of amplifier
> performance.

Only in your mind, Robert. For an amp's source impedance to
its load to change appreciably, it would have to be
appreciably nonlinear. Until you clip 'em, SS amps are
nothing if not linear at low frequencies where you started
ranting about in this post.

Arny Krueger

October 26th 05, 02:17 PM

> wrote in message
k.net
> "Pooh Bear" >
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly
>>> helpful to audiophiles. Believe it or not there are
>>> people who might actually think a Shakti stone
>>> might acutally do something for their stereo, just like
>>> there are people who
>>> think that damping factor is an important specification
>>> for amplifiers.

>> Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical
>> numbers quoted for SS amps
>> are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the
>> perspective of choosing one
>> over another based on that parameter.

> Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Well Graham actually knows this stuff pretty well, but he
seems to be kinda locked up in ancient terminology, that as
Dick Pierce says relate to parameters that are better
expressed in other terms.

Everbody should forget damping factor which is a joint
property of loads and amps, and just talk about amplifier
source impedance to its load, which is purely a property of
the amp.

If you know something about the load, its easy math to turn
source impedance numbers into damping factors.

Arny Krueger

October 26th 05, 03:20 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
>>>> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
>>>> skeptic.
>>>
>>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
>>> exists?
>>
>> OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
>> you:
>>
>> Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
>> is affected by his world view, just like everything a
>> non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>
> Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate
> reality.

Whatever that means.

> A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a
> doubting outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it,
> is nevertheless prepared to admit that truth and value.

Whatever that means.

> Now either you're saying that a skeptic is one who is
> unable to see any truth or value in anything due to his
> blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
> but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed
> of skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which
> is it?

Not at all.

>> A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
>> can't possibly have the identically same impressions of
>> it.

> They can if that's what there.

Not at all.

>> A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
>> impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a
>> glass of water and has the impression that the glass
>> appears to be full.

> But they're both saying the same thing.

Not at all.

> The only difference is in the interpretation.

That, too.

>>> Should not then both, having similar senses,
>>> report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

>> One word: nope.

> That's one word alright.

Thanks for agreeing.

>>> Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or
>>> non-skeptics are
>>> intrinsically liars?

>> No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
>> what their impressions of the world are.

> But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict
> reality.

Sure they can. For example, people get things wrong all the
time. Errors and omissions, right?

>If a stone is there in front of you, that's a
> reality and a fact.

What is reality and what is a fact?

If you see a stone in front of you, in fact all you see is
one side of the stone. Who says that the other side has to
be there?

>What you're saying is that the fact
> of being a skeptic fatally colours your impression of
> anything.

Skepticism is not always fatal. Many skeptics lead long and
happy lives.

>f that's so, it says little for the creed of
> skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool
> of science.

There's that imagination thing again, Paul.

I'm getting this feeling that the very concept of viewpoints
and their potentially profound effects is way over your
head, Paul.

Maybe John Atkinson's dumbed-down epistemology is ate limit
of your mental capabilities, Paul. Maybe even that is beyond
your ability to fathom.

Scary thoughts!

paul packer

October 26th 05, 03:57 PM

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
>>>>> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
>>>>> skeptic.
>>>>
>>>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
>>>> exists?
>>>
>>> OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
>>> you:
>>>
>>> Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
>>> is affected by his world view, just like everything a
>>> non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>>
>> Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate
>> reality.
>
>Whatever that means.

This is a worry, Arnie. Clearly for you skepticism is some kind of
religion which colours one's world view and prevents one seeing
reality. Is James Randi aware of this? I personally have little time
for "professional" skeptics, those who join skeptics societies and so
on, but I would certainly encourage healthy skepticism on any subject.
Or at least, I did, but now, having read your definition of a skeptic,
I'm beginning to wonder if I should shepherd the innocent away out of
danger. Obviously skepticism in your world is something to be avoided
at all costs.

>> A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a
>> doubting outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it,
>> is nevertheless prepared to admit that truth and value.
>
>Whatever that means.

This is a mystery for you? Read it again and try harder this time.

(snip endless getting nowhere)

>>> No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
>>> what their impressions of the world are.
>
>> But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict
>> reality.
>
>Sure they can. For example, people get things wrong all the
>time. Errors and omissions, right?

That's not denying reality. Reality just is. That's misinterpreting
reality.

>>What you're saying is that the fact
>> of being a skeptic fatally colours your impression of
>> anything.
>
>Skepticism is not always fatal. Many skeptics lead long and
>happy lives.

You forgot the smiley, Arnie. But it's nice to see you cracking a joke
occasionally, even a very weak one.

>>f that's so, it says little for the creed of
>> skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool
>> of science.
>
>There's that imagination thing again, Paul.

You mean a little healthy skepticism is not a handy tool for the
scientist?
>
>I'm getting this feeling that the very concept of viewpoints
>and their potentially profound effects is way over your
>head, Paul.

Not at all, Arnie. I understand the effect your viewpoints have on you
very well.

>Maybe John Atkinson's dumbed-down epistemology is ate limit
>of your mental capabilities, Paul. Maybe even that is beyond
>your ability to fathom.

From what I've read of Mr. Atkinson on this NG, I would not be ashamed
to be intellectually compared to him even by you, sarcastically. But
don't concern yourself about my ability to fathom things, Arnie. I do
alright.

October 26th 05, 10:06 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
>>>> to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
>>>> skeptic.
>>>
>>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
>>> exists?
>>
>>OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:
>>
>>Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
>>affected by his world view, just like everything a
>>non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>
> Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate reality.

Probably a safe bet.

> A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a doubting
> outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it, is nevertheless
> prepared to admit that truth and value.

That sounds more like an Objectivist or a Realist.

Now either you're saying that
> a skeptic is one who is unable to see any truth or value in anything
> due to his blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
> but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed of
> skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which is it?
>

Nope, a skeptic is one who doubts everything, including reality.

>>
>>A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
>>can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.
>
> They can if that's what there.
>
>>A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
>>impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
>>water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
>>full.
>
> But they're both saying the same thing. The only difference is in the
> interpretation.
>
>>>Should not then both, having similar senses,
>>> report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?
>>
>>One word: nope.
>
> That's one word alright.
>
>>>Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or non-skeptics
>>>are
>>> intrinsically liars?
>>
>>No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
>>what their impressions fo the world are.
>
> But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict reality.

Yes they can, people deny reality all the time. There's a school of
thought, that says we can never know anything for sure due tot the fact that
all knowledge is filtered through our senses which are imperfect.

If
> a stone is there in front of you, that's a reality and a fact.

That doens't mean it couldn't be a hallucination.

What
> you're saying is that the fact of being a skeptic fatally colours your
> impression of anything. If that's so, it says little for the creed of
> skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool of science.
>
Questioning the status quo to see if it agrees with reality is a bit
different than flat out skepicism. The sceintific method encourages the
former.

Arny Krueger

October 26th 05, 10:27 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar
>>>>>> impressions to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously
>>>>>> not really a skeptic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are
>>>>> observing exists?
>>>>
>>>> OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
>>>> you:
>>>>
>>>> Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
>>>> is affected by his world view, just like everything a
>>>> non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>>>
>>> Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate
>>> reality.
>>
>> Whatever that means.
>
> This is a worry, Arnie. Clearly for you skepticism is
> some kind of religion which colours one's world view and
> prevents one seeing reality.

Clearly you're on the attack again, Paul.

> Is James Randi aware of this? I personally have little
> time for "professional"
> skeptics, those who join skeptics societies and so on,
> but I would certainly encourage healthy skepticism on any
> subject.

...in anybody but yourself it seems.

> Or at least, I did, but now, having read your
> definition of a skeptic, I'm beginning to wonder if I
> should shepherd the innocent away out of danger.

I'm happy to leave the salvation of the world to you, Paul.

> Obviously skepticism in your world is something to be
> avoided at all costs.

Huh?

>>> A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a
>>> doubting outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it,
>>> is nevertheless prepared to admit that truth and value.

>> Whatever that means.

> This is a mystery for you? Read it again and try harder
> this time.

Mentioning "skeptic" and "truth" in the same sentence can be
dangerous to your credibility, Paul.

> (snip endless getting nowhere)

Whatever. Paul must do this to create the impression that
he's in control...

>>>> No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do
>>>> with what their impressions of the world are.
>>
>>> But ultimately their impressions can't deny or
>>> contradict reality.
>>
>> Sure they can. For example, people get things wrong all
>> the time. Errors and omissions, right?

> That's not denying reality.

You also said "contradict", didn't you Paul?

> Reality just is.

Here's a news flash: Exactly what reality is depends on your
viewpoint, Paul.

> That's misinterpreting reality.

Whose reality would that be?

>>> What you're saying is that the fact
>>> of being a skeptic fatally colours your impression of
>>> anything.

>> Skepticism is not always fatal. Many skeptics lead long
>> and happy lives.

> You forgot the smiley, Arnie. But it's nice to see you
> cracking a joke occasionally, even a very weak one.

Nice job of not taking responsibility for what you said
Paul, part deux.

>>> f that's so, it says little for the creed of
>>> skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool
>>> of science.
>>
>> There's that imagination thing again, Paul.

> You mean a little healthy skepticism is not a handy tool
> for the scientist?

Paul, you were talking about imagination.

Nice job of not taking responsibility for what you said
Paul, part tres.

>> I'm getting this feeling that the very concept of
>> viewpoints and their potentially profound effects is way
>> over your head, Paul.
>
> Not at all, Arnie. I understand the effect your
> viewpoints have on you very well.

That one went right over your pointy little ego-centric
head, didn't it Paul?

>> Maybe John Atkinson's dumbed-down epistemology is ate
>> limit of your mental capabilities, Paul. Maybe even that
>> is beyond your ability to fathom.

> From what I've read of Mr. Atkinson on this NG, I would
> not be ashamed to be intellectually compared to him even
> by you, sarcastically.

It takes a certain lack of IQ to be impressed by his
prattle.

> But don't concern yourself about
> my ability to fathom things, Arnie. I do alright.

So you seem to think, Paul.

Iain M Churches

October 27th 05, 06:26 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Everbody should forget damping factor which is a joint property of loads
> and amps, and just talk about amplifier source impedance to its load,
> which is purely a property of the amp.

Agreed Zo is a figure that is pertinent to the amplifier, but
DF is important because the amplifier and its cables, plus
the speaker which it is driving should be regarded as an
entity when judging system performance.

> If you know something about the load, its easy math to turn source
> impedance numbers into damping factors.

Arny. Have you come across the writings of the legendary
British audio engineer Norman Crowhurst ? (He has published
several books and countless articles)

He states that the conventional method for DF measurement
Speaker impedance/Amp output impedance (Zspkr/Zo)
is incorrect,as the DC resistance of the voice coil should also
be taken into consideration, since it is a limiting factor in DF.

Using a value of 8R for the impedance of the speaker and
6R for the DC resistance, and an output impedance of 0.5R
we get:

Zls/(Zo+Rvc) = 8/(0.5+6) = 1.23.
Calculation by the traditional method gives: 16

Food for thought
Iain

Pooh Bear

October 27th 05, 06:35 AM

wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to audiophiles.
> >> Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti
> >> stone
> >> might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people
> >> who
> >> think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.
> >
> > Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for SS
> > amps
> > are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of
> > choosing one
> > over another based on that parameter.
> >
> Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Well, actaully I'm right but then the fact that I'm a pro-audio designer might
explain why I know a bit more about this than you.

So what do you think it is that makes damping factor *unimportant* ?

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 27th 05, 06:41 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message

> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
> *unimportant* ?

It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that it is
an odd way to express the underlying physical parameter
which is amplifier source impedance.

For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier parameter,
its a parameter that is also strongly dependent on load
impedance. Unfortunately the underlying physical parameter
remains pretty much unchanged, regardless of load impedance.

With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor is
generally so high that it gets swamped by all sorts of
things including voice coil DCR and speaker wire DCR.

It means a lot more with tubed amps.

paul packer

October 27th 05, 07:37 AM

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:27:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar
>>>>>>> impressions to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously
>>>>>>> not really a skeptic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are
>>>>>> observing exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
>>>>> you:
>>>>>
>>>>> Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
>>>>> is affected by his world view, just like everything a
>>>>> non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate
>>>> reality.
>>>
>>> Whatever that means.
>>
>> This is a worry, Arnie. Clearly for you skepticism is
>> some kind of religion which colours one's world view and
>> prevents one seeing reality.
>
>Clearly you're on the attack again, Paul.

Now who's being defensive?

>> Is James Randi aware of this? I personally have little
>> time for "professional"
>> skeptics, those who join skeptics societies and so on,
>> but I would certainly encourage healthy skepticism on any
>> subject.
>
>..in anybody but yourself it seems.

No evidence for this remark, therefore it's a gratuitous insult.

>> Or at least, I did, but now, having read your
>> definition of a skeptic, I'm beginning to wonder if I
>> should shepherd the innocent away out of danger.
>
>I'm happy to leave the salvation of the world to you, Paul.

Irrelevant remark made for effect.

>> Obviously skepticism in your world is something to be
>> avoided at all costs.
>
>Huh?

Apologies. Poorly expressed on my part. What I meant was, your version
of skepticism is something I would avoid at all costs.

>>>> A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a
>>>> doubting outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it,
>>>> is nevertheless prepared to admit that truth and value.
>
>>> Whatever that means.
>
>> This is a mystery for you? Read it again and try harder
>> this time.
>
>Mentioning "skeptic" and "truth" in the same sentence can be
>dangerous to your credibility, Paul.

The fact is, I adopt a skeptical attitude whenever I look at any
issue. Anyone who doesn't in these days of so much charlatanism and
deception is a fool. But why should my skeptical attitude ultimately
prevent me from accepting the truth or value of something? Unless one
has turned it into some kind of creed or religion that causes a skewed
vision of things, skepticism should merely be a defence against
gullibility and a spur to investigation. In other words, I regard
skepticism as a tool to get at the truth, not a contradiction of it.

>> (snip endless getting nowhere)
>
>Whatever. Paul must do this to create the impression that
>he's in control...

Another irrelevant remark made for effect.

>>>>> No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do
>>>>> with what their impressions of the world are.
>>>
>>>> But ultimately their impressions can't deny or
>>>> contradict reality.
>>>
>>> Sure they can. For example, people get things wrong all
>>> the time. Errors and omissions, right?
>
>> That's not denying reality.
>
>You also said "contradict", didn't you Paul?
>
>> Reality just is.
>
>Here's a news flash: Exactly what reality is depends on your
>viewpoint, Paul.

Not really, Arnie. You see different things at different times,
depending on your mental state/level of consciousness. But that
doesn't in any way change what is actually there. However you may
percieve it, the thing itself is a constant. Two people may perceive
something ten different ways, but the reality of the thing remains as
before--beyond the vagaries of perception and untouched by your
particular perception, which in fact has only to do with yourself.

>> That's misinterpreting reality.
>
>Whose reality would that be?

The ultimate one.

>>>> What you're saying is that the fact
>>>> of being a skeptic fatally colours your impression of
>>>> anything.
>
>>> Skepticism is not always fatal. Many skeptics lead long
>>> and happy lives.
>
>> You forgot the smiley, Arnie. But it's nice to see you
>> cracking a joke occasionally, even a very weak one.
>
>Nice job of not taking responsibility for what you said
>Paul, part deux.

Whatever that means

>>>> f that's so, it says little for the creed of
>>>> skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool
>>>> of science.
>>>
>>> There's that imagination thing again, Paul.

>> You mean a little healthy skepticism is not a handy tool
>> for the scientist?
>
>Paul, you were talking about imagination.
>
>Nice job of not taking responsibility for what you said
>Paul, part tres.

Whatever that means

>>> I'm getting this feeling that the very concept of
>>> viewpoints and their potentially profound effects is way
>>> over your head, Paul.
>>
>> Not at all, Arnie. I understand the effect your
>> viewpoints have on you very well.
>
>That one went right over your pointy little ego-centric
>head, didn't it Paul?

Can't handle an arrow fired straight back at you without adopting a
spurious air of superiority, Arnie?

>>> Maybe John Atkinson's dumbed-down epistemology is ate
>>> limit of your mental capabilities, Paul. Maybe even that
>>> is beyond your ability to fathom.
>
>> From what I've read of Mr. Atkinson on this NG, I would
>> not be ashamed to be intellectually compared to him even
>> by you, sarcastically.
>
>It takes a certain lack of IQ to be impressed by his
>prattle.

You know, you're sounding a little like Robert. Best be careful there.
:-)

Iain M Churches

October 27th 05, 12:57 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly
>>>> helpful to audiophiles. Believe it or not there are
>>>> people who might actually think a Shakti stone might
>>>> acutally do something for their stereo, just like there
>>>> are people who think that damping factor is an
>>>> important specification for amplifiers.
>>>
>>> Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical
>>> numbers quoted for SS amps are so high as to be beyond
>>> worrying about from the perspective of choosing one over
>>> another based on that parameter.
>
>> For small signal conditions, yes.
>
> For large signal conditions, yes as well.
>
>> But have you experienced the condition where one
>> amplifier which is rated nearly flat to 20 Hz provides
>> noticeably inferior bass to another with similar specs?
>
> Obviously you haven't reliably experienced *anything* relevant to your
> claims, Robert. A lot of your strange perceptions seem to be related to
> the observable fact that you hate doing listening tests where relevant
> variables are maintained as stable as is reasonbly possible. For evidence
> of your hatred for controlling relevant variables during amp tests,
> anybody can see all your ranting and raving here re: ABX.
>
> ABX is just about basic experimental controls.
>
> In addition Robert, I seriously doubt you are controlling other relevant
> parameters, momentarily putting bias controls aside. Things like level
> matching and checking frequency response with real-world loads. If you
> were actually monitoring these parameters, your posts would loose their
> profound aroma of ignorance of real-world facts.
>
>> The reason is that damping factor is not reported for
>> large signals.
>
> Don't know about that, but every time I've measured amp source impedance
> at its output terminals with large signals, nothing changes appreciably
> from the small signal numbers.

Hi Arny. This DF business is something that interests me in
trying top find out why amplifiers that have similar FR and
PBW perform differently into a less-than benign load.

I made up a resistive box of 4R and 12R in series, with a switch
across the 12R to short it out. I then measured the voltages
across R1 and R2 (calling them V1 and V2)

Then using the formula: (V1-V2) / ((V2/16) - (V1/4))
I calculated the output impedance Zo of the amplifiers
in which I was interested. From this, using 8 / Zo, I
could calculate the DF.

I am told that various companies measure Zo at 400Hz
700Hz or 1kHz. I got very similar figures at all these frequencies.
I also found that there was no variation with power either
which confirms what you have stated.

Iain

Arny Krueger

October 27th 05, 01:01 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:27:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:

>> Mentioning "skeptic" and "truth" in the same sentence
>> can be dangerous to your credibility, Paul.

> The fact is, I adopt a skeptical attitude whenever I look
> at any issue. Anyone who doesn't in these days of so much
> charlatanism and deception is a fool. But why should my
> skeptical attitude ultimately prevent me from accepting
> the truth or value of something? Unless one has turned it
> into some kind of creed or religion that causes a skewed
> vision of things, skepticism should merely be a defence
> against gullibility and a spur to investigation. In other
> words, I regard skepticism as a tool to get at the truth,
> not a contradiction of it.

OK Paul, so your skepticism has this gigantic blind spot
when it comes to audio.

>>> Reality just is.
>>
>> Here's a news flash: Exactly what reality is depends on
>> your viewpoint, Paul.

> Not really, Arnie. You see different things at different
> times, depending on your mental state/level of
> consciousness. But that doesn't in any way change what is
> actually there.

I never said it did.

> However you may percieve it, the thing
> itself is a constant.

Unless it is varying, which almost everything is.

> Two people may perceive something
> ten different ways, but the reality of the thing remains
> as before--beyond the vagaries of perception and
> untouched by your particular perception, which in fact
> has only to do with yourself.

Paul, you never studied modern physics, I take it.

>>> That's misinterpreting reality.
>>
>> Whose reality would that be?
>
> The ultimate one.

Are there others?

Arny Krueger

October 27th 05, 01:11 PM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message

> Hi Arny. This DF business is something that interests me
> in trying top find out why amplifiers that have similar FR
> and PBW perform differently into a less-than benign load.

> I made up a resistive box of 4R and 12R in series, with a
> switch across the 12R to short it out. I then measured
> the voltages across R1 and R2 (calling them V1 and V2)

> Then using the formula: (V1-V2) / ((V2/16) - (V1/4))
> I calculated the output impedance Zo of the amplifiers
> in which I was interested. From this, using 8 / Zo, I
> could calculate the DF.

That's one way to do it. Pretty classic and of course very
good as far as it goes.

> I am told that various companies measure Zo at 400Hz
> 700Hz or 1kHz.

That's typical. Those frequencies aren't far apart for an
amplifier test. If you want to see Zo vary, go to the
frequency response extremes.

>I got very similar figures at all these
> frequencies. I also found that there was no variation
> with power either which confirms what you have stated.

Thanks for the confirmation, as your methodology is classic.

Here are examples of some of my Zo measurements:

http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/zout.gif

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BSTleft-z.gif

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BST-left-ph.gif

The methodology I use is dynamic. I can change the operating
conditions and the plot data on my PC screen in real time. I
can test Zo using loudspeaker and loudspeaker-like loads. I
can use actual recordings of music to drive the test rig.
I've collected a lot of informal data about how Zo varies
under different operating conditions. For good amps, it
doesn't.

October 27th 05, 07:28 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to
>> >> audiophiles.
>> >> Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti
>> >> stone
>> >> might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are
>> >> people
>> >> who
>> >> think that damping factor is an important specification for
>> >> amplifiers.
>> >
>> > Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for
>> > SS
>> > amps
>> > are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of
>> > choosing one
>> > over another based on that parameter.
>> >
>> Wrong, but thanks for playing.
>
> Well, actaully I'm right but then the fact that I'm a pro-audio designer
> might
> explain why I know a bit more about this than you.
>

How about this then, some sort of damping factor is a requirement for an
amp, but as a determining factor it is of no particular importance. As I
said elsewhere it could be as low as 1 or as high as 500 and it doesn't make
a big difference.

> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor *unimportant* ?
>
>
>
>
Follow the link I gave for Dick Pierce's paper on the subject. Or just do a
Google search for Dick Pierce and Damping factor.

October 27th 05, 07:29 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> in message
>
>> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
>> *unimportant* ?
>
> It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that it is an odd way to
> express the underlying physical parameter which is amplifier source
> impedance.
>
> For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier parameter, its a parameter
> that is also strongly dependent on load impedance. Unfortunately the
> underlying physical parameter remains pretty much unchanged, regardless of
> load impedance.
>
> With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor is generally so high
> that it gets swamped by all sorts of things including voice coil DCR and
> speaker wire DCR.
>
> It means a lot more with tubed amps.
>
>
Which is probably why it was ever expressed as a value at all. When they
came up with it, tubes were dominant, then came good more accurate, less
volatile, transistors. :-)

Pooh Bear

October 28th 05, 11:22 AM

wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> > in message
> >
> >> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
> >> *unimportant* ?
> >
> > It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that it is an odd way to
> > express the underlying physical parameter which is amplifier source
> > impedance.
> >
> > For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier parameter, its a parameter
> > that is also strongly dependent on load impedance. Unfortunately the
> > underlying physical parameter remains pretty much unchanged, regardless of
> > load impedance.
> >
> > With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor is generally so high
> > that it gets swamped by all sorts of things including voice coil DCR and
> > speaker wire DCR.
> >
> > It means a lot more with tubed amps.
>
>
> Which is probably why it was ever expressed as a value at all. When they
> came up with it, tubes were dominant, then came good more accurate, less
> volatile, transistors. :-)

Whether tube ( valve ) or transistor - damping factor ( a reciprocal measure of
amplifer output impedance ) is important.

A low damping factor means that an amplifier cannot adequately control speaker
resonances or the back emf caused by transients.

From the aspect of resonances - a 'poor' i.e. low damping factor will tend to
result in a possibly initially flattering bass rise around speaker resonance
with typical ported enclosures. This is well documented. The resulting bass is
also poorly controlled though leading to 'farty bass'.

The inability of an amplifier to control the back emf from the motor coil will
also result in signal degradation.

Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and speaker affects damping
factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in isolation* is misleading
perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in series with the
amplifier output impedance. This is why speaker wiring should be of the largest
practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.

Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to have better damping
factor than say ~ 15-20. Translating to an output impedance of maybe a few
hundred milliohms to an ohm. Likely the cable resistance made little difference.

Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low as in the tens of
milliohm region. This makes cable resistance much more critical in comparing one
with another ( along with bi-wiring etc... ).

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 02:58 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message
> wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Pooh Bear" >
>>> wrote
>>> in message
>>>
>>>> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
>>>> *unimportant* ?
>>>
>>> It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that
>>> it is an odd way to express the underlying physical
>>> parameter which is amplifier source impedance.
>>>
>>> For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier
>>> parameter, its a parameter that is also strongly
>>> dependent on load impedance. Unfortunately the
>>> underlying physical parameter remains pretty much
>>> unchanged, regardless of load impedance.
>>>
>>> With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor
>>> is generally so high that it gets swamped by all sorts
>>> of things including voice coil DCR and speaker wire DCR.
>>>
>>> It means a lot more with tubed amps.
>>
>>
>> Which is probably why it was ever expressed as a value
>> at all. When they came up with it, tubes were dominant,
>> then came good more accurate, less volatile,
>> transistors. :-)
>
> Whether tube ( valve ) or transistor - damping factor ( a
> reciprocal measure of amplifer output impedance ) is
> important.
>
> A low damping factor means that an amplifier cannot
> adequately control speaker resonances or the back emf
> caused by transients.

This would be a common misconception.

When one designs a speaker system, the source impedance of
the amplifier is simply part of the design of the speaker.

For example, if you *know* that the amp has a source
impedance of one ohm, you simply design for that operational
condition. You plug one ohm into the Thiel/small parameters
for the woofer, and you plug one ohm into the design of the
crossovers.

Do the designing right, and you end up with a speaker that
is no more (or less) resonant.

This isn't just a theoretical oddity. It's very practical.

No less than Ken Kantor designed and brought to market a
line of pro audio powered speakers that used standard 20
gauge XLR cables for speaker cable. By all accounts they
were technically sucessful. The resistance of the speaker
cable was part of the design. But, the resistance could have
been part of the design of the amps.

I've also seen and heard speaker cable resistance plugged
into the design of large theatre speakers. Yet another
technical success.

The lesson is that mismatches between speaker design and amp
performance should be avoided. This was more common when
solid state amps first came out. Most speakers from the
tubed era were designed to work with an amp source impdance
of about an ohm. Swap in a SS amp and some heavy speaker
cable, and its a different world.

Source impedance effects were more common with early SS amps
that had output coupling caps. Some woofers (example: AR3)
can turn these into remarkably effective bass boost
circuits. Other speakers are affected far less. The hidden
gotcha is a output coupling cap that is outside the feedback
loop. Still found in some modern amps that have unusual
power supply arrangements.

Sander deWaal

October 28th 05, 08:02 PM

Pooh Bear > said:

>Whether tube ( valve ) or transistor - damping factor ( a reciprocal measure of
>amplifer output impedance ) is important.

Recently, someone wrote (Arny?) that "damping factor" isn't the right
term in this regard.
He pleaded for using the term "amplifier's internal output impedance",
which seems to be more appropriate here.

I can agree with that.

--

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

Iain M Churches

October 28th 05, 08:51 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> A low damping factor means that an amplifier cannot adequately control
> speaker
> resonances or the back emf caused by transients.
>
> From the aspect of resonances - a 'poor' i.e. low damping factor will tend
> to
> result in a possibly initially flattering bass rise around speaker
> resonance
> with typical ported enclosures. This is well documented. The resulting
> bass is
> also poorly controlled though leading to 'farty bass'.
>
> The inability of an amplifier to control the back emf from the motor coil
> will
> also result in signal degradation.
>
> Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and speaker affects
> damping
> factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in isolation* is
> misleading
> perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in series with the
> amplifier output impedance. This is why speaker wiring should be of the
> largest
> practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.
>
> Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to have better damping
> factor than say ~ 15-20. Translating to an output impedance of maybe a few
> hundred milliohms to an ohm. Likely the cable resistance made little
> difference.
>
> Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low as in the tens of
> milliohm region. This makes cable resistance much more critical in
> comparing one
> with another ( along with bi-wiring etc... ).
>
> Graham

Yes. That's as I understand it.
The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur Radford,
produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio use with a DF of 60.
He did state however that above a figure or 15 or so, the increase in
DF had negligible effect. I have also seen this stated by Norman Cowhurst
and by Howard Tremaine in his broadcast industry training manual from
the 1970s, the Audio Cyclopedia.

Iain

Iain M Churches

October 28th 05, 08:52 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> in message
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Pooh Bear" >
>>>> wrote
>>>> in message
>>>>
>>>>> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
>>>>> *unimportant* ?
>>>>
>>>> It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that
>>>> it is an odd way to express the underlying physical
>>>> parameter which is amplifier source impedance.
>>>>
>>>> For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier
>>>> parameter, its a parameter that is also strongly
>>>> dependent on load impedance. Unfortunately the
>>>> underlying physical parameter remains pretty much
>>>> unchanged, regardless of load impedance.
>>>>
>>>> With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor
>>>> is generally so high that it gets swamped by all sorts
>>>> of things including voice coil DCR and speaker wire DCR.
>>>>
>>>> It means a lot more with tubed amps.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is probably why it was ever expressed as a value
>>> at all. When they came up with it, tubes were dominant,
>>> then came good more accurate, less volatile,
>>> transistors. :-)
>>
>> Whether tube ( valve ) or transistor - damping factor ( a
>> reciprocal measure of amplifer output impedance ) is
>> important.
>>
>> A low damping factor means that an amplifier cannot
>> adequately control speaker resonances or the back emf
>> caused by transients.
>
> This would be a common misconception.

> When one designs a speaker system, the source impedance of the amplifier
> is simply part of the design of the speaker.
>
> For example, if you *know* that the amp has a source impedance of one ohm,
> you simply design for that operational condition. You plug one ohm into
> the Thiel/small parameters for the woofer, and you plug one ohm into the
> design of the crossovers.

But that's the problem, Arny, you don't know, unless you are
perhaps a broadcast engineer specifying a complete audio chain.

People expect their new amp to work with their existing
speakers, and vice versa. If these speakers present a difficult
load, or do not comply with the recommendations of
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 they may find themselves sadly
disappointed.

SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with an ELS.

> Do the designing right, and you end up with a speaker that is no more (or
> less) resonant.

Few if any of us design our own speakers.

Iain

Iain M Churches

October 28th 05, 08:53 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>
>

Hi Arny. Good to be discussing something of mutual
interest with you. I have rather lost track of whether
you though Zo and DF were important or unimportant
factors in the evaluation of a valve amplifier.

Can you please confirm your position?

>> I made up a resistive box of 4R and 12R in series, with a
>> switch across the 12R to short it out. I then measured
>> the voltages across R1 and R2 (calling them V1 and V2)
>
(snip. my methodology)

> That's one way to do it. Pretty classic and of course very
> good as far as it goes.

Please elaborate. If there are shortcomings in this method
I would be interested to hear of them. I know you have
considerable experience in this field.

I know of three static methods (there may be more)
The original classic way seems to be to inject a low level signal
into an amp, and then measure the output voltage with no load.
Then add a variable wirewound resistor and adjust it until
the Vo falls by 6dB. This resistance is then equal to the
Zo of the amp. This is a simple method, but assumes that
all amplifiers are stable into an open circuit.

>> I am told that various companies measure Zo at 400Hz
>> 700Hz or 1kHz.
>
> That's typical. Those frequencies aren't far apart for an amplifier test.
> If you want to see Zo vary, go to the frequency response extremes.

I did that, but into my 4 and 16 Ohms resistive load.
There was very little variance. I feel that the same
measurements into a real-world load would yield
different results (more of that later)
>
>>I got very similar figures at all these
>> frequencies. I also found that there was no variation
>> with power either which confirms what you have stated.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation, as your methodology is classic.
>
> Here are examples of some of my Zo measurements:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/zout.gif
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BSTleft-z.gif
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BST-left-ph.gif
>
> The methodology I use is dynamic. I can change the operating conditions
> and the plot data on my PC screen in real time. I can test Zo using
> loudspeaker and loudspeaker-like loads. I can use actual recordings of
> music to drive the test rig. I've collected a lot of informal data about
> how Zo varies under different operating conditions. For good amps, it
> doesn't.

I know of a static third method, which involves using both channels
of a stereo amp. The dummy load is connected between the
output of one channel which is driving with a smallish input
signal, and the output of the other channel which has no signal
at its input.

I would be interested to hear about your dynamic testing,
Arny. I have access to a broadcast facility lab.

I thought your PC plots were good. I use Excel and enter the
data into two columns and let the software plot the chart,
in four colours on log paper which looks even better.

I am interested in what you term loudspeaker-like loads. By
this I presume you mean simulated loads. I am in the process
of building one of these from the circuit published in Stereophile
and designed by Ken Kantor

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/60

It represents a smallish two way speaker. I am interested also to
find a schematic that simulates a large studio three way
design.

Lets's forget Mikey falling down for the moment.
I have renamed this part of the thread.

Cordially,

Iain

George Middius

October 28th 05, 09:10 PM

Iain M Churches said to Arnii "Blowhard" Krooborg:

>> Do the designing right, and you end up with a speaker that is no more (or
>> less) resonant.

>Few if any of us design our own speakers.

Especially Arnii Krooger.

..
..
..
..

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 09:48 PM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>
> Hi Arny. Good to be discussing something of mutual
> interest with you. I have rather lost track of whether
> you though Zo and DF were important or unimportant
> factors in the evaluation of a valve amplifier.
>
> Can you please confirm your position?

I think that Zo is an important parameter for every power
amp that ever drives a load whose impedance is
frequency-dependent.

>>> I made up a resistive box of 4R and 12R in series, with
>>> a switch across the 12R to short it out. I then
>>> measured the voltages across R1 and R2 (calling them V1
>>> and V2)
>>
> (snip. my methodology)
>
>> That's one way to do it. Pretty classic and of course
>> very good as far as it goes.

> Please elaborate. If there are shortcomings in this method
> I would be interested to hear of them. I know you have
> considerable experience in this field.

The method I use is to measure the output impedance of the
power amp by treating it like it is just another impedance.
I use a second power amp plus an isolating resistor as the
signal source for the measurement. I measure the voltage
across the UUT, as well as the current flowing into it.
SpectraLab software calculates the quotient of the two
signals in the frequency domain in real time to produce a
plot of impedance magnitude and phase versus frequency.

Since the results are based on a quotient, the procedure
works with a wide variety of signals, signal levels, and
other test conditions.

There are a number of pieces of measurement software that
perform similar calculations. Sample Champion from
http://www.purebits.com/ is an relatively inexpensive
package that does a similar calculation as described in this
appliation note: http://purebits.com/appnote16.html .

> I know of three static methods (there may be more)
> The original classic way seems to be to inject a low
> level signal into an amp, and then measure the output
> voltage with no load. Then add a variable wirewound
> resistor and adjust it until the Vo falls by 6dB. This
> resistance is then equal to the
> Zo of the amp. This is a simple method, but assumes that
> all amplifiers are stable into an open circuit.

>>> I am told that various companies measure Zo at 400Hz
>>> 700Hz or 1kHz.
>>
>> That's typical. Those frequencies aren't far apart for
>> an amplifier test. If you want to see Zo vary, go to the
>> frequency response extremes.

> I did that, but into my 4 and 16 Ohms resistive load.
> There was very little variance. I feel that the same
> measurements into a real-world load would yield
> different results (more of that later)

If the amplifier that I use as the signal source has a low
output impedance and is robust, when it sources the test
signal to the UUT though a loudspeaker or loudspeaker-like
load, then the UUT's response to working with the given load
becomes part of the test.

>>> I got very similar figures at all these
>>> frequencies. I also found that there was no variation
>>> with power either which confirms what you have stated.
>>
>> Thanks for the confirmation, as your methodology is
>> classic.

>> Here are examples of some of my Zo measurements:

>> http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/zout.gif
>>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BSTleft-z.gif
>>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BST-left-ph.gif

>> The methodology I use is dynamic. I can change the
>> operating conditions and the plot data on my PC screen
>> in real time. I can test Zo using loudspeaker and
>> loudspeaker-like loads. I can use actual recordings of
>> music to drive the test rig. I've collected a lot of
>> informal data about how Zo varies under different
>> operating conditions. For good amps, it doesn't.

> I know of a static third method, which involves using
> both channels of a stereo amp. The dummy load is
> connected between the output of one channel which is
> driving with a smallish
> input signal, and the output of the other channel which
> has no signal.

That's the starting point for the procedure I use.
> at its input.
>
> I would be interested to hear about your dynamic testing,
> Arny. I have access to a broadcast facility lab.
>
> I thought your PC plots were good. I use Excel and enter
> the data into two columns and let the software plot the
> chart,
> in four colours on log paper which looks even better.
>
> I am interested in what you term loudspeaker-like loads.
> By this I presume you mean simulated loads. I am in the
> process of building one of these from the circuit
> published in
> Stereophile and designed by Ken Kantor
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/reference/60
>
> It represents a smallish two way speaker. I am interested
> also to find a schematic that simulates a large studio
> three way design.
>
> Lets's forget Mikey falling down for the moment.
> I have renamed this part of the thread.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Iain

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 09:50 PM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote in message
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Pooh Bear" >
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> So what do you think it is that makes damping factor
>>>>>> *unimportant* ?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not that damping factor isn't important, its that
>>>>> it is an odd way to express the underlying physical
>>>>> parameter which is amplifier source impedance.
>>>>>
>>>>> For openers, damping factor isn't an amplifier
>>>>> parameter, its a parameter that is also strongly
>>>>> dependent on load impedance. Unfortunately the
>>>>> underlying physical parameter remains pretty much
>>>>> unchanged, regardless of load impedance.
>>>>>
>>>>> With good modern amps, the amplifier's damping factor
>>>>> is generally so high that it gets swamped by all sorts
>>>>> of things including voice coil DCR and speaker wire
>>>>> DCR. It means a lot more with tubed amps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is probably why it was ever expressed as a value
>>>> at all. When they came up with it, tubes were
>>>> dominant, then came good more accurate, less volatile,
>>>> transistors. :-)
>>>
>>> Whether tube ( valve ) or transistor - damping factor (
>>> a reciprocal measure of amplifer output impedance ) is
>>> important.
>>>
>>> A low damping factor means that an amplifier cannot
>>> adequately control speaker resonances or the back emf
>>> caused by transients.
>>
>> This would be a common misconception.
>
>> When one designs a speaker system, the source impedance
>> of the amplifier is simply part of the design of the
>> speaker. For example, if you *know* that the amp has a
>> source
>> impedance of one ohm, you simply design for that
>> operational condition. You plug one ohm into the
>> Thiel/small parameters for the woofer, and you plug one
>> ohm into the design of the crossovers.
>
> But that's the problem, Arny, you don't know, unless you
> are perhaps a broadcast engineer specifying a complete
> audio chain.

Exactly, hence the charm of building speakers that are
designed to work with low source impedances, and amplifiers
that provide low source impedances.

> People expect their new amp to work with their existing
> speakers, and vice versa. If these speakers present a
> difficult load, or do not comply with the recommendations
> of IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 they may find themselves sadly
> disappointed.

Agreed.

> SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
> at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with
> an ELS.

I've heard SETs at lowist levels with full range horns, and
I'm still not charmed.

>> Do the designing right, and you end up with a speaker
>> that is no more (or less) resonant.

> Few if any of us design our own speakers.

Hence the charm of speakers that are designed to work with
low source impedances, and amplifiers that provide low
source impedances.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 10:08 PM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message

>> Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and
>> speaker affects damping
>> factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in
>> isolation* is misleading
>> perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in
>> series with the amplifier output impedance. This is why
>> speaker wiring should be of the largest
>> practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.

>> Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to
>> have better damping factor than say ~ 15-20. Translating
>> to an output impedance of maybe a few hundred milliohms
>> to an ohm. Likely the cable resistance made little
>> difference.

A DF of 24 @ 8 ohms corresponds to an amp with Zo of about
1/3 of an ohm.

If you have speaker modeling software you can plug that
resistance into the speaker's design to obtain the size of
the frequency response variation that will result. If you
have the impedance curve of the speaker, you can calculate
the frequency response that the DF increase will cause.

>> Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low
>> as in the tens of milliohm region. This makes cable
>> resistance much more critical in comparing one
>> with another

Yes, the cable's impedance is added to the Zo of the amp.

>( along with bi-wiring etc... ).

If you bi-wire with two identical cables, there is no effect
outside of the range where the crossover is providing
overlapping drive for the high and low range drivers,
because in either case the low and high frequency sides of
the speaker are being driven with the identical same
impedances.

In the overlap range, the source impedance for the tweeter
is decreased by the combination of the amp plus cable
series impedance in parallel with the impedance of the
woofer. However, if the cable and amplfier provide a very
low impedance source, they overwhelm any effects of the
woofer part of the load since the woofer provides a far
higher impedance load.

To put this into perspective, at the crossover point
(usually the worst case) a woofer plus the amp and cable in
an 8 ohm system provides an source impedance to the tweeter
that is the source impedance of the amp and cable, in
parallel with 8 ohms. The source impedance of the cable and
amp together might be a tenth of an ohm. Adding the 8 ohm
woofer in parallel with a tenth of an ohm has a vanishing
effect since its impedance is about 80 times higher. The
variation is about 80/81 or about 1.25%. This might change
the frequency response by about 0.1 dB, or less.

> Yes. That's as I understand it.
> The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur
> Radford, produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio
> use with a DF of 60. He did state however that above a
> figure or 15 or so, the
> increase in DF had negligible effect.

With most speakers the different in speaker frequency due to
a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared to an ideal
amp with a Zo of zero.

> I have also seen this stated
> by Norman Cowhurst and by Howard Tremaine in his
> broadcast industry training manual from the 1970s, the
> Audio Cyclopedia.

As they say, do the math

-or-

do the measurements! ;-)

Iain M Churches

October 28th 05, 10:20 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>
>> SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
>> at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with
>> an ELS.
>
> I've heard SETs at lowist levels with full range horns, and I'm still not
> charmed.

I have been a recording professional for many years, and for
some reason have never taken SET seriously. Just recently
a friend who is a professional cellist, Russian born, invited
me to listen to some new recordings of the Shostakovich
Quartets. It was an unforgettable musical experience.

Iain

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 10:35 PM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>>
>>> SETs can produce the most wonderful small-ensemble music
>>> at lowish levels with full range horns, but try one with
>>> an ELS.
>>
>> I've heard SETs at lowist levels with full range horns,
>> and I'm still not charmed.
>
> I have been a recording professional for many years, and
> for some reason have never taken SET seriously. Just
> recently a friend who is a professional cellist, Russian
> born,
> invited me to listen to some new recordings of the
> Shostakovich Quartets. It was an unforgettable musical
> experience.

I heard a number of SETs with a number of different speakers
at HE2005 and the experience was as you say, unforgettable.
I almost lost my lunch on the floor of any number of
listening rooms that centerpieced glowing bottles.

Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did not
raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing bottles were
in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!

Mark Harriss

October 29th 05, 12:02 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> With most speakers the different in speaker frequency due to
> a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared to an ideal
> amp with a Zo of zero.

Speaker frequency is measured in Hertz in the countries where
Iain and Myself come from.

Iain M Churches

October 29th 05, 08:19 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and
>>> speaker affects damping
>>> factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in
>>> isolation* is misleading
>>> perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in
>>> series with the amplifier output impedance. This is why
>>> speaker wiring should be of the largest
>>> practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.
>
>>> Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to
>>> have better damping factor than say ~ 15-20. Translating
>>> to an output impedance of maybe a few hundred milliohms
>>> to an ohm. Likely the cable resistance made little
>>> difference.

Hey Arny. You have been too enthusiastic in pruning the
headers. I did not write any of the above.
>
> A DF of 24 @ 8 ohms corresponds to an amp with Zo of about 1/3 of an ohm.
>
> If you have speaker modeling software you can plug that resistance into
> the speaker's design to obtain the size of the frequency response
> variation that will result. If you have the impedance curve of the
> speaker, you can calculate the frequency response that the DF increase
> will cause.
>
>>> Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low
>>> as in the tens of milliohm region. This makes cable
>>> resistance much more critical in comparing one
>>> with another
>
> Yes, the cable's impedance is added to the Zo of the amp.
>
>>( along with bi-wiring etc... ).
>
> If you bi-wire with two identical cables, there is no effect outside of
> the range where the crossover is providing overlapping drive for the high
> and low range drivers, because in either case the low and high frequency
> sides of the speaker are being driven with the identical same impedances.
>
> In the overlap range, the source impedance for the tweeter is decreased by
> the combination of the amp plus cable series impedance in parallel with
> the impedance of the woofer. However, if the cable and amplfier provide a
> very low impedance source, they overwhelm any effects of the woofer part
> of the load since the woofer provides a far higher impedance load.
>
> To put this into perspective, at the crossover point (usually the worst
> case) a woofer plus the amp and cable in an 8 ohm system provides an
> source impedance to the tweeter that is the source impedance of the amp
> and cable, in parallel with 8 ohms. The source impedance of the cable and
> amp together might be a tenth of an ohm. Adding the 8 ohm woofer in
> parallel with a tenth of an ohm has a vanishing effect since its impedance
> is about 80 times higher. The variation is about 80/81 or about 1.25%.
> This might change the frequency response by about 0.1 dB, or less.
>
>
>> Yes. That's as I understand it.
>> The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur
>> Radford, produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio
>> use with a DF of 60. He did state however that above a figure or 15 or
>> so, the
>> increase in DF had negligible effect.
>
> With most speakers the different in speaker frequency due to a DF of 15 is
> about 0.5 dB or less, as compared to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.
>
>> I have also seen this stated
>> by Norman Cowhurst and by Howard Tremaine in his
>> broadcast industry training manual from the 1970s, the Audio Cyclopedia.
>
> As they say, do the math -or- do the measurements! ;-)

What you write above tends to confirm what Arthur Radford,
Norman Crowhurst and Howard Tremaine have all stated that a
DF above 15 produces no audible improvement.

Iain

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 10:23 AM

"Mark Harriss" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> With most speakers the different in speaker frequency
>> due to a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared
>> to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.

> Speaker frequency is measured in Hertz in the countries
> where Iain and Myself come from.

Of course. What's your point?

When I mention frequency, I use Hz, KHz, etc.

There are a couple typos above - the correct sentence is:

With most speakers the difference in speaker frequency
response
due to a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared
to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 10:25 AM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> Note that the resistance of the cabling between amp and
>>>> speaker affects damping
>>>> factor too. That's one reason why damping factor *in
>>>> isolation* is misleading
>>>> perhaps. The resistance of the speaker cable appears in
>>>> series with the amplifier output impedance. This is why
>>>> speaker wiring should be of the largest
>>>> practical gauge in order to reduce its resistance.
>>
>>>> Having said that..... it was IME rare for tube amps to
>>>> have better damping factor than say ~ 15-20.
>>>> Translating to an output impedance of maybe a few
>>>> hundred milliohms to an ohm. Likely the cable
>>>> resistance made little difference.
>
> Hey Arny. You have been too enthusiastic in pruning the
> headers. I did not write any of the above.
>>
>> A DF of 24 @ 8 ohms corresponds to an amp with Zo of
>> about 1/3 of an ohm. If you have speaker modeling
>> software you can plug that
>> resistance into the speaker's design to obtain the size
>> of the frequency response variation that will result. If
>> you have the impedance curve of the speaker, you can
>> calculate the frequency response that the DF increase
>> will cause.
>>>> Modern SS amps can have output impedances easily as low
>>>> as in the tens of milliohm region. This makes cable
>>>> resistance much more critical in comparing one
>>>> with another
>>
>> Yes, the cable's impedance is added to the Zo of the amp.
>>
>>> ( along with bi-wiring etc... ).
>>
>> If you bi-wire with two identical cables, there is no
>> effect outside of the range where the crossover is
>> providing overlapping drive for the high and low range
>> drivers, because in either case the low and high
>> frequency sides of the speaker are being driven with the
>> identical same impedances. In the overlap range, the
>> source impedance for the
>> tweeter is decreased by the combination of the amp plus
>> cable series impedance in parallel with the impedance of
>> the woofer. However, if the cable and amplfier provide a
>> very low impedance source, they overwhelm any effects of
>> the woofer part of the load since the woofer provides a
>> far higher impedance load. To put this into perspective,
>> at the crossover point
>> (usually the worst case) a woofer plus the amp and cable
>> in an 8 ohm system provides an source impedance to the
>> tweeter that is the source impedance of the amp and
>> cable, in parallel with 8 ohms. The source impedance of
>> the cable and amp together might be a tenth of an ohm.
>> Adding the 8 ohm woofer in parallel with a tenth of an
>> ohm has a vanishing effect since its impedance is about
>> 80 times higher. The variation is about 80/81 or about
>> 1.25%. This might change the frequency response by about
>> 0.1 dB, or less.
>>> Yes. That's as I understand it.
>>> The valve amp designer who interests me the most, Arthur
>>> Radford, produced during the 1960s a 100W amp for studio
>>> use with a DF of 60. He did state however that above a
>>> figure or 15 or so, the
>>> increase in DF had negligible effect.
>>
>> With most speakers the different in speaker frequency
>> due to a DF of 15 is about 0.5 dB or less, as compared
>> to an ideal amp with a Zo of zero.
>>> I have also seen this stated
>>> by Norman Cowhurst and by Howard Tremaine in his
>>> broadcast industry training manual from the 1970s, the
>>> Audio Cyclopedia.
>>
>> As they say, do the math -or- do the measurements! ;-)
>
> What you write above tends to confirm what Arthur Radford,
> Norman Crowhurst and Howard Tremaine have all stated that
> a DF above 15 produces no audible improvement.

I would say "minimal improvement" or 'barely audible
improvement", but clearly we're all on the same page.

I have a great deal of respect for Crowhurst and Tremaine.
I just don't know a lot about Radford, other than that some
really pretty good UK audio gear bore his name some years
ago.

Sander deWaal

October 29th 05, 02:23 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did not
>raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing bottles were
>in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!

"Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)

--

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

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 02:36 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did
>> not raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing
>> bottles were in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!
>
>
> "Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)

That would be the penny-ante consumer version. Real men used
211s. Of course this was all true in 1936, and totally
obsolete by 1950.

Sander deWaal

October 29th 05, 03:39 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles did
>>> not raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing
>>> bottles were in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!

>> "Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)

>That would be the penny-ante consumer version. Real men used
>211s. Of course this was all true in 1936, and totally
>obsolete by 1950.

Crowhurst et al didn't seem to think it was a problem to use 2A3s in
an audio amplifier in the '50s.

Amazing they were able to build such good amplifiers 50 years ago!

--

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

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 03:41 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>> Once I was amazed that one room with glowing bottles
>>>> did not raise my gorge. Then I noticed that the glowing
>>>> bottles were in push-pull pairs. It makes a difference!
>
>
>>> "Nothing beats a pair of 2A3s in PP!" ;-)
>
>
>> That would be the penny-ante consumer version. Real men
>> used 211s. Of course this was all true in 1936, and
>> totally obsolete by 1950.
>
>
> Crowhurst et al didn't seem to think it was a problem to
> use 2A3s in an audio amplifier in the '50s.

That's no doubt because Crowhurst knew that his mission was
to build the penny-ante consumer version.

> Amazing they were able to build such good amplifiers 50
> years ago!

Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
later, they were building far better amps with SS.

Iain M Churches

October 29th 05, 08:25 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
>>>

>> What you write above tends to confirm what Arthur Radford,
>> Norman Crowhurst and Howard Tremaine have all stated that
>> a DF above 15 produces no audible improvement.
>
> I would say "minimal improvement" or 'barely audible improvement", but
> clearly we're all on the same page.

Good. That's interesting, which brings me to the question
of discernible distortion. Maybe a new thread?
>
> I have a great deal of respect for Crowhurst and Tremaine. I just don't
> know a lot about Radford, other than that some really pretty good UK audio
> gear bore his name some years ago.

Yes the Crowhurst books and articles are very good indeed.
The Tremaine book "Audio Cyclopedia" (all 1757 pages of it!)
was one of the training manuals when I started at Decca.

Arthur Radford was actually a designer of test equipment.
but begain to produce audio amplifiers from the early 60s
up until his death in 1981.

His distortion test equipment is very sought after, and anything
that comes up for sale is bought by the Japanese. He
did not have the same commercial flair as Peter Walker, but
all the same built some excellent equipment. In the early
sixties, so the story goes, he was shown a Dynaco amp, and
claimed it could be done a lot better. His STA25 and STA100
amplifiers were used in many music studios and broadcast
facilities in the UK. The company had four factories,
at Ashton Vale in Bristol UK.
Everything was manufactured in house. AR himself
was a highly regarded transformer designer.

Iain

Bret Ludwig

November 3rd 05, 01:02 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<snip>>

> Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
> later, they were building far better amps with SS.

They were superior in all respects except sound, and repairability.

Arny Krueger

November 3rd 05, 12:55 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>> Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
>> later, they were building far better amps with SS.
>
>
> They were superior in all respects except sound, and
> repairability.

Please explain

Bret Ludwig

November 4th 05, 08:40 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > <<snip>>
> >
> >> Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
> >> later, they were building far better amps with SS.
> >
> >
> > They were superior in all respects except sound, and
> > repairability.
>
> Please explain

Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they use DC
coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot, and easy to fix.
Solid state amps can be challenging even to experienced technicians at
times.

Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human listeners." The
consensus view overwhelmingly affirms that for a given output power
rating and measured performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound
preferred by human listeners over that produced by solid-state
amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that sound, but
more people do than don't.

Mr.T

November 5th 05, 11:23 AM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human listeners." The
> consensus view overwhelmingly affirms that for a given output power
> rating and measured performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound
> preferred by human listeners over that produced by solid-state
> amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that sound, but
> more people do than don't.

Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price bracket.
But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
controlled, listening study.

MrT.

Bret Ludwig

November 5th 05, 09:26 PM

Mr.T wrote:
<<snip>>

>
> Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price bracket.
> But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
> controlled, listening study.

All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople. They readily
admit everyone would prefer the tube sound but they sell more solid
state because people are afraid of tube maintenance and availability.
People with the skills (such as they modestly are) to maintain tube
amps tend to buy used or build their own.

George M. Middius

November 5th 05, 09:40 PM

Bret Ludwig said:

> People with the skills (such as they modestly are) to maintain tube
> amps tend to buy used or build their own.

Maybe, but those people don't buy used underwear.

Margaret von B.

November 5th 05, 10:30 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mr.T wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>>
>> Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
>> bracket.
>> But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
>> controlled, listening study.
>
> All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.

You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Cheers,

Margaret

Bret Ludwig

November 6th 05, 12:13 AM

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Mr.T wrote:
> > <<snip>>
> >
> >>
> >> Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
> >> bracket.
> >> But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
> >> controlled, listening study.
> >
> > All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.
>
> You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Not as remarkably so as your remarkably odiferous vagina.

Mr.T

November 6th 05, 12:34 AM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
bracket.
> > But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific,
bias
> > controlled, listening study.
>
> All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople. They readily
> admit everyone would prefer the tube sound but they sell more solid
> state because people are afraid of tube maintenance and availability.

<sarcasm mode on>
I see you have such an unimpeachable reference study to back up your claims
:-)

MrT.

paul packer

November 6th 05, 02:44 AM

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:30:27 GMT, "Margaret von B."
> wrote:

>
>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Mr.T wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>>
>>>
>>> Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
>>> bracket.
>>> But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific, bias
>>> controlled, listening study.
>>
>> All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.
>
>You really are a remarkably stupid individual.

Hey, this "you're stupid" thing is catching! Now let's see, who can I
use it on...?

Margaret von B.

November 6th 05, 02:45 AM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Mr.T wrote:
>> > <<snip>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Sales figures would suggest otherwise, even in the rarefied price
>> >> bracket.
>> >> But do please provide the details of your comprehensive, scientific,
>> >> bias
>> >> controlled, listening study.
>> >
>> > All you have to do is ask hi-end saloon salespeople.
>>
>> You really are a remarkably stupid individual.
>
> Not as remarkably so as your remarkably odiferous vagina.
>

Your impotence seems to be really painful to bear. I enjoy witnessing your
suffering, Cal.

Cheers,

Margaret

Arny Krueger

November 6th 05, 08:54 AM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> <<snip>>
>>>
>>>> Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30
>>>> years later, they were building far better amps with
>>>> SS.
>>>
>>>
>>> They were superior in all respects except sound, and
>>> repairability.

>> Please explain
>
> Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they
> use DC coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot,
> and easy to fix. Solid state amps can be challenging even
> to experienced technicians at times.

Trouble is, tubed amps are constantly in a state of
degradation. They need biasing, balancing, and new tubes.
Because of the heat they generate, parts like electrolytic
caps are under more stress. While the individual repair
operations might be more conceptually simple, there's no
winning with a tubed amp. You can't run one 24/7 for a
decade and reasonably expect it to still be at its peak
performance. Tubed amps are harder to keep repaired because
they need so much more service.

> Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human
> listeners." The consensus view overwhelmingly affirms
> that for a given output power rating and measured
> performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound preferred by
> human listeners over that produced by solid-state
> amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that
> sound, but more people do than don't.

This is absoutlely false. The world of audio, except for a
few iconoclastic throwbacks, ran away from tubes at the
first opportunity and never looked back. The reason for
abandonment of tubes were manifold. Tubed amps are very poor
cost-performers, especially for critical listeners. There's
no amount of money that can be spent to build a tubed amp
whose performance equals a average solid state amp. The
audible failings of tubes are especially noticable with the
more inefficient speakers, and at larger SPLs, which many
modern listeners prefer,

Iain M Churches

November 6th 05, 06:06 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > <<snip>>
>> >
>> >> Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30 years
>> >> later, they were building far better amps with SS.
>> >
>> >
>> > They were superior in all respects except sound, and
>> > repairability.
>>
>> Please explain
>
> Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they use DC
> coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot, and easy to fix.
> Solid state amps can be challenging even to experienced technicians at
> times.
>
> Sound means "quality of sound as perceived by human listeners." The
> consensus view overwhelmingly affirms that for a given output power
> rating and measured performance, tube amplifiers produce a sound
> preferred by human listeners over that produced by solid-state
> amplifiers, more often than not. You may not prefer that sound, but
> more people do than don't.
>

Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
eloquently if I had tried:-)

Iain

Iain M Churches

November 6th 05, 07:15 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> <<snip>>
>>>>
>>>>> Amazing how Crowhurst et all seemed to know that 30
>>>>> years later, they were building far better amps with
>>>>> SS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They were superior in all respects except sound, and
>>>> repairability.
>
>>> Please explain
>>
>> Repairability means ease of fixing. Tube amps unless they
>> use DC coupled stages are generally easy to troubleshoot,
>> and easy to fix. Solid state amps can be challenging even
>> to experienced technicians at times.
>
> Trouble is, tubed amps are constantly in a state of degradation. They need
> biasing, balancing, and new tubes. Because of the heat they generate,
> parts like electrolytic caps are under more stress. While the individual
> repair operations might be more conceptually simple, there's no winning
> with a tubed amp. You can't run one 24/7 for a decade and reasonably
> expect it to still be at its peak performance. Tubed amps are harder to
> keep repaired because they need so much more service.

Most people who own tube amps are happy to give them the
attention service they need. Tweaking the bias every three
months or so (a job that takes 5 mins) is not too much to ask..
Output tubes last 3 000 hrs, and pre-tubes maybe
10 000 hrs.

Don't try to make owning tube amp sound like a chore - it
isn't.

Iain

Iain M Churches

November 7th 05, 09:01 AM

"kkantor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Over the years, I've done some updating of the circuits I use to
> simulate loudspeaker loads. I just uploaded a couple for you to take
> at look at:
>
> http://aural.org/klk_share/dummy_load/.
>
> These pertain to a 2-way, sealed system, and a 12" sealed subwoofer.
>
> -k
>
> www.tymphany.com

I tried to look at these, but they download as screens full of
alphanumeric characters.

Would you be so kind as to send them to me by e-mail?

Best regards
Iain Churches

kkantor

November 7th 05, 09:53 AM

Ian,

Your full email address is not visible to me. If you need me to send
you the files, drop me a line at

.

However, I have uploaded a ZIP of all the files to
http://aural.org/klk_share/dummy_load/. This should take care of the
situation where one's browser is not correctly identifying the CKT and
VSD extensions.

-k

www.tymphany.com

Mr.T

November 7th 05, 12:41 PM

"Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
> I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
> eloquently if I had tried:-)

As long as neither of you has to provide actual data to support your
assertion that is.

MrT.

Arny Krueger

November 7th 05, 01:07 PM

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
>> I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
>> eloquently if I had tried:-)
>
> As long as neither of you has to provide actual data to
> support your assertion that is.

Right, eloquence is not a reliable indicator of truth. In
fact, its often a counter-indicator.

The fact is that at this time, only a small percentage of
all music lovers have ever heard a vacuum tube amp-based
reproduction system playing. Far fewer have actually done a
bias-controlled comparison. So, any claims that the majority
of music lovers prefer listening to tubed gear are purely
imaginary.

There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
droves, and at their personal expense. So did the rest of
the audio industry. One major justification for making the
switch was improved sound quality.

George Middius

November 7th 05, 03:47 PM

Arnii, it's now Monday. Sermons are for Sundays.

>There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
>listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
>or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
>scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
>droves, and at their personal expense.

Same thing for automatic transmission in cars and bland, watery, mass-market
lager in place of local and regional beers.

>So did the rest of
>the audio industry. One major justification for making the
>switch was improved sound quality.

Can you please keep your religious incantations to yourself? TIA.

..
..
..

paul packer

November 8th 05, 05:35 AM

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:07:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
>listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
>or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
>scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
>droves, and at their personal expense. So did the rest of
>the audio industry. One major justification for making the
>switch was improved sound quality.

Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in it sounded
lousy. The novelty was what sold it, and the fact that most people
didn't care about sound quality (just like now really). But it sounded
lousy. Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
technology developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
ear-ache. Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
amp of all time, but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it. If this
is not true, if SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s,
why was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared but the
average punter? Even today they fetch as much as when new. Anybody who
can remember the intro of SS will remember the widespread grumbling
about sound quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years, appear
to have conveniently forgotten.

paul packer

November 8th 05, 05:53 AM

On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
> wrote:

>Same thing for automatic transmission in cars

And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Bret Ludwig

November 8th 05, 05:54 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u
> > "Iain M Churches" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Thanks Bret for qualifying your earlier statement.
> >> I am in total agreement, and could not have put it more
> >> eloquently if I had tried:-)
> >
> > As long as neither of you has to provide actual data to
> > support your assertion that is.
>
> Right, eloquence is not a reliable indicator of truth. In
> fact, its often a counter-indicator.
>
> The fact is that at this time, only a small percentage of
> all music lovers have ever heard a vacuum tube amp-based
> reproduction system playing. Far fewer have actually done a
> bias-controlled comparison. So, any claims that the majority
> of music lovers prefer listening to tubed gear are purely
> imaginary.
>
> There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
> listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
> or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
> scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
> droves, and at their personal expense. So did the rest of
> the audio industry. One major justification for making the
> switch was improved sound quality.

Anyone who has been in any of the high end retailers' stores, or
"saloons" if you will, has at least a 75% chance of having heard a
vacuum tube system playing, based on the fact that at least
three-quarters of high end retailers sell at least one tube line which
they will at least occasionally have playing and will demo on request.
While it is true there are some people alive today who have managed to
have never heard a tube system, I cannot believe they are a
supermajority. Not among audiophiles. And not among recording
professionals either.

Actually, it's the "bias-controlled comparison" that is peculiar to a
superminority of audio hobbyists. (Most "music lovers" are not
seriously versed in audio or even seriously interested in it: they are
perfectly happy with mid-fi systems, solid state or otherwise.)

When solid state debuted in the serious audio field, it rapidly went
through several phases, and became dominant when Asian equipment,
brought to American attention by Vietnam War era military personnel
overseas, started coming in at reasonable prices, offering high
convenience and good measured specs and offering the no-maintenance,
no-tube-hassle promise in a Playboy-approved form factor. Because
measured performance was much better than similarly priced tube gear
the tube equipment was considered socially backward and embarassing,
and was traded off for a pittance....to be resold to the Japanese for
substantial sums, who recognized before anyone here that tube equipment
was often sonically superior.

While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.

Bret Ludwig

November 8th 05, 06:30 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Same thing for automatic transmission in cars
>
>
> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs. The automatic
transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the way Detroit
pushed them onto everyone. The manufacturers and dealers forced them on
buyers whenever possible.

[email protected]

November 8th 05, 06:43 AM

George Middius wrote:
> Arnii, it's now Monday. Sermons are for Sundays.
>
> >There was once a time when the majority of music lovers had
> >listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems for all
> >or most of their lives. When offered the opportunity to
> >scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state, they did so in
> >droves, and at their personal expense.
>
> Same thing for automatic transmission in cars and bland, watery, mass-market
> lager in place of local and regional beers.
>
> >So did the rest of
> >the audio industry. One major justification for making the
> >switch was improved sound quality.
>
> Can you please keep your religious incantations to yourself? TIA.
>
>
> .Don't forget supermarket bread- all fluff and no substance- and supermarket breakfast sausage- all grease and gristle.Both great commercial successes
Ludovic Mirabel
> .
> .

Mr.T

November 8th 05, 08:42 AM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?
>
> Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs. The automatic
> transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the way Detroit
> pushed them onto everyone. The manufacturers and dealers forced them on
> buyers whenever possible.

The buyers were happy to pay the large premium for very crappy sludge boxes
in the early days. Real drivers stuck to manual transmissions, but the
simple fact is that most people wanted to get from A to B with as little
involvement as possible. AT's were high on their shopping list. Since most
new car buyers never keep the car long enough to need transmission repairs,
it's not something they would even consider.

The worst car I ever drove though was a hire car, Toyota Corolla 1100cc with
TWO speed auto and air conditioning!!!!!!!!!!!
However a new BMW or even Ford Falcon with six speed auto would be a
different animal altogether. Or how about a Merc with 7 speed auto?

MrT.

Mr.T

November 8th 05, 09:03 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in it sounded
> lousy. The novelty was what sold it, and the fact that most people
> didn't care about sound quality (just like now really). But it sounded
> lousy. Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
> technology developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
> ear-ache.

What crap, there were good and bad valve amps, and good and bad SS amps then
as now. However the price difference was a *lot* less in those days for
similar performance. Yet most people bought SS for it's *huge* increase in
reliability.

>Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
> amp of all time,

That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I can
see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.

>but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
> typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However the
NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well promoted.

>If this is not true, if SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s,
> why was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared but the
> average punter?

Sucked in I guess.

>Even today they fetch as much as when new.

Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform it.

>Anybody who
> can remember the intro of SS will remember the widespread grumbling
> about sound quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years, appear
> to have conveniently forgotten.

By the early 70's the problems were gone, except for the real crap. (yes
there was plenty of that, just as with valve models) Quasi complementary
stages etc. were consigned to history, and SS was outperforming vacuum tube
in every respect, except for adding that "warm" layer of distortion that
some people require. Not a real problem since many recording engineers
continued to use valve mics to do that job for you.

MrT.

Lionel

November 8th 05, 09:43 AM

In >, paul packer wrote :

> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

Just because, up to now, that's not the automatic transmission which hold
the steering wheel. :-)

George M. Middius

November 8th 05, 12:31 PM

paul packer said:

> >Same thing for automatic transmission in cars

> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?

You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
solid state amps and watery mass-market beer. The more distinctive
versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
consumers seek them out.

Arny Krueger

November 8th 05, 03:03 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
> paul packer wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Same thing for automatic transmission in cars
>>
>>
>> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic
>> transmissions?

> Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs.

Agreed. Also, not as much fun on the right road, but a
blessing in rush hour traffic. The repair cost issue is a
mixed bag. Most automatics can go the first 100,000 miles
without serious maintenance, while most stick shifts require
a new clutch before then. When you finally have to bite the
bullet, its not cheap either way, but that new clutch is
about half the price (installed) as that rebuilt automatic
transmission.

>The automatic
> transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the
> way Detroit pushed them onto everyone.

People who say crap like this are also likely to say that
the CD ws pushed down everybody's throat. Both claims are
equally false, which is to say they are very, very false.

> The manufacturers and dealers forced them on buyers
> whenever possible.

LOL!

Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far
more to build a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an
automatic. Part of this is because of the additional
robustness that a stick car requires, and part of it is due
to the relatively low production volumes.

Yet for most of that time, the automatics commanded a
premium price. It was all about what the market would bear.

IOW, there was a huge demand for automatics despite the
artificially higher prices. No way were automatics being
shoved down people's throats.

In essence, the manufacturers "lost money" on every car they
made with a stick shift, but kept on making and selling them
because they were good for a car's sporty image if that
mattered in its market.

Arny Krueger

November 8th 05, 03:08 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> paul packer said:
>
>>> Same thing for automatic transmission in cars
>
>> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic
>> transmissions?
>
> You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for
> everybody, just like solid state amps and watery
> mass-market beer. The more distinctive versions are made
> in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
> consumers seek them out.

The irony is that the manual transmission buyer is generally
a true individualist-enthusiast who is making an informed
decesion, because as a rule cars with manual transmissions
perform better. (There are notable exceptions, one example
being drag racing). OTOH the tubie is just following the
bogus lead set by the highly dysfunctional golden ear
press.

It's no longer a slam dunk that the automatic transmission
car has poorer performance. I notice that a lot of rally
cars have automatics, and drag racers with automatic
transmissions are an old, old story. NASCAR, IRL and CART
are still sticking to their manual transmissions but they
hardly shift on round and oval tracks.

Arny Krueger

November 8th 05, 03:13 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:07:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> There was once a time when the majority of music lovers
>> had listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems
>> for all or most of their lives. When offered the
>> opportunity to scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state,
>> they did so in droves, and at their personal expense. So
>> did the rest of the audio industry. One major
>> justification for making the switch was improved sound
>> quality.
>
> Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in
> it sounded lousy.

So what? That was over 40 years ago.

>The novelty was what sold it, and the
> fact that most people didn't care about sound quality
> (just like now really). But it sounded lousy.

The sound quality and reliability of SS faltered in the
beginning. The consumer response was not immediately good.
SS didn't start selling until it solved its sound quality
and reliability issues. That was more like 35 years ago.

>Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
>technology
> developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
> ear-ache.

CD never meant an automatic ear ache. Like DVD it hit the
market running. Before DVD CD had the fastest market
acceptance of any new AV technology in history.

>Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the
> most accurate amp of all time, but it was a step away
> from the SS schreeching of typical budget amps of the
> time and so NAD cleaned up on it.

The NAD phenomenon was all about hype. The right reviewers
pumped it, and a lot of lowbrows were suckered into paying
more than they needed to for yet another really-pretty good
SS amp.

>If this is not true, if
> SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s, why
> was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared
> but the average punter?

NAD sales were a drop in the bucket compared to Pioneer and
Kenwood, for example.

>Even today they fetch as much as when new.

Hype lives on!

>Anybody who can remember the intro of SS will
> remember the widespread grumbling about sound
> quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years,
> appear to have conveniently forgotten.

BS. I was an early adopter of SS who got burned, turned
right around and sold my SS and went back to tubes for about
5 years.

Sander deWaal

November 8th 05, 05:00 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for
>> everybody, just like solid state amps and watery
>> mass-market beer. The more distinctive versions are made
>> in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
>> consumers seek them out.

>The irony is that the manual transmission buyer is generally
>a true individualist-enthusiast who is making an informed
>decesion, because as a rule cars with manual transmissions
>perform better. (There are notable exceptions, one example
>being drag racing). OTOH the tubie is just following the
>bogus lead set by the highly dysfunctional golden ear
>press.

Oh Arny, how nice of you to remember that I drive an automatic ;-)
(which puts me into a minority class in Europe).

--

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

Sander deWaal

November 8th 05, 05:00 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > said:

> While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
>as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
>serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
>Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
>and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
>accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
>available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
>substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
>do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
>issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
>audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
>solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.

Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.

--

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

Ruud Broens

November 8th 05, 09:58 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
... Before DVD CD had the fastest market
: acceptance of any new AV technology in history.

It's not like, there has been an AV tech history since the roman empire,
you will note
By and of itself, that statement doesn't mean mucho
(just about every record in human history is rather recent;) - take note

R.

Bret Ludwig

November 8th 05, 10:30 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
<<snip>>

>
>
> Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.

I would agree, largely, except there is a place for a factory built
amp of good easy to service construction with excellent documentation.
Audio, home audio, and now that home studios are the norm even
recording, should be a DIY domain much more than is the case today, I'd
say.

Clyde Slick

November 9th 05, 12:35 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> paul packer wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov 2005 07:47:18 -0800, George Middius
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Same thing for automatic transmission in cars
>>>
>>>
>>> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic
>>> transmissions?
>
>> Poorer fuel mileage and higher repair costs.
>
> Agreed. Also, not as much fun on the right road, but a blessing in rush
> hour traffic. The repair cost issue is a mixed bag. Most automatics can go
> the first 100,000 miles without serious maintenance, while most stick
> shifts require a new clutch before then. When you finally have to bite the
> bullet, its not cheap either way, but that new clutch is about half the
> price (installed) as that rebuilt automatic transmission.
>
>>The automatic
>> transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the
>> way Detroit pushed them onto everyone.
>
> People who say crap like this are also likely to say that the CD ws pushed
> down everybody's throat. Both claims are equally false, which is to say
> they are very, very false.
>
>> The manufacturers and dealers forced them on buyers whenever possible.
>
> LOL!
>
> Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far more to build
> a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an automatic. Part of this is
> because of the additional robustness that a stick car requires, and part
> of it is due to the relatively low production volumes.
>
> Yet for most of that time, the automatics commanded a premium price. It
> was all about what the market would bear.
>
> IOW, there was a huge demand for automatics despite the artificially
> higher prices. No way were automatics being shoved down people's throats.
>
> In essence, the manufacturers "lost money" on every car they made with a
> stick shift, but kept on making and selling them because they were good
> for a car's sporty image if that mattered in its market.
>

Stick to something you know about, like ashtrays.

Bret Ludwig

November 9th 05, 01:44 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> Agreed. Also, not as much fun on the right road, but a
> blessing in rush hour traffic. The repair cost issue is a
> mixed bag. Most automatics can go the first 100,000 miles
> without serious maintenance, while most stick shifts require
> a new clutch before then. When you finally have to bite the
> bullet, its not cheap either way, but that new clutch is
> about half the price (installed) as that rebuilt automatic
> transmission.
Most DIYers can change a clutch but will only R&R a rebuilt auto
trans. So a clutch is way cheaper. Especially on a vehicle where there
is a good selection of hot rod aftermarket parts, the prices get much
more reasonable that way.

> >The automatic
> > transmission per se wasn't as much the issue, as was the
> > way Detroit pushed them onto everyone.
>
> People who say crap like this are also likely to say that
> the CD ws pushed down everybody's throat. Both claims are
> equally false, which is to say they are very, very false.
>
> > The manufacturers and dealers forced them on buyers
> > whenever possible.
>
> LOL!
>
> Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far
> more to build a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an
> automatic. Part of this is because of the additional
> robustness that a stick car requires, and part of it is due
> to the relatively low production volumes.

What you mean is, on a slushbox car they can get away with
under-spec-ing the driveshaft, rear end and other parts, and do. The
stickshift keeps them honest and they hate it.

>
> Yet for most of that time, the automatics commanded a
> premium price. It was all about what the market would bear.
>
> IOW, there was a huge demand for automatics despite the
> artificially higher prices. No way were automatics being
> shoved down people's throats.
>
> In essence, the manufacturers "lost money" on every car they
> made with a stick shift, but kept on making and selling them
> because they were good for a car's sporty image if that
> mattered in its market.

Like diesels, the dealers were anti-manual because they could sell an
automatic to anyone whereas some people refused to drive a manual,
refused to learn how, or in a few cases were physically incapable of
it. So they pudhed autos hard and deterred all they could from buying
them. I remember this first hand-my dad got into a donnybrook with the
Chevy dealer and embarrassed the **** out of my mother when I was a
kid. (Later, much later, I learned she'd cut him off for quite a while
for the embarrassment she felt, making him grouchy over the car ever
after.)

paul packer

November 9th 05, 04:18 AM

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:31:22 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >Same thing for automatic transmission in cars
>
>> And what, pray tell, is wrong with automatic transmissions?
>
>You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
>solid state amps and watery mass-market beer.

No parallels that I can see there, George. Auto trans is just the most
sensible way of getting from A to B. Has nothing to do with
transistors or beer.

>The more distinctive
>versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
>consumers seek them out.

Comes down to this. Auto trans have come to a point of smoothness,
reliability and general unobtrusiveness that there really is little
excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers telling me they
like to be in control. They're already in control of the vehicle; what
more do they want? There's plenty to do in a car besides changing
gears, like watching the road more carefully. If auto trans had been
introduced 30 years before it was, no one would miss the stick shift
and if anyone suggested there should be such a thing they'd be laughed
out of court. Move on, George. It's the 21st century.

paul packer

November 9th 05, 04:42 AM

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:03:12 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in it sounded
>> lousy. The novelty was what sold it, and the fact that most people
>> didn't care about sound quality (just like now really). But it sounded
>> lousy. Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
>> technology developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
>> ear-ache.
>
>What crap, there were good and bad valve amps, and good and bad SS amps then
>as now. However the price difference was a *lot* less in those days for
>similar performance. Yet most people bought SS for it's *huge* increase in
>reliability.

Most people will buy for convenience and on a features countback.
Sound quality has little to do with it.

>>Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
>> amp of all time,
>
>That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
>design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I can
>see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.

Your opinion. I recall that it sounded great. They still get reviewed
on the net (check out http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad3020e.html)
and the verdict is always the same. Construction was never a strong
point, but that's not what we're talking about. As for similar price
tube amps, were there any?

>>but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
>> typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.
>
>There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However the
>NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well promoted.

I'm talking budget amps only. Of course ther were better amps, but not
for $250 AU.

>>If this is not true, if SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s,
>> why was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared but the
>> average punter?
>
>Sucked in I guess.
>
>>Even today they fetch as much as when new.
>
>Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform it.

In measurement terms? Of course.

>>Anybody who
>> can remember the intro of SS will remember the widespread grumbling
>> about sound quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years, appear
>> to have conveniently forgotten.
>
>By the early 70's the problems were gone, except for the real crap. (yes
>there was plenty of that, just as with valve models) Quasi complementary
>stages etc. were consigned to history, and SS was outperforming vacuum tube
>in every respect, except for adding that "warm" layer of distortion that
>some people require. Not a real problem since many recording engineers
>continued to use valve mics to do that job for you.

By the early 70s SS amps were more reliable but still sounded lousy.
Nad raised the bar for budget amps and firms like Rotel, which began
life as an el cheapo, lousy sounding brand soon jumped on the
bandwagon. Other firms like Luxman had produced good sounding
integrateds but never in the true budget arena (the best sounding amp
I had in the 70s was a Lux L100, but it cost $1300 AU!)

So let's recap. SS budget amps gained reliability in the 70s but still
sounded lousy. NAD marketed on sound quality and the public responded
by become more sensitive in that area. This revolutionised the budget
market and showed that cheap SS amps could sound good, but not by
accident. We still live in the era where sound quality is recognised
and marketable, mainly due to NAD but also partly due to the
scribbling of hi-fi scribes.

paul packer

November 9th 05, 04:48 AM

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:13:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:07:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> There was once a time when the majority of music lovers
>>> had listened to vaccuum-tube based reproduction systems
>>> for all or most of their lives. When offered the
>>> opportunity to scrap tubes and migrate to solid-state,
>>> they did so in droves, and at their personal expense. So
>>> did the rest of the audio industry. One major
>>> justification for making the switch was improved sound
>>> quality.
>>
>> Arny, what you're saying is a distortion. When SS came in
>> it sounded lousy.
>
>So what? That was over 40 years ago.

Yes, except that it continued to sound lousy for a long time after.
And a lot still does.

>>The novelty was what sold it, and the
>> fact that most people didn't care about sound quality
>> (just like now really). But it sounded lousy.
>
>The sound quality and reliability of SS faltered in the
>beginning. The consumer response was not immediately good.
>SS didn't start selling until it solved its sound quality
>and reliability issues. That was more like 35 years ago.

Wrong. Sound quality issues were not "solved" 35 years ago.

>>Just as in the early days of CD, it was years before the
>>technology
>> developed to the point where SS didn't mean an automatic
>> ear-ache.
>
>CD never meant an automatic ear ache. Like DVD it hit the
>market running. Before DVD CD had the fastest market
>acceptance of any new AV technology in history.

People love new toys. Doesn't mean anything re sound quality.

>>Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the
>> most accurate amp of all time, but it was a step away
>> from the SS schreeching of typical budget amps of the
>> time and so NAD cleaned up on it.
>
>The NAD phenomenon was all about hype. The right reviewers
>pumped it, and a lot of lowbrows were suckered into paying
>more than they needed to for yet another really-pretty good
>SS amp.
>
>>If this is not true, if
>> SS amps were all wonderful to listen to in the 70s, why
>> was the NAD so popular, not just with the golden eared
>> but the average punter?
>
>NAD sales were a drop in the bucket compared to Pioneer and
>Kenwood, for example.

Yep. Most people don't care about sound quality. Never did.

>>Even today they fetch as much as when new.
>
>Hype lives on!
>
>>Anybody who can remember the intro of SS will
>> remember the widespread grumbling about sound
>> quality---yet you, depite being af venerable years,
>> appear to have conveniently forgotten.
>
>BS. I was an early adopter of SS who got burned, turned
>right around and sold my SS and went back to tubes for about
>5 years.

So there are differences between amps? And in your case the poorer
measuring ones sounded best!

George M. Middius

November 9th 05, 05:04 AM

paul packer said:

> >You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
> >solid state amps and watery mass-market beer.
>
> No parallels that I can see there, George. Auto trans is just the most
> sensible way of getting from A to B.

Is that an opinion or a "fact"?

> Has nothing to do with transistors or beer.

Arnii does not have a corner on the obtuseness market.

> >The more distinctive
> >versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
> >consumers seek them out.
>
> Comes down to this. Auto trans have come to a point of smoothness,
> reliability and general unobtrusiveness that there really is little
> excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers telling me they
> like to be in control. They're already in control of the vehicle; what
> more do they want? There's plenty to do in a car besides changing
> gears, like watching the road more carefully. If auto trans had been
> introduced 30 years before it was, no one would miss the stick shift
> and if anyone suggested there should be such a thing they'd be laughed
> out of court. Move on, George. It's the 21st century.

Not a bad parody of the Krooborg.

It was a parody, right?

Right?

Iain M Churches

November 9th 05, 07:04 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Bret Ludwig" > said:
>
>> While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
>>as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
>>serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
>>Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
>>and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
>>accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
>>available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
>>substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
>>do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
>>issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
>>audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
>>solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.
>
>
>
> Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.

Indeed. They need a little TLC now and again, but are well worth the
attention. Audio has now become a passive hobby. Not many of us
bother with the soldering iron. Those that do seem to enjoy building
with tubes.

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

Pooh Bear

November 9th 05, 08:14 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Even since the 60s or 70s, it has cost the manufacturers far
> more to build a good car with a stick shift as opposed to an
> automatic. Part of this is because of the additional
> robustness that a stick car requires, and part of it is due
> to the relatively low production volumes.

Uh ?

Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.
Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

You should get out a bit more.

Graham

paul packer

November 9th 05, 09:18 AM

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:04:08 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >You're missing the point, paulie. Autotrans is for everybody, just like
>> >solid state amps and watery mass-market beer.
>>
>> No parallels that I can see there, George. Auto trans is just the most
>> sensible way of getting from A to B.
>
>Is that an opinion or a "fact"?
>
>> Has nothing to do with transistors or beer.
>
>Arnii does not have a corner on the obtuseness market.
>
>> >The more distinctive
>> >versions are made in smaller quantities because only a small fraction of
>> >consumers seek them out.
>>
>> Comes down to this. Auto trans have come to a point of smoothness,
>> reliability and general unobtrusiveness that there really is little
>> excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers telling me they
>> like to be in control. They're already in control of the vehicle; what
>> more do they want? There's plenty to do in a car besides changing
>> gears, like watching the road more carefully. If auto trans had been
>> introduced 30 years before it was, no one would miss the stick shift
>> and if anyone suggested there should be such a thing they'd be laughed
>> out of court. Move on, George. It's the 21st century.
>
>Not a bad parody of the Krooborg.
>
>It was a parody, right?
>
>Right?

I'm afraid your humour is too sophisticated for me, George. Best add
some obvious pointers in future for we thicker folk from the backwoods
of OZ.

paul packer

November 9th 05, 09:20 AM

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:08:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> as a rule cars with manual transmissions
>perform better.
>It's no longer a slam dunk that the automatic transmission
>car has poorer performance.

What was that, Arny?

Mr.T

November 9th 05, 12:10 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.

Not in Australia.

> Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.

True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.

> You should get out a bit more.

To where petrol is a lot dearer maybe?

MrT.

Mr.T

November 9th 05, 12:27 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> >>Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
> >> amp of all time,
> >
> >That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
> >design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I
can
> >see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.
>
> Your opinion. I recall that it sounded great.

Youre easily pleased, but yes, it sounded just like most SS amps. With build
quality to a lower standard.

>They still get reviewed
> on the net (check out http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad3020e.html)
> and the verdict is always the same. Construction was never a strong
> point, but that's not what we're talking about. As for similar price
> tube amps, were there any?

Exactly!!!!

> >>but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
> >> typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.
> >
> >There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However
the
> >NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well
promoted.
>
> I'm talking budget amps only. Of course ther were better amps, but not
> for $250 AU.

Then what $250 Vacuum tube amps are you comparing them with????

> >Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform
it.
>
> In measurement terms? Of course.

Yes. And indistiguishable in a *real* listening test of course.

> By the early 70s SS amps were more reliable but still sounded lousy.

In your *opinion* of course.

> Nad raised the bar for budget amps and firms like Rotel, which began
> life as an el cheapo, lousy sounding brand soon jumped on the
> bandwagon. Other firms like Luxman had produced good sounding
> integrateds but never in the true budget arena (the best sounding amp
> I had in the 70s was a Lux L100, but it cost $1300 AU!)

Please list the cheaper Vacuum Tube amps that you consider outperformed it
then?

> So let's recap. SS budget amps gained reliability in the 70s but still
> sounded lousy.

In your opinion, but obviously not that of most other buyers.

>NAD marketed on sound quality and the public responded

NAD marketed HEAVILY and the public responded.

> by become more sensitive in that area. This revolutionised the budget
> market and showed that cheap SS amps could sound good, but not by
> accident.

So you agree that SS amps were better and cheaper than Vacuum Tube amps,
*when* properly designed.

>We still live in the era where sound quality is recognised
> and marketable, mainly due to NAD but also partly due to the
> scribbling of hi-fi scribes.

Yes we still live in an era where people are gullible and easily influenced.

MrT.

paul packer

November 9th 05, 01:08 PM

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:10:10 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>> Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.
>
>Not in Australia.

Correct. And I wonder if that statement "the vast majority" is
supportable anyway, unless maybe you include Russia etc.

>> Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.
>
>True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.

Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots. Also idiots tend not to
buy them.

paul packer

November 9th 05, 01:21 PM

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:27:40 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> >>Remember the NAD 3020? In itself it wasn't the most accurate
>> >> amp of all time,
>> >
>> >That's an understatement. I still have one, and it's basically crap! Crap
>> >design, crap PC boards, crap transistors. Nothing good about it that I
>can
>> >see, except that it is better than any similar price vacuum tube amp.
>>
>> Your opinion. I recall that it sounded great.
>
>Youre easily pleased, but yes, it sounded just like most SS amps. With build
>quality to a lower standard.
>
>>They still get reviewed
>> on the net (check out http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad3020e.html)
>> and the verdict is always the same. Construction was never a strong
>> point, but that's not what we're talking about. As for similar price
>> tube amps, were there any?
>
>Exactly!!!!
>
>> >>but it was a step away from the SS schreeching of
>> >> typical budget amps of the time and so NAD cleaned up on it.
>> >
>> >There were *FAR* better amps than the NAD *LONG* before the NAD. However
>the
>> >NAD was relatively cheap at the time, and well advertised and well
>promoted.
>>
>> I'm talking budget amps only. Of course ther were better amps, but not
>> for $250 AU.
>
>
>Then what $250 Vacuum tube amps are you comparing them with????
>
> > >Want to buy one? I've tested cheap chinese amps that easily outperform
>it.
>>
>> In measurement terms? Of course.
>
>Yes. And indistiguishable in a *real* listening test of course.
>
>> By the early 70s SS amps were more reliable but still sounded lousy.
>
>In your *opinion* of course.
>
>> Nad raised the bar for budget amps and firms like Rotel, which began
>> life as an el cheapo, lousy sounding brand soon jumped on the
>> bandwagon. Other firms like Luxman had produced good sounding
>> integrateds but never in the true budget arena (the best sounding amp
>> I had in the 70s was a Lux L100, but it cost $1300 AU!)
>
>Please list the cheaper Vacuum Tube amps that you consider outperformed it
>then?
>
>> So let's recap. SS budget amps gained reliability in the 70s but still
>> sounded lousy.
>
>In your opinion, but obviously not that of most other buyers.
>
>>NAD marketed on sound quality and the public responded
>
>NAD marketed HEAVILY and the public responded.
>
>> by become more sensitive in that area. This revolutionised the budget
>> market and showed that cheap SS amps could sound good, but not by
>> accident.
>
>So you agree that SS amps were better and cheaper than Vacuum Tube amps,
>*when* properly designed.
>
>>We still live in the era where sound quality is recognised
>> and marketable, mainly due to NAD but also partly due to the
>> scribbling of hi-fi scribes.
>
>Yes we still live in an era where people are gullible and easily influenced.
>
>MrT.

Mr. T, I think you're misunderstanding my posts. I'm not claiming tube
amps sounded better than SS. I never owned a tube amp nor ever heard
one, nor was ever even aware of them at the time. If I say SS amps,
(and I'm only talking budget amps, the only kind I ever got to hear)
sounded lousy, that's not a comparative statement---i.e., they sounded
worse than tube amps. They just sounded lousy. But I'm sure there were
many more expensive SS amps that sounded very nice, at least once the
technology got over its teething problems (around the early 70s
probably). I recall Haffler had a great reputation all through the
seventies, but they were rare in OZ and not cheap. Crown also. None of
these were in my price range.

However, forget all this. I think we should be talking about minidisc
players.... :-)

George M. Middius

November 9th 05, 02:02 PM

paul packer said:

> Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?

> Also idiots tend not to buy them.

You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

Sander deWaal

November 9th 05, 05:06 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > said:

> Like diesels, the dealers were anti-manual because they could sell an
>automatic to anyone whereas some people refused to drive a manual,
>refused to learn how, or in a few cases were physically incapable of
>it. So they pudhed autos hard and deterred all they could from buying
>them. I remember this first hand-my dad got into a donnybrook with the
>Chevy dealer and embarrassed the **** out of my mother when I was a
>kid. (Later, much later, I learned she'd cut him off for quite a while
>for the embarrassment she felt, making him grouchy over the car ever
>after.)

What does your therapist say?
Does it all stem from your bad youth?

Oh, before I forget: here's the " ;-) ".

--

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

Sander deWaal

November 9th 05, 05:13 PM

George M. Middius said:

>> Also idiots tend not to buy them.

>You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
>idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

Live for a year in the permanent traffic jam that's called Holland and
we'll have this conversation again.

BTW thank's Middusi for, tacitly admittiong that you drive an auto,
LOL!

;-)

--

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

George Middius

November 9th 05, 05:24 PM

Sander deWaal writed:

>>You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
>>idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

>Live for a year in the permanent traffic jam that's called Holland and
>we'll have this conversation again.

>BTW thank's Middusi for, tacitly admittiong that you drive an auto,
>LOL!

It is for luck that you have went soft, my sweet chicken. Not to drive the le
car before the gendarmes have catched you outside with moonlight. LOL, you are
bucked for emptily blessing your "Citroen". ;-)

..
..

Ruud Broens

November 9th 05, 09:07 PM

:
: paul packer said:
: ..
there really is little excuse to choose manual. I'm sick of manual lovers ..

actually, that sounds like Ferstler :-) you're in for a clown job ?

Rudy:
:

paul packer

November 10th 05, 12:15 AM

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:02:22 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.
>
>So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?

So your praise of manuals was serious? I'm shocked.

>> Also idiots tend not to buy them.
>
>You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
>idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
without hassle? Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
why add extra labour to the task of driving?

George M. Middius

November 10th 05, 12:37 AM

paul packer said:

> >You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
> >idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.

> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
> without hassle?

If you don't already know, it's impossible to get through to you. Sorry.

> Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
> why add extra labour to the task of driving?

It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
Kroologic?

Pooh Bear

November 10th 05, 01:28 AM

paul packer wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:10:10 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.
> >
> >Not in Australia.
>
> Correct. And I wonder if that statement "the vast majority" is
> supportable anyway, unless maybe you include Russia etc.

Why Russia ?

Just consider Asia for example.

Auto boxes aren't esp common in Europe either.

> >> Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.
> >
> >True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.
>
> Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots. Also idiots tend not to
> buy them.

I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

Graham

Pooh Bear

November 10th 05, 01:31 AM

paul packer wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:02:22 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >paul packer said:
> >
> >> Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.
> >
> >So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?
>
> So your praise of manuals was serious? I'm shocked.
>
> >> Also idiots tend not to buy them.
> >
> >You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
> >idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.
>
> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
> without hassle? Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
> why add extra labour to the task of driving?

I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.

It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo
! ;-)

Graham

paul packer

November 10th 05, 05:40 AM

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:37:20 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
>> >idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.
>
>> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
>> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
>> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
>> without hassle?
>
>If you don't already know, it's impossible to get through to you. Sorry.

Non answer noted.

>> Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
>> why add extra labour to the task of driving?
>
>It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
>dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
>Kroologic?

No, this is Packer logic and it happens to be infallible. If Arnie
could do as well as this, he wouldn't be Arnie. :-)

paul packer

November 10th 05, 05:44 AM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:31:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:02:22 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
>> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >paul packer said:
>> >
>> >> Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.
>> >
>> >So your rant about the simplistic virtues of autotrans was serious?
>>
>> So your praise of manuals was serious? I'm shocked.
>>
>> >> Also idiots tend not to buy them.
>> >
>> >You have that backwards. Any idiot can drive an auto, so that's what the
>> >idiots buy. It takes commitment and skill to drive a stick.
>>
>> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
>> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
>> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
>> without hassle? Do you scrub your back with a toothbrush, George? Then
>> why add extra labour to the task of driving?
>
>I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.

Nope. Driving on suburban roads is not a "sport". And even if it were,
I don't see that an auto trans would spoil it.

>It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo
>! ;-)

Which is exactly what I meant about manual trans being vulnerable to
idiots. I would not consider buying a second hand manual trans car.

paul packer

November 10th 05, 05:45 AM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:28:48 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

You should get out more, Pooh.

Mr.T

November 10th 05, 08:03 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. T, I think you're misunderstanding my posts. I'm not claiming tube
> amps sounded better than SS. I never owned a tube amp nor ever heard
> one, nor was ever even aware of them at the time. If I say SS amps,
> (and I'm only talking budget amps, the only kind I ever got to hear)
> sounded lousy, that's not a comparative statement---i.e., they sounded
> worse than tube amps.

OK, I was really responding to the people who stated most people prefer
valve amp sound.

>They just sounded lousy. But I'm sure there were
> many more expensive SS amps that sounded very nice, at least once the
> technology got over its teething problems (around the early 70s
> probably). I recall Haffler had a great reputation all through the
> seventies, but they were rare in OZ and not cheap. Crown also. None of
> these were in my price range.

I owned a Crown DC300A/IC150 for a time. Whilst it had some useful features,
it didn't actually sound any better than many cheaper amps at the time.
As has been discussed extensively elsewhere, it achieved low levels of
distortion, and ruler flat frequency response with large amounts of
feedback.

Which is not to say it sounded all that bad into normal loads, and didn't
blow up into difficult loads at least (like some did). Crown have always
supported their amps well, and their more recent ranges leave little to be
desired IMO.

> However, forget all this. I think we should be talking about minidisc
> players.... :-)

Not those bloody things again!!! :-)

MrT.

Mr.T

November 10th 05, 08:14 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:10:10 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Outside the USA the vast majority of cars have manual transmissions.
> >
> >Not in Australia.
>
> Correct. And I wonder if that statement "the vast majority" is
> supportable anyway, unless maybe you include Russia etc.
>
> >> Auto boxes are more complicated and dearer.
> >
> >True, and still outsell manuals here, and in the USA.
>
> Autos are less vulnerable to abuse by idiots.

I've seen morons burn out a clutch in < 20,000km, but they could probably
destroy an auto just as quick if they wanted to.

>Also idiots tend not to buy them.

Nah, the idiots buy either. Maybe it's just the young male rev head subgroup
you are referring to?

MrT.

Mr.T

November 10th 05, 08:31 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
> without hassle?

But some people like to change gears before they get to a corner so they can
drive through properly, rather than have the car change down half way
through, and lurch around like a yacht changing tack.
Of course many don't know any better having never driven anything else.

However the whole argument is almost irrelevant. We know have electronic
auto boxes with up to seven speeds that have full manual paddle shift. Or
twin clutch direct shift auto gearboxes, or constant variable transmissions.
A far cry from the early two speed sludge boxes thankfully.

Unfortunately the drivers are as bad as ever, only many more of them :-)

MrT.

Mr.T

November 10th 05, 08:33 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.

I know someone who went through 3 clutches in 50,000km. *HE* should have
bought an automatic :-)

MrT.

Eiron

November 10th 05, 09:27 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:28:48 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>>I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.
>
> You should get out more, Pooh.

Or buy a car from General Motors.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

Eiron

November 10th 05, 09:38 AM

Pooh Bear wrote:

> I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.
>
> It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo! ;-)

And get overtaken by an identical car whose driver knows when to change. :-)

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

George Middius

November 10th 05, 03:05 PM

paul packer said:

>>> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
>>> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
>>> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
>>> without hassle?

>>If you don't already know, it's impossible to get through to you. Sorry.

>Non answer noted.

Stop pretending to be feeble-minded.

>>It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
>>dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
>>Kroologic?

>No, this is Packer logic and it happens to be infallible. If Arnie
>could do as well as this, he wouldn't be Arnie. :-)

How can I explain this simple matter in a way even paulie can understand? First,
a caveat: You won't find the key in your bible. Personal choice is pretty much
the opposite of christian dogma.

From a higher distance... An example for u: I don't appreciate certain movie
genres. I watched "Terms of Endearment" but I thought it was overwrought and
tedious. I diligently avoided any exposure to "Steel Magnolias" and "Ya Ya
Sisterhood". I did enjoy the "Terminator" films though, as well as "Fight Club"
and the "Indiana Jones" series. I know some people disparage those movies
because of their depictions of violence. Clearly they're out of synch with the
best taste. :-)

Now about your phobia of shifting.... I can't help you understand what you're
not disposed to see. I also note that you hate turntables. I see a correlation
there. You probably hate to cook too, right? If nobody at home will cook your
meals, it's a certainty you go out to eat.

Sorry, paulie. Stick shifts are for liberals.

..
..

Bret Ludwig

November 10th 05, 08:28 PM

I have owned both stick and automatic cars. in fact, I've converted
cars that were originally one to the other, both ways.

A well set up slushbox is the only way to go in stop and go traffic if
you are going to have to deal with it every day. And they are good for
towing as well. But a good five (or six) speed is about 50% of what
makes a good sports car good.

Horses for courses.

paul packer

November 10th 05, 11:52 PM

On 10 Nov 2005 07:05:45 -0800, George Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>>>> A certain masochism you mean. Why would anyone want to continually
>>>> repeat the effort of sychronising a gear lever and clutch pedal at
>>>> every stop light and corner when they can simply accelerate away
>>>> without hassle?
>
>>>If you don't already know, it's impossible to get through to you. Sorry.
>
>>Non answer noted.
>
>Stop pretending to be feeble-minded.
>
>>>It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
>>>dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
>>>Kroologic?
>
>>No, this is Packer logic and it happens to be infallible. If Arnie
>>could do as well as this, he wouldn't be Arnie. :-)
>
>How can I explain this simple matter in a way even paulie can understand?

I thought you just said I was "pretending" to be feeble minded. Make
up your mind, George.

>First, a caveat: You won't find the key in your bible. Personal choice is pretty much
>the opposite of christian dogma.

As I understand it, Christian dogma has everything to do with personal
choice. But of course, you may have a different Bible altogether. The
Liberal's Bible, with no Commandments in it.

>From a higher distance... An example for u: I don't appreciate certain movie
>genres. I watched "Terms of Endearment" but I thought it was overwrought and
>tedious. I diligently avoided any exposure to "Steel Magnolias" and "Ya Ya
>Sisterhood". I did enjoy the "Terminator" films though, as well as "Fight Club"
>and the "Indiana Jones" series. I know some people disparage those movies
>because of their depictions of violence. Clearly they're out of synch with the
>best taste. :-)

So you're saying you're a big bad "bloke", as we call them in OZ. A
real he-man. I thought they were mostly illiterate.

>Now about your phobia of shifting.... I can't help you understand what you're
>not disposed to see. I also note that you hate turntables. I see a correlation
>there.

So do I. It means I don't see the point of effort that yields no
result. Get with the program, George.

>You probably hate to cook too, right? If nobody at home will cook your
>meals, it's a certainty you go out to eat.

I can cook and do so frequent. Cooking is gender neutral. It's an
effort that yields a result, unlike stick-shifting.

>Sorry, paulie. Stick shifts are for liberals.

Stick shifts are for gooses...er, geese.

paul packer

November 10th 05, 11:56 PM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:14:32 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>Nah, the idiots buy either. Maybe it's just the young male rev head subgroup
>you are referring to?
>
>MrT.

Pretty much. I read a Magna auto forum, and despite the fact that most
Magnas are auto, most of the forum posters have manual and diss autos.
Needless to say they're mostly young males, as one can tell by the
grammar and spelling. Sad.....

paul packer

November 10th 05, 11:57 PM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:03:57 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>

>> However, forget all this. I think we should be talking about minidisc
>> players.... :-)
>
>Not those bloody things again!!! :-)

I thought you'd be pleased. :-)

Pooh Bear

November 11th 05, 12:54 AM

"Mr.T" wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.
>
> I know someone who went through 3 clutches in 50,000km. *HE* should have
> bought an automatic :-)

You probably have a point there.

In my entire driving life of some 30 yrs I've only ever had to have one
clutch plate replaced ( or in fact any clutch servicing at all ) and that
was on a car that had already covered a lot of miles.

It's quite simple and fairly inexpensive btw.

Graham

roughplanet

November 11th 05, 01:48 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:03:57 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>>> However, forget all this. I think we should be talking about
>>> minidisc players.... :-)

>>Not those bloody things again!!! :-)

> I thought you'd be pleased. :-)

Despite having vowed to never post on this newsgroup again, I just can't
help jumping into the MD fray :-).
I recently bought the XRLP 45rpm versions of two TBM recordings that I
already had on both XRLP 180 gram vinyl & XRCD.
I played them all (2 X 45rpm LP's per single 33rpm LP) recording them on MD
whilst listening. Not a single snap, crackle or pop to be heard. Then I
played the same tracks (3 off) on each medium, vis. CD, 33rpm vinyl, 45rpm
vinyl & MD.
If I said I could POSITIVELY hear any difference, I'd be lying. However, I
THOUGHT that the 45rpm tracks MIGHT have slightly better dynamics and more
bass extension than any of the other media, but this being an entirely
subjective comparison, I may well be mistaken.

Pooh Bear

November 11th 05, 04:29 AM

Eiron wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > I imagine you're not keen on 'sporty 'driving then.
> >
> > It's nice to be able to hold a gear to the rev limit. Esp with a turbo! ;-)
>
> And get overtaken by an identical car whose driver knows when to change. :-)

What does the word 'overtaken' mean ? ;-)

Sorry - can't relate to that.

Graham

Mr.T

November 11th 05, 06:20 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> In my entire driving life of some 30 yrs I've only ever had to have one
> clutch plate replaced ( or in fact any clutch servicing at all ) and that
> was on a car that had already covered a lot of miles.

Never had to do any myself.

> It's quite simple and fairly inexpensive btw.

Not always.

MrT.

paul packer

November 11th 05, 06:25 AM

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:54:50 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>"Mr.T" wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I've never known anyone with a failed manual box.
>>
>> I know someone who went through 3 clutches in 50,000km. *HE* should have
>> bought an automatic :-)
>
>You probably have a point there.
>
>In my entire driving life of some 30 yrs I've only ever had to have one
>clutch plate replaced ( or in fact any clutch servicing at all ) and that
>was on a car that had already covered a lot of miles.
>
>It's quite simple and fairly inexpensive btw.
>
>Graham

Well, my last 3 cars have been autos. First had 147,000 ks when I
bought it. Drove it 83,000 ks and never had anything done to the
transmission. Second one had 82,000ks and I drove it 35,000 ks, never
had anything done to the transmission. Present one had 127,000 ks but
I've only driven it 15,000 ks so far. Should I expect trouble with the
transmission? Not based on experience, no.

paul packer

November 11th 05, 06:46 AM

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:48:40 +1100, "roughplanet"
> wrote:

>Despite having vowed to never post on this newsgroup again, I just can't
>help jumping into the MD fray :-).
>I recently bought the XRLP 45rpm versions of two TBM recordings that I
>already had on both XRLP 180 gram vinyl & XRCD.
>I played them all (2 X 45rpm LP's per single 33rpm LP) recording them on MD
>whilst listening. Not a single snap, crackle or pop to be heard. Then I
>played the same tracks (3 off) on each medium, vis. CD, 33rpm vinyl, 45rpm
>vinyl & MD.
>If I said I could POSITIVELY hear any difference, I'd be lying. However, I
>THOUGHT that the 45rpm tracks MIGHT have slightly better dynamics and more
>bass extension than any of the other media, but this being an entirely
>subjective comparison, I may well be mistaken.

Well, as I always warn you when you post these comparisons, don't let
Mr. T know as it may affect his anti-MD bias. We have to protect
people from the truth. :-)

Ayn Marx

November 11th 05, 12:28 PM

Iain M Churches wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Bret Ludwig" > said:
> >
> >> While it's absolutely true that solid state equipment can be sonically
> >>as well as measurably excellent, and equally true that there are many
> >>serious audiophiles (and not counting the obtuse, such as Ferstler,
> >>Aczel, Slone, and yourself) that believe solid state is wholly superior
> >>and have little use for tube gear, it's obvious most _audiophiles_
> >>accept that many tube-based units are among the better sounding
> >>available and a reasonable number who prefer them exclusively or
> >>substantially. That is not to say most audiophiles buy tube gear: many
> >>do not because of perceived or actual cost, maintenance, or safety
> >>issues. But probably less than ten to fifteen percent of serious
> >>audiophiles would state that tube equipment is without merit and that
> >>solid state was absolutely and wholly superior.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tube amplifiers were, are, and should be, the domain of the DIY-er.
>
> Indeed. They need a little TLC now and again, but are well worth the
> attention. Audio has now become a passive hobby. Not many of us
> bother with the soldering iron. Those that do seem to enjoy building
> with tubes.
>
This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely listening to music
being reproduced , by whatever means, is the purpose of the audio
industry? I've often suspected it's the gadgets and not what they
reproduce that's the exclusive focus of interest for many audiophiles.
Iain, I hope your not one of these.
I suggest you don't answer that here, but I'd love to know what you
think over on the clunky, contentless, 'looks like a Bangkok brothel' (
how do these people know these things?) forum at :-
http://www.wga.plt-hosting.com/register.php?do=signup

George M. Middius

November 11th 05, 02:52 PM

paul packer said:

> >Stop pretending to be feeble-minded.

I meant that at the time I said it.

> >>>It's common knowledge that excessive parodying of Krooglish can be
> >>>dangerous. Are you trying to discover the safety limit of parodying
> >>>Kroologic?
> >
> >>No, this is Packer logic and it happens to be infallible. If Arnie
> >>could do as well as this, he wouldn't be Arnie. :-)
> >
> >How can I explain this simple matter in a way even paulie can understand?
>
> I thought you just said I was "pretending" to be feeble minded. Make
> up your mind, George.

OK, you've convinced me you're really as obtuse as you're letting on. I
thought you were putting us on with the dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair shtick,
but now I see I was mistaken.

> >First, a caveat: You won't find the key in your bible. Personal choice is pretty much
> >the opposite of christian dogma.
>
> As I understand it, Christian dogma has everything to do with personal
> choice. But of course, you may have a different Bible altogether. The
> Liberal's Bible, with no Commandments in it.

You can be witty about politics and your beloved bible, but you have
absolutely no clue why some people like stick shifts? Seems incongruous
to me.

> >From a higher distance... An example for u: I don't appreciate certain movie
> >genres. I watched "Terms of Endearment" but I thought it was overwrought and
> >tedious. I diligently avoided any exposure to "Steel Magnolias" and "Ya Ya
> >Sisterhood". I did enjoy the "Terminator" films though, as well as "Fight Club"
> >and the "Indiana Jones" series. I know some people disparage those movies
> >because of their depictions of violence. Clearly they're out of synch with the
> >best taste. :-)
>
> So you're saying you're a big bad "bloke", as we call them in OZ. A
> real he-man. I thought they were mostly illiterate.

Uh.... what? Come again? Where'd you get that?

What I actually meant, for the more obtuse among the conversants, is
that I like escapist movies with action and adventure and I don't like
talky, feelings-oriented tearjerkers. Sheesh.

The point being is that it's a matter of taste, preference, choice...
know what I mean? (This is the part where you run and get your bible to
find out if it's immoral to choose one offering over another.)

> >Now about your phobia of shifting.... I can't help you understand what you're
> >not disposed to see. I also note that you hate turntables. I see a correlation
> >there.
>
> So do I. It means I don't see the point of effort that yields no
> result. Get with the program, George.

It's my program and I'm not sharing.

> >You probably hate to cook too, right? If nobody at home will cook your
> >meals, it's a certainty you go out to eat.
>
> I can cook and do so frequent. Cooking is gender neutral. It's an
> effort that yields a result, unlike stick-shifting.

Funny, I'd have thought you see cooking as a needless chore that you can
offload to a willing service provider. Less effort, same result -- food
on the plate.

> >Sorry, paulie. Stick shifts are for liberals.
>
> Stick shifts are for gooses...er, geese.

Good one. Fortunately, making sense is not essential when you're deep in
the trenches of unthinking prejudice.

Arny Krueger

November 11th 05, 03:43 PM

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "Pooh Bear" >
> wrote in message ...
>> In my entire driving life of some 30 yrs I've only ever
>> had to have one clutch plate replaced ( or in fact any
>> clutch servicing at all ) and that was on a car that had
>> already covered a lot of miles.
>
> Never had to do any myself.
>
>> It's quite simple and fairly inexpensive btw.

Easy enough in a rear wheel drive compact-sized car. Undo a
few linkages, remove a few bolts and slide the transmission
and bell housing back while lying under it and supporting it
with your torso....

> Not always.

Can we all say: "Front Wheel Drive". :-(

Bret Ludwig

November 11th 05, 09:23 PM

Ayn Marx wrote:
<<snip>>

> This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely listening to music
> being reproduced , by whatever means, is the purpose of the audio
> industry? I've often suspected it's the gadgets and not what they
> reproduce that's the exclusive focus of interest for many audiophiles.
> Iain, I hope your not one of these.

"Music lovers" are to a man content with mid-fi. Audio people may like
music but it is in fact secondary, sound effects are equally good, the
point is the technical challenge of reproduction and the fun of
building, modifying, restoring. This is a _technical hobby_. You just
want music, go to Best Buy.

Arny Krueger

November 11th 05, 10:41 PM

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message

> This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely
> listening to music being reproduced , by whatever means,
> is the purpose of the audio industry?

The audio industry includes both production, distribution,
and reproduction. It includes reproduction of music as well
as other sounds, both natural and artificial. So the audio
industry is not limited to just listening to music.

> I've often
> suspected it's the gadgets and not what they reproduce
> that's the exclusive focus of interest for many
> audiophiles.

The phrase "gear slut", comes to mind.

I long ago learned that true lovers of music often consider
Audio equipment to be fairly low priority. This is
especially true of musicians.

A true music lover might reasonably be content with mid-fi
or less.

Sander deWaal

November 11th 05, 10:52 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>The phrase "gear slut", comes to mind.

And proudly so, you will note.
For me, the audio hobby is two-fold: designing and building stuff, and
listening to music after the gear is finished.

Double fun!

Who renamed this group rec.music.opinion, BTW?

--

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

Jenn

November 12th 05, 12:26 AM

In article . com>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Ayn Marx wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
> > This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely listening to music
> > being reproduced , by whatever means, is the purpose of the audio
> > industry? I've often suspected it's the gadgets and not what they
> > reproduce that's the exclusive focus of interest for many audiophiles.
> > Iain, I hope your not one of these.
>
> "Music lovers" are to a man content with mid-fi.

No, not really. There are plenty of exceptions to that, such as myself.

> Audio people may like
> music but it is in fact secondary, sound effects are equally good, the
> point is the technical challenge of reproduction and the fun of
> building, modifying, restoring. This is a _technical hobby_. You just
> want music, go to Best Buy.

I "just want music" but not that kind that is reproduced by stuff at
Best Buy.

Jenn

November 12th 05, 12:28 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>
> > This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely
> > listening to music being reproduced , by whatever means,
> > is the purpose of the audio industry?
>
> The audio industry includes both production, distribution,
> and reproduction. It includes reproduction of music as well
> as other sounds, both natural and artificial. So the audio
> industry is not limited to just listening to music.
>
> > I've often
> > suspected it's the gadgets and not what they reproduce
> > that's the exclusive focus of interest for many
> > audiophiles.
>
> The phrase "gear slut", comes to mind.
>
> I long ago learned that true lovers of music often consider
> Audio equipment to be fairly low priority. This is
> especially true of musicians.
>
> A true music lover might reasonably be content with mid-fi
> or less.

Sometimes true, but there are many, many exceptions, including me. And
Frederick Fennell, and Peter Yarrow, and Michael Tilson Thomas, and
Marin Alsop, and many more.

Jenn

November 12th 05, 12:31 AM

In article . com>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Ayn Marx wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
> > This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely listening to music
> > being reproduced , by whatever means, is the purpose of the audio
> > industry? I've often suspected it's the gadgets and not what they
> > reproduce that's the exclusive focus of interest for many audiophiles.
> > Iain, I hope your not one of these.
>
> "Music lovers" are to a man content with mid-fi.

No, not really. There are plenty of exceptions to that, such as
myself.

> Audio people may like
> music but it is in fact secondary, sound effects are equally good, the
> point is the technical challenge of reproduction and the fun of
> building, modifying, restoring. This is a _technical hobby_. You just
> want music, go to Best Buy.

I "just want music" but not that kind that is reproduced by stuff at
Best Buy.

Jenn

November 12th 05, 12:37 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>
> > This notion of audio as a hobby puzzles me. Surely
> > listening to music being reproduced , by whatever means,
> > is the purpose of the audio industry?
>
> The audio industry includes both production, distribution,
> and reproduction. It includes reproduction of music as well
> as other sounds, both natural and artificial. So the audio
> industry is not limited to just listening to music.
>
> > I've often
> > suspected it's the gadgets and not what they reproduce
> > that's the exclusive focus of interest for many
> > audiophiles.
>
> The phrase "gear slut", comes to mind.
>
> I long ago learned that true lovers of music often consider
> Audio equipment to be fairly low priority. This is
> especially true of musicians.
>
> A true music lover might reasonably be content with mid-fi
> or less.

Sometimes true, but there are many, many exceptions, including me.
And
Frederick Fennell, and Peter Yarrow, and Michael Tilson Thomas, and
Marin Alsop, and many more.

Mr.T

November 12th 05, 01:28 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u
> > "Pooh Bear" >
> >> It's quite simple and fairly inexpensive btw.
>
> Easy enough in a rear wheel drive compact-sized car.

Not many of those being made today though. But its no big deal in most
larger rear wheel drive cars either.

> > Not always.
>
> Can we all say: "Front Wheel Drive". :-(

Exactly. Some don't make you remove the engine, but others....... :-(

MrT.

Mr.T

November 12th 05, 01:35 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> Well, my last 3 cars have been autos. First had 147,000 ks when I
> bought it. Drove it 83,000 ks and never had anything done to the
> transmission. Second one had 82,000ks and I drove it 35,000 ks, never
> had anything done to the transmission. Present one had 127,000 ks but
> I've only driven it 15,000 ks so far. Should I expect trouble with the
> transmission? Not based on experience, no.

I know someone with a Mazda 626 auto that has done 350,000 km with no
transmission repairs yet. Would I want it? Hell no. I once owned the same
model with a 5 speed manual though. 220,000 km with no problems. Same with
my present car. Most of your cars have done too few miles to make any
generalisations.

MrT.

Mr.T

November 12th 05, 01:38 AM

Mr.T

November 12th 05, 01:39 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> Well, as I always warn you when you post these comparisons, don't let
> Mr. T know as it may affect his anti-MD bias. We have to protect
> people from the truth. :-)

You are still under the misapprehension that the vast majority of the worlds
population, including me, gives a rats about MD.
I know you wish they did for some reason, but it's time to face facts, a few
people are only a *minute* exception.

MrT.

Mr.T

November 12th 05, 01:39 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> Well, my last 3 cars have been autos. First had 147,000 ks when I
> bought it. Drove it 83,000 ks and never had anything done to the
> transmission. Second one had 82,000ks and I drove it 35,000 ks, never
> had anything done to the transmission. Present one had 127,000 ks but
> I've only driven it 15,000 ks so far. Should I expect trouble with the
> transmission? Not based on experience, no.

I know someone with a Mazda 626 auto that has done 350,000 km with no
transmission repairs yet. Would I want it? Hell no. I once owned the
same
model with a 5 speed manual though. 220,000 km with no problems. Same
with
my present car. Most of your cars have done too few miles to make any
generalisations.

MrT.

Mr.T

November 12th 05, 01:43 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> Well, as I always warn you when you post these comparisons, don't let
> Mr. T know as it may affect his anti-MD bias. We have to protect
> people from the truth. :-)

You are still under the misapprehension that the vast majority of the
worlds
population, including me, gives a rats about MD.
I know you wish they did for some reason, but it's time to face facts,
a few
people are only a *minute* exception.

MrT.

paul packer

November 12th 05, 06:18 AM

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:52:59 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>> >How can I explain this simple matter in a way even paulie can understand?
>>
>> I thought you just said I was "pretending" to be feeble minded. Make
>> up your mind, George.
>
>OK, you've convinced me you're really as obtuse as you're letting on.

Uh oh, I think I see George's 12" guns swivelling around in my
direction.....

>I thought you were putting us on with the dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair shtick,
>but now I see I was mistaken.

Sure enough....

>> >First, a caveat: You won't find the key in your bible. Personal choice is pretty much
>> >the opposite of christian dogma.
>>
>> As I understand it, Christian dogma has everything to do with personal
>> choice. But of course, you may have a different Bible altogether. The
>> Liberal's Bible, with no Commandments in it.
>
>You can be witty about politics and your beloved bible, but you have
>absolutely no clue why some people like stick shifts? Seems incongruous
>to me.

Seems logical to me. The Bible and politics--some politics--make
sense. Stick shifts make no sense.

>> >From a higher distance... An example for u: I don't appreciate certain movie
>> >genres. I watched "Terms of Endearment" but I thought it was overwrought and
>> >tedious. I diligently avoided any exposure to "Steel Magnolias" and "Ya Ya
>> >Sisterhood". I did enjoy the "Terminator" films though, as well as "Fight Club"
>> >and the "Indiana Jones" series. I know some people disparage those movies
>> >because of their depictions of violence. Clearly they're out of synch with the
>> >best taste. :-)
>>
>> So you're saying you're a big bad "bloke", as we call them in OZ. A
>> real he-man. I thought they were mostly illiterate.
>
>Uh.... what? Come again? Where'd you get that?
>
>What I actually meant, for the more obtuse among the conversants, is
>that I like escapist movies with action and adventure and I don't like
>talky, feelings-oriented tearjerkers. Sheesh.

Yep, a big bad bloke, like I said. Do you watch them from a recliner
with a beer resting on your belly and burp your comments at the screen
every couple of minutes? Thought so. ;-)

>The point being is that it's a matter of taste, preference, choice...
>know what I mean? (This is the part where you run and get your bible to
>find out if it's immoral to choose one offering over another.)

No Bible needed. Only big bad blokes like action adventure escapist
movies and hate "feeling" movies (read "movies with depth"). I'm
learning more about you every day, George. Perhaps more than I wanted
to know. ;-)

>> >You probably hate to cook too, right? If nobody at home will cook your
>> >meals, it's a certainty you go out to eat.
>>
>> I can cook and do so frequent. Cooking is gender neutral. It's an
>> effort that yields a result, unlike stick-shifting.
>
>Funny, I'd have thought you see cooking as a needless chore that you can
>offload to a willing service provider. Less effort, same result -- food
>on the plate.

Still waiting for you to explain, in simple terms since I'm abtuse,
what the attraction of a manual shift is--other than to 16 year old
olds for doing roaring downshifts and screaming wheelies.

(Don't get upset, George--I'm only pulling your tail. If I were King
of the World I'd still allow stick shifts. I realize there are many
mature men who need to relive their youth occasionally. :-))